Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[YoursTrue]

So you realize that it was a poor argument I hope.

At any rate why not try to learn why evolution is almost universally accepted by scientists. The percentage of scientists that reject it is less than the percentage of mentally ill people in the population as a whole. That is something that one should think about.

Can you tell me why evolution is almost universally accepted by scientists with their facts and figures? As a matter of fact, I wonder how scientists figure the first "living matter" came billions of years ago. Are you taking their word for it, or do you have the reasoning behind it?
"Unicellular organisms are thought to be the oldest form of life, with early protocells possibly emerging 3.8–4 billion years ago." Unicellular organism - Wikipedia

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Neither did Dan. But you dodged the question.

Dodging reasonable questions is a way of admitting that you are wrong.

So forget about your false rhetorical question. It appears that you have a problem with reality. You want to tell your God how he made the world. I would think that would be blasphemy in most religions.

If you claimed that a 2,000 year old city was assuredly designed and built by people. And I asked you how you were certain of that, I would expect an answer and I know you would provide it. No games. No diversions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you tell me why evolution is almost universally accepted by scientists with their facts and figures? As a matter of fact, I wonder how scientists figure the first "living matter" came billions of years ago. Are you taking their word for it, or do you have the reasoning behind it?
"Unicellular organisms are thought to be the oldest form of life, with early protocells possibly emerging 3.8–4 billion years ago." Unicellular organism - Wikipedia

Not with "facts and figures". I mean I could give you the millions of hits that you will find on evolution in Google Scholar:


Google Scholar

What sort of "facts and figures" do you want? There have been study after study on the acceptance of evolution. I could give you the figures on that.

What really should be eating you up is why isn't there any scientific evidence for creationism.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Can you tell me why evolution is almost universally accepted by scientists with their facts and figures? As a matter of fact, I wonder how scientists figure the first "living matter" came billions of years ago. Are you taking their word for it, or do you have the reasoning behind it?
"Unicellular organisms are thought to be the oldest form of life, with early protocells possibly emerging 3.8–4 billion years ago." Unicellular organism - Wikipedia

Do you want him to answer your questions straight forward and honestly as he usually does or would you prefer a serious of posts diverting away from answering your questions? I ask, because you seem to prefer that approach.

 

[YoursTrue]

Neither did Dan. But you dodged the question.

Dodging reasonable questions is a way of admitting that you are wrong.

So forget about your false rhetorical question. It appears that you have a problem with reality. You want to tell your God how he made the world. I would think that would be blasphemy in most religions.

He didn't say "how" he did it so I can't say. But again, it's not a false rhetorical question to say that buildings, bridges, cities, museums, dog kennels, cars, have a maker of the human kind. I didn't bring up the point as to how do I know that Paris was made by human hands. I wasn't there, and that does not mean I would consider it could have come about by non-humans. Or chance. Or buildings making themselves after time. I also wasn't there when living matter (the jump, as some might say, from chemical substance to biological substance) came about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you claimed that a 2,000 year old city was assuredly designed and built by people. And I asked you how you were certain of that, I would expect an answer and I know you would provide it. No games. No diversions.

Sadly I think he knows that he is wrong and unfortunately diversion is his only tactic at this point. The difference between knowing and believing is one that he does not want to address.

 

[Jim]

The jump was from that which is fairly absolute in logic (manufacture of cars, therefore having a maker) to that which is related to that which is not said to be made by human hands.

I’m confused. If no one could explain how Paris was built, would you stop thinking that it was built by humans? If you thought that humans could create life, and that all life came from one single ancestor, would you stop believing in God?

 

[Subduction Zone]

He didn't say "how" he did it so I can't say. But again, it's not a false rhetorical question to say that buildings, bridges, cities, museums, dog kennels, cars, have a maker of the human kind. I didn't bring up the point as to how do I know that Paris was made by human hands. I wasn't there, and that does not mean I would consider it could have come about by non-humans. Or chance. Or buildings making themselves after time. I also wasn't there when living matter (the jump, as some might say, from chemical substance to biological substance) came about.

Are you sure? Please quote his question. It seems that way to me. It definitely seems that was to Dan. In fact he just repeated that he asked you how.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here's the problem: I did not bring up the possibility that Paris might not have been made by human hands, or, to put it another way, to be asked why do I think it was definitely made by human hands. To me, you might as well ask, how do I know a really special car was made by human hands? And if that's the reasoning, then really, I do leave you with "evolution is almost universally accepted by scientists."

It does not matter that I first mentioned it. You made a positive statement gave your statement high confidence. I am simply asking you to explain why you think that humans designed and built a 2,000 year old city. How did you come to that conclusion?

It is not that hard a question and you should be able to answer it easily.

 

[Jim]

Would you say it's not realistic in logic to say that cars and roads obviously have a human maker, and trees do not?

You think that trees have a human maker?

 

[YoursTrue]

Not with "facts and figures". I mean I could give you the millions of hits that you will find on evolution in Google Scholar:


Google Scholar

What sort of "facts and figures" do you want? There have been study after study on the acceptance of evolution. I could give you the figures on that.

What really should be eating you up is why isn't there any scientific evidence for creationism.

Here's what I want. I want to know what you understand about the idea that the first living matter in the form of one cell came about billions of years ago, especially since you accept the majority viewpoint of scientists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I didn't study about the foundation of Paris, did you? I didn't bring that up as an argumentative possibility that just because no one saw it being built, how do I know it was built by humans? As I said, since you dwell on this point and want to know if it's mere belief, I'll only say in return, trees are, in essence, through their passage of time, a lot older than humans, since trees came before humans, therefore humans couldn't make a seed or tree, whichever came first.
Now would you like to ask me how I know that trees came about before humans?

You made a positive statement about who designed and built Paris. I asked a simple question. This seems to have set you into a tailspin. What could be so painful and detestable about providing an answer to how you know that Paris was built by people and are so sure of that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's what I want. I want to know what you understand about the idea that the first living matter in the form of one cell came about billions of years ago, especially since you accept the majority viewpoint of scientists.

Wait a second. We were discussing evolution. I won't put up with moving the goalposts. Abiogenesis is another topic. Now if you politely admit to the fact of evolution then we can discuss abiogenesis. After all the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis, it merely states that is the most likely source of first life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’m confused. If no one could explain how Paris was built, would you stop thinking that it was built by humans? If you thought that humans could create life, and that all life came from one single ancestor, would you stop believing in God?

YoursTrue made a positive statement that he was very confident that Paris was designed and built by people. I offered some alternatives for who may have built--some rather imaginative--and asked him how he came to the conclusion that it was people.

He has spent many subsequent posts doing his best to divert from answering the question.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’m confused. If no one could explain how Paris was built, would you stop thinking that it was built by humans? If you thought that humans could create life, and that all life came from one single ancestor, would you stop believing in God?

My question goes to the nature of how we come to some conclusions with his positive claim as an example. I thought it would be a simple demonstration, but his unusual reluctance was unexpected.

 

[YoursTrue]

It does not matter that I first mentioned it. You made a positive statement gave your statement high confidence. I am simply asking you to explain why you think that humans designed and built a 2,000 year old city. How did you come to that conclusion?

It is not that hard a question and you should be able to answer it easily.

I answered it. I'll repeat the answer. Every house that you or I have ever seen, including igloos in pictures, has a maker. Since we were not around when the foundations of Paris were laid, I believe it was laid by human hands. It's kind of like the next whole number in sequence from 1 to 100. 2 follows 1, 100 follows 99. That's how it works.
But if you think it's possible that a car, house, city, bridge, etc. might not have a maker because you did not see them being made, that's up to you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here's what I want. I want to know what you understand about the idea that the first living matter in the form of one cell came about billions of years ago, especially since you accept the majority viewpoint of scientists.

What does this have to do with the origins of Paris? Did you forget that you were going to answer that question with specifics?

 

[YoursTrue]

YoursTrue made a positive statement that he was very confident that Paris was designed and built by people. I offered some alternatives for who may have built--some rather imaginative--and asked him how he came to the conclusion that it was people.

He has spent many subsequent posts doing his best to divert from answering the question.

I answered in the last post. If you don't "see" the answer, oh well.

 

[YoursTrue]

What does this have to do with the origins of Paris? Did you forget that you were going to answer that question with specifics?

You don't know what that question has to do with the question you ask as to whether Paris might have have non-human origins? If I said I would answer with specifics, again -- here are the specifics: every house, bridge, car, that I know of, has a builder. That seems to be an unreasonable answer for you. Or unscientific? Have there been any houses, cities, cars, unearthed that are said to have no builder? A simple question really.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I answered it. I'll repeat the answer. Every house that you or I have ever seen, including igloos in pictures, has a maker. Since we were not around when the foundations of Paris were laid, I believe it was laid by human hands. It's kind of like the next whole number in sequence from 1 to 100. 2 follows 1, 100 follows 99. That's how it works.
But if you think it's possible that a car, house, city, bridge, etc. might not have a maker because you did not see them being made, that's up to you.

Why add the false accusation at the end of your post? When one makes an obviously false statement it takes away form any impact that their previous work may have had. People remember the lie and ignore where you may have been correct. Not a wise debating technique.