Corrected:

Big Bang Theory:
Something exploded out of [unknown].

Abiogenesis:
Amino acids are created frequently. Amino acids are molecules, aren't alive, and therefore don't die. Amino acids don't spin, but this probably refers to chirality, in which case, there were amino acids of both chiralities. Amino acids aggregate naturally.

The path from amino acids to cells is a subject of research. There were probably some amino acid aggregations that became self replicating or self-expanding, similar to crystals. The most successful happened to be of a certain chirality, which became the chirality of life on Earth. The ocean would probably be full of this stuff , in countless varieties, long before anything resembling life evolved.

Evolution:
Once there is imperfect self-replication, more effective replicators willl tend to outproduce less effective replicators, becoming more dominant in the population.

I think my head just exploded.

I think somebody just got served :P

Shit Dana - you posted & I came back and reread the last few pages again - : headspinning

Easily. Suppose you have a beer in the kitchen, and after you visit the bathroom it is now in the den. Can you explain this without explaining where the beer was packaged, where the ingredients of the beer were grown, and the entire process of getting to that technological point? Of course you can. Evolutionary theory explains simply how various traits were brought about through naturally selective breeding. It does not, nor does it have to, explain the origins of life itself.


Exactly. Look at the modern chicken. It has been bred over generations to possess certain traits which humans desire. This is the core of the theory; if humans can select these traits then there will also be certain traits selected through natural events. The quail which are the best camouflaged live longest, and reproduce more often. Thus, quail become camouflaged rather than being white, or hot blue.

Scientists can see stars in every stage of formation. They can see the aftermath of the “Big Bang”. They can look at a leg bone and draw conclusions based on its similarity to other leg bones we have observed with skin attached. These are reasonable conclusions.

There is evidence which can be observed and documented. Science does not require that you observe or be able to repeat the actual event.

It is treated as fact because it has withstood many years of consideration, and I can only assume that those who were blackballed for criticizing it was because they didn’t do it very well.



These theories have not been proven wrong, so your assumption that they are lies is premature. If you argue in a “kooky” manner, then expect that people will assume that you are a kook.
Actually, I would argue that it is not scientifically accurate on the basis that many of the events that supposedly occurred are apparently impossible. However, I am not going to debate this topic as it usually leads to foaming mouths and general disarray.

I expected as much. The first and foremost principle would be the existence of a god.

Where exactly are you getting that basis? Science involves observation and experimentation using empirical evidence, and subjecting those findings to reason. Scientific theories can definitely be developed about past events without repeating those events.

Wrong. The theory states that the same amount of energy has been constant since "before" the big bang.

Back this statement up. Also, many events we don't understand tend to go against ALL odds and logical thought. We see no patterns in quantum mechanics but that still exists as fact.

Chance plays a role but evolution occurs based on environmental conditions, which is not chance.

Evolution has withstood EVERY piece of evidence thrown against it. The only valid arguments against the theory goes into areas that science has no current knowledge or understanding of. Another great aspect of science is its dynamic nature. As of now, scientists gather as much evidence as possible and make conclusions of what happened based on that evidence. If new evidence is presented the conclusions will change until a testable theory is formed and that is perfected from thousands of scientific tests.

surprisingly, this post IMPROVES the value of the discussion
 

I read an interesting statistic in the paper today: If every creationist got shot, point-blank in the ƒucking face, then I would laugh my ass off.

What was the statistic?

Bruce...you can't believe everything you read.

Ya know what? it's all a mystery.

I always read this thread title as 'science-y'...like, "dude, you're bein' all science-y and stuff."

There are 6 uses of the word "evolution". One of those directly deals with how non-life becomes life.

Natural selection happens, but it does *not* explain how one kind becomes another kind, IE a bird becomes a reptile, or a monkey becomes a man.

A curved beaked finch and a pointy beaked finch are still finches. A zebra and a horse are still an equine kind. A baboon and a chimp are both monkey kind. None of that process explains how a monkey becomes a man.

This is the evolution I'm talking about.

If you mean unprovable, I totally agree with you!

I propose we take it one step at a time, if we want to get into serious discussion about it. Let's start with Cosmic Evolution.

For purposes of this discussion I would restate Cosmic Evolution is the theory regarding the origins and subsequent progression of the Universe.

There are two schools of thought here: one is that there was a big bang, and the other is that God created the Universe (heavens and earth) on day 1.

So if I don't beleive in God then the answer is the Big Bang (which also not a cast iron fact but still the subjection of considerbale argument, refinment and debate)

also Creationism, I don't beleive in God so it can't work, end of discussion.

Whew, problem solved, time for another cup of tea.




Unless you're trying to emphatically prove the existence of God. :eyebrow: