What is Evolution? - A Primer

Subtract those without the right resources, then those without hospitable conditions. Relatively few. Many years is not infinite time. Factor in the possibility that life would evolve to the point of complexity it is currently at. It is not even sure if life can actually spontaneously form. Speculation.

Neither is the scientific explanation. With relatively no proof and less consensus on the issue, I'd rather go with Creationism. You seem to cling to the scientific explanations because, well, it's science and there'll be enough proof of whatever eventually.

Then do it. Explain the tens of thousands of miracles logically. Explain how the hundreds of thousands of eyewitnesses got it wrong. Explain the conspiracy so there is no doubt that miracles have never happened, or find someone who has.

What Sabz seems to be hinting at is: Panspermia

"the theory that microorganisms or biochemical compounds from outer space are responsible for originating life on Earth and possibly in other parts of the universe where suitable atmospheric conditions exist"

I'm sure you've probably never heard this term many times if at all, school doesn't teach about this, it is not well known by the general public, yet it is important becuase the connection between the big bang and life on earth doesn't make sense without such a theory.

a simple example is that of a supernova. Stars contain all of the essential elements for life and when a star is older it will go supernova (explode) and thus scattering all the essential elements of life onto nearby (relatively) planets and moons and if under the right condition that may bring about the first stages of life.

That's a bit of what I am hinting towards, however my main goal was to show that the idea of a "habitable" planet or "hospitable" environment is extremely relative. Most people always take humans and try to use them as the constant in this equation, and of course wind up saying hardly any other planets are capable of supporting life, when this may not be the case. Different biochemistries need to be considered, perhaps life starts by one of many different ways.

If you're looking for humans, a planet with lots of water approximately 1AU away from a G-Class star is an excellent starting point. However if you're looking for life in general, there are many other places it could be lurking.

yeah i know, you briefly mentioned it, and i'm sure he probably didn't know what it was and that probably was the cause for some of his confusion.

but yeah the relative hospitibility of planets is a good point

what are you talking about? What line? what do you mean by "it stops going"?

What theories are you talking about? Big bang and evolution? All theories have evidence, that is the very definition of a scientific theory, which is different than other kinds of theory. In science a theory is basicly a hypothesis with strong evidence.

Name 1 miracle that has "hard scientific data"!

I can never find anything online about it, but I remember reading about Jesus' blood appearing on a host which is preserved to this day.

Define hospitable.

I'm sure the first two words you think of are "Habitable Zone", the area in which a planet needs to be in order to be habitable.

To us.

Science has already shown that life can survive, and thrive, in what to us is a completely inhospitable environment.

Highly acidic water near the surface of the ocean around volcanic chutes, under thousands of pounds of pressure. Life thrives here.

Sub-arctic conditions with little mineral resources. Life thrives here.

Blistering heat, little to no water, violent storms. Life thrives here.

A human in these elements would die anywhere from a second to a couple of hours.

Most people have this notion that life MUST mirror us. If it's gonna be on a planet, it's gotta have such and such things which just so happen to be EXACTLY what *we* need. They forget the four simple words that come after the word 'Life' in these descriptions: As we know it.

As you and I both agree, science does not know exactly how life began. We've got some ideas, but nothing 100% solid. With that in mind, you must then agree that life might not need what *we* need to start and thrive. If we don't know exactly how it started, then we don't know exactly what's needed to start it.

With that, you have to agree that the possibility exists for life to start in environments which are completely alien, or even outright lethal to us.

So the numbers go up when you talk about how many planets could possibly carry life. *THIS* is why we're rolling around on Mars, spending time and resources to search for ancient waterbeds and yes, life. If we can show that life exists or once existed on another planet, ESPECIALLY one which is outright lethal to us, it puts a whole new spin on the question of what's out there.

The scientific explanation is a completely logical stance. It takes the facts which we have collected, and draws conclusions called theories from what the data tells us. If the data shows us something different, we alter the theory to fit the data found (did you know that the 'Tree of Life' lost a branch?).

Theories are not "proven" or "disproven". This is not math class. This is where people get it wrong first.

Theories are "validated" and "invalidated". Let's use Tiktaalik Roesea as an example.

Evolution had a "missing link" as creationists like to call it. The transition from water to land. So, a group of scientists tasked themselves with finding this link. The theory of Evolution basically said that if such a lifeform were to exist, it would be in such-and-such place at such-and-such time (roughly 370 million years ago in the Denovian period). That would be about the right time, given geologic data and evolutionary lines.

Guess what they found.

The discovery of a fish-tetrapod transitional, in the exact location and exact time that Evolution predicted, is evidence that validates the theory. Genetic data also validates it. Speciation validates it. Everything we've gathered, everything we've learned, everything we've discovered all point to one conclusion: Evolution.

The evidence is there, in mass amounts. If there's something you are unsure about, ask. I'll gladly answer.

In order for an explanation, you've gotta show that the miracle happened. Gather these eyewitnesses, collect your data, get your evidence. Bring it forth. You ask for an explanation for something you cannot show actually even happened.

I have to stop at this one specifically.

How do you know it was the blood of Jesus? Exactly how would one be able to come to this conclusion? There's no basis for conclusion whatsoever.

I mean that the future has not happened yet.

Quote:

and this disproves the possibility of an infinite universe how?

Quote:

Semantics, hypotheses, whatever. Not Big Bang and evolution. I believe in evolution. It is compatible with creationism.

creationism and evolution are two different explainations to the same thing, they are not compatible.

creationism asserts that life was instantly created in present form

evolution asserts that life "evolved" into present form over millions of years

Quote:

I can never find anything online about it

What does that tell you? I'm sure if there was hard scientific proof of a miracle it would probably be all over the internet!

Quote:

but I remember reading about Jesus' blood appearing on a host which is preserved to this day.

uh huh, i'm sure :beat:

Quote:

How about the Shroud of Turin?

You mean that bit of linen that supposedly has a picture of jesus on it? First of all i'd like to know how they know what jesus looked like, the bible never described what he looked like.

Quote:

Science has not been able to disprove that at all. The Paschal Fire in Jerusalem, possibly.

science doesn't have to disprove anything, claims such as yours need to provide the evidence

THE BURDEN OF PROOF...

What Sabz seems to be hinting at is: Panspermia

"the theory that microorganisms or biochemical compounds from outer space are responsible for originating life on Earth and possibly in other parts of the universe where suitable atmospheric conditions exist"

I'm sure you've probably never heard this term many times if at all, school doesn't teach about this, it is not well known by the general public, yet it is important becuase the connection between the big bang and life on earth doesn't make sense without such a theory.

a simple example is that of a supernova. Stars contain all of the essential elements for life and when a star is older it will go supernova (explode) and thus scattering all the essential elements of life onto nearby (relatively) planets and moons and if under the right condition that may bring about the first stages of life.

creationism asserts that life was instantly created in present form

You mean that bit of linen that supposedly has a picture of jesus on it? First of all i'd like to know how they know what jesus looked like, the bible never described what he looked like.

Supposedly it was sent to a lab and they ran some tests on it and whatever they had to put against it.

Okay, anyway, blood spontaneously appears on bread. It's not necessarily Jesus's therefore, it's not that special?

Not necessarily. I believe in creationism, as in life was created.

There's a picture on a shroud which is percieved as Jesus and science really hasn't done much about that.

Proof is not always a possibility. the proof is right there. There's a fire, it doesn't hurt anyone, it's a miracle. There you go.

What tests could you possibly run that would conclude that it was blood from someone that died somewhere around 2,000 years ago, with not one single DNA sample to test against?

What evidence do you have to support your claim? You've stated a position, back it up

that's not what creationism is, here is what it means:

No one knows what jesus looked like, and what exactly do you expect science to do "about" the shroud?

Thats only proof of people's will to survive, and nothing more.

I read it years ago and don't remember everything, but there are supposed to be other relics.

Which would require that it iss recorded on the internet, which is quite a flimsy way of debating here. I can't tell you how many times I've been forced to type accounts out of books on this forum. And this was a pamphlet type thing I read years ago. Contemporary miracle info on the internet consists mainly of wackos healing people with prayer.

Semantics again. If we're going be answers.com, I suppose I believe in intelligent design. Happy?

The shroud has gone through tests and I'm pretty sure there wasn't a solid argument against the possibility of it being Jesus.

I'm talking about the aforementioned Paschal Fire. People touch it for more than a few seconds and are unharmed.

right now you said there was "Hard scientific" evidence of miracles so far i've seen none.

Prayer won't heal ya - Boing Boing

Just as we don't need to disprove bigfoot same goes for other claims there doesn't have to be, the burden of proof lies on those who make the claim, so if you say the shroud was jesus' be prepared to back up that statemnet. So far there is not a single shred of evidence that this shroud belonged to jesus.

yeah and there are people in India who walk on thousand degree coals and yet their feet aren't burnt, do you suppose thats a miracle or just ones that support you belief?

Reagaknight]The tests would constitute that if it's true.

That would work if they left it alone. But since they set out to disprove the shroud they now also have they burden of proof.

So next time you go camping, stick your hand in the fire and see if it hurts.

Define life.

As far as we know, some water is necessary to life, because of the makeup of life on earth. Water is not present everywhere. Therefore, many planets could not facilitate life as we know it.

On earth, life has relatively common basic needs. If those needs are necessary to all life, Then most planets could probably not shelter it. If not, then life is pretty much a whore. But as far as I know, carbon based life needs at least some Earth-like resources & conditions. Extreme enviornment or not, most planets are much more extreme than hydrothermal vents. Where life has not amounted to anything more than tube worms, BTW.

I'd make a bet that if we knew everything about life in the universe, life on Earth would be one of the best and most unique examples of complex life, unless not all life is carbon based, etc. Life may be possible on other planets, but how did it get started? That's all I care about.

I never argued against evolution. How are theories validated or invalidated? With evidence or 'proof.'

For the purpose of a debate forum?