What is Evolution? - A Primer

Still no squirrel fish eh? That's what I thought

But we have a crocoduck! Nobody f*cks with tha' Croco-duck!

On the seventh day, God rested. But on the eighth, he was bored and started doing all sorts of neat God-like things... attempting to create rocks so big that he couldn't lift 'em and whatnot. He actually succeeded with the rock, but accidentally dropped it on the Earth. Killed all the dinosaurs.

Among these things He created, scientists uncovered what they call "the creature so badass that even He could not whoop it in a fight". Scientists also believe that the "Crocoduck" is the early evolutionary ancestor of Chuck Norris. He is the only one believed to be able to beat a Crocoduck in combat.

they don't set out to either prove or disprove something, they simple study it and then we see if the evidence supports or denies the belief. Also questioning the authenticity of a claim does not shift the burden of proof, they burden of proof lies on those who make the claim, it is not the olbligation of scientists/historians to disprove anything.

Again, the words "as far as we know" and "as we know it" surface real quick. Yes, life on this planet requires water. Good thing most of the surface is covered with it, no? However it can be seen as merely a requirement for *our* life, life on this planet. Again, the definition for life does not specifically require, in any way, a presence of water.

The reason we search for water is, well hey... it worked here, we kinda know what to look for, so it just might work there.

Yes, for the purpose of a debate forum. At least gather SOME evidence. Just saying blood appeared on something doesn't go far. I'm not saying go and interview these people, but at least put up some info that shows this isn't just something pulled outta the air.

They did set out with the intention to prove it was not Christ and they could not. They formed a hypothesis about it and the experiment did not support the hypothesis. Since they were the ones with the hypothesis, they needed the proof.

Not science so much as speculation. According to FF, the burden of proof would be upon you to prove that life can exist in radically different conditions than ours.

Rest of post: I'm not saying there are not many planets that have the possibility, which is different than the probability, of having life. Even a small percentage of planets is what, millions or billions in the universe?

The problem is how life gets there.

Though I have said that the other case was from memory, here you go. Very high profile, look under the supernatural phenomenon section.

Say I have a handfull of dirt and i say this dirt was walked on by Elvis, by your logic if no one can prove me wrong that means i'm right, but this is not so. Because it was mean that made the claim that i have dirt that elvis walked on, it would be my responsibility (burden of proof) to find supporting evidence for my claim.

panspermia

That link you gave me about Pare Pio and his Stigmata, isn't "hard scientific" proof of anything!

This is from the article:

"Padre Pio believed that the love of God was inseparable from suffering and that suffering all things for the sake of God was the way for the soul to reach God."

"During his period of spiritual suffering, his followers believe that Padre Pio was attacked by the Devil, both physically and spiritually."

No one would bother trying to discredit you. But if they did and they weren't able to, they can't just blow it off.

The problem with you is that you're expecting people to play by your rule. Scientific method is a recent invention, but now you expect traditions that have been going on for thousands of years to compete on your playing field?

Speculative at best, IMO. Besides, if it were intentionally done by some extraterrestrial being, wouldn't that come quite close to ID, at least as far as life on earth is concerned?

Regardless of what you think about its credibility, he asked for miracle witnesses, and you'll notice that quite a few witnesses figure in to the article.

wow i have to say you have really poor logic, but then again so does the majority of americans. I blame the education system for not teaching proper logic and reasoning skills.

you cannot prove a negative, therfore you cannot prove the non-existance of something, this is the reason positive evidence must be presented. In the absence of positive evidence it is generally accepted that said 'entity' doesn't exist.
How do we know that dodo birds have gone exinct? We can't prove that dodo birds have gone extinct, so how do we know? We know that dodos are extinct because if they were alive then we would expect to find live ones, or carcases, or droppings or feathers or any such evidence but we have found none of those things. Therfore we generally consider dodos do not exist today.

Proper logic is not my rule, i didn't come up with it but it is expected of everyone. Science has been around since ancient times in some form or another but proper logic has been around even longer. I don't think it's too much to ask for someone to think logically.

both are speculative. That's why neither panspermia nor creationism are taught in school.

since he believed pain was the way to god it's not that much of a stretch to think he probably did it to himself. There is no evidence all we have to go by is the word of a handful of followers from a couple hundred years ago, and in this respect Bigfoot has more credibility. If that's what you call "hard scientific" proof then i hated to find out what you think "weak scientific" proof is....

His stigmata, regarded by some as evidence of holiness, was studied by physicians whose independence from the Church is not known.[16][17] The observations were reportedly unexplainable and the wounds never infected.[16][17] It was reputed, however, that his condition caused him great embarrassment, and most photographs show him with red mittens or black coverings on his hands and feet where the bleedings occurred.[17]

The fact remains that they tried to disprove it. That's simply what they did, whether you like it or not, whether you think it's necessary or not, they tried to disprove it with science, and they failed. How could that be irrelevant?

Proof is not commonly given as a part of religion. Religion is based on faith. You're acting like it's a scientific hypothesis that must go through the scientific method to have any credibility.

So you have the burden of proof, right? Especially if you're stating it as a single word in response to a question, 'panspermia', not 'possibly panspermia.'

It's not hard scientific proof, it's witnesses.

Now professionals are coming into the picture.

Inability to disprove something does not give something more credability if it doesn't have any evidence in the first place, if there is no supporting evidence how would you go about disproving something?

if inability to disprove something gave it more credability then why try to disprove anything, then we should just believe everything that cannot be disproven, does that sound reasonable to you?

I say There is a flying spagetti monster, you can't prove my claim wrong so you should believe it right?

That's exactly it, religion is based on personal faith sow how can it possibly e comparable or equal to scientific theory or hypothsis? Every claim is put through the scientific process and logical scrutiny, so why should religion be any different?

you said you had hard scientific" evidence, so where is it?

No evidence whatsoever, no pictures no recorded measurments nothing only the word of some people a couple hundred years ago, the same people who thought relieving someone of "bad blood" would make them better and disease was caused by demons.

Gemma, who was brought to San Giovanni Rotondo in 1947 by her grandmother, was born without pupils.[25] During her trip to see Padre Pio, the little girl reportedly began to see objects including a steamboat and the sea.[25] Gemma's grandmother did not believe the child had been healed.[25] After Gemma forgot to ask Padre Pio for Grace during her Confession, her grandmother reportedly implored the priest to ask God to restore her sight.[25] Padre Pio, according to Carroll, told her, "The child must not weep and neither must you for the child sees and you know she sees."[25] The section goes on to say that occulists were unable to determine how she gained vision.

It's not inability to disprove something, it's failure to disprove something that they were explicitly trying to disprove. They set out saying they could scientifically disprove it, they could not. There's really a lot of evidence floating around, see the wiki article on that too.

Religion has never proclaimed itself as a scientific theory, it is faith based for the most part.

I didn't say anything about it being in relation to every miracle.

? Did you read the article? This was going on 1930s-60s. Your willingness to criticize while immersed in ignorance is amazing.

Right there it says 1947. I suppose they were pulling out the leeches to see how she could see.

I'd like to see you quote that or are you just BS-ing me?

people didn't know how to measure in 1930's?

???

Read the wiki article. It has been tested.

The doctors. Were unable. To explain the wounds.

Please tell me where a measurement is needed.

You're the one who's talking like they're in the Middle Ages.

i know what Wiki says please show me where the scientists said that!

Exactly my point, NO EVIDENCE!

Your statements are non-sequitar.

No evidence whatsoever, no pictures no recorded measurments nothing only the word of some people a couple hundred years ago, the same people who thought relieving someone of "bad blood" would make them better and disease was caused by demons.

? Did you read the article? This was going on 1930s-60s. Your willingness to criticize while immersed in ignorance is amazing.

people didn't know how to measure in 1930's?

Right there it says 1947. I suppose they were pulling out the leeches to see how she could see.

???

You're the one who's talking like they're in the Middle Ages.

As I said, details of the scientific investigations are in the article:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pio_of_Pietrelcina

Okay, according to one of the most quoted sources on the internet, the scientists could not explain the wounds. They quoted sources, which are linked to at the bottom of the article. Why is this not good enough for you?

Summary, you said the first statement, which made it clear you did not read the article since it made an untrue statement about the time period. I made a reference to the medical use of leeches, which was used in about the same time period you seemed to be misguidedly talking about.

don't belittle me i know what the ******* article says, do i have to spell it out for you?

I WANT A SPECIFIC QUOTE!

Various tests have been performed on the shroud, yet the debates about its origin continue. Radiocarbon dating in 1988 by three independent teams of scientists yielded results published in Nature indicating that the shroud was made during the Middle Ages, approximately 1300 years after Jesus lived.[3] Follow-up analysis published in 2005, however, indicated that the sample dated by the teams was taken from an area of the shroud that was not a part of the original cloth.[4] This analysis itself is questioned by skeptics such as Joe Nickell, who reason that the conclusions of the author, Raymond Rogers, result from "starting with the desired conclusion and working backward to the evidence".[5] Nature editor Philip Ball has on the other hand noted that the idea that Rogers steered his study to a preconceived conclusion is "unfair" and Rogers "has a history of respectable work".[6] As of 2005, there is no universally accepted carbon dating result for the shroud in the scientific literature.[4][6]

Okay first of all "Could not explain the wounds" does NOT mean a miracle and secondly No it isn't good enough for me you're gonna have to do better than some heresay.

Sorry to burst your bubble but leaching is still done today!

Here you go. That's the fourth paragraph in the article. Would that have been so hard?

It is a miracle if it is beyond explanation and seems to be a supernatural phenomenon. I suppose you are a total idiot, because, I just said that they quoted their sources and those sources can be found at the bottom of the article.

Source?

It wouldn't matter much anyway, because you referred to bloodletting. Leeching was a form of bloodletting. So it was a valid reference.

Hmmm...still don't see where the scientists said "we are trying to disprove this!", which was the point i was getting at when i asked you to provide a specific quote but apparently you didn't pick up on that.

This analysis itself is questioned by skeptics such as Joe Nickell, who reason that the conclusions of the author, Raymond Rogers, result from "starting with the desired conclusion and working backward to the evidence".

jumping to conclusions are we?
please explain to me how:

I don't know what it is = I know it's a miracle


or am I missing something here?

"Bloodletting (or blood-letting, in modern medicine referred to as phlebotomy) was a popular medical practice from antiquity up to the late 19th century, involving the withdrawal of often considerable quantities of blood from a patient in the hopeful belief that this would cure or prevent a great many illnesses and diseases."

-wikipedia.com


as you can see bloodletting is not just a medieval practice and occured upto late 19th century, which ended just 18 years before padre Pio's stigmata began.

How about it's inexplicably and seemingly supernatural, therefore, it's a miracle.

Which still makes you wrong. Are you trying to say that there were no such things as modern scientific practices in the 1930s-60s?

This analysis itself is questioned by skeptics such as Joe Nickell, who reason that the conclusions of the author, Raymond Rogers, result from "starting with the desired conclusion

Various tests have been performed on the shroud, yet the debates about its origin continue. Radiocarbon dating in 1988 by three independent teams of scientists yielded results published in Nature indicating that the shroud was made during the Middle Ages, approximately 1300 years after Jesus lived.

But they don't know that it is supernatural, according to you the experts didn't know what it was

if you don't know what it is then you don't know it' a miracle, it's that simple!

Did i say that? I simply stated the bloodletting occured in his time which was true.

and what is the "desired conclusion"? You are going by the oppinion of one critic, and unless the all 3 teams of scientists specificly stated their "desired conclusion" to him then he doesn't know what their intentions are.

from the same article:

Follow-up analysis published in 2005, however, indicated that the sample dated by the teams was taken from an area of the shroud that was not a part of the original cloth.[4]