@RED DEVIL cv,
RED DEVIL;48982 wrote:As you say, time for a lesson. Everyone knows that Theory is not "fact", regardless of how well dressed it comes to the party, if you bring a pig, it remains a pigs. I do not even want you to prove it just offer a theory that remains within the confines of the "scientific method", using empirical evidence. You claim "empirical evidences" all along the time line of evolution and its theory all the way to the Big Bang. If this is true please present the "empirical evidence for the the following, or stop makings such claims, we are honest, we are intelligent. It would take a "fool" to not accept the true knowledge of science, and I will abide within the laws of logic. The facts are as such, it is science that turned me toward the presence of "intelligent design" and away form the the paradox of the pseudo intellectuals that call themselves "men of science." When in reality they are "men engaged in the act of con".
Theories are based on facts. They are frameworks based upon evidence and testable models. You still do not understand the term 'theory'.
Evolution and the Big Bang are two totally different things. Evolution does not need BB to work, and the Big Bang certainly doesn't need evolution. Two totally separate concepts and worlds (not to mention area of scientific study).
YOU try to lump this altogether into some mishmash that somehow has to work together when they are independent entities.
Evolution does not need Biogenesis.
Evolution does not need Abiogenesis.
Evolution does not need the Big Bang.
Why do you do this? It's simple. YOUR belief lumps this into one big ball of wax that has a SINGLE fulcrum point for which the whole thing balances. Tip it over (i.e. ask for empirical evidence of God) and it falls flat. Disprove Abiogenesis for example, and evolution is untouched. Disprove the Big Bang, and evolution is untouched.
Just because your beliefs hang on a thread do not mean that mine do.
Quote:Please provide the empirical evidence for the following. A.) The gestation for the Big Bang, if it was not created, by something, or if it did not exist outside of time and space as defined by Mr. Einstein and therefore eternal by the laws of physics.
You're asking for information before the Planck. Not gonna happen. NOBODY can prove either way what happened before the creation of the universe. For example... what was God doing BEFORE he made this universe?
"Theoretical support for the Big Bang comes from mathematical models, called Friedmann models. These models show that a Big Bang is consistent with general relativity and with the cosmological principle, which states that the properties of the universe should be independent of position or orientation."
"Observational evidence for the Big Bang includes the analysis of the spectrum of light from galaxies, which reveal a shift towards longer wavelengths proportional to each galaxy's distance in a relationship described by Hubble's law. Combined with the evidence that observers located anywhere in the universe make similar observations (the Copernican principle), this suggests that space itself is expanding. The next most important observational evidence was the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964. This had been predicted as a relic from when hot ionized plasma of the early universe first cooled sufficiently to form neutral hydrogen and allow space to become transparent to light, and its discovery led to general acceptance among physicists that the Big Bang is the best model for the origin and evolution of the universe. A third important line of evidence is the relative proportion of light elements in the universe, which is a close match to predictions for the formation of light elements in the first minutes of the universe, according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis."
Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaexact solution of the Einstein field equations of general relativity; it describes a homogeneous, isotropic expanding or contracting universe.
Friedmann-LemaƮtre-Robertson-Walker metric - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Empirical (observable and testable) evidence for the big bang.
Quote:B.) Please provide the evidence that suggests that Hydrogen and Helium, the byproducts of the beginning, somehow cooled to form solid mass, where none existed before, such as nickel, iron, etc.
The universe wasn't *POOF* existence, *POOF* elements. There's a whole lot of time involved here. Firstly, for a good little while the universe was pure quark-gluon plasma. This is a phase in which quarks and gluons (the most basic building blocks of matter) were in free state. Not hydrogen, not helium, but much more basic than that.
Quote:C.) Please provide the empirical evidence that ABIOGENESIS IS EVEN POSSIBLE (biological life came about from the inert matter of elements, found on earth, after it magically created itself)
To what end? Hypotheses are still being tested. We're getting your evidence, should it exist. What does this have to do with evolution? Nothing. Evolution doesn't need the origins of life to work, merely life itself.
Where it came from is irrelevant.
Quote:D.) Please provide the empirical evidence that once this unexplainable happenstance of biological life, had any source of fuel to consume, being the first of its kind, and empirically prove that it not only survived, it THRIVED to the point of being able to reproduce without "other" life sources to obtain knowledge from to even morph by mutation. Empirically provide reproducible and observed abilities thereof. Life forming or gaining mutating knowledge, while being in a state of isolation.
No source of fuel to consume? Umm... how about the Sun? Plants have been doing that for... wow... a while now. Look outside. Look up. Can't get more empirical than that.
Reproduction comes in two forms. Sexual and Asexual. You know this. That answers the reproducing question.
Knowledge? Why would a lifeform that basic need "knowledge"? Mutation? Back then the atmosphere wasn't what it is today. The magnetosphere was very weak, and radiation of all sorts bombarded this planet, and along with it the life that was there.
Genetics isn't perfect. We know this. Mutations happen quite often. Mutations to lifeforms that basic were quite large.
Quote:E.) Next we would ask that you provide the "empirical evidence", that which is observed or reproducible, as to explaining the "gap" of evolutionary ancestral lineage of marcobiology prior to the Cambrian explosion. When it is very clear that microbiological life fossils have been found prior, yet this ancestral lineage to marobiological life somehow goes unnoticed. Do not come across with any possible hypothesis thereof, that only the evolutionist can clearly see. Provide the empirical evidence thereof.
There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms.
The cambrian explosion wasn't the origins of life, or even multicellular life. Why do only SOME forms of life appear during this time? Why no plants? Why do we find animal evidence before this time?
Ediacaran biota - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He's precambrian. Pretty empirical there.
As for EXACTLY what you're asking for, we don't have it. Neither do you.
Quote:F.) Please present the empirical evidence of man having jumped the species barrier of biogenesis. Don't give the common ancestor lineage speech about how man is proven to be over 95% common with primates. As man is 25% common in DNA structure to plant life, and has a 75% commonality with the worm. All this suggests is that the primate, which has more in common with other primates is one of the most intelligent creatures UNDER man. As explained earlier, all the fossil remains of humans, have three things that Primates do not have. The intellect to make tools, and communicate with drawings, and some even have been found with a "voice box" remaining. All I request is just one "empirical" link....that which as been proven reproducible or observed in nature. One, fossil remain of something in the process of transistion, one observed change in nature, besides that which is contained with the explained lineage of SPECIES, in science actual theories of biogenesis and microevolution within species.
Biogenesis is NOT a species barrier.
Homo habilis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Despite the ape-like morphology of the bodies, H. habilis remains are often accompanied by primitive stone tools"
So they can make tools. How'd the learn? Intelligence. How'd they teach? Communication.
It's also rather neat that after having your backside handed to you, you change your statement from "evidence of creatures jumping the species barrier" to "MAN jumping the species barrier". Reeling back a tad, are we?
Moving on to fossil remains in transition. Well, the big jumpers are Tikkie and Archie. I've shown them several times. They show where the lines split.
Quote:E.) Finally present the empirical evidence that the "Universe" is indeed as old as it must be claimed by the evolutionists. Please explain how the Light of Billions of miles is calculated within fractions on A.) A moving point of reference (THE earth and the solar system). B.) The object being observed is moving away on a continuing basis..i.e., the universe at large, and this is explained as correct and unerring by measuring a "flickering" point of light. Proceed, please, and you will have a convert.
Measuring the Distance to Nearby Galaxies
More than billions of miles. A light year is roughly SIX TRILLION miles. That's a quarter of the distance to the next star. In measurements of that size, a planet's orbital movement would be of negligible consequence. When measuring the distance of an object some 12 billion light years away, a 180 million mile difference is less than a billionth of one percent.
Quote:Your ignorance of true religion is amazing, You mention con-men, and naturally "assume" that the bible teaches such. It is clear that you have not "attempted" to read the word of God, and take all your talking points from the mind of others, concerning religion. The actions of the many that "abuse" the word of God for self profit is not a new concept,"And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not" (2 Peter 2:2-3). RD
You mention con men and naturally assume science teaches such.
Now. My turn for the questions.
1. Empirically prove God's existence. Show me evidence that an all powerful being created the universe. How'd he do it? Show empirical evidence of this.
2. Empirically prove the "soul". Give evidence that this ascends or descends to wherever it's destination after death.
3. Prove the age of the Earth to be ~12,000 years old. Show measurements and scientific papers detailing this.
4. Explain the flood. Where'd the water come from? Where'd it go. This must be, of course, in an empirical form. How'd the animals get distributed so neatly? Why aren't the fossils that were supposedly deposited by this flood random? Why do they have a pattern?
5. Empirical evidence showing man's coexistence with dinosaurs. Empirical evidence showing they "breathed fire". Mystery cavities and beetles just don't cut it here. Neither do questionable figurines.
6. And finally, the Planck. You asked me where'd it all come from, what happened before the beginning of time? I ask you the same? Where'd God come from? What was he up to before the universe was created? Surely they weren't created at the same time (Creator and creation), so who created the creator? And of course... why?