Could anyone provide a viable list of things evolved in what order?
What animals developed first and then next?
What developed first mouth, eyes, or hands?
What developed next stomach, heart, or brain?
If we evolved from animals why can we not reproduce with animals?
Don't you feel it is odd that there are huge missing evidence or gaps in evolution?
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
*****Don’t you feel it is odd that there are huge missing evidence or gaps in evolution?
I will await any peer reviewed papers on the matter by the religious that even makes a dent in the theory which is something not one believer has been able to put forward , Evolution is built upon mountains of scientific evidence .
Evolution is fact only the irrational believe the reverse.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
All of our guesses about how life evolved are just that. Guesses. We don't know what we don't know.
Even if it were possible to do this, the list would not fit conveniently in this forum, and billions of names categories and classifications that do not exist yet would need to be created.
From a practical standpoint, this isn't exactly possible.
Even just asking which organs developed first is impossible to answer, and the lines get blurry when you start looking at single celled organisms, some of which have rudimentary organelles which function like each of those organs but not as complex.
Most people have seen the videos of a cell consuming another by wrapping around it, a process known as endocytosis. Does this constitute a stomach? Many single celled organisms have light detecting components, does this constitute an eye?
Little semantic questions like this make it impossible to answer the question in a meaning full way without fully exploring the details and intricacies of the reality.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can answer the question of why we can not reproduce with animals, anyone who took a biology course in high school should know this.
Our cells have a specific number of chromosomes, which are packets of tightly wound DNA, the code that produces proteins and runs cells. Animals that have different numbers of chromosomes can't combine their DNA because of the type and number mismatch. This is almost always lethal to the offspring, or in some cases leads to an animal which is sterile or malformed.
A mule is a classic example of a horse and a donkey interbreeding to produce an infertile offspring.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it doesn't seem odd at all that there are huge gaps in our understanding of what happened millions of years ago.
Consider this: Do you know everything that you ate every day of your life for every meal since you were born?
Maybe you are a savant with perfect memory, rare but still surprising.
Now consider this: Do you know everything that your great grandfather ate everyday of his life since he was born?
How could you even answer that question unless he specifically recorded it, and suppose he gaffed or forgot for a while?
The assumption that we would know given the gaps in hard evidence is ludicrous. In fact, that we know so much is an incredible example of the diligence and insightful nature of science and scientists.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
If you are looking from a creationist perspective like I am,
Then the first thing to evolve is the brain, followed by mouth and heart, then rest of the body, because without brain we would not have the ability for conscious action, distinction. later the speech.
We can't reproduce with animals because we have different set of genome clusters that are not present in animals, but ever so often you will find half animal half human borne individuals who don't survive due to sustainability in these genome clusters to further replicate themselves
This is just an assumption, but I am open to other's suggestions.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Today we follow our "evolving brains" and figure out the logical answers built on the evidence available. Mythological answers just don't cut it any more, we want something built on logic.
Galileo said: I do not feel obliged to believe that the same god who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use."
That great mind was "evolving", just hadn't distanced itself enough from the mythological era yet, (or realized it wasn't a healthy thing to state it openly). We will get enough indisputable answers over time …. we get more yearly now than we got for a century any time in the past.
That said, if we can't work fast enough to counter our self imposed climate change it will be a mute point. People will be looking for mythological help, and it won't be coming any more than it has in the past.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
>>>Even if it were possible to do this, the list would not fit conveniently in this forum, and billions of names categories and classifications that do not exist yet would need to be created.
>>>No, it doesn't seem odd at all that there are huge gaps in our understanding of what happened millions of years ago.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
This video is about the origin of blood and addresses the heart as well. You need to know this before you can even start to think about other organs.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Creation has no facts to support it whatsoever ( unless you count various holy texts, in which case whatever anyone makes up could be valid evidence )
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
**** I am against the idea that evolution is more accurate than creation.
Evolution is a fact denial of such is based on nothing but nonsensical pseudoscienctific garbage which cannot be backed up with one peer reviewed paper
Yes , but that makes you wrong agin the denial of fact leaves one embracing absurdities
You I believe feel that , but we have found out already
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
It is possible for both rapid and gradual evolution to happen at the same time, it depends on environmental and inter species pressures that drive evolution.
For example, suppose a sexually isomorphic species ( one that has different characteristics across gender lines ) slowly diverges due to females being picky breeders.
On the rapid side, suppose sudden environment changes kill all but the strongest.
Evolution isn't a set in stone process where things are always moving to one higher goal, it has no goals, so de-evolution is incredibly common. For example, crocodiles have two sets of eyelids, one that is vertical and another horizontal, which is partially transparent used underwater. If you look closely at a human ( or especially cat ) eyes you will find the vestigial remains.
"I would take a general.
No, it doesn't work like that. That is like asking which came first, your cousin or yourself if you share a birthday?
"The reason it is impossible is that a brain cannot function without blood.
I don't know what your point is, this is true but not a good argument.
"Very good, I am glad you know this information.
Organisms can and do change the number of chromosomes! Have you ever heard of down syndrome? Chimps, Gorillas, and other primates have 24 pairs where humans have only 23.
"Take a dictionary and a thesaurus.
It's all about boundary conditions. Lets say we had 100 million dictionaries, each one unique in some ways. Then we killed all the ones that were the least thesaurus like, took the remaining ones crossed their information. Then we repeated this with the new set of dictionaries. If you do this enough times, eventually you will get a thesaurus.
The false dichotomy you create between it needing to be fast or slow is completely inaccurate.
"The gap is not one or two between species, many scientists state that 95% of the information is missing.
No, but if you get enough single frames from throughout the movie you can make a reasonable prediction about what the movie might have been like. You will notice scene changes, common characters, and maybe even figure out some of the plot. The straw man you create here is the assumption that 6 minutes should be consecutive, but with the fossil record everything is spread out.
"Why can't we all say that?
Yes, and every claim about religion needs to be prefaced with We just made this up and it sounded good, and if you question us we might kill you. At least with evolution theory there is concrete evidence.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Millions of dead things buried in rock, which all seem to change slowly over time.
Every variety and breed of dog.
Physiological similarities of some species, vast differences in others.
Similarity of animals being closely tied to geography.
Genetic similarities of species removes all doubts.
Vestigial structures
Insects gaining immunity to pesticides.
Plants creating new poisons to kill insects.
Genetic disorders.
Cancer. ( mutation of individual cells )
The list goes on, entire books have been written on each of these subjects.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
"Please provide the example, or are you hypothesizing."
I already have!
"One of us came first. Nevertheless, we are talking about evolving, changing from one species to another. ( and everything else you wrote )"
Look, the analogy of cousins is the most accurate. Evolution does not work like Pokemon!
Consider your grandparents, had your parents, uncles and aunts, and they had you you and your cousins. The original species ( your grandparents ) is dead, but they have produced you which is genetically different from your cousins. Evolution works the same way. People might say something like "humans evolved from chimps" This is wrong! The reality is that modern chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor, the same way your cousins and you share grandparents.
"My point is that evolution states that a brain did develop without blood.
I assume you are talking about bloodless creatures like spiders, insects, cephalopods, and crustacians, all of which have brains, therefore blood is not necessary for a brain that exists without it.
"Are you saying there is a chimp, gorilla, or other primates with 23 waiting to be found?"
No. I an saying that millions of years ago, a human ancestor dropped a chromosome. Also just having 23 pairs of chromosomes would not a viable genetic partner make. There has to be deeper compatibility, such as location of key alleles and similar structure of each chromosome.
"I agree but can this happen on its own?"
Nature is cruel. Things die all the time. I shouldn't have to explain this, but maybe you haven't noticed because our species has spent the last 12,000 years or so systematically fighting nature.
"Then have scientists film it. Film an ape turning into a man."
It still takes long periods of time, and because it is based on random changes, not driven by any specific goal, there is no guarantee that an ape will always develop into a man. It is random.
"Basically what he is saying it has to be intentional."
I don't know how you are drawing this conclusion from that statement, this is an obvious non-sequitur. What he is saying is what I said above about species differentiation, possibly by adding or dropping chromosomes, but also by other factors such as different mating cycles or geographic location.
"I don't think your conclusion will be incorrect, but others may see it differently"
Others may come to different conclusion about the movie, but these differences shouldn't be as radically different as one person saying the movie happens in sequence and another says that all frames are meant to be viewed together. Some disagreement is expected, and unless you can get more clips out of the movie, it is hard to say.
"Nevertheless, how many times on this site do they criticize the Bible and Religious ideology as and untrue?
I wonder why that is? There are people out there who think evolution is some sort of devil worship anti Jesus cult, but the general public tends to ignore these people as extremists. Science is as close to objective truth as you can get, and one of the reasons for that is that every time we find new information that conflicts with an old idea but has evidence to prove it, we throw out the old ideas. The evolution we talk about to day is a far cry from what Darwin thought, it has gone through countless periods of change and reinvention so that only the core concepts remain.
Whenever science is pitted against religion, science always wins, because it is by definition, based on objective truth rather than personal or spiritual truth. Science and Religion should never fight each other, though, because they are in different fields of thought. It is only when people decide that science is somehow "just as valid a world view" as religion that we have problems. Science tells you what is absolute truth and what is absolute false. Religion can not tell you absolute truth of falsity. So when religion makes a claim to truth like "The world was created in 7 days" science can disprove that claim and make religion look dumb. When the bible says: "Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Science has no power to prove or disprove this claim, because it is not provable or disprovable. Science could prove what will happen if we do not, for example all the scientists sounding the alarms of climate change.
My rant is over, I am going to guess you won't read every word but I would highly recommend it.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called 'research', would it?".
It is the nature of science that there are always countless missing pieces of evidence and gaps. If there were none, we would not need science in the first place.
Of course we are not able to explain absolutely everything about evolution. Retrospective analysis is incredibly hard, and we even have a hard time understanding who Cleopatra was, arguably the most famous woman in the history of humanity, living merely a bit over 2000 years ago. How can one possibly expect us to know everything about the events that took place hundreds millions ago, based on some ambiguous fossils? Paleonthology is an extraordinarely hard science; I am a mathematician, and I consider my field a 5 star resort in terms of difficulty, compared to what those guys have to deal with. Looking at a fossil from 200 million years ago and deriving whether Plateosaures used two or four limbs to run? This is beyond my comprehension. Paleonthologists are geniuses, as far as I am concerned.
That said, the amount we have managed to learn by now is truly impressive. There really is no limit to human ingenuity, and how much a human curious and talented enough can derive from a few kilobytes of raw data is truly impressive.
Give some credit to natural scientists. Some of them have brains from out of this world.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
>>>It still takes long periods of time, and because it is based on random changes, not driven by any specific goal, there is no guarantee that an ape will always develop into a man. It is random.
Multiple well-funded experiments in the United States, Asia, and Europe.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
The thing that came first is the fluid that brings nutrients to all the cells and it was here before they were. That’s why I posted the video which is appropriate for your level of understanding.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
"Based on your analogy of cousins the evolved animal would die.
I'm no genetic scientist, but I did some research and the answer get technical fast. The long of the short is that chromosomes fused, this is what happened between the human ape ancestor and modern humans. Thus early ancestors could still breed with others, because even though there was a sum mismatch the actual DNA would still be able to combine.
"Numerical abnormalities and Structural abnormalities in dropping a chromosome causes bad things to happen.
Mostly it results in bad things, but sometimes it results in good things, or things that make no difference. It's a game of roulette, where sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.
"No, if you read his book he said experimented with 70 years of "mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one."
If you want to make points from his book please use the entire quote because context matters, and you need to avoid jumping to conclusions. That is why what you said was a non-sequitur, because there are missing relevant logical steps between points A and B.
"Well,...... this is not old age this is specific dying."
When I say things die all the times I mean all kinds of death, not just old age. When I talk about humans fighting nature, I am talking about technology.
"The Book - Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation
This is what I mean when I am talking about boundary conditions. It's sort of like cherry picking data. Most of the offspring are going to be nearly identical to the parents, and a few that are different die immediately, so only the ones that are stable and different can be vectors of evolution.
I think we have discussed the evidence for evolution thoroughly, let's talk about the evidence for creation.
Specifically, I want to know What is the evidence, how credible is that evidence, and what could we find to prove it wrong?
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
>>>Specifically, I want to know what is the evidence, how credible is that evidence, and what could we find to prove it wrong?
What is the evidence?
How credible is it?
What could we find to prove it wrong?
Historical Method is the process used to determine documented eye witness accounts can be considered credible.
Whenever you have a documented eye witness to a historical event it must undergo the Historical Method to determine viability.
Historical Method is more complex than many people realize.
In order to pass it at a high rating is very difficult.
A historical account needs only to pass it once to be a credible account.
The Bible has passed it hundreds of times.
The Bible has 11,000 documented scholars who verify the authenticity of the Bible during the time of writing.
Including some of the most influential historic figures in verification known in life.
Some of the people who verified the biblical gospels taught the scholars and writers of the people who wrote the books on verification.
One of the guy's name is Origen was so famous that some believed that his name influenced the word 'origin'.
In fact in the school of Alexandria, the subject of verification used the Bible as its passing training subject.
In order to get the degree on verification, you had to use the Bible as a guideline for class.
The reason the Bible was tested so many times because after it passed the Historical Method, the process would be revised and people would want to retest it again. And again. It is the oldest book that has the highest credible information. Because it has been tested so many times, the tests themselves became documents of credibility.
No book ever has undergone the level of scrutiny and has to prove credibility as many times as the Bible.
It is more credible than the history books we have today, simply because it passed so many times.
So your point of proving it wrong is impossible unless you change the Historical Method. You cannot change the fact that the Bible is “evidence”.
What you can say is I do not accept the evidence, or I think the evidence points to a different conclusion.
The main reason people fight against the Bible is because of the fantastical things that were stated that occurred.
Nevertheless, there are some fantastical things that were said to have happened during WW1, China, Europe, and throughout all of history.
There are a lot of things that were super far ahead of time that was commonplace during Biblical times, it could be a coincidence but raises eyebrows. The Bible coined the statement that “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”, a millennium before dictionaries were written. Proving faith taught from the Bible is based on substance and evidence.
The Bible documented the earth in space millenniums before it was determined by man.
The Bible instituted quarantining millenniums before the discovery of germs.
The Bible outlined the order of created items millenniums before scientists determined the order of how life would come about.
People were discovering stuff and then going in the Bible and finding the discovery already written. It got to the point that people were saying the writers of the Bible had inputted the information in later. Which bolstered another Historical test, to determine viability, and of course the Bible passed.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
http://www.oldest.org/religion/religious-texts/
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Kesh_Temple_Hymn.html
The historical accuracy of the bible is hotly debated among actual historians, who point out many contradictions between the bible and other records. Many of the stories are considered to be etiologies, which are stories made up to explain the origins of things for example the tower of babble explaining the many languages. It is possible that the account of creation in the bible is one of these stories.
The problem with using a method for verifying the accuracy of historic data that uses the Bible as the standard of measure for accuracy is that it means that you can only test things relative to that standard.
If I asked you: How long is a meter? or how much does a kilogram weigh? You would give me a funny look like I was dumb and say "one meter and one kilogram"
Now lets say I live on another planet and we can only communicate via text. If I asked the same question, how could we verify we used the same measurements? The answer is we would have to use physical constants, such as the speed of light or the length of specific waves, or create a new standard based on the known standard and somehow send it to me.
Even if the bible or other ancient texts are considered to be historically accurate, that does not automatically mean that the information contained within is necessarily true.
There are millions of works of fiction that have been published since the printing press was developed. If in 4,000 years from now, someone read Harry Potter ans assumed it was true, what arguments could they make to say that is was? All we know is that a long time ago someone said this happened.
"The main reason people fight against the Bible is because of the fantastical things that were stated that occurred.
Nevertheless, there are some fantastical things that were said to have happened during WW1, China, Europe, and throughout all of history."
You do not know that these things stated in the bible occurred, and that is not the main reason people fight against the bible. This is the main argument against the bible, because as I have stated it could be mostly made up or vastly exaggerated. The reason people fight the bible is because they want to know the truth, and know why they know the truth. Asking questions about the bible often yields null or non-nonsensical answers that don't work well with the reality.
You have a list of things the bible "predicted" that turned out to be true years latter, and it could have been much longer. Lets look at the details here. In every instance, there was no prediction, but rather the bible was used after the discovery to justify that the bible knows all.
The question is: could we use the bible to make predictions of things not yet discovered? The answer is no. While the bible does make some good recommendations, it doesn't tell you how to how to make antibiotics, or explain that the world is full of microbial life which causes disease. Is it so unreasonable that ancient people made the connection between the spread of sickness and individuals who are sick? All you would have to do was notice if one person gets sick so does their family and neighbors, and realize if you isolate the sick from the healthy the disease will not spread.
The bible talks about how life appeared on earth during creation, and I assume you wanted to know how accurate this is in making this post. The problem with the biblical account is that it is severely oversimplified at best and completely wrong at worst. Take for example, the animals that evolved to swim from land animals, such as modern sea mammals like dolphins and whales. It's just kind of hard to place something like that into the biblical account of creation. Birds and fish were created on the same day in the bible, followed by land animals and "creeping things and wild animals of the earth" We have to ask critical questions like what counts as a fish, because although evolution indicates that the water was populated before land was, a lot of "fish" are also "creeping things" eg. arthropods . It's just so vague and open to interpretation that no useful information can be learned here. I mean, according to the holy book plants existed before the sun did. If you know what photosynthesis is, you will know why this is a problem.
Alright, that's enough for now. Here is another relevant debate about a similar topic.
https://www.kialo.com/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools-31776
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
>>>Even if the bible or other ancient texts are considered to be historically accurate, that does not automatically mean that the information contained within is necessarily true.
>>>There are millions of works of fiction that have been published since the printing press was developed. If in 4,000 years from now, someone read Harry Potter and assumed it was true, what arguments could they make to say that is was? All we know is that a long time ago someone said this happened.
>>>You do not know that these things stated in the bible occurred, and that is not the main reason people fight against the bible. This is the main argument against the bible because as I have stated it could be mostly made up or vastly exaggerated. The reason people fight the bible is because they want to know the truth, and know why they know the truth. Asking questions about the bible often yields null or non-nonsensical answers that don't work well with reality.
>>>The question is: could we use the bible to make predictions of things not yet discovered? The answer is no. While the bible does make some good recommendations, it doesn't tell you how to how to make antibiotics or explain that the world is full of microbial life which causes disease. Is it so unreasonable that ancient people made the connection between the spread of sickness and individuals who are sick? All you would have to do was notice if one person gets sick so does their family and neighbors, and realize if you isolate the sick from the healthy the disease will not spread.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
The answer is yes, because they influence each other.
I didn't ask a question here. There is archaeological evidence to support certain parts of the bible, but none to support the creation story with the exception of the bible, which could be wrong. Remember, there are thousands of creation stories all from different cultures many of which were lost when the practicing people were killed, and because they are all unique in some way they can't all be accurate, and because there is no evidence they are most likely all wrong.
"I agree, but it doesn't mean they are necessarily false either."
That's not how the burden of proof works, just because no one says that the world popped into existence exactly how it is 20 minutes ago doesn't mean it didn't happen, you have to show evidence that it did, so if you agree with me here then this conversation should effectively be over.
"Fiction was invented in the 12th century. So it does not pertain to the Bible.
This is objectively not true, because there are many ancient cultures that all have completely different ideas of how the world was created, and they can not all be true, therefore at best only one of them is right, but also all of them could be wrong. This is fiction as a genre and a formally recognized concept.
"You do not know if they didn't occur. It "could be" it also "could be" true."
Burden of proof again!
"Nevertheless, I can tell you know little about the historical method.
My argument is philosophical, it has nothing to do with history, it is about the present, therefore the historical method doesn't apply.
"This is very interesting, I would like to know your references."
I think you missed my point, so here is an example: Did you know the bible predicted air has weight, hundreds of years before this was discovered? It says so in (Job 28:25): When God fixed the weight of the wind and measured out the waters,
It seems obvious that after air was discovered to have weight, the bible was given credit because it contains a passage that uses some poetic language. Here are other examples:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_Confirms_the_Bible
"The Bible did not say there was no light, It said there was no Sun.
You are making an error of comparison here. The information contained in the bible describing creation is only a few kilobytes of information. The information from that 6% of the fossil record we have is in the petabytes easily!
There are tons of evidence to support evolution, and none to support creation.
"I will leave you with this thought.
And I will leave you with this: Then life can not exist, because life had to come from some place, so either life always existed or it never did. The universe is finite and life exists therefore life had to come from non living things!
You have been a good sport and a formidable opponent and I appreciate that.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
>>>You have been a good sport and a formidable opponent and I appreciate that.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Don't get me wrong, I understand there are biological processes throughout countless species that enact changes, some for the good, some for the worse. That said the idea that one creature came from another totally different creature still requires faith as we cannot provide evidence that serves to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it happened that way.
I advocate for temperance in one's beliefs so that an understanding of exactly what you're purchasing into can be had prior to going along with what sounds good. I'm of a personal opinion that if the majority of evolution advocates knew the depths of what they're pushing...they'd either reconsider simply due to the improbability or they'd at least temper their belief to the point that they wouldn't insist that anyone who disagrees with them is an . Simply put, evolution is a theory based on countless assumptions based on educated guesses that were made to encompass what cannot be explained because it cannot be observed and therefore must have been what happened despite it being so incredibly improbable that the improbability factor cannot be fathomed by Humanity.
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Those actually are not issues at all. Those are missing pieces, at best, and any science has missing pieces. The primary goal of science is not to "learn everything" there is to learn, because it is simply physically impossible; the primary goal of science is to form phenomenological descriptions of various aspects of the physical reality around us that match the evidence as well as possible. The presence of all possible evidence from all periods of time is not required at all and can be extrapolated from the existing data.
Another aspect of the kind of a theory science seeks is its superiority over reasonable alternatives. Let us suppose for the moment that we are unhappy with the precision the evolution theory features and want a better theory. What choices do we have? As of now, none. There are no theories that even remotely approach the precision in describing the evidence and the predictability power that the evolution theory features. If you are not happy with the evolution theory, then what would you be happy with? Saying "evolution theory is not perfect, and so I will assume that we know absolutely nothing and refrain from making any claims"? That is not a very practical position, and, again, not a very scientific one. Science is not supposed to be perfect; it is supposed to be practical.
It seems to me that people not working in science tend to have a very skewed idea of what real science is like. A lot of ideas are derived from movies or books displaying scientists in a very stereotypical way, as well as the media that only pay attention to the major and easily explainable results and never go into the details of what the remaining 99.999% of the scientific world is like. They will show someone getting really excited about, say, some aspect of paleonthology and showing the audience beautiful pictures - but they will not show this scientist sitting at the table, analysing abstract boring data and getting frustrated over the lack of progress, and in practice 99.999% of that scientist's work is like that.
People who criticise science for not having all the answers should really reflect on this. Science is brutally hard, and people expecting it to deliver what it possibly cannot deliver does not make it any easier. Theory of evolution does have its issues, but "we do not have enough evidence" is not one of them. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming, and the issues concern more the details in the description of particular narrow aspects of it.
The fact that some pieces of evidence are missing does not suggest that the theory is problematic, but, rather, suggests new venues of research.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
"It is similar to comparing Albert Einstein to Karl Barth, saying, "well Karl may have influenced Albert Einstein we need to look at his information also".
No, it's more like saying that the works of Johnathan Safran Foer and Nicole Krauss influenced each other.
"Comparable to saying, "we have to compare Michael Jordan to all the thousands of players that ever existed."
I think you were trying to make a straw man here, but it backfired because this is literally how it is done. Every player is compared to every other, it is all relative. The winners of today could be mediocre tomorrow.
"So now we are moving from showing the Bible has evidence to if it can prove its claim."
We never moved away from this.
"Historical Method Again - Darko Milicic vs Michael Jordan"
Thanks for avoiding the question. How do you know which creation story is right? There are so many to choose from, and they all have exactly the same evidence to back them up.
"Science can only prove the present."
NO! SCIENCE IS UNIFORM THROUGHOUT TIME! ANYTHING WE PROVE TODAY WAS TRUE YESTERDAY AND WE BE TRUE IN THE FUTURE!
"Occams Razor my friend. The simple answers are usually the correct ones"
If you knew what Occams Razor was you would not have said that. it states: ""Entities should not be multiplied without necessity." and means that the one that makes the fewest assumptions is usually the correct one, not the simplest one is correct.
For creation to be true, we need to assume: at least one god exists, it is all powerful, there is a way for things to form in a certain way, we are the center of the universe, it is possible for all things to form in a short time, and
For evolution to be true we only need assume that the laws of physics exist and they allow life to form. That's it. Occams Razor supports evolution, not creation.
"You have to think, Millions of years of dying animals and we are missing 95% of the fossil record?"
Try to make a fossil. No, seriously, go bury a dead thing and see if there is anything left. The circumstance that lead to fossilization have to be very specific.
"I mean we got thousands of Dinosaurs fossils, but the fossils of the link between ape and man are gone!"
That isn't true, it's just a colloquialism that supposes that because we don't have every skull between man and ape ancestor that this means that there is no clear connection.
"Occams Razor. Evolution evidence is creation evidence.
Already debunked.
"You prove this, I believe you would win the Nobel peace prize."
You should read about Tholins. They are found everywhere in the solar system except on earth, and they contain all the building blocks for life to form. Some microorganisms are even able to digest them as if they were their primary food source.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Someone took a 400-year piece of wood that gave a carbon date of over 9000 years in carbon 14.
So the scientists adjusted the carbon formula, which made many scientists question if the environment was different back then, could it give us false readings now?
Dr. Evzen Neustupný, of the Archaeological Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences
He outlines the assumptions of carbon dating in his symposium - Nobel Symposium 12: Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, page 25.
Here are his credentials:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/archaeological-dialogues/article/div-classtitleintransigent-archaeology-an-interview-with-evzen-neustupny-on-his-life-in-archaeologydiv/C44E8FF1948D9B9F94C652DAB0845E15
Many scientists now say carbon dating breaks down after 4000 years or right at 2000 BCE, for some odd reason.
I got the references:
C. W. Ferguson says there are no trees with more 3,000, and even 4,000 years old, the oldest living tree included in the chronology goes back only to 800 C.E.
For example, it found that the rate of radioactive carbon formation in the atmosphere has not been consistent in the past and that this method is not reliable in dating objects from about 2,000 B.C.E. or before. - Seattle Post-Intelligencer, “Radiocarbon Dating Wrong,” January 18, 1976, p. C8
Nobel prize-winning nuclear physicist W. F. Libby, one of the pioneers in radiocarbon dating.
He suggested two stages of dating, because anything over 5000 years "these ancient ages, are not known accurately".
By whom was it produced (authorship)?
In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?
Results will be Evidence - Supports or inconsistent
Scientific Theory Or Revise Hypothesis
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
The doesn't answer the question, or maybe more accurately it only raises more. Who taught the first people how to write? Right now your claim suggests they somehow just knew it, which is another assumption we have to make for Occamms Razor to apply.
"Someone took a 400-year piece of wood that gave a carbon date of over 9000 years in carbon 14.
This is a misuse of the carbon dating process for two reasons. What this tells you is not how old the wood is, it tells you the last date that the tree that made the wood sucked up the carbon. Second, because carbon-14 decays exponentially, the closer you get to modern days the more inaccurate the sample, and the older it is the more inaccurate. Carbon dating is only useful between 1,200 A.D and 62,000 B.C. It is also important to note that there are numerous factors that can throw off the date, such as smoking.
http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp264-ss13/2013/02/07/radiocarbon-dating-a-closer-look-at-its-main-flaws/
"A lot of these stories no one knows the author, where it was produced, and they have no indirect witnesses.
We don't know who authored much of the old testament. In fact, the book of genesis has at least 4 authors, and if you read through you can tell when the writing style changes. We have no idea who they were so we have names for them based on how they refer to god.
https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/Genesis_texts.html
"you cannot observe the past or future.
It is really tempting to open up the can of worms labeled "Special relativity" right now, but I think this is a little beyond the scope of this debate, so it remains closed for the time being. When you see light from distant stars, you are seeing the past. In fact, if you look across the room you are seeing the past. In fact, there is no such thing as the present.
Because the results of an experiment will always be the same no matter what, we can use a control group in the present to represent the past.
"At least one god exists.
In order for something to have created the universe, it would have to be at least as powerful as what it was trying to create. If this were not true, then anyone could make a universe. That just isn't mathematically possible.
Psalm 104:5 "He established the earth upon its foundations,
So that it will not totter forever and ever."
Bible debunked by science...again!
Ecclesiastes 1:5 "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."
This makes no sense unless you assume the sun goes around the earth. If you take this passage literally then it means the earth is the center of the cosmos.
The church did teach the geocentric model for a long time, and it is because of the bible. If these passages are not to be taken literally, why wouldn't god just make them more clear?
"We have to assume that life can come from non-life and can do this without assistance (presently unproven)"
I proved this true.
"Impossible" is calculated by mathematicians as 1 in 10^50."
I have no idea where you got this, in mathematics impossible is 0 in anything.
lets do some math then. The milky way galaxy is approximately 8 trillion light years cubed. The earth happens to have about 10^50 atoms in it. The probability that all those atoms would occupy the same light year ( let alone the same planet ) is 1 in 8 x 10 ^ 600. Yet here we are!
The math you do makes a similar error. While the odds that life would form are apparently slim, the number of chances that is would happen is incredibly high, thus cancelling out the small chance.
"My problem is not so much a clear connection, but the loss of 95%.
I think we talked about this before, so I'm not going to beat a dead horse.
"Very interesting, I am still studying."
I just found out about these the other day, apparently they coat everything. Very interesting indeed.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
There is nothing in modern chemistry or biology that suggests impossibility of spontaneous emergence as a result of stochastic processes. Life is mostly (completely?) a statistical outcome, and statistical outcomes, pretty much by definition, do not require intelligent intervention to occur.
I also do not understand your last claim. Mathematicians do not define "impossible" as 1 in 10^50; mathematicians define "impossible" as leading to logical contradiction. Where did you get this definition?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
>>>This is a misuse of the carbon dating process for two reasons. What this tells you is not how old the wood is, it tells you the last date that the tree that made the wood sucked up the carbon. Second, because carbon-14 decays exponentially, the closer you get to modern days the more inaccurate the sample, and the older it is the more inaccurate. Carbon dating is only useful between 1,200 A.D and 62,000 B.C. It is also important to note that there are numerous factors that can throw off the date, such as smoking.
>>>In order for something to have created the universe, it would have to be at least as powerful as what it was trying to create. If this were not true, then anyone could make a universe. That just isn't mathematically possible.
>>>I have no idea where you got this, in mathematics impossible is 0 in anything.
>>>lets do some math then. The milky way galaxy is approximately 8 trillion light-years cubed. The earth happens to have about 10^50 atoms in it. The probability that all those atoms would occupy the same light-year ( let alone the same planet ) is 1 in 8 x 10 ^ 600. Yet here we are!
>>>The math you do makes a similar error. While the odds that life would form are apparently slim, the number of chances that is would happen is incredibly high, thus canceling out the small chance.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I think he was trying to point out the limitations of the technology, not to say that it is completely wrong or useless.
"There are 200 references to Moses being the author of Pentateuch. (first five books)
No, they only have to provide a single reference that says otherwise. To be considered strong scientific evidence, it has to be falsifiable. So if I say "I have super powers but they don't work when anyone is watching" That isn't falsifiable, so it isn't scientific. If someone says "I have psychic powers" they can be tested, and if they go through 1000 tests that seem to prove they are, but the 1001 test proves they don't, then they don't have psychic powers and never did, and all the hits were just flukes.
If the historical method doesn't work like this, then it is hard for me to accept that it is strong evidence for creation.
"Man-made the atomic bomb and then the nuclear bomb, he must be as powerful as those entities.
No, the universe made atomic bombs through the hands of man, and atomic bombs are not as powerful as the universe.
Lets look at this from another angle: suppose an engineer wants a computer that knows everything about itself in a virtual model. In order for this model to exist, the virtual model would have to contain a virtual virtual model, which would have to contain a virtual virtual virtual model, turtles all the way down to infinity. Therefore, this computer can never be built. It is an old problem in logic, does the premise of a question contain all the logical conclusions?
"LOL, ........ just in case you are serious."
While it is true that we have yet to successfully cause abiogenesis in the lab, we have no reason as of yet to assume that it isn't possible. My proof was from logic, but it is still a sound conclusion. You have probably heard the argument before, that if god created the universe then what created god? If it is possible for god to have no cause, then why can't the universe itself?
"You got me there!"
I actually did some research, the 1 in 10^50 is from statistics, but it's completely arbitrary where you put this value. It is the value at which a result is considered non-existent. As far as I can tell it's just convention.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
In pure mathematics 0% is the only probability which implies impossibility of something.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
He suggested two stages of dating, because anything over 5000 years "these ancient ages, are not known accurately".
>>>If the historical method doesn't work like this, then it is hard for me to accept that it is strong evidence for creation.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
In court witness testimony is the least credible kind of evidence. If there is a single disproving piece of evidence, all the witness testimony will likely be ignored.
"If someone goes through 1000 tests moving a 500-pound drum across the room, but on the 1001 test they can't do it, you don't shut the experiment down. There is no such thing as a 1000 flukes in a row, like that."
It is unlikely, but it is possible.
"Just because someone says its magic, science tests for these things."
Yes science tests for these things, but it is all about the probability of that thing happening. For simplicity, lets say the psychic claim is that they can always make a coin always land on heads. If the coin is flipped 100 times and it always landed on heads, that would be a 1 in 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376 odds. If on the 101 flip it lands on tails then we know that the claim is false because the claim is that the psychic can always make a coin land on heads. We don't change the data, we change the claim. We would then say that the psychic can usually make the coin land on heads, and then try to isolate other effecting factors.
"You got to listen to why people feel the way they feel."
Feelings have no say on objective reality, as much as we feel that is true. Consider people raised in other religions. They feel that their god beliefs are the correct ones, they have their own scholars who say it is all correct and consistent, and they have their own creation stories. Obviously they can't all be true. So how would we know which was the correct one if the historical method reveals that they are all accurate?
"they would hear about passages and read portions of scriptures but never actually studied the book."
I actually have read the bible and that is why I am an atheist. There are too many things in the bible that sound exactly like a fairy tale. I can respect the people who take the bible to be a metaphysical truth, that is stories that teach values and lessons about how to live a good life, but I can't respect those that claim it is literally true because that would mean I have to expect things like a donkey could start talking at any time, demons, witches, and dragons are real, and the world is only a few thousand years old. These claims are both extraordinary and unsubstantiated.
"I know human scientists don't want to think there is a being that could be more advanced than we are. In Star Trek, the people would wait until a civilization would reach a certain level before revealing themselves. This was to help them see they were not Gods but just technically more advanced. What I am trying to say is don't close your mind, miracles do happen, and there is a scientific reason behind it."
I love it how you make a point and then immediately nullify it. Scientists love to think this. There are so many sci-fi books, movies, TV shows and even serious scientific papers talking about this.
Science is not about knowing everything, science is about admitting you don't know something and then systematically finding the answer. Religion is about the opposite. Religion is about supposing you know an answer you really have no idea about, and then asserting it is true even in the face of conflicting evidence.
"I do not believe God doesn't have a cause. I think his cause is beyond us, and not a concern."
When I say a cause I don't mean a purpose. I mean x happened, this CAUSED Y Which CAUSED Z.
" It could go on and on"
I think we agree on this, I just take it to the next logical step and suppose that at some point there was an original event, or the universe has always existed, or causes itself. Something like this has to be true.
It kind of seems like you are trying to find some way for a god to be plausible, and while I do think it is possible that something like this happened, for example simulation theory is proposes that this is likely and most life forms are sims. This however is very different from what is proposed by the bible, and it doesn't solve the crux of the problem. If we were indeed in a simulation, then there is a world external to ours that may have it's own world external to it, and so on. We then run into the same logical issue as before.
I think it is much more likely that man made god and not the other way around. There are so many choices that can't all be true, so this means that at least most of them are invented. I just take this a step further and say they are all invented.
You should keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out. Sometimes people will try to convince you the earth is flat or alternative medicine works.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I'm no stranger to what real science looks like and I'm well aware that Science is a process of failure and "Try try again". That said we are currently in a reproducibility crisis in 2019 and while I can respect your opinion that "Any science has missing pieces", I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. Science has rules, rules that cannot be broken or bent to simply achieve one's agenda...that said when scientific research is published there are requirements for said research and those requirements cannot be "Missing". But yet here we are with roughly less than half of all published research from the past few years being reproducible.
And you are absolutely correct, science isn't supposed to be perfect, it's supposed to be practical...which is why it must follow procedure and methods prescribed throughout the history of science. When we deviate from the scientific method then we lose the value of scientific research. This is one of the things you spoke of regarding the difficulty of science, it is indeed brutal, but much of the difficulty in science has been created by science itself whenever someone from the field steps out and knowingly makes wide arcing mistakes in the scientific process yet seeks to publish the research or theory despite it. No one expects science to be perfect...but imagine another field of expertise where people regularly disregarded the scientific method and published critical information into respectable journals of, let's say automotive for example. If an automotive technician theorized that a new engine system was not only possible but more probably than the currently used model...then he went about seeking to be published for his new engine and succeeded in convincing people on paper that his engine design was better than the currently used model and then people started to test his design only after it had replaced the previous design and found out that it was absolutely impossible to use and that he had to have known that prior to having the design published...what do you think might happen to the field of automotive design after 10 or so technicians did something like that? Because that's where we are with the reproducibility crisis across all fields of science.
I'd never criticise science for not having all the answers, instead I criticize the idea that you can take a theory that has been built upon countless assumptions of facts that aren't supported by evidence and simply continue on from there, nevermind that it's built upon assumptions of things like abiogenesis and that something of that nature has never been observed in the history of the world...but it must've happened because we can't explain otherwise. This is a classic case of making the evidence fit the narrative, "We're alive today therefor the evidence we have must suggest something improbable that can't be tested...nevermind that, proceed with the theory".
Science will always be changing and there will always be scientists that are wrong. But there's also SUPPOSED to be something called peer review and there's supposed to be a standard for getting scientific research and theory published into prestigious scientific journals and apparently...that hasn't been the case recently. With the current rate of failure to reproduce the results in over half of all the scientific research tested...that means that people have been publishing garbage for a hot minute and no one's been checking them on it until very recently. In short, I don't expect science to be perfect...I expect it to have rules that are followed.
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra