And now...

[This_person]

Originally Posted by tommyjones

actually intelligent design throws faith into the mix. so no intelligent design is not as accurate a sceintific theory. When you incorporate as a major tennet of a theory something that cannot be proven or observed than it is no longer a scientific theory.
Saying God designed everything to evolve the way it has is a religious theory, not a scientific one.

Well, I didn't say it was scientific theory, I said it was a theory. Equally provable (until time travel becomes possible) as any other theory.

So, while it may not meet the desirable qualities for you, it is an equally proven, equally provable, equally viable theory. To date, we have seen virtually innumerable planets, and asteroids from a huge number of them. Some older, some younger than our own. Some with vastly different climates, some with relatively comparable. Nothing observable has demonstrated anything like we have here on Earth. It's physically impossible to prove where life came from unless we observe it occur on another similar planet (and, then, all we've observed is potentially Genesis, Part II), so there's nothing we can prove on Earth regarding humans evolution. We can equally establish no facts other than conjecture, we can equally establish no observable proof.

If deciding that interference of a being makes a theory unpalatable, then certainly every staged test as a proof is equally unpalatable, because mankind had to interfere to stage the test. It would be like saying mankind created gases that caused a planet to warm up in an untimely manner - bogus, because it requires the actions of a being to interfere with the general outcome of the theory. Religion, I tell you.

Or, NOT.

You presuppose the sh!t happens for no reason, I presuppose that sh!t happens for a reason. No proof can possibly suffice either of us, thus those two supposition have equal validity.

[Beelzebaby666]

So, you two are married?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Beelzebaby666

So, you two are married?

[wxtornado]

Originally Posted by This_person

It's physically impossible to prove where life came from unless we observe it occur on another similar planet (and, then, all we've observed is potentially Genesis, Part II), so there's nothing we can prove on Earth regarding humans evolution. We can equally establish no facts other than conjecture, we can equally establish no observable proof.

Since when did evolution have anything to do with proving where life came from? Do you even have any idea what you're arguing against?

I believe we're all born scientists. Any baby shows this immediately after birth -- they begin experimenting with their environment, and as they compile instances of evidence, they add that to their knowledgebase. No babies come out of the womb worshipping a god however. That has to be taught to them externally. But what is hot and what is cold, what hurts and what feels good - babies do that instinctively, because I think we are all born sicentists.

Then we grow up, we're filled with nonsense and told to "believe because if you don't, something bad will happen to you" and our critical thinking skills go down the sh!tter. Next thing you know, it's okay to fly airplanes into someone's building.

[tommyjones]

Originally Posted by wxtornado

Since when did evolution have anything to do with proving where life came from? Do you even have any idea what you're arguing against?

I believe we're all born scientists. Any baby shows this immediately after birth -- they begin experimenting with their environment, and as they compile instances of evidence, they add that to their knowledgebase. No babies come out of the womb worshipping a god however. That has to be taught to them externally. But what is hot and what is cold, what hurts and what feels good - babies do that instinctively, because I think we are all born sicentists.

Then we grow up, we're filled with nonsense and told to "believe because if you don't, something bad will happen to you" and our critical thinking skills go down the sh!tter. Next thing you know, it's okay to fly airplanes into someone's building.

a big and too

[This_person]

Originally Posted by wxtornado

Since when did evolution have anything to do with proving where life came from? Do you even have any idea what you're arguing against?

I think I do. Perhaps I'm wrong. The theory goes something like this:

Some cosmic/chemical magic happened that is neither explainable nor repeatable nor observable anywhere else, and thus life from lifelessness occurred. This single cell of life split, and mutated with each resulting generation. Each of these mutations continued to mutate to trillions of distinct lifeforms by evolving with each generation - those cells that best fit the environment they were in stayed alive and continued to populate and mutate. Those that did not fit died out, or moved to an area they could survive in. All of these mutated life forms came from a single, magical cell by evolving into greater and greater life forms. None of this is provable, demonstratable, nor been observed on any other planet, though we can observe millions of others directly and indirectly.

Sound about right for a simpleton like me?

I believe we're all born scientists. Any baby shows this immediately after birth -- they begin experimenting with their environment, and as they compile instances of evidence, they add that to their knowledgebase. No babies come out of the womb worshipping a god however. That has to be taught to them externally. But what is hot and what is cold, what hurts and what feels good - babies do that instinctively, because I think we are all born sicentists.

Then we grow up, we're filled with nonsense and told to "believe because if you don't, something bad will happen to you" and our critical thinking skills go down the sh!tter. Next thing you know, it's okay to fly airplanes into someone's building.

This is an interesting take on things. While I think we're all certainly born with an innate desire to learn of our surroundings, I'm not sure that makes us scientists. I don't think the rules of scientific experimentation and discovery are part of our learning innately. But, I agree that we seek information about our surroundings.

I was never told "if you don't, something bad will happen to you", nor has my critical thinking ability gone down the ####ter. I believe despite the carrot and stick arguments, not because of them (as you've been told many many times before).

As has been repeatedly pointed out in this forum, those willing to fly planes into buildings and blow themselves up (taking others with them) are by far the minutest minority, not the norm, so they kind of make no point whatsoever to your argument.

I know if I'd been told that putting leaches on me to correct my fever was a good thing to do, I'd have smacked that scientist in the face - so nonesense knows no bounds of science or religion.

[tommyjones]

Originally Posted by This_person

I think I do. Perhaps I'm wrong. The theory goes something like this:

Some cosmic/chemical magic happened that is neither explainable nor repeatable nor observable anywhere else, and thus life from lifelessness occurred. This single cell of life split, and mutated with each resulting generation. Each of these mutations continued to mutate to trillions of distinct lifeforms by evolving with each generation - those cells that best fit the environment they were in stayed alive and continued to populate and mutate. Those that did not fit died out, or moved to an area they could survive in. All of these mutated life forms came from a single, magical cell by evolving into greater and greater life forms. None of this is provable, demonstratable, nor been observed on any other planet, though we can observe millions of others directly and indirectly.

Sound about right for a simpleton like me?.

actually, you are combining a theory on the origins of life (seems most like the 'primordial oooz theory') with evolution.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by tommyjones

actually, you are combining a theory on the origins of life (seems most like the 'primordial oooz theory') with evolution.

Okay, so now that the hair is split, I'll reword:

It's physically impossible to prove where life came from unless we observe it occur on another similar planet (and, then, all we've observed is potentially Genesis, Part II), so there's nothing we can prove on Earth regarding the origin of life nor human's evolution. We can equally establish no facts other than conjecture, we can equally establish no observable proof.

[tommyjones]

Originally Posted by This_person

Okay, so now that the hair is split, I'll reword:

It's physically impossible to prove where life came from unless we observe it occur on another similar planet (and, then, all we've observed is potentially Genesis, Part II), so there's nothing we can prove on Earth regarding the origin of life nor human's evolution. We can equally establish no facts other than conjecture, we can equally establish no observable proof.

you really have a hard time with scientific method dont you.

their is no reason the evolution of humans couldn't be proven without the establishement of where life came from.

[wxtornado]

Originally Posted by This_person

Okay, so now that the hair is split, I'll reword:

It's physically impossible to prove where life came from........

This is my point. Who claims to do this? What you are talking about is abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution makes no claims of know where life comes from, contrary to what some theists seem to think.