Replies

The preponderance of the evidence shows that: The universe is roughly 13-15 billion years old. The universe formed from what can be described in two words to be a "Big Bang", though the event is more complex than that. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, formed from the solar proto-nebula, likely triggered by a nearby supernova remnant or spiral density wave. Life on this earth formed through a process of Abiogenesis. All life on this Earth is descended from that group of molecules that began replicating so long ago. Life forms have mutated and changed through some method of evolution, likely a blend of the processes of Punctuated Equilibrium and Gradualism. There is no evidence for any intelligent "meddling" in the process of evolution by any sentient beings, except in the cases where humans have created new species. These statements are not immutable, and can be changed by a preponderance of the evidence in the favor of a new model, provided it explains the behavior of the world better than any of the old models listed above. So how about you? Have any statements you'd like to stand by at this time?

Please Think

Just to make sure before I reply, do you honestly believe the above statements to be fact and that you aren't being satirical? I don't want to put words into your mouth.

Regards,
Boiler Plate

Just to make sure before I reply, do you honestly believe the above statements to be fact and that you aren't being satirical?

A repeat of my previous point: How can you realistically discuss science when you don't seem to understand the difference between scientific facts, scientific theories, scientific hypotheses, and just plain BS?

Just to make sure before I reply, do you honestly believe the above statements to be fact and that you aren't being satirical? I don't want to put words into your mouth. [you; to ThinkPlease; emphasis added]

Quoting from "ThinkPlease", which you included in your reply to him:

The preponderance of the evidence shows that: ..... [snip]. These statements are not immutable, and can be changed by a preponderance of the evidence in the favor of a new model, provided it explains the behavior of the world better than any of the old models listed above.

Far be it for me to speak for "ThinkPlease" but which words in the phrases "a preponderance of evidence" and "These statements are not immutable....." do you not understand?

Please Think: Life on this earth formed through a process of Abiogenesis.

So that's what abiogenesis is, a process! I always thought it was a fairy tale. I wonder what kind of process? Why would it be a process and not an event? If it is a process, it is the process of ceasing to think. If it is an event, it is a wish upon a falling star.

Just to make sure before I reply, do you honestly believe the above statements to be fact and that you aren't being satirical? I don't want to put words into your mouth.

Those are my statements and I stand by them. How about you? Anything you'd like to hang your hat on?