Universe's Origins

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
You are, of course, free to reject what we know about the world because it makes you feel uncomfortable.

My car can go 80 mph, therefore I was in Chicago yesterday it's implied.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
The theory of evolution implies - and the evidence shows - large changes over time due to accumulating small changes. We know that life emerged as very simple lifeforms and then gradually became more complex.

Looking at evidence and the process in question are two different things.

Originally posted by @eladar
That it was an ancestor of something alive today?

Ok, but then we need to establish what constitutes evidence of ancestry. I'm not just trying to be difficult here.

Originally posted by @js357
Ok, but then we need to establish what constitutes evidence of ancestry. I'm not just trying to be difficult here.

Since we are talking evolution let's stick with what science claims today.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
My car can go 80 mph, therefore I was in Chicago yesterday it's implied.

If you would like to know how we know that the earliest lifeforms were very simple ones, you can read more here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Evolutionary_history_of_life

Originally posted by @bigdoggproblem
Hmm ... my science must be out of date. S. Hawking wrote "Events before the Big Bang can have no observational consequences so we might as well cut them out and state that Time began at the Big Bang". Also, I thought that Entropy was inevitably going to lead to a hot-death of the Universe in the end.

Thanks to global warming

Originally posted by @kellyjay
No, if you want to use the term "implies" then you open up abiogenesis, because that is where your going. Small mutations over time altering life in any direction is evolutionary, there is no imply.

Well it's true that a living cell has not evolved from nonliving matter.....that is until I caught up with a meteor that fell out of the sky the other day. When I caught up to it, the thing had mutated into an ant farm.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
If you would like to know how we know that the earliest lifeforms were very simple ones, you can read more here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Evolutionary_history_of_life

Again looking at evidence and the process are two different things. Your evidence may not even have anything to do with the process depending on what it is.

Originally posted by @whodey
Well it's true that a living cell has not evolved from nonliving matter.....that is until I caught up with a meteor that fell out of the sky the other day. When I caught up to it, the thing had mutated into an ant farm.

Well sure its implied all ant farms came from meteors that fell to earth.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
Because Spiritual reasoning and Scientific reasoning are different.
As I usually say: Religion and Science cannot be mixed, they occupy different domains.

Not for me they dont.
I try to look at everything from the 'middle perspective'

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Again looking at evidence and the process are two different things. Your evidence may not even have anything to do with the process depending on what it is.

So what are you disputing, specifically? That the earliest lifeforms were simple, or that the theory of evolution describes how complex lifeforms emerged from simple ones?

Originally posted by @eladar
Since we are talking evolution let's stick with what science claims today.

We need to have an idea of how to agree on what "science claims today." Does science claim today that life came from non-life?

Look at a google search on "scientific evidence of abiogenesis".

It can reasonably be concluded that many scientists believe so.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Well sure its implied all ant farms came from meteors that fell to earth.

Which then evolved into humans.

Now you are getting it. 😵

Originally posted by @js357
We need to have an idea of how to agree on what "science claims today." Does science claim today that life came from non-life?

Look at a google search on "scientific evidence of abiogenesis".

It can reasonably be concluded that many scientists believe so.

Believe so?

What happened to the scientific process?

Originally posted by @whodey
Believe so?

What happened to the scientific process?

Outside the discipline that scientists (are supposed to) impose upon themselves, they are people like you and me. Actually I am a published scientist. I don't know about you.