# Physicists 'PROVE' God DIDN'T create the Universe



## bullethead (May 17, 2016)

http://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...n-t-God?_ga=1.138781043.1362311029.1446751641

A TEAM of scientists have made what may turn out to be the most important discovery in HISTORY – how the universe came into being from nothing.
The colossal question has troubled religions, philosophers and scientists since the dawn of time but now a Canadian team believe they have solved the riddle.

And the findings are so conclusive they even challenge the need for religion, or at least an omnipotent creator – the basis of all world religions.


----------



## welderguy (May 17, 2016)

Well there you go...
Who woulda thunk it??

Bullet,for those of us that are not such sharp tools,could you explain the scientific mumbo jumbo in words a poor welder can grasp please?


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Well there you go...
> Who woulda thunk it??
> 
> Bullet,for those of us that are not such sharp tools,could you explain the scientific mumbo jumbo in words a poor welder can grasp please?


Nope.


----------



## ambush80 (May 17, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Well there you go...
> Who woulda thunk it??
> 
> Bullet,for those of us that are not such sharp tools,could you explain the scientific mumbo jumbo in words a poor welder can grasp please?



I can't understand that stuff either.  Even this baffled me.


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Well there you go...
> Who woulda thunk it??
> 
> Bullet,for those of us that are not such sharp tools,could you explain the scientific mumbo jumbo in words a poor welder can grasp please?


Sun= bright spot in the sky
Universe= the place that contains everything 
Scientist= smart guy in the lab coat


----------



## NE GA Pappy (May 17, 2016)

Doubly Special Relativity   lol

is that like Double Secret Probation????


"The universe still is nothing, it’s just more elegantly ordered nothing.”

Just look at all that nothing out there, gathered up in all of its splendor for us to look at nothing, while we live on nothing, surviving on nothing, and existing as nothing..


I think he is crazy from his much learning.


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2016)

NE GA Pappy said:


> Doubly Special Relativity   lol
> 
> is that like Double Secret Probation????
> 
> ...


I thought it was a pretty good play of words against the people that say the universe came from nothing.


----------



## welderguy (May 17, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Nope.



Cmon we demand proof.Not just what some men over a looong period of time came up with and claim it's the truth.

Sound familiar?

Anyway...just funnin with ya.Yall can carry on with your thread now.I think Im done.


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Cmon we demand proof.Not just what some men over a looong period of time came up with and claim it's the truth.
> 
> Sound familiar?
> 
> Anyway...just funnin with ya.Yall can carry on with your thread now.I think Im done.


I broke it down for you in post #5


----------



## Big7 (May 17, 2016)

Well.. Big bang or whatever.

GOD made it happen.

A lot of fundamentalist believe that the earth was created
around 6000 years ago in 6 days until HE rested.
(In other words, literally)

We know that's not true either.

There are glaciers older than that.

Anyhoo.. IF there were no God, where did all 
this stuff come from?

Yep.. He can do whatever he wants.. 
In less than measurable time. Like right quick.

Who are we to say that a day is 24 hours
by His clock? 

He may have taken an almost infinite of time,
at His leisure, to make it what it is.

It is also evident He's not done yet.


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2016)

Big7 said:


> Well.. Big bang or whatever.
> 
> GOD made it happen.
> 
> ...



With answers like that, cmon 1000.
The article addresses all that.


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2016)

Christians often use the existence of the universe as proof that a god must exist.  Until recently, science had little to say on this matter.  However, our expanding understanding of quantum physics has led to an explanation of how the universe could have originated from nothing- no time, no space, no matter, no energy.

An excerpt from this Scientific American article (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2014/05/22/is-all-the-universe-from-nothing/) explains how this could happen:

According to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, quantum fluctuations in the metastable false vacuum – a state absent of space, time or matter – can give rise to virtual particle pairs. Ordinarily these pairs self-annihilate almost instantly, but if these virtual particles separate immediately, they can avoid annihilation, creating a true vacuum bubble. The Wuhan team’s equations show that such a bubble has the potential to expand exponentially, causing a new universe to appear.

An update to this theory, using the newly developed mathematics of doubly special relativity, can be found here:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...n-t-God?_ga=1.138781043.1362311029.1446751641

The fact that God is not needed to explain the creation of the universe, or any of the events that have since occurred, is a strong piece of evidence against Christianity and any other religion proclaiming the existence of a supernatural being.


----------



## Melvin4730 (May 17, 2016)

At no time has man figured out how to create life. At no time has one animal changed into another animal...never....not once. Over millions of years, animals have adapted to their environment through evolution. But, no cat has ever turned into a bird or a dog. No fungus has ever turned into frog or fish and throughout the history of the world there has never been a monkey that has turned into a human. Theres absolutely no evidence of that. 

It's more unbelievable to me to think a big accidental bang happened that ceated life out of thin air...Not only life, but separate living things that can recreate themselves through contact with the opposite sex of the same type of living thing that were also created out of thin air by the accidental bang.


----------



## bullethead (May 18, 2016)

Melvin4730 said:


> At no time has man figured out how to create life. At no time has one animal changed into another animal...never....not once. Over millions of years, animals have adapted to their environment through evolution. But, no cat has ever turned into a bird or a dog. No fungus has ever turned into frog or fish and throughout the history of the world there has never been a monkey that has turned into a human. Theres absolutely no evidence of that.
> 
> It's more unbelievable to me to think a big accidental bang happened that ceated life out of thin air...Not only life, but separate living things that can recreate themselves through contact with the opposite sex of the same type of living thing that were also created out of thin air by the accidental bang.


Where have you read that a cat turned into a bird or dog, a fungus turned into a frog or fish and that a monkey turned into a human?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 18, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Where have you read that a cat turned into a bird or dog, a fungus turned into a frog or fish and that a monkey turned into a human?


That silly argument just won't go away


----------



## drippin' rock (May 18, 2016)

I do not understand anything in that article, and must admit phrases like "a more elegantly ordered nothing" make me raise an eyebrow.


----------



## bullethead (May 18, 2016)

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 18, 2016)

bullethead said:


> http://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...n-t-God?_ga=1.138781043.1362311029.1446751641
> 
> A TEAM of scientists have made what may turn out to be the most important discovery in HISTORY – how the universe came into being from nothing.
> The colossal question has troubled religions, philosophers and scientists since the dawn of time but now a Canadian team believe they have solved the riddle.
> ...



There's nothing new here. What happened to the strings?

I find it hilarious that, after being asked how something came from nothing for long enough, things have progressed, seemingly out of frustration, to a point where it's said that nothing begets nothing: The intellectual gymnastics being performed are truly remarkable. It's hilarious, but sad if I think about it too much.

The only thing this article has proved is that nothing can come from something.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 18, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> I do not understand anything in that article, and must admit phrases like "a more elegantly ordered nothing" make me raise an eyebrow.



Same here. It violates the laws of entropy where order must decrease over time, which was also what lead to the discovery of Hawking radiation since condensing all space, time, and matter into an eventual all-encompassing black hole would be a decrease in entropy, not an increase. 

If the universe started from a singularity it was arguably more ordered than it is now, despite the apparent grand scale uniformity. 

I still think we're interpreting Hubble's initial data wrong on the expansion of the universe. I could be wrong, but I've never seen a graph of that "acceleration" that also accounted for the age of the measurement. All they say is galaxies 3x as far as another are moving 3x as fast. Well, that measurement, due to the properties of light years being not only a measure of distance but time, is also 3x as old as the one closer. 

So 3 seconds ago we were going 3mph, 2 seconds ago we were going 2mph, and 1 second ago we were going 1mph. Are we speeding up or slowing down?


----------



## j_seph (May 18, 2016)

> it has been studied using a *new theory* called doubly special relativity.



Theory:


                                : an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events               
                                : an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true               
                                : the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject


Glad my God is not a theory, that there is nothing but fact handed down through the years in a book known as the Bible. One thing for sure is one doesn't have to believe in H E Double Hockey Sticks to go there. All these years and no one has yet been able to provide inclusive evidence that God does not exist and that he did not make the universe.
Carry On.................


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 18, 2016)

j_seph said:


> Theory:
> 
> 
> : an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events
> ...



Yeah, that's the definition of a generic theory, here's the one for scientific theories. 

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Not so easy to dismiss, and a mistake that a lot of people make when discussing theories.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 18, 2016)

j_seph said:


> Theory:
> 
> 
> : an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events
> ...


So if you can't prove something DOESN'T exist that proves that it DOES exist?
It's fine to question scientific theory and it should be questioned, but that's just ridiculous.
Carry On....


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 18, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> So if you can't prove something DOESN'T exist that proves that it DOES exist?



For me, until it's proven to not exist, i.e. we've looked everywhere and there's nowhere left for it to hide, it still has the possibility to exist. That possibility varies in degree based on what we're talking about. 

Bigfeets are way more likely than flying spaghetti monsters, at least here on earth.


----------



## 660griz (May 18, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> For me, until it's proven to not exist,



I think that is the problem. We don't have to prove it doesn't exist. The burden is on the ones that claim it does exist.

When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 18, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> For me, until it's proven to not exist, i.e. we've looked everywhere and there's nowhere left for it to hide, it still has the possibility to exist. That possibility varies in degree based on what we're talking about.
> 
> Bigfeets are way more likely than flying spaghetti monsters, at least here on earth.



You are using words like possibility and likely.
He offered it as proof that the bible is fact.
Very different.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 18, 2016)

660griz said:


> I think that is the problem. We don't have to prove it doesn't exist. The burden is on the ones that claim it does exist.
> 
> When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.



No argument there. I just have an open view on things like that when there's the possibility they could be real. In my mind there's the possibility of a creator, I doubt it's God of the Bible and for reasons we've been over abundantly, but there are too many coincidences to toss the whole idea out. Spontaneous remissions, and other miracles, read: events that can't be explained yet, that leave the possibility open to me. 

It's the core reason I'm an agnostic as opposed to an atheist. We haven't turned every stone over, and we don't have a complete explanation for why things have happened and continue to happen. Until we do that, there's still plenty of room for a creator to exist. Even if the rules of the universe are fully understood, who's to say we're not dancing to an unseen puppet master's music until we cross that threshold? Like I said before, if there was a creator I don't think he's watching the simulation play out, but that doesn't mean he didn't set the initial conditions. 

There was a great simulation that was discussed in one of the Hawking specials, and I can't remember which one. Take a grid and setup a simple logic pattern, and speckle it with random filled in grids, where the rules say if so many boxes around it are filled in, also fill it in, if there are more empty around it, empty it. With those simple rules there are insanely complicated "structures" that are created that move, reproduce, and evolve across the grid. It was really cool to see how simple logic could result in something like that.


----------



## drippin' rock (May 18, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> There's nothing new here. What happened to the strings?
> 
> I find it hilarious that, after being asked how something came from nothing for long enough, things have progressed, seemingly out of frustration, to a point where it's said that nothing begets nothing: The intellectual gymnastics being performed are truly remarkable. It's hilarious, but sad if I think about it too much.
> 
> The only thing this article has proved is that nothing can come from something.



A Christian talking about mental gymnastics. No wonder you guys go to church. You have to go somewhere where others will take you seriously.


----------



## drippin' rock (May 18, 2016)

j_seph said:


> Theory:
> 
> 
> : an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events
> ...



But your god IS a theory and the bible is not all fact. 

I might not understand the language in the above article, or agree with the broader ideas, but I am thankful there are people out there tirelessly looking and asking.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 18, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> A Christian talking about mental gymnastics. No wonder you guys go to church. You have to go somewhere where others will take you seriously.



You didn't see the mental gymnastics? I suppose you were right when you said you didn't understand the article.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 18, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> You are using words like possibility and likely.
> He offered it as proof that the bible is fact.
> Very different.


Yeah it is, it's also unlikely to be resolved on the innernets.


----------



## bullethead (May 18, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> There's nothing new here. What happened to the strings?
> 
> I find it hilarious that, after being asked how something came from nothing for long enough, things have progressed, seemingly out of frustration, to a point where it's said that nothing begets nothing: The intellectual gymnastics being performed are truly remarkable. It's hilarious, but sad if I think about it too much.
> 
> The only thing this article has proved is that nothing can come from something.



Or does it prove that even though it would seem there is nothing, something is really there? There never was nothing.


----------



## bullethead (May 18, 2016)

j_seph said:


> Theory:
> 
> 
> : an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events
> ...


Religion is lucky that people like you exist.
On has been officially carried.


----------



## drippin' rock (May 18, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> You didn't see the mental gymnastics? I suppose you were right when you said you didn't understand the article.



Yes, I saw them. 

Maybe they will work on the physics of a talking donkey and the ark next.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 18, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Or does it prove that even though it would seem there is nothing, something is really there? There never was nothing.



Something is certainly _there_, there's just not something within that article.

So, now the matter has come full circle? Interesting.



drippin' rock said:


> Yes, I saw them.
> 
> Maybe they will work on the physics of a talking donkey and the ark next.



There's no need.


----------



## apoint (May 18, 2016)

Harvard PHD = Post Hole Digger. Some of the biggest dummy's I ever met had several framed papers hanging on their wall.
Pure whitewash, double talk and malarkey.

The precision of the universe is far beyond comprehension. 
 Everything came to being on its own like, take every piece of a 747 jet apart and throw it in the air and you get a perfectly flying 747.


----------



## bullethead (May 18, 2016)

apoint said:


> Harvard PHD = Post Hole Digger. Some of the biggest dummy's I ever met had several framed papers hanging on their wall.
> Pure whitewash, double talk and malarkey.


I'm guessing your points of refutation will follow in your next post?


----------



## bullethead (May 18, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Something is certainly _there_, there's just not something within that article.
> 
> So, now the matter has come full circle? Interesting.
> 
> ...


The article explains the "nothing".
You should read it.


----------



## bullethead (May 18, 2016)

Melvin4730 said:


> At no time has man figured out how to create life. At no time has one animal changed into another animal...never....not once. Over millions of years, animals have adapted to their environment through evolution. But, no cat has ever turned into a bird or a dog. No fungus has ever turned into frog or fish and throughout the history of the world there has never been a monkey that has turned into a human. Theres absolutely no evidence of that.
> 
> It's more unbelievable to me to think a big accidental bang happened that ceated life out of thin air...Not only life, but separate living things that can recreate themselves through contact with the opposite sex of the same type of living thing that were also created out of thin air by the accidental bang.



If by "No evidence" you mean thousands of examples. 
http://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 18, 2016)

bullethead said:


> http://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...n-t-God?_ga=1.138781043.1362311029.1446751641
> 
> A TEAM of scientists have made what may turn out to be the most important discovery in HISTORY – how the universe came into being from nothing.
> The colossal question has troubled religions, philosophers and scientists since the dawn of time but now a Canadian team believe they have solved the riddle.
> ...



Well in that case, move over Stephen Hawkin.  We have more contestants for "The Most Intelligent Fool(s) in the World".


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 18, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> That silly argument just won't go away



Yeah, because it's patently obvious how something came from nothing.  Happens every day.  Take for example.......


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 18, 2016)

bullethead said:


> The article explains the "nothing".
> You should read it.



I did. You didn't understand what I wrote.


----------



## bullethead (May 19, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I did. You didn't understand what I wrote.



As you did not understand me.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 19, 2016)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yeah, because it's patently obvious how something came from nothing.  Happens every day.  Take for example.......


Slow your roll, go back and look at what my comment was in response to and you'll see your error.


----------



## bullethead (May 19, 2016)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yeah, because it's patently obvious how something came from nothing.  Happens every day.  Take for example.......


Reading without comprehension is a handicap.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 19, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> Slow your roll, go back and look at what my comment was in response to and you'll see your error.



Understood. Wasn't a direct repudiation to your comment, but rather just used your response to take an oblique angle to the heart of the argument


----------



## Melvin4730 (May 19, 2016)

bullethead said:


> If by "No evidence" you mean thousands of examples.
> http://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-[COLOR="Red"]darwin-theory[/COLOR].html
> 
> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms





darwin-theory

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 19, 2016)

Melvin4730 said:


> darwin-theory



Scientific theory > Generic Theory.


----------



## Melvin4730 (May 19, 2016)

They are based on a hypothesis. They are theories, only theories. Both can be falsified by countervailing evidence.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 19, 2016)

Melvin4730 said:


> They are based on a hypothesis. They are theories, only theories. Both can be falsified by countervailing evidence.



Can be, yes, but scientific theories go above just the hypothesis and already have supportive testing done with them and has been validated. The evidence isn't substantial enough to take it from theory to law, but it's far higher than what anti-science people understand when they hear the word theory.


----------



## Melvin4730 (May 19, 2016)

bullethead said:


> http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html



"Some researchers today do not agree that dinosaurs gave rise to birds, and are working to falsify this theory"


----------



## ambush80 (May 19, 2016)

Melvin4730 said:


> "Some researchers today do not agree that dinosaurs gave rise to birds, and are working to falsify this theory"



And they argue about whether or not T Rex was more of a scavenger or hunter.  Until recently, scientists thought that dinosaurs tails dragged on the ground.  Now they think they walked with their tails out straight.  

They used to think that an atom was like foam balls connected by sticks.  Then they thought atoms were like bodies moving around a center like planets around a sun.  Now they think of atoms in ways that I don't quite understand.  

How do you think dinosaurs held their tails?  What do you think an atom looks like?


----------



## hobbs27 (May 19, 2016)

I read the link, I watched the video. I see no link in the evidence that proves or even hints that God did not create the universe...so maybe man is understanding some of the mechanics that went into the construction. It doesn't prove God wasn't the creator.


----------



## bullethead (May 19, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> I read the link, I watched the video. I see no link in the evidence that proves or even hints that God did not create the universe...so maybe man is understanding some of the mechanics that went into the construction. It doesn't prove God wasn't the creator.


Which god?


----------



## hobbs27 (May 19, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Which god?



God.


----------



## bullethead (May 19, 2016)

Melvin4730 said:


> darwin-theory
> 
> a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.


Your version works out splendidly if you ignore the fossil evidence, mass extinction, severe climate changes and dna.
You expect a major significant change that has parts of the old creature meshing with parts of the new. In some cases there are examples of that and they are given above.
You seem to think that one day there was a monkey and over ten years it turned into a human. Using your thought process a teenager should have the head of a baby and the body of an adult.


----------



## bullethead (May 19, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> God.



It is hard to be specific without anything to back it up.


----------



## bullethead (May 19, 2016)

Nineteenth-century English social scientist Herbert Spencer made this prescient observation: "Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all." Well over a century later nothing has changed. When I debate creationists, they present not one fact in favor of creation and instead demand "just one transitional fossil" that proves evolution. When I do offer evidence (for example, Ambulocetus natans, a transitional fossil between ancient land mammals and modern whales), they respond that there are now two gaps in the fossil record.
This is a clever debate retort, but it reveals a profound error that I call the Fossil Fallacy: the belief that a "single fossil"--one bit of data--constitutes proof of a multifarious process or historical sequence. In fact, proof is derived through a convergence of evidence from numerous lines of inquiry--multiple, independent inductions, all of which point to an unmistakable conclusion.
We know evolution happened not because of transitional fossils such as A. natans but because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many more. No single discovery from any of these fields denotes proof of evolution, but together they reveal that life evolved in a certain sequence by a particular process.
One of the finest compilations of evolutionary data and theory since Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species is Richard Dawkins's magnum opus, The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution (Houghton Mifflin, 2004)--688 pages of convergent science recounted with literary elegance. Dawkins traces numerous transitional fossils (what he calls "concestors," the last common ancestor shared by a set of species) from Homo sapiens back four billion years to the origin of heredity and the emergence of evolution. No single concestor proves that evolution happened, but together they reveal a majestic story of process over time.


----------



## bullethead (May 19, 2016)

Fossil Hominids, Human Evolution: Thomas Huxley & Eugene Dubois

When Charles Darwin wrote the Origin of Species, he had to wonder about how humans came to be. Humans had hereditary variation in every generation, and some individuals had more children than others — the key ingredients for natural selection. But he chose not to write about humans in his first book about evolution, in large part out of strategy. In 1857, two years before Darwin published the Origin of Species, Wallace asked him in a letter if he would discuss the origin of mankind in the book. Darwin replied, "I think I shall avoid the whole subject, as so surrounded with prejudices, though I fully admit that it is the highest and most interesting problem for the naturalist."
But Darwin also knew that he had no fossil record to use to develop a hypothesis about human evolution. Over the years, naturalists had uncovered a few stone tools lying alongside the fossils of extinct mammals. But even in the 1800s, these relics were considered to be only a few thousand years old, and to have been made by lost tribes of savages.
	Neandertal and modern human skulls
 First human fossils discovered
Even when the first part of a fossil human came to light in 1857, naturalists had a hard time recognizing it for what it truly was. German miners working at the Feldhofer Grotto in the Neander valley dug up a skullcap. It looked somewhat human, but it was remarkably thick and sported a massive brow ridge. Did it belong to an ancient individual from a human-like species now extinct? Or was Neanderthal man just an extreme member of Homo sapiens? One of the German naturalists who described the skull for the first time, Herman Schaaffhausen, was convinced of the latter. He ignored evidence that the skull had been found alongside extinct cave bears and mammoths, and claimed that it was some recent barbarian, perhaps a member of one of the wild tribes mentioned by Roman historians.
Thomas Huxley	
Shortly after Darwin published the Origin of Species, his great champion Thomas Huxley (right) considered the skull from the Neander valley. Huxley shared some of the Euro-centric notions of his time. Based on their skulls, it was thought that Europeans had the best-developed brains, compared to the Australian aborigines with skulls having relatively low profiles and thicker brows. This view led Huxley to consider Neanderthals as occupying a slightly lower position within Homo sapiens.
Darwin publishes on human origins
Amid these ambiguous developments, Darwin decided to say something about human origins. In 1871 he published The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, in which he argued that all of the known evidence was consistent with humans having evolved from a common ancestor shared with apes. He speculated that Africa was their place of origin and that human ancestors had gradually taken on their current form since then. He suggested that natural selection was not the only evolutionary pressure at work. Women might have preferred different traits in men, what Darwin called sexual selection, and this might have given rise to differences between the races. Darwin's ideas did not persuade his old correspondent, Alfred Russel Wallace. Wallace decided that our oversized brains were far more powerful than necessary — we could easily survive with minds slightly more advanced than an ape's. The creation of humans must, he concluded, be the work of divine intervention.
Eugene Dubois	
More human fossils discovered
Fossils would be crucial to resolving this debate, but they were slow in coming. It was not until 1886 that Neanderthal fossils were discovered for a second time — and this time, they included the jaw and other parts of the skeleton. Found in Spy, Belgium, these clearly came from ancient rocks, demonstrating that Neanderthals were not some barbarian tribe that lived a few centuries ago. The next year, Eugene Dubois (left), a young anatomist from Holland traveled to Indonesia in the hopes of finding fossils of early man. Since orangutans lived there, and since Dubois managed to secure a job as a medical officer in the Royal Dutch East Indies Army, it seemed like a good place for him to go prospecting. After four years of struggles, he hit pay dirt when he dug a pit in the side of the Solo River in eastern Java. He found fossil remains of something not quite human, but not quite ape. It stood upright, but its brain was far too small to qualify as human. It became known as Pithecanthropus erectus, meaning "upright ape-man."
Neanderthal, Homo erectus and Modern human skulls
	Homo erectus skull
The Homo erectus skullcap discovered by Dubois.Fossil evidence and the acceptance of human evolution
Dubois came back to Europe in 1895 to champion his discovery. He met with some stiff opposition from skeptics. Some wondered whether the ape-like skull and the human-like femur came from the same skeleton. Others thought the skull was similar to Neanderthals. Dubois became embittered by the debate over his bones and hid the fossils from other scientists. But in time, as more fossils were uncovered in Asia, scientists came to recognize that Dubois had indeed found the first representative of the ancient species, Homo erectus.
The twentieth century brought a great many more fossils of humans and hominids. Today twenty hominid species have been identified, the oldest of which date back six million years. They point to an African origin, as Darwin had proposed. Hominid evolution was sometimes pictured as a single line of descent and a steady progression from primitive forms to more advanced forms. The fossils suggested otherwise. Instead, hominid evolution produced a dense thicket of branches, with several species co-existing at any given time except for the last 30,000 years or so. Added to this wealth of data is the knowledge gathered from comparisons of DNA from humans, apes, and even Neanderthals. While many questions remain to be answered about human evolution, scientists have a growing treasury of evidence at their disposal.


----------



## hobbs27 (May 19, 2016)

I've found some pretty cool fossils. I found one in Eastern KY on top of a high ridge while deer hunting. After researching it I found it was the root of a prehistoric tropical tree.
I'm not a young earther so none of the old earth history has any bearing on my faith in God.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 19, 2016)

Don't have an opinion one way or the other on this topic, other than, if evolution is the proven theory, then devolution must also be considered as true. At least the devolution of sentence structure and punctuation certainly has begun in this thread.


----------



## bullethead (May 19, 2016)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Don't have an opinion one way or the other on this topic, other than, if evolution is the proven theory, then devolution must also be considered as true. At least the devolution of sentence structure and punctuation certainly has begun in this thread.


Grammar thread is, well...Nowhere in here.


----------



## ambush80 (May 19, 2016)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Don't have an opinion one way or the other on this topic, other than, if evolution is the proven theory, then devolution must also be considered as true. At least the devolution of sentence structure and punctuation certainly has begun in this thread.




What should I make of a believer who might type "It don't make no since."?


----------



## bullethead (May 19, 2016)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Don't have an opinion one way or the other on this topic, other than, if evolution is the proven theory, then devolution must also be considered as true. At least the devolution of sentence structure and punctuation certainly has begun in this thread.


Evolution is redundant in biology. The adaptation happens according to the need.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 19, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> What should I make of a believer who might type "It don't make no since."?



You don't have the omnipotent power to make anything of them. They have already been "made". Outside of being able to incorporate various vernaculars in language, nothing.


----------



## ambush80 (May 19, 2016)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> You don't have the omnipotent power to make anything of them. They have already been "made". Outside of being able to incorporate various vernaculars in language, nothing.



Evolution.  I'm down wid dat.


----------



## mdgreco191 (Aug 29, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Where have you urned into a bird or dog, a fungus turned into a frog or fish and that a monkey turned into a human?



I hope you're being facetious. If not it's called The theory of evolution. Again I emphasize the word theory.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 29, 2016)

mdgreco191 said:


> I hope you're being facetious. If not it's called The theory of evolution. Again I emphasize the word theory.



You don't understand the way that the word theory is used in regards to evolution. Its used the same way as in Gravitational Theory.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2016)

mdgreco191 said:


> I hope you're being facetious. If not it's called The theory of evolution. Again I emphasize the word theory.



This is what I actually wrote, so I can understand why your butchered paraphrase has you so confused. 


bullethead said:


> Where have you read that a cat turned into a bird or dog, a fungus turned into a frog or fish and that a monkey turned into a human?


I asked melvin a question about a statement he made.


----------



## mdgreco191 (Aug 29, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> You don't understand the way that the word theory is used in regards to evolution. Its used the same way as in Gravitational Theory.



A theory is still a theory, just sayin...


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2016)

mdgreco191 said:


> A theory is still a theory, just sayin...



If you actually looked up what a scientific theory consists of you couldn't make that statement and be honest. Just sayin...


----------



## mdgreco191 (Aug 29, 2016)

ACensoredscientific theoryCensoredis a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supportedCensoredtheoriesCensoredare not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

There is your definition. The problem is that the "theory" of evolution has not been proved based upon a boy of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed.


----------



## mdgreco191 (Aug 29, 2016)

Body of facts not,  boy. Auto correct...


----------



## mdgreco191 (Aug 29, 2016)

Not sure why I got censor stuff coming up in the definition. No bad words at all. Oh well.


----------

