Quote Originally Posted by MoonStarer420

We know exactly where we came from and mostly how it happened. We are the product of fusion, time and force (as in gravitational, nuclear, and electromagnetic). This is all based on quantitative and observable evidence. The CMB, Doppler shifts, and globular clusters tell us "time" started about 13-14 billion years ago; simulations and elemental abundances tell us that all the heavier elements above He were produced by fusion in the insides of stars; the production of these heavier elements allowed later stars (that were created out of the stellar ash of the exploded old ones) to make planets; the origin of life is the only real fuzzy part, but experiments that simulated the early conditions on Earth shows that it doesn?t take much to create the basic organic compounds for life, (which I might add are fairly common in the Universe).
You are being hypocritical here, you say we know exactly where we came from and MOSTLY how it happened??? and then you spew out some scientific mumbo jumbo like you were programmed to do it and then you go on to say the origin of life is the only real fuzzy part. You contradict yourself multiple times or you just dont understand it yourself


Where do you see a flaw? Where do you see an assumption? I think you are confusing two different questions here, how? and why? As a scientist I only care about how, and evolution is the only theory that fits and is supported by evidence for what has happened in these last 4 billion years. I don?t care about why, that?s where your faith and un-provable arguments try to pass off as how.
Well the one flaw that really stands out is why this "evolutional" process has stopped or peaked, by all means please answer this for me because nobody has ever made that one clear. If we are still evolving then what are we evolving to?


All of our technology and all of our knowledge about the world is based upon past ideas and methods. We must learn form others (mistakes and advances) to truly understand our Universe. All the while we should be skeptical of what others are trying to tell us. Don?t believe me in any of what I have said above? Prove me wrong and provide evidence, that?s what science is all about.

I totally agree with you on what you just said, i should have said that differently. What i meant is that people will read or learn something and just instantly believe it without researching it and coming to a conclusion themselves.

I dont agree with science always, if somethingt is unexplainable by science then wouldnt that mean that science isnt neccesarily accurate or all true?

You should read the cosmic serpent, i dont remember whos its by but its a great read for someone like yourself