Emilio Primo

Yes, but the evidence is not the actual occurrence, the evidence is what lead to this conclusion, though the conclusion has never been observed in nature or in a laboratory. I have no gripe at the conclusion you come to based on the evidence, but if someone looks at this same evidence and the conclusion they reach is that of a I.D. why would that be considered unscientific? I agree with this, but even still dark matter is an accepted science with little evidence backing it's existence. The big bang theory is considered scientific, but in reality there really is no difference in this theory, or by someone saying God created the universe. If you know your family lineage that you have evidence of life from life, though there remains no evidence of the alternative, directly or indirectly. Evidence makes this notion, of life from non life to be highly improbable, particular math, as I was stating in a prior post. To me, to accept the validity of life from non life is accepting a supernatural occurrence. I see, you seem very open minded. But as the saying goes, time will tell.

So, because most think it is not does that make it wrong? That what is observed? What I am stating is that black holes, dark matter, macro evolution have not been observed. This is EXACTLY how macro evolution is predicted to occur, and if you read my post thoroughly I never said this would occur in ONE generation. OK, now provide one of macro evolution.... You saw this?: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#what Show me, where? Have you observed macro evolution? Have you observed dark matter? Have you observed the birth of the universe, but I assume you believe the big bang theory, correct? Have you observed life from non life? But you DO believe, correct? But none of these have been proven through observation.

Some scientist say life from non life, or evolution is mathematically improbable, they're argument is based on the evidence of mathematics, or probability, does that count as evidence? The point still stands... It HAS been observed, correct? I explained this to you already, and if you do not know what observed means, I suggest you grab a dictionary. I'll supply my two links again to give you an idea: http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q7 http://library.thinkquest.org/10148/long11.shtml There is a herds of elephants. AT some point in time these elephants branch off into two different directions and become isolated from each other, some go this way and some go that way. Days turn into months, months turn into years, years turn into tens of years, tens into hundreds, generations past for these elephants. Then one day a momma elephant has a baby, but behold, this baby is not like the rest, it's quite different, it's not like the rest of the elephants at all, it's not remarkable different than the other elephants, but one thing is for sure it's certainly NOT an elephant, but it's lineage is traced through the elephant species, though it is now a new and different species, and this new species in turn then begins the start of this new and different species. THIS, is how scientist predict evolution occurred in nature, though this has never been observed in nature nor in a laboratory. Never said it was... Let me know we you see evolution, and I'll let you know when I saw God.

They were STILL the SAME species, one was just infertile. Where is evolution to a new and different species?

Light, has been observed, studied, the table has been observed studied, your eyes have been observed, studied. A black hole has not, that's the difference. I do realize that even though each one had "evolved" do to circumstance they all remained their respective species, not one evolved into entirely new and different species, no descendants of any species has ever been observed evolving into a different and new species. BTW, I read that article already.

Some scientist think that the big bang birthed the universe, did science prove that? Has the Atom ever been observed directly?

I didn't say it was the position of the vast majority of scientist in the field, but even still what difference does that make. There are scientist who do take the position I claimed. Some scientist do not believe it is possible for the DNA to have evolved. No, it's not wrong. You cannot test dark matter and black holes, what you can test is the evidence that leads you to the conclusion of dark matter and black holes. But we HAVE seen atoms, this is a fact. Atoms have been directly observed. OK... Plants remained plants, mosquitoes remained mosquitoes, rabbits are still rabbits... Please demonstrate how anyone of these evolved into a new and different species... E. coli is still E. coli....ect, ect ,ect

OK, post back when you come across what I asked for... the evolution of a species into a new and different species Really, how can you research something you have never seen nor observed. The only things you can observe research and study is the evidence that leads you to this conclusion, NOT the conclusion in itself. You said it yourself, "we study the interactions, NOT the black hole itself.

How is this any different from the scientist that look at the DNA molecule, and say it's much too complex to come about by chance, it must have had a designer, hence I.D. They are both ideas based on indirect evidence. You can't directly observe or test dark matter, you can't directly observe or test black holes, you can't directly observe or test GOD... SO what is the difference? OK, again... Which one of your examples is this: But we have yet to observe the evolution of a species into a new and different species.

My question is basically since none of these have ever been directly but only have been detected by indirect evidence. Can this truly be considered science? Black Holes: http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q7 http://library.thinkquest.org/10148/long11.shtml Dark matter: http://www.eclipse.net/~cmmiller/DM/ http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/dark-matter-091709.html Evolution: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat06.html But we have yet to observe the evolution of a species into a new and different species. Can this really be any different that someone looking at indirect evidence and saying "GOD" did it?

So do they actually see the black hole, or do they see the effects of what they call a black hole?

It's a simple question, but the reason why I ask is because how do we know(we as in Science) that black holes and dark matter do exist, when neither have never been observed or studied.

How so? What is the evidence for these?

So what would you call dark matter, black holes, big bang theory?

Excellent points, I didn't think of it that way, if space is expanding and if space-time are a continuum than that must mean time is expanding as well.

http://www.allanstime.com/UnifiedFieldTheory/gravity.htm

Some girls play these kinds of games because letting on too early that they are into you will give you a certain amount of "authority" So women can be rather confusing, and I have yet to meet anyone man who has them all figured out. Cheers, Emilio

Yes, when it comes to time they are metaphysical, but apply them to gravity and you have this: Gravity: Is it a force? Yes, Gravity is a force. Is it fluid? Yes. If so, in which way? Expansive, Linear? Gravity moves in waves. How fast does Gravity "move"? Gravity moves at the speed of light. Now do you see know?

You seem to be missing my point. My original statement was our lack of understanding of the mechanic of time as a whole.

Exactly, this is my point. What is time: Is it a force? Is it fluid? If so, in which way? Expansive, Linear? How fast does time "move"?

Not entirely true. We only understand time in that it's a continuation of a sequence of events, That's about it. Our understanding of gravity and electromagnetism far more. We use what we do know of how time works for measurements and calculations, but this has nothing to do with time itself.

The problem is nobody truly understands time. Time to me seems as though it is an aging process of matter, nothing more. To try and travel backwards in time to me would be the equivalent of trying to travel backwards in gravity or electromagnetism. If traveling back in time were possible which I do not think it is, you would have to go outside of the our physical universe to accomplish this, if this is even possible or probable.

Greetings, I am new here, but you are incorrect. Einstein may not have believed in GOD as far as in the religious context, but he was no atheist.