MT: The scientific method is the best method for determining what the universe around us is and how it works, this is provable based on the amount of evidence science has provided for the claims it has, while other methods rely on “faith” which by definition means you believe something without evidence.
BP1: The scientific method has led to the conclusion that based on what we know about the state of the universe today we can demonstrate that the universe must have began with a singularity(a microscopic point of infinite mass and infinite energy).This is know this because of the predictions made by Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity about our universe; our universe is expanding like a balloon you could say, this is demonstrable because …show more content…
Abiogenesis is the process of life coming from inanimate chemistry, the first indication that this was possible came in 1952 when Stanley Miller filled a flask with water heated it enough to evaporate and had a tube with which water could evaporate into another flask filled with methane, hydrogen, and ammonia, along with an electric spark in the flask with the gases in it, and a second tube leading to the flask with water so the evaporated water can return to the original flask of water again you would eventually see amino acids form which are organic compounds believed only to occur in living things, granted he did not create life he simple create amino acids (Study.com). This was a huge step in science for discovering the mechanism for how life got started from none animate matter, it was the first step in showing that life itself is a on going chemical process. Let’s be clear though nobody has yet demonstrated the exact mechanism for how life form on earth it could’ve been hydrothermal vents in the ocean, panspermia, the idea single celled life came from asteroids most likely from mars, or it could’ve been in tide pools made by giant tsunamis …show more content…
A common refute that people with this view often say to the three theories discussed in this is that we were not there so no one can not possibly know what happened. They use this rebuttle not because it is convincing because clearly it is not they use it because they think the premise of a big bang disproves god (even though it does not), they also say this because there are completely ignorant because they have not even looked up what the big bang theory or evolution actually states. The reason this reasoning false because there are clearly other ways of finding out what has happened in the past without directly observing them, to put it simply the reason with believe our universe began with a singularity or big bang is because our universe has aspects that you would expect a universe that came from a singularity to have that is how we can see 14 billion years into the past, also if you believe this you must also believe that all the murders should be set free from jail because the jury did directly observe their crime. Opponents will also “argue” that faith is the path to proving god. The reason I hypothesisize they think this is convincing is because to believe in something based off faith your basically
BP1: The scientific method has led to the conclusion that based on what we know about the state of the universe today we can demonstrate that the universe must have began with a singularity(a microscopic point of infinite mass and infinite energy).This is know this because of the predictions made by Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity about our universe; our universe is expanding like a balloon you could say, this is demonstrable because …show more content…
Abiogenesis is the process of life coming from inanimate chemistry, the first indication that this was possible came in 1952 when Stanley Miller filled a flask with water heated it enough to evaporate and had a tube with which water could evaporate into another flask filled with methane, hydrogen, and ammonia, along with an electric spark in the flask with the gases in it, and a second tube leading to the flask with water so the evaporated water can return to the original flask of water again you would eventually see amino acids form which are organic compounds believed only to occur in living things, granted he did not create life he simple create amino acids (Study.com). This was a huge step in science for discovering the mechanism for how life got started from none animate matter, it was the first step in showing that life itself is a on going chemical process. Let’s be clear though nobody has yet demonstrated the exact mechanism for how life form on earth it could’ve been hydrothermal vents in the ocean, panspermia, the idea single celled life came from asteroids most likely from mars, or it could’ve been in tide pools made by giant tsunamis …show more content…
A common refute that people with this view often say to the three theories discussed in this is that we were not there so no one can not possibly know what happened. They use this rebuttle not because it is convincing because clearly it is not they use it because they think the premise of a big bang disproves god (even though it does not), they also say this because there are completely ignorant because they have not even looked up what the big bang theory or evolution actually states. The reason this reasoning false because there are clearly other ways of finding out what has happened in the past without directly observing them, to put it simply the reason with believe our universe began with a singularity or big bang is because our universe has aspects that you would expect a universe that came from a singularity to have that is how we can see 14 billion years into the past, also if you believe this you must also believe that all the murders should be set free from jail because the jury did directly observe their crime. Opponents will also “argue” that faith is the path to proving god. The reason I hypothesisize they think this is convincing is because to believe in something based off faith your basically