Human appearance on earth.

[fncceo]

According to science man is 5 to 7 million years old. Don't ask for proof though cause al they can ACTUALLY prove is 400000 years. And don't ask for them to explain a 2 million year fudge factor either.

it is all conjecture, guesses and assumptions. You know, science.

There is speculation in science. There is conjecture in science. There is hypothesis in science.

But, speculation, conjecture, and hypothesis isn't pulled out of the collective anuses of scientists. It is speculation, conjecture, and hypothesis that is the BEST fit for the knowledge available.

When there are competing theories, they will continue to have equal value until the best available information rules out one, or both, of them.

One of the best understood concepts in science is gravity. Newton understood gravity so well, he called it a 'law', something that can't be broken. We can use our understanding of gravity to make very, very, very accurate predictions on velocity and vector to accurately find any object across vast astronomic distances ... gravity is as factual as science can get.

But, there isn't a single scientist in our world who understands the fundamental way in which gravity works. We know what it does, we have no idea how it does it. There is speculation, there is conjecture, and there are hypothesis, but no one knows for sure ... today. To quote the great scientist, Scarlett O'Hara, "Tomorrow, will be another day".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But, there isn't a single scientist in our world who understands the fundamental way in which gravity works. We know what it does, we have no idea how it does it.

This is basically true of all the fundamental forces, out this way. But, really, the question is nonsensical.

How does it do it? Matter attracts matter. What more do you want?

 

[fncceo]

But, there isn't a single scientist in our world who understands the fundamental way in which gravity works. We know what it does, we have no idea how it does it.

This is basically true of all the fundamental forces, out this way. But, really, the question is nonsensical.

How does it do it? Matter attracts matter. What more do you want?

Knowing the physical forces behind gravity would open a floodgate to new innovations.

Having the ability to manipulate gravity on a large scale would finally make space travel economically viable. The ability to create contained gravitational fields would open the door to FTL space flight.

Knowing that little bit more could, conceivably, issue in a new golden age of innovation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Knowing the physical forces behind gravity would open a floodgate to new innovations.

So, taking a fundamental force... and splitting it into more forces? That is an odd proposition.You still would not have actually answered the question though, as now you are just asking it of the new forces you have discovered.

Having the ability to manipulate gravity on a large scale would finally make space travel economically viable.

Sure, but you would still just be describing phenomena to learn that. You won't have answered "why gravity works". Just the "how it goes". Which is fine, because that is the only question that makes any sense, anyway: "How does it go?"

Watch Neil DeGrasse Tyson try to impress this upon Joe Rogan (who really, really wants to mystify gravity):

 

[Natural Citizen]

Apparently, our greatest achievement thus far has been sliced bread?

You know how everybody always says that something is the greatest thing since sliced bread?

Scwewy, huh.

 

[Uncensored2008]

But, there isn't a single scientist in our world who understands the fundamental way in which gravity works. We know what it does, we have no idea how it does it.

This is basically true of all the fundamental forces, out this way. But, really, the question is nonsensical.

How does it do it? Matter attracts matter. What more do you want?

Matter does NOT attract matter. Einstein introduced the concept of the "fabric of space," over a hundred years ago. The idea is that mass creates a deformation in the fabric of space.

It is the deformation that makes matter drop into the distortion created by mass.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Matter does NOT attract matter. Einstein introduced the concept of the "fabric of space," over a hundred years ago. The idea is that mass creates a deformation in the fabric of space.

Yes, good stuff. Right you are , at larger scales.

However: why do you think scientists are searching for gravitons? Surely you would not think they are ignorant of Einstein's work.


It's just not so simple. Einstein's idea doesn't explain gravity at the smallest scales. Gravity as a force, does.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Matter does NOT attract matter. Einstein introduced the concept of the "fabric of space," over a hundred years ago. The idea is that mass creates a deformation in the fabric of space.

Yes, good stuff. Right you are , at larger scales.

However: why do you think scientists are searching for gravitons? Surely you would not think they are ignorant of Einstein's work.


It's just not so simple. Einstein's idea doesn't explain gravity at the smallest scales. Gravity as a force, does.

On Planck scales gravity doesn't work. Hence the search for particles that explain attraction on sub-atomic particles. It is irrelevant to Newtonian physics. In other words, the rules are different for subatomic particles in the quantum realm.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

On Planck scales gravity doesn't work. Hence the search for particles that explain attraction on sub-atomic particles. It is irrelevant to Newtonian physics. In other words, the rules are different for subatomic particles in the quantum realm.

Right. But, nevertheless, the graviton is hypothesized to bring the force of gravity. Yes, a very different model, and on smaller scales. But a force, nonetheless.

we know Einstein's space warping model is correct, on larger scales:

 

[Damaged Eagle]

There's archeological evidence from the 19th century of Homo Sapiens that may very well have been present as far back as two to three million years ago. The evidence is ignored because it doesn't fit the approved entrenched science that states modern man only appeared in the last one hundred thousand years and he/she was not even present in the Americas until no earlier than thirty thousand years ago.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There's archeological evidence from the 19th century of Homo Sapiens that may very well have been present as far back as two to three million years ago.

uh.... you go ahead and post a link to that.There is no evidence of homo sapiens older than 300,000 years, as far as I know.

The evidence is ignored because it doesn't fit the approved entrenched science

No, that's stupid. If it were strong evidence, it would not be ignored. Finding strong evidence that rewrites our theories is how scientists get famous.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

From the first link.

On the biggest steps in early human evolution scientists are in agreement. The first human ancestors appeared between five million and seven million years ago, probably when some apelike creatures in Africa began to walk habitually on two legs.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

There's archeological evidence from the 19th century of Homo Sapiens that may very well have been present as far back as two to three million years ago.

uh.... you go ahead and post a link to that.There is no evidence of homo sapiens older than 300,000 years, as far as I know.

Forbidden Archeology - Wikipedia

The evidence is ignored because it doesn't fit the approved entrenched science

No, that's stupid. If it were strong evidence, it would not be ignored. Finding strong evidence that rewrites our theories is how scientists get famous.

Or a way to be discredited, shunned, and banned, from ever working in the field again.

*****SMILE*****

 

[james bond]

According to science man is 5 to 7 million years old.

False. No research concludes this and no scientists claim this. Where are you getting your info? Creation.com?

Are you stupid? Humans are around 6K years old. They first appeared around 4000 BC.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

From the first link.

On the biggest steps in early human evolution scientists are in agreement. The first human ancestors appeared between five million and seven million years ago, probably when some apelike creatures in Africa began to walk habitually on two legs.

But, not humans. Not homo sapiens, or homo sapiens sapiens.

You do agree, right?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There's archeological evidence from the 19th century of Homo Sapiens that may very well have been present as far back as two to three million years ago.

uh.... you go ahead and post a link to that.There is no evidence of homo sapiens older than 300,000 years, as far as I know.

Forbidden Archeology - Wikipedia

The evidence is ignored because it doesn't fit the approved entrenched science

No, that's stupid. If it were strong evidence, it would not be ignored. Finding strong evidence that rewrites our theories is how scientists get famous.

Or a way to be discredited, shunned, and banned, from ever working in the field again.

*****SMILE*****

That link contains zero evidence of what you are claiming. In fact, I guarantee you never read it, nor could you summarize any of this non-existent evidence if your life depended on it. I have challenged you to do so many times, and you always tuck tail and slink away.

Or a way to be discredited, shunned, and banned, from ever working in the field again.

False. that is ridiculous fantasy. the best part is that you can't even summarize a single shred of this evidence you claim exists.

***SMILE*** - you're exposed

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I

From the first link.

On the biggest steps in early human evolution scientists are in agreement. The first human ancestors appeared between five million and seven million years ago, probably when some apelike creatures in Africa began to walk habitually on two legs.

But, not humans. Not homo sapiens, or homo sapiens sapiens.

You do agree, right?

I agree but the guys in the other thread ascelpous and his butt buddy all claim 5 to 7 million years and the first link CLEARLY says Humans.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I agree but the guys in the other thread ascelpous and his butt buddy all claim 5 to 7 million years and the first link CLEARLY says Humans.

I saw that thread. What I saw was people claiming that we have genes in our human code that are that old. Which is true. We do.

I didn't see anyone claiming what you say.

Regardless, if someone says that, they're wrong.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Do you also believe just 20 white people can be representative of ALL white people?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

That link contains zero evidence of what you are claiming. In fact, I guarantee you never read it, nor could you summarize any of this non-existent evidence if your life depended on it. I have challenged you to do so many times, and you always tuck tail and slink away.

The whole book was produced because of the scientific evidence discovered in the 19th century, and some discovered during this century, that modern researchers refuse to acknowledge.

Or a way to be discredited, shunned, and banned, from ever working in the field again.

False. that is ridiculous fantasy. the best part is that you can't even summarize a single shred of this evidence you claim exists.

Yeah no scientist, or group of scientists, would ever discredit another scientist if their evidence didn't fit into their approved theory.

If you want a summary then read the Wiki link.

you're exposed

The only exposure here is your inept attempts to antagonize me with your lack of knowledge and pretending to be informed. Why don't you crack a book open for a change instead of looking like the intellectual incompetent that you present to everyone.

*****CHUCKLE*****