Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm waiting for the flying deer.I see...your memory is poor so you require constant reiteration.That's a pretty stupid answer for the African continent."Now if you can explain to me why deer never grew wings to escape lions..."
Because they don't all need to escape predators to ensure survival of the species. Having evolved from another land based species, simply having numbers and being fast runners sufficed. What a simple question...kind of a softball there, dude. Like, middle school science level.
Why is it a stupid answer? Be a big boy, use your words....
You never said 'why", so there is nothing to remember.
A theory is 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.Most studies are bought and paid for.Please let me know when you meet these authorities in person and find out who's paying them.
In the meanwhile, email some of them and ask them why millions of insects and animals opted out of no longer being prey...maybe they're suicidal?
Why should I email them? That's ypur ridiculous claim. And for you to accuse the scientific community of all beong liars for money is really the height of absurdity. Imagine the gall of some uneducated slob calling the scientific community liars... What a joke...
I presume you don't know many academians; I do.
No, you can't simply fund a study to get the result you want. what a stupid thing to claim. Your credibility is less than zero,.No shit. Where did that come from? Are you accusing me of not knowing the difference? People that study and practice science are called scientist, and with using science the developed a theory in which makes most sense to them in an attempt to discover how human life was created. Using "Science" humans developed the "Theory" that human life started from a single cell organism that evolved in to what is known as the Human Species.Theory is not science.The theory of evolution is that human evolved from a single cell organism not soil. Soil would contain multiple single cell organisms more and likely. But where did I say there wasn't any single cell organisms in soil? And if you cant understand the difference by god creating man from soil and science says we evolved from a single cell organism, you maybe should read genesis in the bible and google the theory of evolution.Soil doesn't contain single cell organisms?Contradict means- assert the opposite of a statement made by someone. Science says human life evolved from single cell organism.
Contradict means- Be in conflict with. Science; human evolved from single cell organism Bible; God created man with soil
There isn't any conflict with the two? I never said it contradicts the whole bible as some of you assume. I just stated that science theory of humans evolved from single cell organisms contradicts the bibles God created man out of soil.
Do we know what was in the soil?
Either your being a smartass or just plain dumb to not understand what I'm saying about the two.
Theory is not a fact. Hence it being considered a Theory. My opinion in going with God created the first human life out of soil is no different then people going with The Theory of evolution. Neither has been proven and to me Human life evolving from a microscopic single cell organism out in the environment and surviving the elements and predators and finding food, water, and shelter with no guidance in the beginning stages of life as an infant to an age where we survive on our own is no more possible than God creating human life from soil.
"Theory is not a fact. Hence it being considered a Theory."
100% incorrect. Dang, why do so many make this error, and keep making it, even after being corrected?
A theory is 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.Most studies are bought and paid for.Why should I email them? That's ypur ridiculous claim. And for you to accuse the scientific community of all beong liars for money is really the height of absurdity. Imagine the gall of some uneducated slob calling the scientific community liars... What a joke...
I presume you don't know many academians; I do.
No, you can't simply fund a study to get the result you want. what a stupid thing to claim. Your credibility is less than zero,.No shit. Where did that come from? Are you accusing me of not knowing the difference? People that study and practice science are called scientist, and with using science the developed a theory in which makes most sense to them in an attempt to discover how human life was created. Using "Science" humans developed the "Theory" that human life started from a single cell organism that evolved in to what is known as the Human Species.Theory is not science.The theory of evolution is that human evolved from a single cell organism not soil. Soil would contain multiple single cell organisms more and likely. But where did I say there wasn't any single cell organisms in soil? And if you cant understand the difference by god creating man from soil and science says we evolved from a single cell organism, you maybe should read genesis in the bible and google the theory of evolution.Soil doesn't contain single cell organisms?
Do we know what was in the soil?
Either your being a smartass or just plain dumb to not understand what I'm saying about the two.
Theory is not a fact. Hence it being considered a Theory. My opinion in going with God created the first human life out of soil is no different then people going with The Theory of evolution. Neither has been proven and to me Human life evolving from a microscopic single cell organism out in the environment and surviving the elements and predators and finding food, water, and shelter with no guidance in the beginning stages of life as an infant to an age where we survive on our own is no more possible than God creating human life from soil.
"Theory is not a fact. Hence it being considered a Theory."
100% incorrect. Dang, why do so many make this error, and keep making it, even after being corrected?
Something proven to be true is a fact. A theory is an idea that intends to explain why or what something is or happens without actually knowing or being proven its fact. Once something is proven to be true then it is considered fact.
You right, so actually not 100% incorrect.A theory is 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.Most studies are bought and paid for.
I presume you don't know many academians; I do.
No, you can't simply fund a study to get the result you want. what a stupid thing to claim. Your credibility is less than zero,.No shit. Where did that come from? Are you accusing me of not knowing the difference? People that study and practice science are called scientist, and with using science the developed a theory in which makes most sense to them in an attempt to discover how human life was created. Using "Science" humans developed the "Theory" that human life started from a single cell organism that evolved in to what is known as the Human Species.Theory is not science.The theory of evolution is that human evolved from a single cell organism not soil. Soil would contain multiple single cell organisms more and likely. But where did I say there wasn't any single cell organisms in soil? And if you cant understand the difference by god creating man from soil and science says we evolved from a single cell organism, you maybe should read genesis in the bible and google the theory of evolution.
Either your being a smartass or just plain dumb to not understand what I'm saying about the two.
Theory is not a fact. Hence it being considered a Theory. My opinion in going with God created the first human life out of soil is no different then people going with The Theory of evolution. Neither has been proven and to me Human life evolving from a microscopic single cell organism out in the environment and surviving the elements and predators and finding food, water, and shelter with no guidance in the beginning stages of life as an infant to an age where we survive on our own is no more possible than God creating human life from soil.
"Theory is not a fact. Hence it being considered a Theory."
100% incorrect. Dang, why do so many make this error, and keep making it, even after being corrected?
Something proven to be true is a fact. A theory is an idea that intends to explain why or what something is or happens without actually knowing or being proven its fact. Once something is proven to be true then it is considered fact.
That's not how the word theory is used in science. A "scientific theory" is the highest status an explanation can obtain in science. Yes, theories may be considered facts. Their predictions may be considered certainty. For instance, the Theory of Electromagnetism predicts that sending a current through a wire will generate a magnetic field. The current and the magnetic field are described by laws, and the explanation/prediction is considered a fact.
Likewise, the Theory of Evolution is considered to be fact. It has been "proven true" as much as anything can be proven true. It is as true as the fact that two massive objects exert a force on one another called "gravity". The explanation for this is "the Theory of Gravity".
The word is simply used differently in science than it is otherwise.
Which, of course, is why there are countless medical theories that are so rejected the AMA will not allow them to be practiced in the US.A theory is 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.Most studies are bought and paid for.
I presume you don't know many academians; I do.
No, you can't simply fund a study to get the result you want. what a stupid thing to claim. Your credibility is less than zero,.No shit. Where did that come from? Are you accusing me of not knowing the difference? People that study and practice science are called scientist, and with using science the developed a theory in which makes most sense to them in an attempt to discover how human life was created. Using "Science" humans developed the "Theory" that human life started from a single cell organism that evolved in to what is known as the Human Species.Theory is not science.The theory of evolution is that human evolved from a single cell organism not soil. Soil would contain multiple single cell organisms more and likely. But where did I say there wasn't any single cell organisms in soil? And if you cant understand the difference by god creating man from soil and science says we evolved from a single cell organism, you maybe should read genesis in the bible and google the theory of evolution.
Either your being a smartass or just plain dumb to not understand what I'm saying about the two.
Theory is not a fact. Hence it being considered a Theory. My opinion in going with God created the first human life out of soil is no different then people going with The Theory of evolution. Neither has been proven and to me Human life evolving from a microscopic single cell organism out in the environment and surviving the elements and predators and finding food, water, and shelter with no guidance in the beginning stages of life as an infant to an age where we survive on our own is no more possible than God creating human life from soil.
"Theory is not a fact. Hence it being considered a Theory."
100% incorrect. Dang, why do so many make this error, and keep making it, even after being corrected?
Something proven to be true is a fact. A theory is an idea that intends to explain why or what something is or happens without actually knowing or being proven its fact. Once something is proven to be true then it is considered fact.
That's not how the word theory is used in science. A "scientific theory" is the highest status an explanation can obtain in science. Yes, theories may be considered facts. Their predictions may be considered certainty. For instance, the Theory of Electromagnetism predicts that sending a current through a wire will generate a magnetic field. The current and the magnetic field are described by laws, and the explanation/prediction is considered a fact.
Likewise, the Theory of Evolution is considered to be fact. It has been "proven true" as much as anything can be proven true. It is as true as the fact that two massive objects exert a force on one another called "gravity". The explanation for this is "the Theory of Gravity".
The word is simply used differently in science than it is otherwise.
You right, so actually not 100% incorrect.A theory is 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.No, you can't simply fund a study to get the result you want. what a stupid thing to claim. Your credibility is less than zero,.No shit. Where did that come from? Are you accusing me of not knowing the difference? People that study and practice science are called scientist, and with using science the developed a theory in which makes most sense to them in an attempt to discover how human life was created. Using "Science" humans developed the "Theory" that human life started from a single cell organism that evolved in to what is known as the Human Species.Theory is not science.
Theory is not a fact. Hence it being considered a Theory. My opinion in going with God created the first human life out of soil is no different then people going with The Theory of evolution. Neither has been proven and to me Human life evolving from a microscopic single cell organism out in the environment and surviving the elements and predators and finding food, water, and shelter with no guidance in the beginning stages of life as an infant to an age where we survive on our own is no more possible than God creating human life from soil.
"Theory is not a fact. Hence it being considered a Theory."
100% incorrect. Dang, why do so many make this error, and keep making it, even after being corrected?
Something proven to be true is a fact. A theory is an idea that intends to explain why or what something is or happens without actually knowing or being proven its fact. Once something is proven to be true then it is considered fact.
That's not how the word theory is used in science. A "scientific theory" is the highest status an explanation can obtain in science. Yes, theories may be considered facts. Their predictions may be considered certainty. For instance, the Theory of Electromagnetism predicts that sending a current through a wire will generate a magnetic field. The current and the magnetic field are described by laws, and the explanation/prediction is considered a fact.
Likewise, the Theory of Evolution is considered to be fact. It has been "proven true" as much as anything can be proven true. It is as true as the fact that two massive objects exert a force on one another called "gravity". The explanation for this is "the Theory of Gravity".
The word is simply used differently in science than it is otherwise.
Which, of course, is why there are countless medical theories that are so rejected the AMA will not allow them to be practiced in the US.A theory is 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.No, you can't simply fund a study to get the result you want. what a stupid thing to claim. Your credibility is less than zero,.No shit. Where did that come from? Are you accusing me of not knowing the difference? People that study and practice science are called scientist, and with using science the developed a theory in which makes most sense to them in an attempt to discover how human life was created. Using "Science" humans developed the "Theory" that human life started from a single cell organism that evolved in to what is known as the Human Species.Theory is not science.
Theory is not a fact. Hence it being considered a Theory. My opinion in going with God created the first human life out of soil is no different then people going with The Theory of evolution. Neither has been proven and to me Human life evolving from a microscopic single cell organism out in the environment and surviving the elements and predators and finding food, water, and shelter with no guidance in the beginning stages of life as an infant to an age where we survive on our own is no more possible than God creating human life from soil.
"Theory is not a fact. Hence it being considered a Theory."
100% incorrect. Dang, why do so many make this error, and keep making it, even after being corrected?
Something proven to be true is a fact. A theory is an idea that intends to explain why or what something is or happens without actually knowing or being proven its fact. Once something is proven to be true then it is considered fact.
That's not how the word theory is used in science. A "scientific theory" is the highest status an explanation can obtain in science. Yes, theories may be considered facts. Their predictions may be considered certainty. For instance, the Theory of Electromagnetism predicts that sending a current through a wire will generate a magnetic field. The current and the magnetic field are described by laws, and the explanation/prediction is considered a fact.
Likewise, the Theory of Evolution is considered to be fact. It has been "proven true" as much as anything can be proven true. It is as true as the fact that two massive objects exert a force on one another called "gravity". The explanation for this is "the Theory of Gravity".
The word is simply used differently in science than it is otherwise.
Now back to those insects and animals that insist on being eaten even after billions of years.
You right, so actually not 100% incorrect.A theory is 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.No shit. Where did that come from? Are you accusing me of not knowing the difference? People that study and practice science are called scientist, and with using science the developed a theory in which makes most sense to them in an attempt to discover how human life was created. Using "Science" humans developed the "Theory" that human life started from a single cell organism that evolved in to what is known as the Human Species.
Theory is not a fact. Hence it being considered a Theory. My opinion in going with God created the first human life out of soil is no different then people going with The Theory of evolution. Neither has been proven and to me Human life evolving from a microscopic single cell organism out in the environment and surviving the elements and predators and finding food, water, and shelter with no guidance in the beginning stages of life as an infant to an age where we survive on our own is no more possible than God creating human life from soil.
"Theory is not a fact. Hence it being considered a Theory."
100% incorrect. Dang, why do so many make this error, and keep making it, even after being corrected?
Something proven to be true is a fact. A theory is an idea that intends to explain why or what something is or happens without actually knowing or being proven its fact. Once something is proven to be true then it is considered fact.
That's not how the word theory is used in science. A "scientific theory" is the highest status an explanation can obtain in science. Yes, theories may be considered facts. Their predictions may be considered certainty. For instance, the Theory of Electromagnetism predicts that sending a current through a wire will generate a magnetic field. The current and the magnetic field are described by laws, and the explanation/prediction is considered a fact.
Likewise, the Theory of Evolution is considered to be fact. It has been "proven true" as much as anything can be proven true. It is as true as the fact that two massive objects exert a force on one another called "gravity". The explanation for this is "the Theory of Gravity".
The word is simply used differently in science than it is otherwise.
To be clear, it's not intellectually honest to compare a gut feeling to an established scientific theor
Which, of course, is why there are countless medical theories that are so rejected the AMA will not allow them to be practiced in the US.A theory is 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.No shit. Where did that come from? Are you accusing me of not knowing the difference? People that study and practice science are called scientist, and with using science the developed a theory in which makes most sense to them in an attempt to discover how human life was created. Using "Science" humans developed the "Theory" that human life started from a single cell organism that evolved in to what is known as the Human Species.
Theory is not a fact. Hence it being considered a Theory. My opinion in going with God created the first human life out of soil is no different then people going with The Theory of evolution. Neither has been proven and to me Human life evolving from a microscopic single cell organism out in the environment and surviving the elements and predators and finding food, water, and shelter with no guidance in the beginning stages of life as an infant to an age where we survive on our own is no more possible than God creating human life from soil.
"Theory is not a fact. Hence it being considered a Theory."
100% incorrect. Dang, why do so many make this error, and keep making it, even after being corrected?
Something proven to be true is a fact. A theory is an idea that intends to explain why or what something is or happens without actually knowing or being proven its fact. Once something is proven to be true then it is considered fact.
That's not how the word theory is used in science. A "scientific theory" is the highest status an explanation can obtain in science. Yes, theories may be considered facts. Their predictions may be considered certainty. For instance, the Theory of Electromagnetism predicts that sending a current through a wire will generate a magnetic field. The current and the magnetic field are described by laws, and the explanation/prediction is considered a fact.
Likewise, the Theory of Evolution is considered to be fact. It has been "proven true" as much as anything can be proven true. It is as true as the fact that two massive objects exert a force on one another called "gravity". The explanation for this is "the Theory of Gravity".
The word is simply used differently in science than it is otherwise.
Now back to those insects and animals that insist on being eaten even after billions of years.
What a bunch of meaningless pap. Which "scientific theories" are those? And are they rejected on ethical or legal grounds, or because of inefficacy? You're not the most articulate guy. You vomit this nonsense, and then rational adults have to sift through it and play 20 questions just to figure out what the hell you are trying to say.
Regarding evolution: you're an adult now. Nobody cares what you believe regarding accepted scientific theories. Maybe if you were in 7th grade science class, the teacher would give you F after F and send a letter home regarding his concern that you are failing badly and clearly not making any effort to learn the material. I feel no such compulsion to correct your errors and misunderstandings, because you are a dishonest person who isn't trying to learn anything.
You right, so actually not 100% incorrect.A theory is 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."Theory is not a fact. Hence it being considered a Theory."
100% incorrect. Dang, why do so many make this error, and keep making it, even after being corrected?
Something proven to be true is a fact. A theory is an idea that intends to explain why or what something is or happens without actually knowing or being proven its fact. Once something is proven to be true then it is considered fact.
That's not how the word theory is used in science. A "scientific theory" is the highest status an explanation can obtain in science. Yes, theories may be considered facts. Their predictions may be considered certainty. For instance, the Theory of Electromagnetism predicts that sending a current through a wire will generate a magnetic field. The current and the magnetic field are described by laws, and the explanation/prediction is considered a fact.
Likewise, the Theory of Evolution is considered to be fact. It has been "proven true" as much as anything can be proven true. It is as true as the fact that two massive objects exert a force on one another called "gravity". The explanation for this is "the Theory of Gravity".
The word is simply used differently in science than it is otherwise.
To be clear, it's not intellectually honest to compare a gut feeling to an established scientific theor
Which, of course, is why there are countless medical theories that are so rejected the AMA will not allow them to be practiced in the US.A theory is 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."Theory is not a fact. Hence it being considered a Theory."
100% incorrect. Dang, why do so many make this error, and keep making it, even after being corrected?
Something proven to be true is a fact. A theory is an idea that intends to explain why or what something is or happens without actually knowing or being proven its fact. Once something is proven to be true then it is considered fact.
That's not how the word theory is used in science. A "scientific theory" is the highest status an explanation can obtain in science. Yes, theories may be considered facts. Their predictions may be considered certainty. For instance, the Theory of Electromagnetism predicts that sending a current through a wire will generate a magnetic field. The current and the magnetic field are described by laws, and the explanation/prediction is considered a fact.
Likewise, the Theory of Evolution is considered to be fact. It has been "proven true" as much as anything can be proven true. It is as true as the fact that two massive objects exert a force on one another called "gravity". The explanation for this is "the Theory of Gravity".
The word is simply used differently in science than it is otherwise.
Now back to those insects and animals that insist on being eaten even after billions of years.
What a bunch of meaningless pap. Which "scientific theories" are those? And are they rejected on ethical or legal grounds, or because of inefficacy? You're not the most articulate guy. You vomit this nonsense, and then rational adults have to sift through it and play 20 questions just to figure out what the hell you are trying to say.
Regarding evolution: you're an adult now. Nobody cares what you believe regarding accepted scientific theories. Maybe if you were in 7th grade science class, the teacher would give you F after F and send a letter home regarding his concern that you are failing badly and clearly not making any effort to learn the material. I feel no such compulsion to correct your errors and misunderstandings, because you are a dishonest person who isn't trying to learn anything.
So you're a scientist who actually discusses evolution with scientist with years of experience and thousands of patients which have led them to the conclusion that evolution is real.
I'm looking at the same evidence you are looking at.You right, so actually not 100% incorrect.A theory is 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.
Something proven to be true is a fact. A theory is an idea that intends to explain why or what something is or happens without actually knowing or being proven its fact. Once something is proven to be true then it is considered fact.
That's not how the word theory is used in science. A "scientific theory" is the highest status an explanation can obtain in science. Yes, theories may be considered facts. Their predictions may be considered certainty. For instance, the Theory of Electromagnetism predicts that sending a current through a wire will generate a magnetic field. The current and the magnetic field are described by laws, and the explanation/prediction is considered a fact.
Likewise, the Theory of Evolution is considered to be fact. It has been "proven true" as much as anything can be proven true. It is as true as the fact that two massive objects exert a force on one another called "gravity". The explanation for this is "the Theory of Gravity".
The word is simply used differently in science than it is otherwise.
To be clear, it's not intellectually honest to compare a gut feeling to an established scientific theor
Which, of course, is why there are countless medical theories that are so rejected the AMA will not allow them to be practiced in the US.A theory is 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.
Something proven to be true is a fact. A theory is an idea that intends to explain why or what something is or happens without actually knowing or being proven its fact. Once something is proven to be true then it is considered fact.
That's not how the word theory is used in science. A "scientific theory" is the highest status an explanation can obtain in science. Yes, theories may be considered facts. Their predictions may be considered certainty. For instance, the Theory of Electromagnetism predicts that sending a current through a wire will generate a magnetic field. The current and the magnetic field are described by laws, and the explanation/prediction is considered a fact.
Likewise, the Theory of Evolution is considered to be fact. It has been "proven true" as much as anything can be proven true. It is as true as the fact that two massive objects exert a force on one another called "gravity". The explanation for this is "the Theory of Gravity".
The word is simply used differently in science than it is otherwise.
Now back to those insects and animals that insist on being eaten even after billions of years.
What a bunch of meaningless pap. Which "scientific theories" are those? And are they rejected on ethical or legal grounds, or because of inefficacy? You're not the most articulate guy. You vomit this nonsense, and then rational adults have to sift through it and play 20 questions just to figure out what the hell you are trying to say.
Regarding evolution: you're an adult now. Nobody cares what you believe regarding accepted scientific theories. Maybe if you were in 7th grade science class, the teacher would give you F after F and send a letter home regarding his concern that you are failing badly and clearly not making any effort to learn the material. I feel no such compulsion to correct your errors and misunderstandings, because you are a dishonest person who isn't trying to learn anything.
So you're a scientist who actually discusses evolution with scientist with years of experience and thousands of patients which have led them to the conclusion that evolution is real.
Irrelevant red herring. The things I am saying are facts. You can look them up yourself. It doesn't matter who says them.
See, I think that's the thing you are not understanding:
You have such a complete and fundamental misunderstanding of science, that you are stuck on the basic ideas that are quickly related in about the first chapter of a science course. You seriously know less than nothing about any of this.
What came first, the chicken or the egg? This question seems to divide the believers of a higher power from the nonbelievers. Science or Religion, was human life created by science or a Higher Power?
Science contradicts the bible, and pretty much says that there is no god. That everything was just here and after billions of years of nothing a rock hit another rock in which created a big bang and billions of years later conditions were just right to create life. But what created the rock?
Science suggests we evolved from a single cell organism just as every other life form. Where did this single cell organism come from? It couldn't of been here when the dinosaurs where here There were no human life with the dinosaurs. Then they became extinct, by some say, an asteroid hitting Earth. Did the single cell organism come from that? Was it on the asteroid that was destined to hit this planet which had perfect conditions for it to create life?
So this microscopic single cell organism that created humans and creatures was just slithering around until it started to evolve and go through the whole process of becoming a living creature that breathes, drinks, eats, sees, hears, tastes, touches, walks, talk, thinks and feels. So.this microscopic single cell organism just happened to undergo the process to develop into a zygote, which needs to single cell organisms to create it, and then turned into and embryo and then into a fetus then eventually into a newborn baby, with no placenta allowing nutrient uptake, no thermos regulation, no waste elimination, and no gas exchange via the mothers blood supply, also providing oxygen and nutrients to the growing fetus and removes waste products from the fetus's blood. Then it turns into a new born baby, how did it survive just laying there not able to care for its self and what protected it from infection, predators, and other natural elements? Any living creature for that matter? Seriously how did it survive the early stages of evolving?
Its just hard to believe that this microscopic organism turned into creatures. What caused the single cell organism to evolve? Something had to trigger the process? Did it emerge with something? Or was it the result of another reaction and started to evolve immediately? Evolving from a microscopic organism, at the beginning, is hard to see it surviving the process of it going from something so small to the first human being.
If we were really evolved from a single cell organism why isn't it still happening? Where is this single cell organism today?
Was there an event or something that caused these single cells to begin evolving? I'm sure there wasn't just one evolving at a time? There had to be an event that occurred, that these single cell organisms were produced as the outcome of the event, and then had to eventually died off after they had a chance to survive and evolve. That's the only possible theory I can come up with for why these single cell organisms aren't producing life today. Is there this secret place on earth that no body knows about, where human life is popping up and there are these people who raise and protect them? Then they just join society like it was nothing?
I can see how some other things evolved through time. But Humans I just don't see it? Since beginning of human life there wasn't that much evolving with human beings. Well maybe mentally but not to much physically?. We evolved with using technology.
I believe science provides answers and proves things that happened after the first life was created. Science suggesting we evolved from single cell organisms does not prove anything to me. What created that single cell organism, then what created the thing that created the single cell organism, then what created that, and then what created that? It all has to lead to 1 creator, and I believe it is God.
Science is the need for humans to know and understand, and to some trying to prove that we were created some other way makes more sense then believing in an immortal God that we cant see having great powers and created everything. To some, proven answers to questions of life figured out through science is easier to believe then believing in something you cant see, something you cant witness first hand. Even though science hasn't 100% proven their theory of the creation of life, but the facts and evidence they have and the progress of answering more questions then what religion can provide, is good enough for some people.
If science was right then there would be no meaning to life. We just live then die and everything that happened in between just happened. Just creatures wondering around a planet for no logical reason, just a freak accident that occurred in nature, that resulted in life forms that have no real purpose in the universe that are going to inevitably die out.
I find it hard to believe that such a beautiful and complex creation such as life has no meaning. There has to be more, There cant be no reason for our existence. Someone or something had to put time into our creation. Life is to complex for it to just happen.
In life there are always 2 ways, 2 versions, an action and reaction, positive or negative, right or wrong, left or right, man or woman, living or nonliving, open or closed, free or confined, day or night, land or water, and science or religion.
No body really knows how everything came about, just think what it felt like to be the first human life. What do you think was going through their mind?
There has to be a creator that directed the first human life the right way. I believe in God and all that science crap is just crap. To believe that we came from a microscopic organism to what we are today, and that the process isn't still occurring to this day, doesn't make any sense to me.
Who are you directing this response to?You right, so actually not 100% incorrect.A theory is 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.No shit. Where did that come from? Are you accusing me of not knowing the difference? People that study and practice science are called scientist, and with using science the developed a theory in which makes most sense to them in an attempt to discover how human life was created. Using "Science" humans developed the "Theory" that human life started from a single cell organism that evolved in to what is known as the Human Species.
Theory is not a fact. Hence it being considered a Theory. My opinion in going with God created the first human life out of soil is no different then people going with The Theory of evolution. Neither has been proven and to me Human life evolving from a microscopic single cell organism out in the environment and surviving the elements and predators and finding food, water, and shelter with no guidance in the beginning stages of life as an infant to an age where we survive on our own is no more possible than God creating human life from soil.
"Theory is not a fact. Hence it being considered a Theory."
100% incorrect. Dang, why do so many make this error, and keep making it, even after being corrected?
Something proven to be true is a fact. A theory is an idea that intends to explain why or what something is or happens without actually knowing or being proven its fact. Once something is proven to be true then it is considered fact.
That's not how the word theory is used in science. A "scientific theory" is the highest status an explanation can obtain in science. Yes, theories may be considered facts. Their predictions may be considered certainty. For instance, the Theory of Electromagnetism predicts that sending a current through a wire will generate a magnetic field. The current and the magnetic field are described by laws, and the explanation/prediction is considered a fact.
Likewise, the Theory of Evolution is considered to be fact. It has been "proven true" as much as anything can be proven true. It is as true as the fact that two massive objects exert a force on one another called "gravity". The explanation for this is "the Theory of Gravity".
The word is simply used differently in science than it is otherwise.
To be clear, it's not intellectually honest to compare a gut feeling to an established scientific theor
Which, of course, is why there are countless medical theories that are so rejected the AMA will not allow them to be practiced in the US.A theory is 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.No shit. Where did that come from? Are you accusing me of not knowing the difference? People that study and practice science are called scientist, and with using science the developed a theory in which makes most sense to them in an attempt to discover how human life was created. Using "Science" humans developed the "Theory" that human life started from a single cell organism that evolved in to what is known as the Human Species.
Theory is not a fact. Hence it being considered a Theory. My opinion in going with God created the first human life out of soil is no different then people going with The Theory of evolution. Neither has been proven and to me Human life evolving from a microscopic single cell organism out in the environment and surviving the elements and predators and finding food, water, and shelter with no guidance in the beginning stages of life as an infant to an age where we survive on our own is no more possible than God creating human life from soil.
"Theory is not a fact. Hence it being considered a Theory."
100% incorrect. Dang, why do so many make this error, and keep making it, even after being corrected?
Something proven to be true is a fact. A theory is an idea that intends to explain why or what something is or happens without actually knowing or being proven its fact. Once something is proven to be true then it is considered fact.
That's not how the word theory is used in science. A "scientific theory" is the highest status an explanation can obtain in science. Yes, theories may be considered facts. Their predictions may be considered certainty. For instance, the Theory of Electromagnetism predicts that sending a current through a wire will generate a magnetic field. The current and the magnetic field are described by laws, and the explanation/prediction is considered a fact.
Likewise, the Theory of Evolution is considered to be fact. It has been "proven true" as much as anything can be proven true. It is as true as the fact that two massive objects exert a force on one another called "gravity". The explanation for this is "the Theory of Gravity".
The word is simply used differently in science than it is otherwise.
Now back to those insects and animals that insist on being eaten even after billions of years.
What a bunch of meaningless pap. Which "scientific theories" are those? And are they rejected on ethical or legal grounds, or because of inefficacy? You're not the most articulate guy. You vomit this nonsense, and then rational adults have to sift through it and play 20 questions just to figure out what the hell you are trying to say.
Regarding evolution: you're an adult now. Nobody cares what you believe regarding accepted scientific theories. Maybe if you were in 7th grade science class, the teacher would give you F after F and send a letter home regarding his concern that you are failing badly and clearly not making any effort to learn the material. I feel no such compulsion to correct your errors and misunderstandings, because you are a dishonest person who isn't trying to learn anything.
Religion really isn't innocent to say the least.What came first, the chicken or the egg? This question seems to divide the believers of a higher power from the nonbelievers. Science or Religion, was human life created by science or a Higher Power?
Science contradicts the bible, and pretty much says that there is no god. That everything was just here and after billions of years of nothing a rock hit another rock in which created a big bang and billions of years later conditions were just right to create life. But what created the rock?
Science suggests we evolved from a single cell organism just as every other life form. Where did this single cell organism come from? It couldn't of been here when the dinosaurs where here There were no human life with the dinosaurs. Then they became extinct, by some say, an asteroid hitting Earth. Did the single cell organism come from that? Was it on the asteroid that was destined to hit this planet which had perfect conditions for it to create life?
So this microscopic single cell organism that created humans and creatures was just slithering around until it started to evolve and go through the whole process of becoming a living creature that breathes, drinks, eats, sees, hears, tastes, touches, walks, talk, thinks and feels. So.this microscopic single cell organism just happened to undergo the process to develop into a zygote, which needs to single cell organisms to create it, and then turned into and embryo and then into a fetus then eventually into a newborn baby, with no placenta allowing nutrient uptake, no thermos regulation, no waste elimination, and no gas exchange via the mothers blood supply, also providing oxygen and nutrients to the growing fetus and removes waste products from the fetus's blood. Then it turns into a new born baby, how did it survive just laying there not able to care for its self and what protected it from infection, predators, and other natural elements? Any living creature for that matter? Seriously how did it survive the early stages of evolving?
Its just hard to believe that this microscopic organism turned into creatures. What caused the single cell organism to evolve? Something had to trigger the process? Did it emerge with something? Or was it the result of another reaction and started to evolve immediately? Evolving from a microscopic organism, at the beginning, is hard to see it surviving the process of it going from something so small to the first human being.
If we were really evolved from a single cell organism why isn't it still happening? Where is this single cell organism today?
Was there an event or something that caused these single cells to begin evolving? I'm sure there wasn't just one evolving at a time? There had to be an event that occurred, that these single cell organisms were produced as the outcome of the event, and then had to eventually died off after they had a chance to survive and evolve. That's the only possible theory I can come up with for why these single cell organisms aren't producing life today. Is there this secret place on earth that no body knows about, where human life is popping up and there are these people who raise and protect them? Then they just join society like it was nothing?
I can see how some other things evolved through time. But Humans I just don't see it? Since beginning of human life there wasn't that much evolving with human beings. Well maybe mentally but not to much physically?. We evolved with using technology.
I believe science provides answers and proves things that happened after the first life was created. Science suggesting we evolved from single cell organisms does not prove anything to me. What created that single cell organism, then what created the thing that created the single cell organism, then what created that, and then what created that? It all has to lead to 1 creator, and I believe it is God.
Science is the need for humans to know and understand, and to some trying to prove that we were created some other way makes more sense then believing in an immortal God that we cant see having great powers and created everything. To some, proven answers to questions of life figured out through science is easier to believe then believing in something you cant see, something you cant witness first hand. Even though science hasn't 100% proven their theory of the creation of life, but the facts and evidence they have and the progress of answering more questions then what religion can provide, is good enough for some people.
If science was right then there would be no meaning to life. We just live then die and everything that happened in between just happened. Just creatures wondering around a planet for no logical reason, just a freak accident that occurred in nature, that resulted in life forms that have no real purpose in the universe that are going to inevitably die out.
I find it hard to believe that such a beautiful and complex creation such as life has no meaning. There has to be more, There cant be no reason for our existence. Someone or something had to put time into our creation. Life is to complex for it to just happen.
In life there are always 2 ways, 2 versions, an action and reaction, positive or negative, right or wrong, left or right, man or woman, living or nonliving, open or closed, free or confined, day or night, land or water, and science or religion.
No body really knows how everything came about, just think what it felt like to be the first human life. What do you think was going through their mind?
There has to be a creator that directed the first human life the right way. I believe in God and all that science crap is just crap. To believe that we came from a microscopic organism to what we are today, and that the process isn't still occurring to this day, doesn't make any sense to me.
Very, funny since the purpose of any religion seems to be to deny all others and to sew the seeds and bath the ground in blood trying to prove it.
Who is saying evolution is or isn't real? How do you get some of your assumptions? They don't even make sense to what you reply too.You right, so actually not 100% incorrect.A theory is 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."Theory is not a fact. Hence it being considered a Theory."
100% incorrect. Dang, why do so many make this error, and keep making it, even after being corrected?
Something proven to be true is a fact. A theory is an idea that intends to explain why or what something is or happens without actually knowing or being proven its fact. Once something is proven to be true then it is considered fact.
That's not how the word theory is used in science. A "scientific theory" is the highest status an explanation can obtain in science. Yes, theories may be considered facts. Their predictions may be considered certainty. For instance, the Theory of Electromagnetism predicts that sending a current through a wire will generate a magnetic field. The current and the magnetic field are described by laws, and the explanation/prediction is considered a fact.
Likewise, the Theory of Evolution is considered to be fact. It has been "proven true" as much as anything can be proven true. It is as true as the fact that two massive objects exert a force on one another called "gravity". The explanation for this is "the Theory of Gravity".
The word is simply used differently in science than it is otherwise.
To be clear, it's not intellectually honest to compare a gut feeling to an established scientific theor
Which, of course, is why there are countless medical theories that are so rejected the AMA will not allow them to be practiced in the US.A theory is 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."Theory is not a fact. Hence it being considered a Theory."
100% incorrect. Dang, why do so many make this error, and keep making it, even after being corrected?
Something proven to be true is a fact. A theory is an idea that intends to explain why or what something is or happens without actually knowing or being proven its fact. Once something is proven to be true then it is considered fact.
That's not how the word theory is used in science. A "scientific theory" is the highest status an explanation can obtain in science. Yes, theories may be considered facts. Their predictions may be considered certainty. For instance, the Theory of Electromagnetism predicts that sending a current through a wire will generate a magnetic field. The current and the magnetic field are described by laws, and the explanation/prediction is considered a fact.
Likewise, the Theory of Evolution is considered to be fact. It has been "proven true" as much as anything can be proven true. It is as true as the fact that two massive objects exert a force on one another called "gravity". The explanation for this is "the Theory of Gravity".
The word is simply used differently in science than it is otherwise.
Now back to those insects and animals that insist on being eaten even after billions of years.
What a bunch of meaningless pap. Which "scientific theories" are those? And are they rejected on ethical or legal grounds, or because of inefficacy? You're not the most articulate guy. You vomit this nonsense, and then rational adults have to sift through it and play 20 questions just to figure out what the hell you are trying to say.
Regarding evolution: you're an adult now. Nobody cares what you believe regarding accepted scientific theories. Maybe if you were in 7th grade science class, the teacher would give you F after F and send a letter home regarding his concern that you are failing badly and clearly not making any effort to learn the material. I feel no such compulsion to correct your errors and misunderstandings, because you are a dishonest person who isn't trying to learn anything.
So you're a scientist who actually discusses evolution with scientist with years of experience and thousands of patients which have led them to the conclusion that evolution is real.
Who is saying evolution is or isn't real? How do you get some of your assumptions? They don't even make sense to what you reply too.You right, so actually not 100% incorrect.A theory is 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.
Something proven to be true is a fact. A theory is an idea that intends to explain why or what something is or happens without actually knowing or being proven its fact. Once something is proven to be true then it is considered fact.
That's not how the word theory is used in science. A "scientific theory" is the highest status an explanation can obtain in science. Yes, theories may be considered facts. Their predictions may be considered certainty. For instance, the Theory of Electromagnetism predicts that sending a current through a wire will generate a magnetic field. The current and the magnetic field are described by laws, and the explanation/prediction is considered a fact.
Likewise, the Theory of Evolution is considered to be fact. It has been "proven true" as much as anything can be proven true. It is as true as the fact that two massive objects exert a force on one another called "gravity". The explanation for this is "the Theory of Gravity".
The word is simply used differently in science than it is otherwise.
To be clear, it's not intellectually honest to compare a gut feeling to an established scientific theor
Which, of course, is why there are countless medical theories that are so rejected the AMA will not allow them to be practiced in the US.A theory is 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.
Something proven to be true is a fact. A theory is an idea that intends to explain why or what something is or happens without actually knowing or being proven its fact. Once something is proven to be true then it is considered fact.
That's not how the word theory is used in science. A "scientific theory" is the highest status an explanation can obtain in science. Yes, theories may be considered facts. Their predictions may be considered certainty. For instance, the Theory of Electromagnetism predicts that sending a current through a wire will generate a magnetic field. The current and the magnetic field are described by laws, and the explanation/prediction is considered a fact.
Likewise, the Theory of Evolution is considered to be fact. It has been "proven true" as much as anything can be proven true. It is as true as the fact that two massive objects exert a force on one another called "gravity". The explanation for this is "the Theory of Gravity".
The word is simply used differently in science than it is otherwise.
Now back to those insects and animals that insist on being eaten even after billions of years.
What a bunch of meaningless pap. Which "scientific theories" are those? And are they rejected on ethical or legal grounds, or because of inefficacy? You're not the most articulate guy. You vomit this nonsense, and then rational adults have to sift through it and play 20 questions just to figure out what the hell you are trying to say.
Regarding evolution: you're an adult now. Nobody cares what you believe regarding accepted scientific theories. Maybe if you were in 7th grade science class, the teacher would give you F after F and send a letter home regarding his concern that you are failing badly and clearly not making any effort to learn the material. I feel no such compulsion to correct your errors and misunderstandings, because you are a dishonest person who isn't trying to learn anything.
So you're a scientist who actually discusses evolution with scientist with years of experience and thousands of patients which have led them to the conclusion that evolution is real.
Even though evolution hasn't been proven to be real, I think because there hasn't been enough time for us to witness it, as the process of evolution is said to be a long, long process, doesn't mean its not. I'm not arguing evolution I'm arguing the theory of evolution being the way human life first came to exist.
You're man enough to say that and I agree.Who is saying evolution is or isn't real? How do you get some of your assumptions? They don't even make sense to what you reply too.You right, so actually not 100% incorrect.A theory is 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.
Something proven to be true is a fact. A theory is an idea that intends to explain why or what something is or happens without actually knowing or being proven its fact. Once something is proven to be true then it is considered fact.
That's not how the word theory is used in science. A "scientific theory" is the highest status an explanation can obtain in science. Yes, theories may be considered facts. Their predictions may be considered certainty. For instance, the Theory of Electromagnetism predicts that sending a current through a wire will generate a magnetic field. The current and the magnetic field are described by laws, and the explanation/prediction is considered a fact.
Likewise, the Theory of Evolution is considered to be fact. It has been "proven true" as much as anything can be proven true. It is as true as the fact that two massive objects exert a force on one another called "gravity". The explanation for this is "the Theory of Gravity".
The word is simply used differently in science than it is otherwise.
To be clear, it's not intellectually honest to compare a gut feeling to an established scientific theor
Which, of course, is why there are countless medical theories that are so rejected the AMA will not allow them to be practiced in the US.A theory is 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.
Something proven to be true is a fact. A theory is an idea that intends to explain why or what something is or happens without actually knowing or being proven its fact. Once something is proven to be true then it is considered fact.
That's not how the word theory is used in science. A "scientific theory" is the highest status an explanation can obtain in science. Yes, theories may be considered facts. Their predictions may be considered certainty. For instance, the Theory of Electromagnetism predicts that sending a current through a wire will generate a magnetic field. The current and the magnetic field are described by laws, and the explanation/prediction is considered a fact.
Likewise, the Theory of Evolution is considered to be fact. It has been "proven true" as much as anything can be proven true. It is as true as the fact that two massive objects exert a force on one another called "gravity". The explanation for this is "the Theory of Gravity".
The word is simply used differently in science than it is otherwise.
Now back to those insects and animals that insist on being eaten even after billions of years.
What a bunch of meaningless pap. Which "scientific theories" are those? And are they rejected on ethical or legal grounds, or because of inefficacy? You're not the most articulate guy. You vomit this nonsense, and then rational adults have to sift through it and play 20 questions just to figure out what the hell you are trying to say.
Regarding evolution: you're an adult now. Nobody cares what you believe regarding accepted scientific theories. Maybe if you were in 7th grade science class, the teacher would give you F after F and send a letter home regarding his concern that you are failing badly and clearly not making any effort to learn the material. I feel no such compulsion to correct your errors and misunderstandings, because you are a dishonest person who isn't trying to learn anything.
So you're a scientist who actually discusses evolution with scientist with years of experience and thousands of patients which have led them to the conclusion that evolution is real.
Even though evolution hasn't been proven to be real, I think because there hasn't been enough time for us to witness it, as the process of evolution is said to be a long, long process, doesn't mean its not. I'm not arguing evolution I'm arguing the theory of evolution being the way human life first came to exist.
But how does your opinion that the purpose of any religion seems to deny others and to sew the seeds and bathe the ground in blood trying to prove it, have anything to do with my opinion that the science version of how human life was created contradicts the bibles version and that I believe the bibles version over the scientific version?What came first, the chicken or the egg? This question seems to divide the believers of a higher power from the nonbelievers. Science or Religion, was human life created by science or a Higher Power?
Science contradicts the bible, and pretty much says that there is no god. That everything was just here and after billions of years of nothing a rock hit another rock in which created a big bang and billions of years later conditions were just right to create life. But what created the rock?
Science suggests we evolved from a single cell organism just as every other life form. Where did this single cell organism come from? It couldn't of been here when the dinosaurs where here There were no human life with the dinosaurs. Then they became extinct, by some say, an asteroid hitting Earth. Did the single cell organism come from that? Was it on the asteroid that was destined to hit this planet which had perfect conditions for it to create life?
So this microscopic single cell organism that created humans and creatures was just slithering around until it started to evolve and go through the whole process of becoming a living creature that breathes, drinks, eats, sees, hears, tastes, touches, walks, talk, thinks and feels. So.this microscopic single cell organism just happened to undergo the process to develop into a zygote, which needs to single cell organisms to create it, and then turned into and embryo and then into a fetus then eventually into a newborn baby, with no placenta allowing nutrient uptake, no thermos regulation, no waste elimination, and no gas exchange via the mothers blood supply, also providing oxygen and nutrients to the growing fetus and removes waste products from the fetus's blood. Then it turns into a new born baby, how did it survive just laying there not able to care for its self and what protected it from infection, predators, and other natural elements? Any living creature for that matter? Seriously how did it survive the early stages of evolving?
Its just hard to believe that this microscopic organism turned into creatures. What caused the single cell organism to evolve? Something had to trigger the process? Did it emerge with something? Or was it the result of another reaction and started to evolve immediately? Evolving from a microscopic organism, at the beginning, is hard to see it surviving the process of it going from something so small to the first human being.
If we were really evolved from a single cell organism why isn't it still happening? Where is this single cell organism today?
Was there an event or something that caused these single cells to begin evolving? I'm sure there wasn't just one evolving at a time? There had to be an event that occurred, that these single cell organisms were produced as the outcome of the event, and then had to eventually died off after they had a chance to survive and evolve. That's the only possible theory I can come up with for why these single cell organisms aren't producing life today. Is there this secret place on earth that no body knows about, where human life is popping up and there are these people who raise and protect them? Then they just join society like it was nothing?
I can see how some other things evolved through time. But Humans I just don't see it? Since beginning of human life there wasn't that much evolving with human beings. Well maybe mentally but not to much physically?. We evolved with using technology.
I believe science provides answers and proves things that happened after the first life was created. Science suggesting we evolved from single cell organisms does not prove anything to me. What created that single cell organism, then what created the thing that created the single cell organism, then what created that, and then what created that? It all has to lead to 1 creator, and I believe it is God.
Science is the need for humans to know and understand, and to some trying to prove that we were created some other way makes more sense then believing in an immortal God that we cant see having great powers and created everything. To some, proven answers to questions of life figured out through science is easier to believe then believing in something you cant see, something you cant witness first hand. Even though science hasn't 100% proven their theory of the creation of life, but the facts and evidence they have and the progress of answering more questions then what religion can provide, is good enough for some people.
If science was right then there would be no meaning to life. We just live then die and everything that happened in between just happened. Just creatures wondering around a planet for no logical reason, just a freak accident that occurred in nature, that resulted in life forms that have no real purpose in the universe that are going to inevitably die out.
I find it hard to believe that such a beautiful and complex creation such as life has no meaning. There has to be more, There cant be no reason for our existence. Someone or something had to put time into our creation. Life is to complex for it to just happen.
In life there are always 2 ways, 2 versions, an action and reaction, positive or negative, right or wrong, left or right, man or woman, living or nonliving, open or closed, free or confined, day or night, land or water, and science or religion.
No body really knows how everything came about, just think what it felt like to be the first human life. What do you think was going through their mind?
There has to be a creator that directed the first human life the right way. I believe in God and all that science crap is just crap. To believe that we came from a microscopic organism to what we are today, and that the process isn't still occurring to this day, doesn't make any sense to me.
Very, funny since the purpose of any religion seems to be to deny all others and to sew the seeds and bathe the ground in blood trying to prove it.
I'm looking at the same evidence you are looking at.You right, so actually not 100% incorrect.That's not how the word theory is used in science. A "scientific theory" is the highest status an explanation can obtain in science. Yes, theories may be considered facts. Their predictions may be considered certainty. For instance, the Theory of Electromagnetism predicts that sending a current through a wire will generate a magnetic field. The current and the magnetic field are described by laws, and the explanation/prediction is considered a fact.
Likewise, the Theory of Evolution is considered to be fact. It has been "proven true" as much as anything can be proven true. It is as true as the fact that two massive objects exert a force on one another called "gravity". The explanation for this is "the Theory of Gravity".
The word is simply used differently in science than it is otherwise.
To be clear, it's not intellectually honest to compare a gut feeling to an established scientific theor
Which, of course, is why there are countless medical theories that are so rejected the AMA will not allow them to be practiced in the US.That's not how the word theory is used in science. A "scientific theory" is the highest status an explanation can obtain in science. Yes, theories may be considered facts. Their predictions may be considered certainty. For instance, the Theory of Electromagnetism predicts that sending a current through a wire will generate a magnetic field. The current and the magnetic field are described by laws, and the explanation/prediction is considered a fact.
Likewise, the Theory of Evolution is considered to be fact. It has been "proven true" as much as anything can be proven true. It is as true as the fact that two massive objects exert a force on one another called "gravity". The explanation for this is "the Theory of Gravity".
The word is simply used differently in science than it is otherwise.
Now back to those insects and animals that insist on being eaten even after billions of years.
What a bunch of meaningless pap. Which "scientific theories" are those? And are they rejected on ethical or legal grounds, or because of inefficacy? You're not the most articulate guy. You vomit this nonsense, and then rational adults have to sift through it and play 20 questions just to figure out what the hell you are trying to say.
Regarding evolution: you're an adult now. Nobody cares what you believe regarding accepted scientific theories. Maybe if you were in 7th grade science class, the teacher would give you F after F and send a letter home regarding his concern that you are failing badly and clearly not making any effort to learn the material. I feel no such compulsion to correct your errors and misunderstandings, because you are a dishonest person who isn't trying to learn anything.
So you're a scientist who actually discusses evolution with scientist with years of experience and thousands of patients which have led them to the conclusion that evolution is real.
Irrelevant red herring. The things I am saying are facts. You can look them up yourself. It doesn't matter who says them.
See, I think that's the thing you are not understanding:
You have such a complete and fundamental misunderstanding of science, that you are stuck on the basic ideas that are quickly related in about the first chapter of a science course. You seriously know less than nothing about any of this.
It's just that I also know people in the medical and science fields and after years of experience all they see from mutations is illness and disease, not survival.
Evolution is a process that supposedly takes hundreds if not thousands of years. There hasn't been enough time for the human race to scientifically witness actual evolution take place.Who is saying evolution is or isn't real? How do you get some of your assumptions? They don't even make sense to what you reply too.You right, so actually not 100% incorrect.That's not how the word theory is used in science. A "scientific theory" is the highest status an explanation can obtain in science. Yes, theories may be considered facts. Their predictions may be considered certainty. For instance, the Theory of Electromagnetism predicts that sending a current through a wire will generate a magnetic field. The current and the magnetic field are described by laws, and the explanation/prediction is considered a fact.
Likewise, the Theory of Evolution is considered to be fact. It has been "proven true" as much as anything can be proven true. It is as true as the fact that two massive objects exert a force on one another called "gravity". The explanation for this is "the Theory of Gravity".
The word is simply used differently in science than it is otherwise.
To be clear, it's not intellectually honest to compare a gut feeling to an established scientific theor
Which, of course, is why there are countless medical theories that are so rejected the AMA will not allow them to be practiced in the US.That's not how the word theory is used in science. A "scientific theory" is the highest status an explanation can obtain in science. Yes, theories may be considered facts. Their predictions may be considered certainty. For instance, the Theory of Electromagnetism predicts that sending a current through a wire will generate a magnetic field. The current and the magnetic field are described by laws, and the explanation/prediction is considered a fact.
Likewise, the Theory of Evolution is considered to be fact. It has been "proven true" as much as anything can be proven true. It is as true as the fact that two massive objects exert a force on one another called "gravity". The explanation for this is "the Theory of Gravity".
The word is simply used differently in science than it is otherwise.
Now back to those insects and animals that insist on being eaten even after billions of years.
What a bunch of meaningless pap. Which "scientific theories" are those? And are they rejected on ethical or legal grounds, or because of inefficacy? You're not the most articulate guy. You vomit this nonsense, and then rational adults have to sift through it and play 20 questions just to figure out what the hell you are trying to say.
Regarding evolution: you're an adult now. Nobody cares what you believe regarding accepted scientific theories. Maybe if you were in 7th grade science class, the teacher would give you F after F and send a letter home regarding his concern that you are failing badly and clearly not making any effort to learn the material. I feel no such compulsion to correct your errors and misunderstandings, because you are a dishonest person who isn't trying to learn anything.
So you're a scientist who actually discusses evolution with scientist with years of experience and thousands of patients which have led them to the conclusion that evolution is real.
Even though evolution hasn't been proven to be real, I think because there hasn't been enough time for us to witness it, as the process of evolution is said to be a long, long process, doesn't mean its not. I'm not arguing evolution I'm arguing the theory of evolution being the way human life first came to exist.
Dude, our world is billions of years old. How much time do you need?
But how does your opinion that the purpose of any religion seems to deny others and to sew the seeds and bathe the ground in blood trying to prove it, have anything to do with my opinion that the science version of how human life was created contradicts the bibles version and that I believe the bibles version over the scientific version?What came first, the chicken or the egg? This question seems to divide the believers of a higher power from the nonbelievers. Science or Religion, was human life created by science or a Higher Power?
Science contradicts the bible, and pretty much says that there is no god. That everything was just here and after billions of years of nothing a rock hit another rock in which created a big bang and billions of years later conditions were just right to create life. But what created the rock?
Science suggests we evolved from a single cell organism just as every other life form. Where did this single cell organism come from? It couldn't of been here when the dinosaurs where here There were no human life with the dinosaurs. Then they became extinct, by some say, an asteroid hitting Earth. Did the single cell organism come from that? Was it on the asteroid that was destined to hit this planet which had perfect conditions for it to create life?
So this microscopic single cell organism that created humans and creatures was just slithering around until it started to evolve and go through the whole process of becoming a living creature that breathes, drinks, eats, sees, hears, tastes, touches, walks, talk, thinks and feels. So.this microscopic single cell organism just happened to undergo the process to develop into a zygote, which needs to single cell organisms to create it, and then turned into and embryo and then into a fetus then eventually into a newborn baby, with no placenta allowing nutrient uptake, no thermos regulation, no waste elimination, and no gas exchange via the mothers blood supply, also providing oxygen and nutrients to the growing fetus and removes waste products from the fetus's blood. Then it turns into a new born baby, how did it survive just laying there not able to care for its self and what protected it from infection, predators, and other natural elements? Any living creature for that matter? Seriously how did it survive the early stages of evolving?
Its just hard to believe that this microscopic organism turned into creatures. What caused the single cell organism to evolve? Something had to trigger the process? Did it emerge with something? Or was it the result of another reaction and started to evolve immediately? Evolving from a microscopic organism, at the beginning, is hard to see it surviving the process of it going from something so small to the first human being.
If we were really evolved from a single cell organism why isn't it still happening? Where is this single cell organism today?
Was there an event or something that caused these single cells to begin evolving? I'm sure there wasn't just one evolving at a time? There had to be an event that occurred, that these single cell organisms were produced as the outcome of the event, and then had to eventually died off after they had a chance to survive and evolve. That's the only possible theory I can come up with for why these single cell organisms aren't producing life today. Is there this secret place on earth that no body knows about, where human life is popping up and there are these people who raise and protect them? Then they just join society like it was nothing?
I can see how some other things evolved through time. But Humans I just don't see it? Since beginning of human life there wasn't that much evolving with human beings. Well maybe mentally but not to much physically?. We evolved with using technology.
I believe science provides answers and proves things that happened after the first life was created. Science suggesting we evolved from single cell organisms does not prove anything to me. What created that single cell organism, then what created the thing that created the single cell organism, then what created that, and then what created that? It all has to lead to 1 creator, and I believe it is God.
Science is the need for humans to know and understand, and to some trying to prove that we were created some other way makes more sense then believing in an immortal God that we cant see having great powers and created everything. To some, proven answers to questions of life figured out through science is easier to believe then believing in something you cant see, something you cant witness first hand. Even though science hasn't 100% proven their theory of the creation of life, but the facts and evidence they have and the progress of answering more questions then what religion can provide, is good enough for some people.
If science was right then there would be no meaning to life. We just live then die and everything that happened in between just happened. Just creatures wondering around a planet for no logical reason, just a freak accident that occurred in nature, that resulted in life forms that have no real purpose in the universe that are going to inevitably die out.
I find it hard to believe that such a beautiful and complex creation such as life has no meaning. There has to be more, There cant be no reason for our existence. Someone or something had to put time into our creation. Life is to complex for it to just happen.
In life there are always 2 ways, 2 versions, an action and reaction, positive or negative, right or wrong, left or right, man or woman, living or nonliving, open or closed, free or confined, day or night, land or water, and science or religion.
No body really knows how everything came about, just think what it felt like to be the first human life. What do you think was going through their mind?
There has to be a creator that directed the first human life the right way. I believe in God and all that science crap is just crap. To believe that we came from a microscopic organism to what we are today, and that the process isn't still occurring to this day, doesn't make any sense to me.
Very, funny since the purpose of any religion seems to be to deny all others and to sew the seeds and bathe the ground in blood trying to prove it.
I've got just one question. Can anyone tell me how you get a chicken without an egg? But to answer the question, the chicken came first. Because you can't have an egg without a chicken.What came first, the chicken or the egg? This question seems to divide the believers of a higher power from the nonbelievers. Science or Religion, was human life created by science or a Higher Power?
Science contradicts the bible, and pretty much says that there is no god. That everything was just here and after billions of years of nothing a rock hit another rock in which created a big bang and billions of years later conditions were just right to create life. But what created the rock?
Science suggests we evolved from a single cell organism just as every other life form. Where did this single cell organism come from? It couldn't of been here when the dinosaurs where here There were no human life with the dinosaurs. Then they became extinct, by some say, an asteroid hitting Earth. Did the single cell organism come from that? Was it on the asteroid that was destined to hit this planet which had perfect conditions for it to create life?
So this microscopic single cell organism that created humans and creatures was just slithering around until it started to evolve and go through the whole process of becoming a living creature that breathes, drinks, eats, sees, hears, tastes, touches, walks, talk, thinks and feels. So.this microscopic single cell organism just happened to undergo the process to develop into a zygote, which needs to single cell organisms to create it, and then turned into and embryo and then into a fetus then eventually into a newborn baby, with no placenta allowing nutrient uptake, no thermos regulation, no waste elimination, and no gas exchange via the mothers blood supply, also providing oxygen and nutrients to the growing fetus and removes waste products from the fetus's blood. Then it turns into a new born baby, how did it survive just laying there not able to care for its self and what protected it from infection, predators, and other natural elements? Any living creature for that matter? Seriously how did it survive the early stages of evolving?
Its just hard to believe that this microscopic organism turned into creatures. What caused the single cell organism to evolve? Something had to trigger the process? Did it emerge with something? Or was it the result of another reaction and started to evolve immediately? Evolving from a microscopic organism, at the beginning, is hard to see it surviving the process of it going from something so small to the first human being.
If we were really evolved from a single cell organism why isn't it still happening? Where is this single cell organism today?
Was there an event or something that caused these single cells to begin evolving? I'm sure there wasn't just one evolving at a time? There had to be an event that occurred, that these single cell organisms were produced as the outcome of the event, and then had to eventually died off after they had a chance to survive and evolve. That's the only possible theory I can come up with for why these single cell organisms aren't producing life today. Is there this secret place on earth that no body knows about, where human life is popping up and there are these people who raise and protect them? Then they just join society like it was nothing?
I can see how some other things evolved through time. But Humans I just don't see it? Since beginning of human life there wasn't that much evolving with human beings. Well maybe mentally but not to much physically?. We evolved with using technology.
I believe science provides answers and proves things that happened after the first life was created. Science suggesting we evolved from single cell organisms does not prove anything to me. What created that single cell organism, then what created the thing that created the single cell organism, then what created that, and then what created that? It all has to lead to 1 creator, and I believe it is God.
Science is the need for humans to know and understand, and to some trying to prove that we were created some other way makes more sense then believing in an immortal God that we cant see having great powers and created everything. To some, proven answers to questions of life figured out through science is easier to believe then believing in something you cant see, something you cant witness first hand. Even though science hasn't 100% proven their theory of the creation of life, but the facts and evidence they have and the progress of answering more questions then what religion can provide, is good enough for some people.
If science was right then there would be no meaning to life. We just live then die and everything that happened in between just happened. Just creatures wondering around a planet for no logical reason, just a freak accident that occurred in nature, that resulted in life forms that have no real purpose in the universe that are going to inevitably die out.
I find it hard to believe that such a beautiful and complex creation such as life has no meaning. There has to be more, There cant be no reason for our existence. Someone or something had to put time into our creation. Life is to complex for it to just happen.
In life there are always 2 ways, 2 versions, an action and reaction, positive or negative, right or wrong, left or right, man or woman, living or nonliving, open or closed, free or confined, day or night, land or water, and science or religion.
No body really knows how everything came about, just think what it felt like to be the first human life. What do you think was going through their mind?
There has to be a creator that directed the first human life the right way. I believe in God and all that science crap is just crap. To believe that we came from a microscopic organism to what we are today, and that the process isn't still occurring to this day, doesn't make any sense to me.
