Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

originally posted by: Medicator
No matter what you believe, I think we can all agree that we came from SOMETHING .

Well I think that's a given lol.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Scientific "theory" as opposed to,.. just a "theory". I get it. You're a follower. That's good.

originally posted by: Mazzini
a reply to: TerryDon79

I am no scientist but I thought gravity is a result of centrifugal force from the rotation of the earth.

My point is, it proves that the story of Joshua getting God to halt time so they could finish the slaughter of Canaan is impossible.

If the earth stood still everything that isn't the earth would fly out into space.

But I do wonder how gravity is so exact that it allows us to exist. If the earth was just a little faster or slower you have chaos.

How the hell is earth so orderly. It's a hell of a coincidence.

Since the earth has had living beings the speed has changed. The orbit has also changed. So has the tilt. So it's not quite as perfect as you might think

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: TerryDon79

Scientific "theory" as opposed to,.. just a "theory". I get it. You're a follower. That's good.

Do you really not know the difference or are you just hung up on the word theory?

a reply to: TerryDon79

I actually know the difference. I have never been, personally impressed by either...some folks seem more "hung up" on the word "science"... Which is supposed to be a "search of/for truth". A theory or hypothesis, is not truth. By the very definitions. They are a geuss. Not fact! If it ain't fact? It's a hypothesis. Which is nothing more than a "faith"/religion.

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: TerryDon79

I actually know the difference. I have never been, personally impressed by either...some folks seem more "hung up" on the word "science"... Which is supposed to be a "search of/for truth". A theory or hypothesis, is not truth. By the very definitions. They are a geuss. Not fact! If it ain't fact? It's a hypothesis. Which is nothing more than a "faith"/religion.

And you missed what I posted then quoted myself.

Gravity is a fact. The theory of gravity is our best understanding of how gravity works.

Same goes to evolution. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is our best understanding of evolution.

You want to know what's good about scientific theories? They can change with new evidence.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Science is based on "observation". Fact is based on "observation". I guaranty, a "scientist" pain is as good as a non-scientist pain. Just based on "observation". Doesn't take an "education" to come up with a "theory" or "hypothesis".

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: TerryDon79

Science is based on "observation". Fact is based on "observation". I guaranty, a "scientist" pain is as good as a non-scientist pain. Just based on "observation". Doesn't take an "education" to come up with a "theory" or "hypothesis".

Considering a hypothesis is just the idea, means that literally anyone can come up with one.

My hypothesis is you're trolling this thread because you're bored. Now, if you were to tell me that was true I would then try and figure out the theory of why you were bored. That would become (after quite a bit of research, peer review, experiments, replication etc) a theory of boredom of murphy22.

originally posted by: Mazzini
a reply to: TerryDon79

I am no scientist but I thought gravity is a result of centrifugal force from the rotation of the earth.

My point is, it proves that the story of Joshua getting God to halt time so they could finish the slaughter of Canaan is impossible.

If the earth stood still everything that isn't the earth would fly out into space.

But I do wonder how gravity is so exact that it allows us to exist. If the earth was just a little faster or slower you have chaos.

How the hell is earth so orderly. It's a hell of a coincidence.

Gravity isn't a result of centripetal force due to the rotation of the Earth, it is a result of the mass of the planet. The more mass a body has, the more gravity it exerts. In the famous example of Newtons falling apple, force equals the mass of the apple multiplied by the speed of acceleration at which the apple falls from the tree. Fnet = m • a

study.com...

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...


Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation-

a reply to: TerryDon79

Gravity? That may not be a "theory" then. ..just saying.

Evolution is not a "fact". Or it wouldn't be a "theory". ..Your "understanding" is bassed on a belief of what you're "told", is fact. Where's your "scientific observation"? Your "laboratory proof"? You're only stating, your belief/faith.. You choose to "believe" your relatives are monkeys. I choose to "believe" God said it and it happened.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Bassed on your post? It couldn't be reproduced in a lab. Touch a nerve did I? You couldn't handle my boredom.

a reply to: TerryDon79

"Literally"? Yes! Anyone can. Thank you for realizing that! Have you come up with any? Or are you riding on someone elses?

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: TerryDon79

Science is based on "observation". Fact is based on "observation". I guaranty, a "scientist" pain is as good as a non-scientist pain. Just based on "observation". Doesn't take an "education" to come up with a "theory" or "hypothesis".

It takes an education to be able to understand the variables and know how to test a hypothesis though. If one lacks the level of education to understand and use the scientific method, then how are they to be able to devise proper tests of their hypothesis?

All Scientific Theories begin as hypothesis. At its most basic definition, in science, a Hypothesis is an unproven idea. Once enough data and evidence is accumulated to support the truth of a hypothesis under the Scientific Method, that hypothesis can then move on to become a Scientific Theory and will be accepted as a valid explanation of a particular phenomena. Scientific Theories are the frameworks of a group of observations and facts. Theories can change, the ways in which a Scientific Theory can be interpreted may change, but the facts that support that Scientific Theory do not change. Biologist Jaime Tanner equates it to a basket in which scientists keep facts, observations and findings. The shape of that basket may change over time as scientists discover more facts and make more observations over time but the initial facts and observations do not change.

For example, we have ample evidence of traits in populations becoming more or less common in populations over time(evolution), so Evolution is a fact but the overarching Theories about Evolution, the way we think all those facts go together might change as new observations of evolution are made.

Or more simply put-

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: TerryDon79

Gravity? That may not be a "theory" then. ..just saying.

Evolution is not a "fact". Or it wouldn't be a "theory". ..Your "understanding" is bassed on a belief of what you're "told", is fact. Where's your "scientific observation"? Your "laboratory proof"? You're only stating, your belief/faith.. You choose to "believe" your relatives are monkeys. I choose to "believe" God said it and it happened.

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies over time. This is a fact. The 'Theory of Evolution' serves to explain HOW these facts work in the natural world. It is an explanation for HOW something happens. Not a proof of the reality of something. Gravity is also a fact. The 'Theory of Gravity', like the 'Theory of Evolution' serves to explain HOW gravity works. It has nothing to do with proving that gravity is a real phenomena.

a reply to: peter vlar

A "theory", doesn't "explain" anything or make a "fact". Though, I get what you're trying to say. ..
Now you're talking frequencies? Science didn't "make frequencies" they discovered them.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Raggedyman

OK.

Can you explain Ambulocetus natans please?

Or tiktaalik?

Wikipedia is your friend

Seriously? This thread is about evolution. I show the names of 2 things and ask you to explain them and you tell me to use Wikipedia?

Ok evolutionist atheists believe they are a product os space dust and space water

Is that the answer you wanted

Those 2 animals are what you would call transitional animals.

No they are what I call individual animals

Say what your faith teaches you to believe, that's not evidence

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TerryDon79

Ever notice in these threads, that when one creationist is spent, another (or a sock of the same one) will come in, and play the same game. Its like there is a roster

None of them seem to understand scientific method, none of them are willing to play by the rules they set for science. Its a shame, but that seems to be the creationist way as a whole.

You know I think the exact same about evolutionists, where is Ghost

Cant believe he aint in here

I am gaining a little respect for him, maybe I should emulate him and stay away

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

"You atheists", you keep missing the point. No all of those who agree that evolution is a valid scientific theory, are atheists. Yet that is your default argument each and every time.

But it seems only atheists act like their lives depend on it

Mine doesn't either way

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Raggedyman

OK.

Can you explain Ambulocetus natans please?

Or tiktaalik?

Wikipedia is your friend

Seriously? This thread is about evolution. I show the names of 2 things and ask you to explain them and you tell me to use Wikipedia?

Ok evolutionist atheists believe they are a product os space dust and space water

Is that the answer you wanted

Those 2 animals are what you would call transitional animals.

No they are what I call individual animals

Say what your faith teaches you to believe, that's not evidence

So all of these individual animals just popped out of nowhere?

I've read some religious texts and I don't remember Noah having T-Rex's on his ark.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Raggedyman

OK.

Can you explain Ambulocetus natans please?

Or tiktaalik?

Wikipedia is your friend

Seriously? This thread is about evolution. I show the names of 2 things and ask you to explain them and you tell me to use Wikipedia?

Ok evolutionist atheists believe they are a product os space dust and space water

Is that the answer you wanted

Those 2 animals are what you would call transitional animals.

No they are what I call individual animals

Say what your faith teaches you to believe, that's not evidence

So all of these individual animals just popped out of nowhere?

I've read some religious texts and I don't remember Noah having T-Rex's on his ark.

I read it as well, I never read dogs cats or elephants either

Must be star dust and star water