Topic: evolution defined | |
---|---|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sat 02/07/09 03:10 PM
|
|
![]() |
|
|
|
![]() Were they human bones? ![]() |
|
|
|
No. Some were models of human bones but the rest were animal bones that I had collected from the beach and a few different animal skulls that people had given me that knew I liked bones. I had a cat, dog, and raccoon. It just started to collect and a friend made me a display case for them. I sold all of it when I moved however. I wasn’t dragging a bunch of bones in an airplane.
![]() |
|
|
|
No. Some were models of human bones but the rest were animal bones that I had collected from the beach and a few different animal skulls that people had given me that knew I liked bones. I had a cat, dog, and raccoon. It just started to collect and a friend made me a display case for them. I sold all of it when I moved however. I wasn’t dragging a bunch of bones in an airplane. ![]() Did anyone suspect you were one of those people who liked to torture small animals? ![]() ![]() |
|
|
|
No. It was related to my studies. Ive always liked bones. Kind of drawn to them I guess.
![]() |
|
|
|
Nice list, and I think that the statement about the last being the only real science has been duely remarked on. I would like to add one before the first point though. You can call it .5 if you share the ancient Greek fear of zero. It is not that matter and space forms first, as they do so in some manner, don't they? It is not just willy nilly here is some hunks and there is the possibility to put matter in (space), and it goes through time. That is saying that the behavior of bodies is known already, like an equation written in subtitles to #1 saying what must take place from atoms to the greater cosmos. I'm not doubting that if God wrote math that he'd be a champ at it, but rather that it seems less arbitrary to have something lead to this first step in our common scientific scheme, which is still highly influenced by Newton's method today. This raises the objection to laws that act as givens, and places instead a state of development of these characteristics of physical laws that are familiar. Some understanding of what is prefered in a law is required.
|
|
|
|
1)cosmic evolution: the origin of time space and matter,ie. the big bang 2)chemical evolution:the origin of higher elements from hydrogen 3)stellar and planetary evolution:origin of stars and planets. 4)organic evolution:origin of life 5)macro-evolution: changing from one kind to another 6)micro-evolution:varations within kinds ------------------------------------------------- ONLY #6 IS ACTUAL SCIENCE THAT CAN BE OBSERVED!!! NONE of the others have ever been observed the first 5 are purely religious you have to beleive in them because there is absolutly no proof what so ever!!! they only give you examples of #6 to support this evolution theory.there is a huge difference in getting bigger,smaller,or other minor changes than it is changing from one species to another. Hasn't got a thing to do with Cosmology,the Theory of the Origin of the Universe!It's the Theory of The Origin Of The Species! They are separate,but always useful to jumble them together to create confusion,and to promote Creationism! |
|
|
|
Edited by
Amoscarine
on
Thu 10/31/13 06:56 AM
|
|
1)cosmic evolution: the origin of time space and matter,ie. the big bang 2)chemical evolution:the origin of higher elements from hydrogen 3)stellar and planetary evolution:origin of stars and planets. 4)organic evolution:origin of life 5)macro-evolution: changing from one kind to another 6)micro-evolution:varations within kinds ------------------------------------------------- ONLY #6 IS ACTUAL SCIENCE THAT CAN BE OBSERVED!!! NONE of the others have ever been observed the first 5 are purely religious you have to beleive in them because there is absolutly no proof what so ever!!! they only give you examples of #6 to support this evolution theory.there is a huge difference in getting bigger,smaller,or other minor changes than it is changing from one species to another. Hasn't got a thing to do with Cosmology,the Theory of the Origin of the Universe!It's the Theory of The Origin Of The Species! They are separate,but always useful to jumble them together to create confusion,and to promote Creationism! Put it in a favorable light to any disproof. I see not a single reason why laws and how matter interacts cannot evolve over time with selction methods or other principles. Nor do I see it as having anything to do with Creationsim. |
|
|