Perhaps you have it Dog. But the use of the word Therory in the title of the book might be a bit hopeful in its usage suggesting the subject of the book has the status of a theorem. Mathematically a theorem means, "An idea accepted as a demonstrable truth". The book never gained that level of acceptance from any group.
Humans did not evolve from either of the living species of chimpanzees. Humans did however evolve from a species of extinct chimpanzee, dubbed Pan prior. The two modern species (common chimpanzees and bonobos) are humans' closest living relatives and some anthropologists and primatologists accept that humans are not only descended from an extinct chimpanzee, but are themselves a species of living chimpanzee. The most recent common ancestor of humans and the other living chimpanzees lived between 5 and 8 million years ago. Finds of the 4.4 million year old Ardipithecus indicate the ancestor was a moderately competent bipedal walker rather than a knucklewalker, and was small and rather more long limbed than a chimpanzee and with a shorter snout. Contrary to the idea of chimpanzees as "primitive", they too have evolved since the split, becoming larger, more aggressive and more capable climbers. Together with the other apes, humans and chimpanzees constitute the family Hominidae. This group evolved from a common ancestor with the Old World monkeys some 40 million years ago
Eating less than an hour before swimming does not increase the risk of experiencing muscle cramps or drowning. One study shows a correlation between alcohol consumption and drowning, but there is no evidence cited regarding stomach cramps or the consumption of food.
It is true that life expectancy in the Middle Ages and earlier was low; however, one should not infer that people usually died around the age of 30. In fact, the low life expectancy is an average very strongly influenced by high infant mortality, and the life expectancy of people who lived to adulthood was much higher. A 21-year-old man in medieval England, for example, could by one estimate expect to live to the age of 64.
Try selling that theory without making the assumption that all food consumed is good food. When the food is bad as was often the case back in the day before refrigerated food storage for an outing. Sometimes a violent rejection of the tainted is stuff the normal body reaction. Not good when you are in over your head.
The big bang theory is just a description of how the universe evolved from a very early stage. It does not describe the origin or cause.
The Big Bang is a theory that explains the origin of the universe. Space and time was created during that series of events. How could you not think its a description of origin?
Monosodium glutamate (MSG) has a widespread reputation for triggering migraine headache exacerbations, but there are no consistent data to support this relationship. Although there have been reports of an MSG-sensitive subset of the population, this has not been demonstrated in placebo-controlled trials.
Obviously just because 2 hypothesis are both not directly observable does not make them equally probable. "Dinosaurs had sex" and "dinosaurs danced the Tango" are not equally valid. Scientists don't have to rule out the possibility of ID to consider natural abiogenesis a much more probable hypothesis based on other factors. They can look at the universe today and observe that it appears to operates entirely by natural laws, and judge that it is most probable that the same applies to the origin of life.
Let's. I'm not out to discredit creationism. I simply want to know how the "theory of creation" is similar to the scientific theory that SPD gave details about. How is it that the idea that the universe was created with the snap of magical fingers at all like a set of principles that explain observable natural phenomena? The theory of creationism is nothing more than a hunch -- the layman's version of the word "theory." There's no science in it. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. I think this has been pointed out so I won't get into it. However, even as controversial as abiogenesis is as a model for how life started on Earth, it still outclasses the "theory of creation" a thousand times. Abiogenesis has the results of actual science behind its rationale. Again, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. And again, the currently accepted "primordial soup" model of abiogenesis has real science that point in that direction. It's not a slam dunk, as the theory of evolution is, but it's nowhere near the realm of conjecture and willful ignorance that creationism inhabits. I'm not sure what you're arguing. So I'll ask again: How is the "theory of creation" like a scientific theory?
I'd never hear the term "abiogenesis" before. But looking it up led me to this, which is fascinating.
Easy... God created singularity and commanded it to expand. No different than splitting an atom and creating tremendous amounts of energy. Now go back to 1887 and try and explain that to their modern scientists and they would most likely run you off laughing. Yet here we are! What you consider magical may not be as magical as you think. With technology evolving so rapidly in the last hundred years, man may have the power to bend space and time itself. How natural is that?! Lmao I have pointed out clearly that I believe in evolution. I argue only how it started. You say something that never been physically observed "abiogenesis" seems more logical, but that don't mean shit. You clearly pointed out in order for something to follow in line with spd classification it must be observed. You made a dig that creation hasn't as some mock. Then I use abiogenesis and you defend it, even though I used your same argument against you. Double standard anyone? Lol Only your opinion. So we can keep that out of a rational debate shall we? Ignoring abiogenesis because you now understand it destroys your argument is laughable. As I said, let's both agree on evolution. It was either made by a conscious being or "God" or happened naturally right? So what do you believe? As I already explained. The same way abiogenesis is explained. Using philosophy...
Yes I know of this method. The amazing thing was that man could not create life without life. So testing the theory of abiogenesis failed in this regard. Go figure...
How do you know that god is life? That's what you're saying right? God created life. So god must be life? How do you know? That's a huge assumption you're making.
