Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Rugby predates football (soccer). It wasn't until 1863 that the rules of Association Football were formalised and the ball could no longer be carried in the hands. Contrary to popular belief, football is actually a variation of a more rugby-like game, not the other way roundIt's a variation of Rugby football, in which the hands are allowed to be used. Blame the Brits.
Odd. I've seen illustrations of football (using the feet to propel a ball) that go all the way back to 400 BC. There are also 15th Century descriptions of "the game at which they had met for common recreation is called by some the foot-ball game. It is one in which young men, in country sport, propel a huge ball not by throwing it into the air but by striking it and rolling it along the ground, and that not with their hands but with their feet... kicking in opposite directions". But I suppose that if it comes down to "formalized rules" ...Rugby predates football (soccer). It wasn't until 1863 that the rules of Association Football were formalised and the ball could no longer be carried in the hands. Contrary to popular belief, football is actually a variation of a more rugby-like game, not the other way round
That is indeed the case, but the ball could be picked up and carried as well as punched with the hand. That's why I say football is a variation of a rugby-like predecessor. Football without the use of hands is a pretty modern variation.Odd. I've seen illustrations of football (using the feet to propel a ball) that go all the way back to 400 BC. There are also 15th Century descriptions of "the game at which they had met for common recreation is called by some the foot-ball game. It is one in which young men, in country sport, propel a huge ball not by throwing it into the air but by striking it and rolling it along the ground, and that not with their hands but with their feet... kicking in opposite directions". But I suppose that if it comes down to "formalized rules" ...
We know what life is. The "why" questions are irrelevant to science. They are matters of philosophy.
You changed the sort of "why" questions that you were asking. Do you seriously think that no one would notice?Why are you so silly?
Why Do We Shiver?
Why do children vomit after head injury?
Why Does the Fœtus Present by the Cephalic Extremity?—The Treatment of Fœtal Impaction by Cleidotomy—Accidents during Curettage
Why won't doctors go where they are needed? deputy minister asks
Why Should I Live in Pain?
Why Additives? The Safety of Foods
Gut. 1978 Feb; 19(2): 160.PMCID: PMC1411819
Why Hospital Patients Complain
Hospital (Lond 1886) 1896 Apr 25; 20(500): 64.PMCID: PMC5245309
Why do they wheeze so much?
Why Are We Here?
Richard A. Prindle Bull N Y Acad Med. 1967 Aug; 43(8): 618–626.
PMCID: PMC1806713
Why should we seek consent for using left over tissue samples?
Why does NICE not recommend laparoscopic herniorraphy?
Studies of Yeast Cytochrome C: Why They Started and Why They Continued
Why Nurses Choose to Leave Nursing Field West J Med. 1981 Feb; 134(2): 2–3.
PMCID: PMC1272522
Why are things hot?
Why are things cold?
Why to caterpillars change into butterflies?
Why do eggs have shells?
Why to chemicals mix?
Why are some chemicals more reactive than others?
Why did life begin on earth?
- Why is the sky blue? ...
- Why does the earth spin
- Why are there black holes? ...
- Why do airplanes fly? ...
- Why do flies walk? ...
- Why are their are rainbows?
- Why do we dream?
- Why is there matter?
Why are things warm in the sun?
Some of these "why" seem to be of the same sort.You changed the sort of "why" questions that you were asking. Do you seriously think that no one would notice?
I like biologos, I watched some of their debates on youtube.Each and every creationist suggesting that creationism should be taught in schools, is a viable alternative to mainstream science, or has any validity whatsoever as a way of explaining what we see in the natural world needs to be directed to this thread.
Never mind 25 words, creationism can be described in three... ignorance and denial.
I urge all creationists to go and study the Biologos website if you want to participate in science threads, because frankly, all you are doing here can only be counterproductive to promoting Christianity in any positive light.
Because not everyone believes God is real.God is the a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma wrapped in story the elemental passage of the unknowable who became known through the spirit within and without from the first and originating singularity til now and beyond. A gift, a hope, a home to go to, a presence to feel, the beating of our hearts, the sounds of our breaths, the love and compassion we share, the silence, the serenity of just siting with others. There are many mundane mysteries in this word and cosmos that we still cannot solve. This mystery is one hidden by God which we will receive on going before him. So why are we like silly children looking in the cupboard and corners of the house and not simply pursuing our work of life in the Kingdom.
in love
Jay
Is it happening right now as we speak?Nope, but they share a common ancestor.
I'm not blaming anyone SZ.You have been given the short explanation. All you did was to deny it. That means you need to try to understand the more in depth explanation. How many times have I had to remind you that it is natural selection and variation together that are two of the main driving forces of evolution, but every time that you refer to them you only refer to one at a time?
You can't blame those that give you the 25 word version if you refuse to understand it.
Except that many scientists have given up on Darwin's theory.To clarify explanatory power, I'm talking about a scientific framework / model that not only fits with with existing observations in nature, but can also be used as a predictive framework for future discoveries.
I'm also looking at something that would be able to derive useful applications based on said framework.
In order to formulate the above, said framework would need to be testable, and that involves identifying constraints with which to test ideas. This is one of the biggest flaws in creationism is that because it relies on unbounded supernaturalism, there are no constraints to allow testing and determination of correct or incorrect hypotheses. Hence, why there are so many variations and contradictory versions of creationism in existence.
To be perfectly honest, I think this is an insurmountable hurdle for creationists. In that sense, the OP is entirely rhetorical; if creationists could actually have come up with something to replace the theory of evolution, it likely would have already happened.
Except that many scientists have given up on Darwin's theory.
No reply necessary.
Oh that's sweet.Why? That makes no sense. That is almost the same as claiming that someone had to "invent" gravity. Math just is. It is a concept. Man developed it but it is not unique to man. There is no sign that anyone needed to invent it.
No, what I mean is that many scientists could no longer support the theory of evolution as Darwin explained it because they cannot find supporting proof for it.If you mean scientists have learned much more since Darwin's day and corrected the various mistakes he made in order to form the modern theory of biological evolution, then that's true, and expected.
I added scientific papers direct from PubMed. It's cool that you noticed.You changed the sort of "why" questions that you were asking. Do you seriously think that no one would notice?
You changed the sort of "why" questions that you were asking. Do you seriously think that no one would notice?
Except that scientists who dispute the theory of evolution can't present actual scientific evidence to replace it.No, what I mean is that many scientists could no longer support the theory of evolution as Darwin explained it because they cannot find supporting proof for it.
Not all scientists believe the same hyposthesis.
You changed the sort of "why" questions that you were asking. Do you seriously think that no one would notice?
We know what life is. The "why" questions are irrelevant to science.
They are matters of philosophy.
But back to my question:You changed the sort of "why" questions that you were asking. Do you seriously think that no one would notice?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?