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.
Bible doctrine.
The sanctuary law given to Moses dictated by GOD required a blood sacrifice that pointed forward to the Cross
Able offered a blood sacrifice
Genesis
4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Always been a Blood Sacrifice required for sin
Nothing new under the sun
I wonder if there's an app for that?Merely reinterpreting the Bible after the fact. Plus why are you claiming that your version of God is so primitive. Why would he need a blood sacrifice? Why is killing things the only way to get the God of the Old Testament's attention?
I wonder if there's an app for that?
Hello Speedwell.Sure, that would be nice, but you didn't answer my question: what is your source for the assertion that dragonflies appear suddenly in the fossil record?
Has anything new turned up in the intervening 25 years? Given the way science moves on, that is a long time ago. You wouldn't get away with a source that old in a journal paper or thesis without showing that there was nothing newer.Hello Speedwell.
When insect fossils first appear, in the Middle and Upper Carboniferous, they are diverse and for the most part fully winged. There are a few primitively wingless forms, but no convincing intermediates are known.
R. J. Wootton, C. P. Ellington,
"Biomechanics & the Origin of Insect Flight"
Biomechanics in Evolution, ed. J. M. V. Rayner & R. J. Wootton,
Cambridge University Press, 1991.
That only happens if you produce results that anyone cares about. If you produce really boring findings, no one cares and you're safe from scrutiny.A wise scientist will try to prove himself wrong because it is without a doubt that once he or she publishes that others will be trying to prove that scientist wrong.
If dark energy and dark matter, have never been measured or observed, how are you able to quantify the effect of dark energy and dark matter?
Yet astrophysics claims, that the visible universe is less than 5% of the real universe. How can science rely on observational data, when the bulk of the data is beyond the realm of observation or detection.
The idea of evolutionary theory proposes two broad explanations for life on this planet. The first explanation, all species are related to one another in a hierarchy construction. Secondly, all species that exist are generated by preceding species.
This idea that species generate other species is pure speculation.
For example, the dragonfly, the earliest example found in the fossil record, is dated at around 325 million years old. There are no preceding ancestors of the dragonfly in the fossil record. The dragonfly just suddenly appears in the fossil record and fully formed, not a transitional entity. Today the dragonfly we observe is smaller than the ancient dragonfly, yet is identical in every way, an exact copy. Almost no genetic variation over a period of 325 million years is observable.
Hello Jon.
Good post, though things are not as straight forward as you might think. The theory of general relativity sure provides a reasonable explanation for gravity. But there are problems with the theory.
Anomalies and discrepancies
There are some observations that are not adequately accounted for, which may point to the need for better theories of gravity or perhaps be explained in other ways. (gravity.wikipedia)
We do need a better theory than the theory of relativity.
One of the problems is the daunting complexity of space time.
Even Einstein was mathematically too primitive, to explain his theory in a mathematical manner. He enlisted help from a gifted mathematician. When Einstein released his theory, I read somewhere, that only a handful of mathematicians could understand his theory.
This does not bode well for a future, upgraded general theory
of gravity.
Yes, we are all well aware of that. You still don't know how to ask proper questions. Perhaps you should try to learn why scientists do not think that this is a threat to the theory of evolution at all.Hello Speedwell.
When insect fossils first appear, in the Middle and Upper Carboniferous, they are diverse and for the most part fully winged. There are a few primitively wingless forms, but no convincing intermediates are known.
R. J. Wootton, C. P. Ellington,
"Biomechanics & the Origin of Insect Flight"
Biomechanics in Evolution, ed. J. M. V. Rayner & R. J. Wootton,
Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Your the fellow waving the flag for the evolution of life forms,Has anything new turned up in the intervening 25 years? Given the way science moves on, that is a long time ago. You wouldn't get away with a source that old in a journal paper or thesis without showing that there was nothing newer.
Science is all about evidence, observable evidence. If the evolution of winged insects is not observable in the fossil record, then say so. Don't leave me sitting here, perplexed at the failure of those who proclaim evolution, to bother to support their evolutionary theory.But we should move on to the point you are making. Supposing that the fossil record for flying insects is not as complete as we would like, what does that get you?
Hello Zone.Yes, we are all well aware of that. You still don't know how to ask proper questions. Perhaps you should try to learn why scientists do not think that this is a threat to the theory of evolution at all.
Hello Speedwell.
Thanks for your reply.
Your the fellow waving the flag for the evolution of life forms,
you tell me. I am asking for the fossil evidence to support the idea, that the dragonfly has evolved.
Science is all about evidence, observable evidence. If the evolution of winged insects is not observable in the fossil record, then say so. Don't leave me sitting here, perplexed at the failure of those who proclaim evolution, to bother to support their evolutionary theory.
Through the smoke and mirrors, it certainly appears to be a gaping hole in the evidence to support the theory.
There are a few primitively wingless forms, but no convincing intermediates are known.
Hello Zone.
Your aware that there are no recorded observations, of the evolution of winged insects in the fossil record. This obviously
is an issue for me, for some reason, it presents no issue for you.
Any lack of observable evidence should indicate an issue.
A more precise description of the problem, mankind is experiencing difficulty in coping with the vast complexity of space time. I still have difficult in understanding, that the grand theory of everything, was not developed decades ago.The fact that modern theories of gravitation are not perfect doesn't mean that they are useless.
A marvelous fellow, probably one of the greatest scientists in history. But the complexity of the universe seems to be increasing, the deeper we look into the universe, the stranger it becomes. I have even heard some of the folk, working on the results from the Hadron Collider, suggesting we may need a new form of mathematics to explain the data.Even when astronomers had only Newton's theory, it was good enough for them to use the perturbations of the orbit of Uranus to predict the position of the planet Neptune to within 1°.
I agree, an incredible advance in technology. This also allowed the confirmation of tectonic plate movement in Geology.Modern theories of gravitation, such as Einstein's theory of relativity, allow us to measure our position on the Earth surface to within a few metres using GPS.
Yes, but the chain is breaks at the weakest link, regardless of how strong the chain appears to be. It is the weaknesses in the theories, that most strongly declare the eventual failure of the theory, to accurately describe the full data set.They also allow astronomers to make accurate predictions of, for example, eclipses, transits and occultations, meteor showers, the movements of planets (particularly Mercury) and binary stars, and the appearance and movements of comets. It has also enabled astronomers to measure the masses of the supermassive black holes in galactic nuclei.
I am a purist, the theory needs to be absolutely descriptive of the observations. An approximation of the truth is not acceptable, for me that is anathema.Even if we need better theories of gravitation, our present theories are good enough for most practical purposes, and that suggests to me that scientists are not far off the mark. Any better theory will have to do as well as general relativity both in explaining observed phenomena and in predicting future events.
Just don't ask whether the observable evidence exists.But there are mountains of evidence for evolution.
I asked for the evidence and there seems to be no evidence.Once again learn first, then see if you can refute.
Your aware that there are no recorded observations, of the evolution of winged insects in the fossil record. This obviously
is an issue for me, for some reason, it presents no issue for you.
Any lack of observable evidence should indicate an issue.
I am not "waving the flag for the evolution of life forms." I am a bystander, a layman. The theory of evolution seems credible to me, but it is only a scientific theory and could, as such, be overturned by new evidence at any time.Your the fellow waving the flag for the evolution of life forms,
you tell me. I am asking for the fossil evidence to support the idea, that the dragonfly has evolved.
Hello Zone.
You are repeating yourself.
Just don't ask whether the observable evidence exists.
I asked for the evidence and there seems to be no evidence.
A theory must be supported by observable, objective, hard evidence.
Yes; given the number of confirmed predictions of general relativity, it seems likely that it is the expression of a more complete theory within some bound or at some limit, much as Newtonian mechanics is an expression of GR in the limit where the effects of GR are insignificant (i.e. a Newtonian universe with absolute time and Galilean invariance).Even if we need better theories of gravitation, our present theories are good enough for most practical purposes, and that suggests to me that scientists are not far off the mark. Any better theory will have to do as well as general relativity both in explaining observed phenomena and in predicting future events.
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?