[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

The start of Man.

http://www.documentingreality.com/fo...sented-141128/

origin of life? still working on it...but still, nothing any spiritualist, theist or deist is working on is likely to answer the question.

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

30 years ago science said the body sweated salt that needed replenished during and after heavy workouts. Football players were given salt tablets.

Then science said that is completely wrong and athletes should avoid salt, and salt is bad for you.

Now once again science is saying there is little to no evidence salt affects health under normal use.

So like Vrist stated. Science isn't totally reliable, or something that should be taken in as indisputable just because science says so.

who said it should be taken as indisputable? i sure didnt. i said that the preponderance of the evidence thus far shows no need for nor sign of any creator....no way to prove or disprove (which isnt the charge of science in the first place) the existence God, as most theists agree (when a claim like 'there is a god and this is his will' is made, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim) which is why faith, strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof, is needed.

when science is wrong, its replaced with better science. disagreements in science is evidence that the ideas being passed around are also being monitored and criticized.

[TheVrist]

Originally Posted by Kanda444 ↗

http://www.documentingreality.com/fo...sented-141128/

origin of life? still working on it...but still, nothing any spiritualist, theist or deist is working on is likely to answer the question.

(religion discussion aside)

Origins of Man has been the most controversial, conflicting, and hypocrital fields of science since the beginning of it's study. It by itself has not been a progressive study through trial and error, and for most part has been all but rewritten several times.

explanations on evolution only asserts mankind into the equation on a theory, however the phenomenon of man, is aside from our cranial growth our evolution has proven to be a flat line, while everything else has been all over the charts.

For many years it was assumed, because of the evidence found in Africa, we came and evolved from Lucy, an apeish looking humanoid, and it promoted the theory of man being part of that evolution considering the drastic changes we have came from in (on an evolutionary scale) such a short time.However science hasn't linked erectus to Lucy with absolute proof. in fact, new findings could suggest, another human species may have met a group of lucy type in north africa, banged it like they were on the discovery channel, creating that traditional fork in the human evolution tree.

Science actually has hundreds of theories that either align with that theory, or totally alienates it from our origins.


Evolution, while a proven study, still places humans in there as a "dark mystery". However with aged old publishing, and displayed findings, they can fit us in there somewhere. They are pressured to, considering what people really want to know is where man came from. So for decades, they find old bone, without hesitant, they toss that old bone up on the shelves, they point to the evolution chart with bugs, fish, and other animals as proof that evolution is no longer a theory, then they point to the monkey ape jaw, with a homosapien standing next to it.- close in conclusions.

but with new bones, DNA, and evidence being found ALL over the world, we will be seeing a new theory surface, that will be zomg breakthrough that explains where man came from for another couple of decades.

One of the key words when reading science articles in references to learning the origins of man is "Scientist have argued". That just means that they are still baffled in everything, and have only scratched the surface.

We believe we came from lucy, africa, evolved, etc. only because "official publish" had to be done, and guess where that publish comes from? The federally funded group with the most convincing sounding story.

[rob666]

^^^^

Yes, but it just shows that there is a missing link in the chain of evolution, nothing I've seen yet points towards a Devine being creating a unique species 5 thousand years ago.

[TheVrist]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

^^^^

Yes, but it just shows that there is a missing link in the chain of evolution, nothing I've seen yet points towards a Devine being creating a unique species 5 thousand years ago.

I'm not either really, that's why I said religion discussion aside.

But even if I was to bring religion debate back in, it does suggest our science may just not be far enough ahead to even discover it, should it even exist.

[Horsevet1]

[twayblade]

Interesting.