Originally posted by Shakyamunisonthats silly because why aren't tigers on two feet walking... why are we the only animal
Well, I am using the word "we" very loosely. We didn't exist back then, but there was an animal that did survive, and that animal, over time, became us. That is the idea behind evolution.
Originally posted by Shabazz916
thats silly because why aren't tigers on two feet walking... why are we the only animal
All mammals descended from that ancestor. But that wasn't the only survivor.
"Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event (End Cretaceous, K-T extinction, or K-Pg extinction): 66 Ma at the Cretaceous(Maastrichtian)-Paleogene(Danian) transition interval.[5] The K–T event is now officially called the Cretaceous–Paleogene (or K–Pg) extinction event in place of Cretaceous-Tertiary. About 17% of all families, 50% of all genera[6] and 75% of all species became extinct.[7] In the seas it reduced the percentage of sessile animals to about 33%. All non-avian dinosaurs became extinct during that time.[8] The boundary event was severe with a significant amount of variability in the rate of extinction between and among different clades. Mammals and birds emerged as dominant land vertebrates in the age of new life."
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All mammals descended from that ancestor. But that wasn't the only survivor."Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event (End Cretaceous, K-T extinction, or K-Pg extinction): 66 Ma at the Cretaceous(Maastrichtian)-Paleogene(Danian) transition interval.[5] The K–T event is now officially called the Cretaceous–Paleogene (or K–Pg) extinction event in place of Cretaceous-Tertiary. About 17% of all families, 50% of all genera[6] and 75% of all species became extinct.[7] In the seas it reduced the percentage of sessile animals to about 33%. All non-avian dinosaurs became extinct during that time.[8] The boundary event was severe with a significant amount of variability in the rate of extinction between and among different clades. Mammals and birds emerged as dominant land vertebrates in the age of new life."
sounds like a bunch of word play
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is a great deal of research and evidence to back it up. It was discovered over a long time of actual science.
what is there to research when you cnt be proven wrong ? you cnt go back and monitor it.... so how can i be wrong or right as long as it looks and sounds good
Originally posted by Shabazz916
what is there to research when you cnt be proven wrong ? you cnt go back and monitor it.... so how can i be wrong or right as long as it looks and sounds good
That is not science.
Here is how science works through peer review:
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is not science.Here is how science works through peer review:
you can't peer view something that no one viewed.. the science of the past that no one was around to see is a educated guess.. a few smart ppl gather and come to the conclusion of this happened.. when they dnt really know.. they only know as far as their minds can imagine...
Originally posted by Shabazz916
you can't peer view something that no one viewed.. the science of the past that no one was around to see is a educated guess.. a few smart ppl gather and come to the conclusion of this happened.. when they dnt really know.. they only know as far as their minds can imagine...
No one goes back in time, but evidence of the past is still with us today. We have looked at that evidence very carefully. The evidence paints a picture of the past.
I think what you have been exposed to is people who make TV shows. They interpreter and speculate about the science, but that's not science.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No one goes back in time, but evidence of the past is still with us today. We have looked at that evidence very carefully. The evidence paints a picture of the past.I think what you have been exposed to is people who make TV shows. They interpreter and speculate about the science, but that's not science.
yes there evidence of the past as far as fossiles... but the world has not changed much so its kinda of a easy say... the world is still mostly water.. we have air and land.. and a very hot core of the planet that puts out a magnetic field.... besides animals dieing off like they do today what is different ???
Originally posted by Shabazz916
yes there evidence of the past as far as fossiles... but the world has not changed much so its kinda of a easy say... the world is still mostly water.. we have air and land.. and a very hot core of the planet that puts out a magnetic field.... besides animals dieing off like they do today what is different ???
It is more than fossils. The amount of evidence is far larger then I can ever present to you.
Originally posted by Shakyamunisonin general... there is water, earth, air & the effects the sun takes on the other three so nothing has changed but the living things on the earth
I don't know what you mean by the planet hasn't changed. Are you talking about plate tectonics or more in the general sense?
Originally posted by Shabazz916
in general... there is water, earth, air & the effects the sun takes on the other three so nothing has changed but the living things on the earth
In a very general sense, the Earth is the Earth. That doesn't mean that the Earth hasn't changed over time. When the Moon was first formed by a collision with a Planetesimal, the day was only 6 hours long.
Originally posted by Shakyamunisondnt get me started on the perfect placement of the universe and everything in it
In a very general sense, the Earth is the Earth. That doesn't mean that the Earth hasn't changed over time. When the Moon was first formed by a collision with a Planetesimal, the day was only 6 hours long.
Originally posted by Shabazz916
dnt get me started on the perfect placement of the universe and everything in it
You can only say things are functional because they are, in every universe things aren't balanced people cannot survive and nobody poses the question.
In probability there is a difference in how you calculate independant variables and relative ones.
Originally posted by Bentleyorder cannot come from chaos that is all
You can only say things are functional because they are, in every universe things aren't balanced people cannot survive and nobody poses the question.In probability there is a difference in how you calculate independant variables and relative ones.