I cannot even begin to guess what that means, and perhaps I don't want to.A direct answer here will violate GRAPES policy for the site.
No. Cat perhaps a PM message where I give you my e-mail address. There would no problem with that and GRAPES does not applyI cannot even begin to guess what that means, and perhaps I don't want to.
How about an indirect answer? Or does that entail reams of description of Io occultations, or a prolonged Calypso dance around Ganymede?
Cat, I have no hard feelings about you or others on the forums. Okay, take a rest. In the USA, I am not a member of the 1st Amendment police forceOK. No hard feelings but we seem to be getting nowhere.
Do YOU think that this would be a good place to "take a rest"?
The "absence" phrase serves only as a reminder for some who get stuck thinking all evidence is necessary before drawing conclusions. That will never happen.FYI Ken and Cat. Ken in post #23 said "As the quote goes "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"; most species that have existed have not left identifiable fossil evidence and failure to find those fossils does not mean they never existed."
Huh? The lack of evidence (ie parallax) was the main argument against Copernicus's model. In this case, for Copernicus, it was "absence of parallax was not evidence of absence" because it takes telescopes to find parallax, which came 60 years later. [To be fair to the Church, it was asking a lot to accept that those stars were so incredibly far away. Such distances were beyond their version of "astronomical".]Absence of evidence demonstrating the Earth is moving around the Sun would not be accepted as evidence that the Earth was indeed moving around the Sun in the geocentric vs. heliocentric debates.
If i take this literally, then it means that we are aliens. And this does not make any sense.Evolution Theory doesn't exactly say amoebas (or something similar) are ancestral to humans as a statement of truth.
My point is to encourage others to understand what evolution theory, or any theory, is actually saying and not what we sometimes want a theory to say. There is no reason to draw any line in the sand and ask is such and such theory a Truth that we need to believe in. That, nevertheless, doesn't discount the value in theories.If i take this literally, then it means that we are aliens. And this does not make any sense.
Yes, that's actually how I thought you meant it but evolution stirs other meanings we assign to it, which varies from person to person.I just wanted to simplify matters.
My point is that "some" process intervened between the simplest organisms and so-called "higher" species. I don't care a flying dingbat what this process might be, or whether you want to spell it with a lower case or upper case e or E or x or Z or alpha or omega.
Well I certainly did not intend my "process" to involve a four letter word like soul. That is a bit tongue in cheek. Soul is not that bad a concept, but for the r letter connotation which you rightly (IMO) associate with murk. Since you have mentioned it, I would substitute insanity for murk, but there we go. Chacqu'un a son gout, which some might translate as "we all get gout sooner or later".Yes, that's actually how I thought you meant it but evolution stirs other meanings we assign to it, which varies from person to person.
In general, I agree with the science found in evolutionary models. But, I hold to the idea of a soul which came to mankind first with Adam and Eve, then to all. So this later religious question makes the water even murkier for some.
Current theory doesn't have us descending from monkeys. The genetic differences are greater than originally thought. Monkeys and apes broke away from our earlier ancestors, apparently, so we have to go back further in time to get to that earliest hominin.With regard to Adam and Eve, which was the monkey?