What do scientists say about existence?

[TheBeardedDude]

The fact that there is no evidence to corroborate your interpretation of genesis and the fact that the sequences are out of order, probably don't bother you?

For instance, mammals first evolved on land. Aquatic mammals didn't come first.

The water cycle was probably established quite early on based on isotopic evidence from the Jack Hills zircons

There were no continental landmasses on the early earth. The world was basically one big "ocean basin" early on. You didn't get continents for billions of years


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

Even evolution theory recognizes that land mammals returned to the sea. Why did marine mammals go back to the sea? http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/ocean-gia...tion/7577/
------------
Water cycle is listed early (above).
-------------------------------------
Continental landmasses - likewise listed early.

I don't know WTF you think you're saying in this case that contradicts what I said in my reply. Do you seriously think I don't know about the return to water by land mammals? (hint: I do and that is the reason I worded my reply the way I did with respect to mammals)

[Brian37]

You need to learn how a google search and ranking works. 

I'm not a computer guy and others may be able to explain it better but you might read this: http://www.seomark.co.uk/how-does-google-rank-websites/

So your premise is bad, bad, bad. I wonder if that is considered a sin? If not, it should be.

Thanks for your enlightenment of a sort.

Now, let you and me first think about what scientists will tell us what is their idea about what is existence, is that all right with you.

Do you yourself have any idea about what is existence?

That's it, everyone can go home now and we can shut down the internet. Forest Gump got us all with an earth shattering question.

[Mister Agenda]

Even evolution theory recognizes that land mammals returned to the sea. [b]Why did marine mammals go back to the sea?

Because the descendants of the species who did so were reproductively successful, due to there being ecological niches sea-going mammals were able to better exploit than fish or other sea-life could. Some of the descendants of seals may join the cetaceans as fully aquatic mammals someday; members of order Sirenia already have.

[TheBeardedDude]

Even evolution theory recognizes that land mammals returned to the sea. Why did marine mammals go back to the sea?

Because the descendants of the species who did so were reproductively successful, due to there being ecological niches sea-going mammals were able to better exploit than fish or other sea-life could. Some of the descendants of seals may join the cetaceans as fully aquatic mammals someday; members of order Sirenia already have.

[b]"...due to there being ecological niches sea-going mammals were able to better exploit than fish or other sea-life could."

And due to their being vacant ecological niches from the extinction of the marine reptiles at the end of the Cretaceous. [/b]

[The Grand Nudger]

Wherever there is food laying around, something will come along to eat it.  On the flipside of marine mammals and their journey back into the water - imagine how many chose to drown rather than starve. It wasn't exactly a triumphant and inexorable march, they still comprise only a tiny portion of marine life. They've been hanging on by the edge of their fat covered claws for some time now - particularly since -we- went "back to the sea".

[bennyboy]

Even evolution theory recognizes that land mammals returned to the sea. Why did marine mammals go back to the sea? http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/ocean-gia...tion/7577/

Why did I sometimes go back to ex-girlfriends? Sometimes the supply of pussy available in my environment was inadequate.

Seriously, though, if you are asking this, you don't know what evolution is. Evolution doesn't mean "improving toward an ultimate archetype." It means "coming into conformity with the pressures of the environment."

The environment changes, so the qualities which are selected by evolution change-- so species change.

[Alex K]

97% of top scientists agree that existence in fact does. The remaining 3% smoke a lot of weed.

[snowtracks]

Even evolution theory recognizes that land mammals returned to the sea. Why did marine mammals go back to the sea? http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/ocean-gia...tion/7577/
------------
Water cycle is listed early (above).
-------------------------------------
Continental landmasses - likewise listed early.

I don't know WTF you think you're saying in this case that contradicts what I said in my reply. Do you seriously think I don't know about the return to water by land mammals? (hint: I do and that is the reason I worded my reply the way I did with respect to mammals)

Well then, you agree with my posted sequence.
6. Produced swarms of small sea animals.
7. Created birds and sea mammals.   
8. Created land mammals capable of interacting with the future human race which included bi-pedal mammals as Neanderthals (non-spirit hominid - as is all mammals; and consequently have no existence after bodily death).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that there is no evidence to corroborate your interpretation of genesis and the fact that the sequences are out of order, probably don't bother you?
For instance, mammals first evolved on land. Aquatic mammals didn't come first.
The water cycle was probably established quite early on based on isotopic evidence from the Jack Hills zircons
There were no continental landmasses on the early earth. The world was basically one big "ocean basin" early on. You didn't get continents for billions of years
Cheers
TheBeardedDude

[bennyboy]

Snowtracks, what's your point with all this. You sound like the Muslims in here who start quoting scripture for proof that early Muslims were advanced scientifically. Maybe early people DID understand the order in which animals appeared on Earth. If so, so what? The Bible is an exceptionally poor science textbook. Our understanding of biology now is very clearly superior.

So. . . what are you trying to say, exactly?

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't know WTF you think you're saying in this case that contradicts what I said in my reply. Do you seriously think I don't know about the return to water by land mammals? (hint: I do and that is the reason I worded my reply the way I did with respect to mammals)

Well then, you agree with my posted sequence.
6. Produced swarms of small sea animals.
7. Created birds and sea mammals.   
8. Created land mammals capable of interacting with the future human race which included bi-pedal mammals as Neanderthals (non-spirit hominid - as is all mammals; and consequently have no existence after bodily death).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that there is no evidence to corroborate your interpretation of genesis and the fact that the sequences are out of order, probably don't bother you?
For instance, mammals first evolved on land. Aquatic mammals didn't come first.
The water cycle was probably established quite early on based on isotopic evidence from the Jack Hills zircons
There were no continental landmasses on the early earth. The world was basically one big "ocean basin" early on. You didn't get continents for billions of years
Cheers
TheBeardedDude

Do you -really- want to discuss whether genesis is out of order?  You;d have to be a fucking mouthbreather to...no, nvm, wait, I see now.