Itoero

It gets quite boring reminding those that profess to know about science, that scientific theories do not align with "proof" It depends what you consider to be 'proof'. Our Gravity theory can't explain stardynamics. We our made of 'Stardust'. So our Gravity theory lacks to explain our natural world.

Which theories? I just posted a link to a new theory in 'Astronomy and Cosmology'.

No I don't mean gravitons. It is established but it's not scientifically proven. If it was, then it would be a scientific theory, but it's not, it's a model.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_field I don't watch movies since my concentration is messed up. I don't play with myself since it doesn't give me a nice feeling and costs me a lot of energy. I have a neuromuscular disease. Thanks for reminding me.

Scientists have long assumed that some invisible “dark matter” particles must accompany the normal matter in the universe to explain how stars orbit in galaxies and how galaxies orbit in clusters. An alternative idea that there is no extra matter and that our equations of gravity need updating has received much less attention. But numerous experiments have failed to find evidence for dark matter particles, and the possibility remains that gravity must be modified. Lately, in fact, some astrophysical evidence, such as recent observations of gravitation in galaxies, favors modified gravity theories over dark matter. It is time that physicists let go of their prejudices and reexamined this underdog idea.http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v319/n2/full/scientificamerican0818-36.html Dark matter is deemed essential for describing galaxy dynamics. A prominent alternative theory can make the same predictions without dark matter, by introducing a universal acceleration constant. Recent high-quality observations of galaxies are used to investigate whether this constant is really a constant.http://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0547-4 You have to pay to read entire articles. But what do you think of this?

Stop misinterpreting me. I don't prefer a mathematical model. I only stated there is an other theory about Gravity. It's not a mathematical model and it does not debunk current evidence.

Not Gravity, the existence of a gravitational field is not scientifically proven. The evidence for gravitational field is based on mathematical logic. We don't know enough about gravity to assume there is a gravitational field. The fact that we can't explain star-dynamics (dark matter) shows our understanding of gravity lacks to know there is a gravitational field. A while back someone created a new Gravity theory. "In 2010, Erik Verlinde surprised the world with a completely new theory of gravity. According to Verlinde, gravity is not a fundamental force of nature, but an emergent phenomenon. In the same way that temperature arises from the movement of microscopic particles, gravity emerges from the changes of fundamental bits of information, stored in the very structure of spacetime."https://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html

Quantum theory can't explain gravity. A gravitational field implies how we currently understand gravity, it belongs to the world of science but it doesn't concern scientific evidence.

A gravitational field is a model that explains a lot regarding gravitational phenomena but such a field has never been proven.

We (proteins in photoreceptor cells) absorb photons from scattered light. The colour you observe from your desk and laptop is due to which light get's absorbed and which light gets reflected.

Today I learned about marine heatwaves. Those are periods of extreme warm sea surface temperature that persist for days to months and can extend up to thousands of kilometres. Some of the recently observed marine heatwaves revealed the high vulnerability of marine ecosystems and fisheries to such extreme climate events.http://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0383-9

Can someone answer on this:? The based them on the gospels (=scripture)

Oink?? I talk about christians that deny abiogenesis because they believe in God and you reply by talking about Evolution? If people acknowledge evolution than that doesn't mean they acknowledge all scientific evidence concerning evolution.

Then why do you say : "societies throughout history rely on the spoken word"...….They don't rely on spoken word but on scripture.

We have complex language….In social groups, you communicate for better group cohesion. Our communication system is far better developed then the one of other animals.

Societies based them on scripture. Do you know about the Gospels?

I don't have source texts. Why are the gospels written in third person, by eyewitnesses? You would expect (Jesus)him to write all the stories/teachings down. Why were people there to observe and memorize everything that happened, even before Jesus gained fame? How can one person write about his birth and Death, like in the gospel of Luke and Matthew? This implies 2 unrelated persons were at Jesus's birth, as a young child (without any reason for being there) and memorize everything that happened. The gospels were written after Jesus's death...so people memorized everything Jesus did and said, even in the time before Jesus was famous and they had a reason to be there.? If Jesus wasn't a real person that explains a lot.

Those things are often causal related. Religion can be defined as a cultural system....

That's logic but do you have evidence for this? I've read that our intelligence probably as a means of surviving and reproducing in large and complex social groups evolved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence

'Queen of Soul' Aretha Franklin will never sing again

Ok . Perhaps there were many interesting/popular people. They wrote down there deeds, pretended one person (Jesus) did it and invented many miracles to complete the story.

How does your culture teaches you the reason for having a religion?

It wasn't me.