G
Glark
Guest
Sorry. My secretary is an alcoholic. Good staff is so hard to find these days. Plus, this site is not that friendly to iPads.
Last edited:
- Status
G
Glark
Guest
Was the content of Einstein’s work ignored because he lacked formal education?
If you don’t like the message, shoot the messenger.
G
Glark
Guest
How does a Catholic reconcile the following two Scriptures with billons of years of evolution?
“But from the beginning of creation, God created them (human beings) male and female” - Mark 10:6.
“Behold behemoth, whom I made with thee, he eaterh grass like an ox” - Job 40:15.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Not to mention, probably a theological and existential impossibility. Evo-Catholic also entertain ideas of humans without souls breeding with humans with souls - which is tantamount to bestiality.
The sad fact of the matter is, one wacko theory needs more wacko theories to try and justify it theologically. But the dark hole just keeps getting deeper and darker and crazier. It seems there’s no limit to the nonsense evo-Catholics are willing to abide for the sake of their precious theory.
And to think that this insane and depressing process is sanctioned by the Church. Wow. How disturbing. The early Church Fathers would recoil in horror if they saw this garbage going on in their Church.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Irreducible complexity - an inconvenient truth for Darwinists. This problem is overcome by invoking the Law of Junk Science.
G
Glark
Guest
And then there’s a cell wall that has be 100% intact in order for the cell to survive. How do you lots of biological machinery inside a 100% intact cell wall? It’s like trying to get an iPhone inside a basketball without splitting it open. Impossible.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Or if they do try and explain how, they offer some theory that can never be tested. In which case, you may as well watch Star Trek.
G
Glark
Guest
“Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them.
For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they (atheists) are inexcusable” - Romans 1:19-20
Pierre-Paul Grasse: “perhaps in this area, biology can go no further: the rest is metaphysics.” (No wonder this scientist attracted more than his fair share of enemies within the scientific community.)
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
There are quite a few people who have retained one of these “original functions” - speech.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Possible, yes. Definite? No.
Agreed. Now all you have to do is to examine the evidence we see in the world around us to determine what those limits are.
False. We know that there are genes in the general bird population that can grow black feathers: crows, blackbirds etc. It might take some time, or some help from CRISPR, but in principle a budgie with black feathers is observably within the bounds of possibility.
The kind of limit you are talking about here is not “set in stone” because it is within the observed bounds of genetic variation for birds.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
I presume that you are talking about the “cell membrane” here, not the “cell wall”. Not all cells have a “cell wall”. Humans have cell membranes round our cells, but not cell walls.
Research “lipid bilayers”, which are natural chemical formations. Hint: cell membranes are formed of lipid bilayers.
You might also look at how some cell complexity arose, in particular the origin of eukaryote mitochondria, including Margulis’ work on endosymbiosis. There are many different paths from simplicity to complexity.
rossum
T
Techno2000
Guest
Techno2000:
And then there’s a cell wall that has be 100% intact in order for the cell to survive. How do you lots of biological machinery inside a 100% intact cell wall? It’s like trying to get an iPhone inside a basketball without splitting it open. Impossible.
A
Aloysium
Guest
It’s not imagination, but rather ignorance. If someone thinks that the Theory of Evolution explains how we got here, if they buy into its basic premises that we are animals, that we emerged as a species rather than from one man, if they believe that what has happened since God rested after the sixth day is the way things always were, if the causes of the very imagination that contains the images of the universe and allow us to connect with it, are explicable in terms of the fundamental laws of physics, and I could go on here, if someone believes there can be existence in all its diversity and grandeur, without God, thoughts aren’t being put in their heads, they are being taken away.
What is happening with modern science’s approach to knowledge is that there is a smallest of openings in the curtain that sends a beam of light onto this world. Some people believe that is all there is, some that it is all that can be known. We need simply ask, persisting and remaining resolute in our search, and what we need to know will be revealed in communion with the living Truth that is Jesus Christ, through the grace of the Holy Spirit.
As to the 6k history of mankind. We can believe what we want since it isn’t specifically revealed in scripture, but was calculated in establishing the Jewish calendar, this year being 5778. I’m sure the vast majority of Jews consider it symbolic. It’s not a requirement of their faith to believe that it truly represents the age of mankind. It’s not the sort of truth one can realize, being more something we can put together from the very, very few fragments of information that we have. It doesn’t matter one iota for faith in God. On the other hand, those who support evolutionary theory as it stands are acting merely as apologist for what is clearly an inadequate understanding of who we are and from whence we came.
What is happening with modern science’s approach to knowledge is that there is a smallest of openings in the curtain that sends a beam of light onto this world. Some people believe that is all there is, some that it is all that can be known. We need simply ask, persisting and remaining resolute in our search, and what we need to know will be revealed in communion with the living Truth that is Jesus Christ, through the grace of the Holy Spirit.
As to the 6k history of mankind. We can believe what we want since it isn’t specifically revealed in scripture, but was calculated in establishing the Jewish calendar, this year being 5778. I’m sure the vast majority of Jews consider it symbolic. It’s not a requirement of their faith to believe that it truly represents the age of mankind. It’s not the sort of truth one can realize, being more something we can put together from the very, very few fragments of information that we have. It doesn’t matter one iota for faith in God. On the other hand, those who support evolutionary theory as it stands are acting merely as apologist for what is clearly an inadequate understanding of who we are and from whence we came.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
You are missing the point, the cell cannot work without all its parts already in place, it can’t wait for them to evolve , because the cell is life itself, right from the start.Its all or nothing.Glark:
I presume that you are talking about the “cell membrane” here, not the “cell wall”. Not all cells have a “cell wall”. Humans have cell membranes round our cells, but not cell walls.
Research “lipid bilayers”, which are natural chemical formations. Hint: cell membranes are formed of lipid bilayers.
You might also look at how some cell complexity arose, in particular the origin of eukaryote mitochondria, including Margulis’ work on endosymbiosis. There are many different paths from simplicity to complexity.
rossum
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
But “all” the parts of a very primitive cell are not the same as “all” the parts of a modern eukaryotic cell. Our cells would not work without mitochondria, but eubacteria and arche cells do not have mitochondria and work perfectly well without them. Mitochondria are essential for our cells, but are not generally essential.
The original living cell, 3.5 billion years ago, was a lot simpler than anything alive today. A lipid bilayer bag containing some RNA strands and ribozymes would probably work. It wouldn’t work as well as modern cells, but it wouldn’t have much competition and could absorb the chemicals it needed through that lipid bilayer membrane.
Evolution generally increases complexity over time. The earlier an organism, the more likely it is to be simpler than its modern equivalent. The very earliest organisms were the simplest; they were barely across the line between non-life and life.
rossum
T
Techno2000
Guest
Can you give me an example of a very primitive cell ?Techno2000:
But “all” the parts of a very primitive cell are not the same as “all” the parts of a modern eukaryotic cell. Our cells would not work without mitochondria, but eubacteria and arche cells do not have mitochondria and work perfectly well without them. Mitochondria are essential for our cells, but are not generally essential.
The original living cell, 3.5 billion years ago, was a lot simpler than anything alive today. A lipid bilayer bag containing some RNA strands and ribozymes would probably work. It wouldn’t work as well as modern cells, but it wouldn’t have much competition and could absorb the chemicals it needed through that lipid bilayer membrane.
Evolution generally increases complexity over time. The earlier an organism, the more likely it is to be simpler than its modern equivalent. The very earliest organisms were the simplest; they were barely across the line between non-life and life.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
They all died out a very long time ago. Probably something like I said: “A lipid bilayer bag containing some RNA strands and ribozymes” As the cell grows bigger it splits into two, each part containing a random selection of the RNA/ribozyme contents. Given the number of molecules involved, and the number of copies then there is a good chance that both parts will contain a viable selection of RNA. We are talking about a few short self-catalysing RNA strands, so there will be hundreds of thousands of copies inside the original single cell before it splits. Lipid bilayers form naturally and are self-repairing.
That is a very very simple system. Do not be mislead by things like DNA, cell nucleii, chromosomes and chloroplasts. None of those are required for a primitive living cell.
Evolution will start with a simple system. Then it will add an optional improvement. Then it tweaks the rest of the cell so that optional improvement becomes essential and is no longer optional. The final result is more complex and has more essential parts, but those parts were not essential originally. Mitochondria are a classic example of an added part that has become essential for eukaryotic cells.
rossum
C
Cruciferi
Guest
No. It’s just a theory. However like anything it can be hijacked and used to rationalize just about anything humanist. Essentially degrading man to mere animals and defending our fallen behavior. There’s likely a bit more to the origins of species and life.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Yeah… back in the olden days Cells didn"t need all these new fangled parts like they do today.
- Status