T
TMC
Guest
I reconcile it the same way that the Church, the bishops and the Popes have done so. Why do you refuse to take their guidance on this topic?
- Status
E
edwest211
Guest
I guarantee you’ll see no headline such as “Atheist kills liquor store owner.” But there is a chance that if a Christian does wrong, someone will find that and make it known.
T
TMC
Guest
Seems to me there are criminals and law abiding folks among both the religious and irreligious. Most criminals I have known have professed to be religious, some deeply so.
R
rossum
Guest
Because it also functions as a swim bladder and a stomach. Any surface feeding fish will gulp down a little air into its stomach.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
It is very irritating to post to you and have you ignore what I posted. PHOTOSYNTHESIS EVOLVED AT LEAST 500 MILLION YEARS AFTER THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. Sorry to shout, but you seem to need the reinforcement.
Hydrothermal vents are constantly replenishing chemicals in the sea, so some chemotrophs could continue to live indefinitely on chemicals. As is shown by the presence of chemotrophic bacteria near hydrothermal vents today.
Yes, those early populations of cells did evolve. They were imperfect replicators under resource constraint – only so many chemicals available – so they evolved. The next major step relevant to feeding was to eat other living cells – heterotrophy. Photosynthesis came last as it is the most complex chemically.
rossum
A
anthony022071
Guest
Yes. In the first place, evolution theory is a naturalistic explanation of origins. Naturalism is a false view of nature to begin with. People who believe in the theory will make a distinction between the methodological naturalism, which is the view of science, and philosophical naturalism, but naturalism itself is the simple view that only natural things exist, and that is a false view when it is only assumed for the purposes of science just as it is false as a belief. And methodological naturalism leads to errors about natural causality, because with that view, scientists attribute creative powers to nature that are impossible, with regard to the origins of things. They even attribute creative power to nothing, with regard to the origin of physical particles and the universe. This is the ultimate absurdity, to say that something can come from nothing.
The theory of evolution claims that natural selection and genetic mutation produced all species. But these processes are not creative processes. They don’t produce creatures, so they cannot produce species, which exist as particular creatures. When speaking of evolution, scientists tend to speak as if species are pools of genetic material rather than particular creatures that have particular beginnings from other particular creatures. They forget or ignore the reality of parentage and procreation, focusing instead on similar traits between different groups and thinking that similar traits must be the result of common ancestry. But the only natural way that ancestry happens is through the procreation of offspring by parents, and that is the only way ancestry can be traced. Genetic mutation occurs with alleles (variant forms of genes), but there are only a few variable outward traits, and they are not traits of form. So it is impossible for millions of mutations to have caused any of the extreme changes in species that the theory of evolution claims to have happened.
The theory of evolution claims that natural selection and genetic mutation produced all species. But these processes are not creative processes. They don’t produce creatures, so they cannot produce species, which exist as particular creatures. When speaking of evolution, scientists tend to speak as if species are pools of genetic material rather than particular creatures that have particular beginnings from other particular creatures. They forget or ignore the reality of parentage and procreation, focusing instead on similar traits between different groups and thinking that similar traits must be the result of common ancestry. But the only natural way that ancestry happens is through the procreation of offspring by parents, and that is the only way ancestry can be traced. Genetic mutation occurs with alleles (variant forms of genes), but there are only a few variable outward traits, and they are not traits of form. So it is impossible for millions of mutations to have caused any of the extreme changes in species that the theory of evolution claims to have happened.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
How do you feel about the assertion (made by some on this thread) that all life that has ever existed on earth was created 5778 years ago? If you can establish either this, or the statement you make above, you are in line for the Nobel prize.
T
Techno2000
Guest
They will just say it started out asexually .
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Not entirely. It says nothing about the origin of the STEM universe, that is cosmology. It says nothing about the origin of the Earth, that is astronomy. It says nothing about the origin of life, that is abiogenesis. It does say a great deal about the origin of species, and about the origin of variants within species.
Broadly speaking, yes.
Why not? We can observe mutation and selection at work in nature, in the lab and in computer models.
Many of the variations are not externally visible, like Lactose tolerance or altitude adaptation.
rossum
T
Techno2000
Guest
All I see is two food sources for the first early life, chemicals and Photosynthesis.Techno2000:
It is very irritating to post to you and have you ignore what I posted. PHOTOSYNTHESIS EVOLVED AT LEAST 500 MILLION YEARS AFTER THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. Sorry to shout, but you seem to need the reinforcement.
Hydrothermal vents are constantly replenishing chemicals in the sea, so some chemotrophs could continue to live indefinitely on chemicals. As is shown by the presence of chemotrophic bacteria near hydrothermal vents today.
Yes, those early populations of cells did evolve. They were imperfect replicators under resource constraint – only so many chemicals available – so they evolved. The next major step relevant to feeding was to eat other living cells – heterotrophy. Photosynthesis came last as it is the most complex chemically.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
You see incorrectly. The first life had not yet evolved photosynthesis, so the only available food/energy source was chemicals.
rossum
T
Techno2000
Guest
No, I mean after it evolved to live off of chemicals and then photosynthesis what was its food source for its next progression ?Techno2000:
You see incorrectly. The first life had not yet evolved photosynthesis, so the only available food/energy source was chemicals.
rossum
A
Aloysium
Guest
The point I was trying to make is that universities indoctrinate people. As much as lip service is paid to learning how to think, to actually do well requires discerning what teachers want to hear and repeating it in at least their words, if you can’t be more creative. This is how indoctrination works - the passing on of a set of beliefs, not to be criticised, if one wishes to continue in that field. It’s called education, and part of it does involve putting reins on creativity. This isn’t a bad thing since we should be constrained by the truth. However, there are problems when it closes one’s mind. This is most definitely the case in biology, where evolution is understood to be a material, self-perpetuating process whereby from inorganic origins, we have the diversity of species we see today. It is presented as undeniable fact, rather than merely a perspective on, a way of arranging the facts, which are the remnants of what was. The interpretation of those facts is now claimed to be fact. As a consequence, Intelligent Design, whether one agrees with it or not, is relegated to the bin as pseudoscience, like any other interpretation that would challenge the dogma of the times. Same old, same old I suppose, but let’s hope.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
You have the order wrong. 1) chemicals. 2) other living cells. 3) photosynthesis. That is as far as life has got so far. Photosynthesis was the last advance in food/energy sources.
rossum
T
Techno2000
Guest
So, then one could apply Techno2000’s Theory of no Food Chain, no Life, and say evolution should have come to a end at this point.Techno2000:
Photosynthesis was the last advance in food/energy sources.
rossum
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
It was not always this way but without God, everything is permitted, especially the bad. And the more bad, the less constrained people felt, especially over the last 40 years, since they were made by no one. Even though today, the idea is published that organic material from some space debris hit the earth and spread some type of life. In the case of Intelligent Design, a court case was brought against it and a judge, not a scientist, ruled it was religious in nature. This decision was made in 2005 in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. So, life from a rock from space begs the question: “Where did that life come from?” No answer.
T
Techno2000
Guest
It came from evolution
A
anthony022071
Guest
No one is going to win a Nobel Prize for arguing against evolution theory.
I agree with the traditional Catholic understanding of the age of the earth, which is that the earth was created about 6000 years before the birth of Christ. This is what highly educated Christians believed, until the mid 19th century. This belief was included in scientific books and almanacs in the 19th century. Cardinal Ratzinger talked about this in one of his essays on creation and evolution, which was included in a book called “In the Beginning.” I’ll look for the quote later.
A reading of the Midnight Mass for the Solemnity of the Nativity from the Roman Rite says that Christ was born “In the five thousand one hundred and ninety-ninth year of the creation of the world from the time when God in the beginning created the heavens and the earth.”
See the full reading here. Redirecting...
As for my claim that mutations cannot have caused the extreme changes in species that evolution theory claims to have happened, I base it on what I’ve read online about variable expressed traits (phenotypes) that are known, that is, have been observed, to be determined by mutations and alternate alleles. If you do searches for examples of expressed traits caused by mutations you will find mainly harmful defects, and a few traits that are not harmful, such as the short legs of dachshunds. And if you do searches for examples of expressed traits that are determined by variant alleles, you will find little more than what children are taught in grade school or high school: eye color, hair color, hair texture. Now, obviously, you can’t logically get from a single ancestor cell to the whole variety of living species with the mutations and variant alleles that are known. There would have to have been mutations or variant alleles for every expressed trait of every species. Evolution scientists speak as if all traits are the results of mutations, but these hypothetical mutations cannot be found, only presumed to have happened, because biological events in natural history cannot be observed or tested. And it should be clear to us from common observation that creatures are not nearly as mutable or variable as scientists would have us believe. We can see for ourselves that living creatures are procreated from parents “according to their kind”, as the book of Genesis says of how God first created them.
Apparently, I’m the only person in the world who has noticed this non sequitur about mutations, because no one else talks about it. People who believe in the traditional understanding doctrine of creation and argue against evolution theory make good theological, philosophical and scientific arguments, but they miss the illogic of the theory’s particular claims, the details, and they miss the point that the illogical claims are due to methodological naturalism.
Last edited:
C
Catholicos
Guest
I don’t think so, because a theory is just that , it attempts to explain or prove something, so that something doesn’t mean its been already proven to be true. Anyways, If man evolved from apes, how come there are apes still around , what are these apes waiting for , they need more time?
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
No, you’re not the only person who has noticed the flaws. The scientific method as it operates today, cannot allow for any other conclusion. Radical morphological changes are not adequately explained but a theory like this has uses beyond the scientific. I have mentioned more than once that evolution has no practical scientific use. Biology is done with organisms that are alive today. No one knows how a virus or bacteria will change in response to exposure to harmful agents. Both have pre-existing, built-in defense mechanisms. For bacteria, once exposure begins, Horizontal Gene Transfer allows them to exchange bits of genetic material with each other so a combination - unpredictable - will eventually be found that protects the bacteria from the harmful agent. We hear about different strains when reading about viruses. They can change their outer protein coat when exposed to a harmful agent, eluding destruction. Again, in a way that is unpredictable.
I have seen a good close-up photograph of an insect trapped in amber. It had legs, wings and compound eyes. I’m sure they all worked as designed. " Biological events in natural history cannot be observed or tested." This echoes what Pope Benedict said, "In the book [published in German], Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”
“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
"Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.
“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said."
I have seen a good close-up photograph of an insect trapped in amber. It had legs, wings and compound eyes. I’m sure they all worked as designed. " Biological events in natural history cannot be observed or tested." This echoes what Pope Benedict said, "In the book [published in German], Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”
“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
"Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.
“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said."
- Status