And my take on the whole single cell mutation thing is that there would have to be a second cell mutating into some kind of food to provide for the first cell. And as rossum said, after Photosynthesis that’s it.
I know that many people see flaws in the theory, but I was talking about how it is impossible for mutations to have caused the extreme changes in species that evolution theory claims to have happened. Some people point out that the hypothetical mutations have not been discovered and can’t be discovered, but my point is that evolution theory is impossible because there are very few variable expressed traits that are determined by variant alleles. No one else talks about that.
That’s what I meant - it a theory of the origins of species. Abiogenesis theory is directly related to it, because it is about the origins of living organisms. When people say the origin of life, they mean life in natural things.
I meant that natural selection and genetic mutation do not create living creatures. Changes in populations and genetic material is not creation of creatures.
Oh, you mean "reconcile’ as in “ignore”. Judging by your non-answer to my question, I can see you’ve leant this tactic well. (I looked “reconcile” up in the dictionary and it doesn’t mean “ignore”.)
Well before a swim bladder or a stomach supposedly form, the lung fish’s lung system was a little bunch of mutated cells that were too few in number to perform any useful function. How does this useless little bunch of cells confer a survival advantage?
They “forget or ignore” lots of things. The theory of evolution has only one enemy - reality.
Panspermia explains nothing … kinda like the theory of evolution really. The moral of the story is, any fantastic explanation for life on earth will do - as long as it isn’t God.
The theory says humans did not evolve from apes, but that humans and apes share a common ancestor. This common ancestor is alleged to be some kind of ape-like creature, called a hominid (although I think “monkey-man” sounds much more scientific).
Techo, get with it … there are humans called Breatharians who don’t need to eat any food at all, but survive solely on the energy of the universe. Their usual habit is a mental institution - but they exist. Google it and learn.
They must be a breakaway sect of the gluttonarians.Techno2000:
Techo, get with it … there are humans called Breatharians who don’t need to eat any food but survive solely on the energy of the universe. Their usual habit is a mental institution - but they exist. Google it and learn.
Catholicos:
The theory says humans did not evolve from apes, but that humans and apes share a common ancestor. This common ancestor is alleged to be some kind of ape-like creature, called a hominid (although I think “monkey-man” sounds much more scientific).
Actually, I think Glark is OK with the Earth (but not the Sun) being billions of years old. Anyway, man’s capacity to discover details of the past including the age of materials is somewhat greater now than then. I imagine man used to have all sorts of ideas about the sun and the stars in times past too.
Yes, we must conclude that the IQ of scientists must be abysmally low that they continue to make such grave and repeated errors. Or is it an organised program of deception, from which no one will break ranks in search of that elusive Nobel Prize?
I believe this is a prayer, not a reading of Scripture? Regardless, can you reference this to a Church document as opposed to Facebook? It would be interesting to trace its history.
I don’t know the soundness of the premise in that statement, but I would note that it is entirely proper for Science to say: “Unknown”. For example: Why did we have a Big Bang? Where did the matter/energy come from ? Answer: “Unknown”.
The Church didn’t burn any scientist at the stake. Giordano Bruno was not a scientist, he was a materialist, pantheist philosopher and occultist. He was put to death for promoting theological heresies: that Christ was not God but a magician, that the Holy Spirit is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved.
The Church teaches much more than that God created. It also teaches that God created all things immediately by his own power; that he alone is the creator; that all things are dependent upon him; that he created all things through the Logos, his Son; that God created all things for himself; that the Holy Spirit is the giver of life; that God creates out of nothing; that he created with wisdom an ordered world; that he is present to his creatures’ inmost being; that he upholds and sustains all things in being, enables them to act and brings them to their final end; that the solicitude of his divine providence is immediate and concrete; that he is absolutely sovereign over the course of events; that he is the first cause, and he works in and through secondary causes; that he is always the creator.
You have repeated it many, many times. I’m not sure why. It is a form of denigration?
Very true. There are many holes and uncertainties. Does anyone doubt this?
I wonder if by “immense”, he meant up to 5778 years?