T
Techno2000
Guest
I get what you are saying, there was a second string bacteria filling in for the Nitrobacter bacteria until it was fully evolved enough to take over its ammonia neutralizing responsibilities .
- Status
T
Techno2000
Guest
Thanks you so kind.:hug3:
T
Techno2000
Guest
I don’t have my salt tank anymore , but I know one must add a few fish immediately to start the bacteria colony growing .
I
inocente
Guest
I’m not seeing your point. A number of independent measurements all give the age of the universe as 13.799 ±0.021 billion years. Whereas there’s no evidence that it’s less than 10,000 years old. Nor for the claim of some Hindu creationists that it’s 311 trillion years old.
Someone on the internet told me the entire universe revolves around the earth. Another wanted me to believe the Russians have a base on the far side of the moon. The other day a friend told me that eating ginger cures cancer. None of them has a hypothesis, let alone a testable hypothesis. When they do, they can debate whether their hypothesis fits the evidence better. Until then, all they have are opinions.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
The belief that macroevolution is fact is watered-down Catholicism!
F
frobert
Guest
Hnmmmmmm, Since when is CNN science? They are equal to the anti-science sources you been pushing.
Even though we agree on CNN the poster was not complaining against CNN but the NYTs. Just another example you not reading what others write.
F
frobert
Guest
Rapid speciation does not falsify evolution.
Read more: Darwin was Right | Speciation then come back and we can discuss speciation.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Creation is not one dimensional, neither temporally, nor ontologically.
It work(ed/s) something like this:
(0,0,0,0,0,0)
(1,0,0,0,0,0)
(1,1,0,0,0,0), (1,2,0,0,0,0), (1,3,0,0,0,0) . . .
(1,n,1,0,0,0), (1,n,2,0,0,0), (1,n,3,0,0,0) . . .
(1,n,m,1,0,0), (1,n,m,2,0,0), (1,n,m,3,0,0) . . .
(1,n,m,p,1,0), (1,n,m,p,2,0), (1,n,m,p,3,0) . . .
This is where we would appear:
(1,m,n,p,q,r,1) . . .
Each axis representing a “day” of creation, sees the bringing into existence and the flowering of a level of being which Is utilized in the creation of the next.
No increase in one axis could ever result in the emergence of or a transformation in the next.
We may look like animals, but we are not. We cannot even be like animals. Engaging in that sort of behaviour, given our eternal nature, we become demonic. No matter what we look like, whatever human capacities we may or may not possess, we are all expressions of mankind, brothers and sisters, striving to become Christ-like, children of God.
It work(ed/s) something like this:
(0,0,0,0,0,0)
(1,0,0,0,0,0)
(1,1,0,0,0,0), (1,2,0,0,0,0), (1,3,0,0,0,0) . . .
(1,n,1,0,0,0), (1,n,2,0,0,0), (1,n,3,0,0,0) . . .
(1,n,m,1,0,0), (1,n,m,2,0,0), (1,n,m,3,0,0) . . .
(1,n,m,p,1,0), (1,n,m,p,2,0), (1,n,m,p,3,0) . . .
This is where we would appear:
(1,m,n,p,q,r,1) . . .
Each axis representing a “day” of creation, sees the bringing into existence and the flowering of a level of being which Is utilized in the creation of the next.
No increase in one axis could ever result in the emergence of or a transformation in the next.
We may look like animals, but we are not. We cannot even be like animals. Engaging in that sort of behaviour, given our eternal nature, we become demonic. No matter what we look like, whatever human capacities we may or may not possess, we are all expressions of mankind, brothers and sisters, striving to become Christ-like, children of God.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
This is not mutually exclusive to the concept of evolution. I’m sorry you seem to think so.
I guess the primary “fight” for rational thinkers is “how do we show people that it doesn’t have to be one-or-the-other. It can be (and very likely IS) both”.
throws hands up
G
goout
Guest
Right. This is the heart of it.
Faith and reason should be properly integrated.
I like the description of Catholicism as “the great both/and” rather than either/or.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
“… there are two bodies of evolutionary theory that exist in parallel, traditional population genetics operating in the genotype space and the biometric theory used in plant and animal breeding, operating in phenotype space. The missing part is the mapping between the genotype and phenotype space. This leads to a “sleight of hand” (as Lewontin terms it) whereby variables in the equations of one domain, are considered parameters or constants, where, in a full-treatment they would be transformed themselves by the evolutionary process and are in reality functions of the state variables in the other domain. The “sleight of hand” is assuming that we know this mapping. Proceeding as if we do understand it is enough to analyze many cases of interest. For example, if the phenotype is almost one-to-one with genotype (sickle-cell disease) or the time-scale is sufficiently short, the “constants” can be treated as such; however, there are many situations where it is inaccurate.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genotype-phenotype_distinction
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genotype-phenotype_distinction
V
Vonsalza
Guest
He’s got some great ideas too. The “spandrels” he spent much of his career researching give a lot of credence to the importance of perceived ideal behaviors in the role of “courtship” in socially complex species. I.E. a peacock’s feathers or the “dance” of a hummingbird.
Species, after achieving a level of complexity that yielded eusocial interaction, began to evolve as units as well as individuals. Humans an ants are excellent examples.
E.O. Wilson explains it masterfully in “The Social Conquest of Earth”. I highly recommend the book.
C
cfauster
Guest
scienceandbelief.org/2017/02/09/guest-post-god-bubbles-and-the-origin-of-life/
The author, a chemist, writes (in part): “Although many of the processes by which the stars find their place in the heavens appear random, the underlying processes are governed by well-defined laws … As a chemist I have to discover those rules … as scientists we can only describe the universe as we find it. We can’t make new laws to suit our purposes, but only harness the ones that are already there. It’s probably a wise God who ignores my pleas for things to be otherwise. Despite its challenges, this opportunity to understand something of the ‘how’ of creation is an enormous privilege.”
F
Faith1960
Guest
Shouldn’t the stardust theory show that the Big Bang is true, supporting Catholicism?It had been, which is why it was banned, but bans can be lifted. If we all abide by forum rules most topics shouldn’t be a problem, yes?
I kind of do too, in that our salvation isn’t dependent on the latest scientific theories. Sadly, though many people have bought the idea that we came from nothing from random happenings with no meaning–which is what they think evolution is all about. Of course, most of these people know nothing about actual scientific theories. The idea that we are *merely *“stardust” has destroyed the faith of millions.
F
Fragile
Guest
44 pages, anything worked out yet?
T
Techno2000
Guest
Give it a Billion more pages.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
The only thing we’ve observed is the evolution of the discussion. :tiphat:
A
Aloysium
Guest
I’ve sort of worked it out, at least sufficiently that it makes sense to me.
I get what you are saying. I would question your optimism.
I wouldn’t expect people to understand one another let alone come to an agreement.
But, we will come to know the answer as to who we are and our origins in time. It will be found, when all is answered, in God, not with the construction of cognitive Towers of Babel that are merely images of the truth.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I think you’re spot-on. And I think a lot of ultra-traditionalists are going to find that a lot of mislabeled “Towers of Babel” were also God-Breathed.
R
rinnie
Guest
agree!
- Status