@gbrooks9 first of all, it a mildly embarrassing to make an honest attempt and the result be percievd to be so stupid, it is assumed trolling. But I can laugh at myself. And I wasn’t trolling.
Second, just because someone isn’t as well versed/educated as you in a particular field doesn’t mean they are stupid. I have a much better understanding and can grasp better mechanical things. If you want to talk about turbine engine theory or ICE theory or fuel or oil chemistry, then I might seem a bit more educated to you.
I grew up with the dogma that evolution is the devil. So I have come a long way. But it is difficult to learn it on my own with so many on the opposite side extreme, where evolution is the only truth and we must manipulate studies and findings to fit that narrative. I can’t trust all sources. Or there are those that refuse to discuss this and treat you like a Moron and mock with FSM rhetoric and that gets me no where. But it seems like some people on this forum are quite knowledgeable and less biased to a certain paradigm, and more truth seekers. And some with great knowledge in hermeneutics here too. So I am attempting to learn more from them. But I do not have the biological background as many do here, and some of these concepts are foreign which makes others things harder to grasp.
Some want to help me, great. If you don’t want to, no one is forcing you.
But as I am sure you know how communication works, here is a sender, and a receiver. But there is also interference that can occur. One tactic is to give feedback to ensure the message was received correctly. So arhat is why I back briefed you. Apparently it wasn’t correct. Although I think there was much interference in what I wrote to you, as it appears to me like much or your feedback is what I was attempting to say and that verifies it for me, so thanks.
You basically provided a dumbed down version to me, as my version was too dumbed down and had you perceive it as inaccurate.
Thank you. That is what I was trying to say.
Again I dumbed it down too much much, I realize eons, not generations. I was trying to simplify it to understand the concept.[quote=“gbrooks9, post:107, topic:36495”]
Rather than someone saying “… frogs evolve into a new species at which point they cannot mate with a previously compatible population, and they become dogs” (< Wow, the hypothetical person who wrote this was certainly confused!), a single population must diverge into 2 or more separate sub-groups."
Again too simplified. I was trying to go from water to half land half water, to land only with fish, frog, dog. I don’t rally thing it is that quick or simple…[quote=“gbrooks9, post:107, topic:36495”]
Do you really think this is a fair way to treat my generous use of time? I sure don’t. And so I am inclined to think you are here to poke fun. So, Mr. Still, am I correctly understanding your concept for your participating in the BioLogos fora?
Again, though I do appreciate your time, I am not forcing spen shout precious time here. I assumed like many, have some free time to kill, and don’t mind pointing someone in the right direction. If you enjoy debating, great, you. Night have some things I can learn. But if I am taking too much of your time, no need to respond.
But I promise you I am not poking fun.
It sounds to me like you didn’t understand at all what I was doing as you might debat emuch higher biologically educated people and get into the weeds often. It when someone simplifies it, you loose you mind.
But basically what I was saying was an argument for evolution hat I never thought about before. How if something changes/evolves past a certain threshold, it can no longer mate with its old speciecies, and therefore makes it a smaller population…which as you explained allows it to evolve faster…which allows it to change into a new species and it is a snowball effect of evolution.
And if evolution didn’t work and we didn’t change, we would have such a large population, that we would never change, and that would snowball into no evolution ever.
If I was to attempt my next journey, it would be, learning more about this threshold. At what point do we change that doesn’t allow us to produce fertile offspring anymore?
That is false. Atomic clocks is basically an extremely accurate measurement of quartz vibrations. Vibrations change in mediums, like water. We know how to keep the measurement accurate, but there is a factor that could change they way we measure it.
Just like he moon and the earth. An hourglass work off of gravity, and the calibrated size of the hole to he size of grain s of sand. So if you change gravity, you alter the hourglasses measurement of time. It you aren’t altering the time of happening, way it is measured.
You could do the same with an atomic clock. It is a measurement of time, that is very accurate, and we want it to be accurate, so we have no need to change it. Just like we have no need to put an hourglass on the moon. But if you did, it would alter the measurement. Just like if you put the quartz of an atomic clock in water. The atomic clock isn’t measuring time as it happens, it is a measurement of e vibrating frequency of quartz, which is supplemented with the closed loop like re-stimulating of the cesium atom. But still a measure, t of something…that could be altered.
Sure one could argue anything…but why 5min? My time warp theory isn’t based on a random, " what if". It’s based on the other parallel uses of 7 days in the Bible and he literal interpretation of the genesis account.
Surely you don’t believe that do you? Gravity doesn’t make/effect time. Do those on the I.S.S age slower or not at all due to the lack of gravity?
Gravity could effect the way we measure time…like if we used an hourglass to measure time, sure. But it can’t/doesn’t effect time of happening.
During. Constant conditions, you are correct, they “tick” /are measured at one speed/rate. But if you changed certain conditions, that rate would change.
So if the earth sped up and moved sun twice as fast…we wouldn’t age any faster. Sure our number age would go higher, but we would all live to 160 as opposed to 80. The time of happening doesn’t change, just the way we measure it. I believe the earth circled the sun 4.5 billion times in a few days according to the time of happening. Or that furthest galaxy/star that we see and measure red shift etc. that star actually travelled for us at at the speed of light for 13.7 billion years in a few days of happening.
Like if you watch a time lapse, your world of happening is 5 min, yet you watch a tree grown over 5 years. Fast forward, time warp…I don’t know how more clearly I can explain this.
I don’t think all agree with me on this theory of mine, but I think most understand what I am at least hypothesizing. It seems you either don’t get it, or are so intent to poke holes in this therory (which I would welcome), but you are using non-understanding logic to attempt to poke holes.
Just because someone used something is a “bad” way, doesn’t make that thing they used bad.
Don’t confuse wisdom with knowledge…
That is the first time I heard that passage interpreted like that. Interesting theory…
I agree with no politics, police, or religion. i know that math and science can be used to see echos of God, like sex or marriage is an echo of God. And in heaven, we won’t need echos of God, because we will see Him and be with Him. So I don’t think they will be necessary, like food won’t be necessary. But I do think there will be food and math there.
That wa typed on my iPad, so pardon the many errors, I tried to fix most of them