Itoero

I rather mean if there are theists that believe in all evolution-related science without inventing 'evidence'. A lot of old-earth creationist Christians don't believe in abiogenesis, believe in a guided evolution and invent evidence for God in cosmology. There are many Christians like Hugh Ross which use science to invent evidence for God...they are Christian apologetics. Hugh Ross is a Canadian astrophysicist.https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/the-dubious-apologetics-of-hugh-ross/ I mean 'one' but people are free to post there own beliefs.

What causes excess heat production heat production on a cellular level? Can it be related to oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction?

Human activities including hunting and hiking are driving mammals around the world to be more active at night, when they’re less likely to run into people, according to a new study. The consequences of this shift are still unclear, but scientists suspect it could threaten the survival of several animal populations. Coyotes are among the more than 60 mammal species that have shifted to a more nocturnal schedule when living around people. http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05430-4

Can you believe in evolution and in god? I mean the evolution that started at the Big Bang.

Do you think veganism will be necessary in the future? Do vegans have the moral high ground?

I was in the thread, doubting if I should post or not In this paper they use a Chronon field, quarks of time. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1806/1806.05244.pdf This is more general, concerning the 'history' of chronon related work. http://samvak.tripod.com/time.html.

No. But this video is rather interesting. There is no evidence. I think it's a matter of time before time quanta are proven Ok but I point to the particle behavior of time. If I posted it in the other thread It would be considered a highjack and they would give me another warning point or ban me. The other thread was in 'physics'.

Perhaps time is subject to wave particle duality. Time dilation (especially gravitational time dilation) might point to particle behavior of time. Light interacts with a gravitational field just like time. ..and light is made of photons(particles). Time dilation is in a sense related to the dopplereffect....they are both about the effect of relative velocity between two observers(this is very simplified of course). And according to Wave–particle duality ..particles or quantum entities can be(partly) described as waves. So when you find time particles, then time is subject to wave particle duality I found this video about it:

What do you mean then? I don't get why you even ask that question. Are you drunk perhaps? There are regional differences due to external factors.

so? People should know this, regardless of those papers. Out of last paper:" A principal finding is that respondents ascribed to their husbands the responsibility for high parity; these women reported deliberately giving birth to many children in order to inhibit men's tendency to divorce or engage in plural marriage." I pointed to this when I told of the messed up woman emancipation in Islam.

Read and learn https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2723861/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4875064/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21469272

Huh? There are papers that show religion causes a high birth rate. People thought there was no causation and people were wrong. I don't want to advance my hate , I just found data on Wikipedia which I presented. You often make those silly assumptions. A while back you used to say "you hate religion" if I said something about bad Muslim behavior. The title "Religion poisons everything" is pretty valid. You pretend not to be religious yet your brain is messed up due to religion.

Not really no. I assumed you meant it was not causation. My apologies.

And you don't understand I do understand. I know why you deny causation. Here is one paper: "Using data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), we show that women who report that religion is “very important” in their everyday life have both higher fertility and higher intended fertility than those saying religion is “somewhat important” or “not important.”https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2723861/

It's imo common sense it's causation. I'll try to find the evidence. More people that deny science, more terrorism, more sexual terrorism, overpopulation+global warming …..It depends how you, define 'problem'.

Because the higher birth rate of religion implies that most population growth is due to religion….population growth can lead to overpopulation. According to a religious forecast for 2050 by Pew Research Center the percentage of the world's population that unaffiliated or Nonreligious is expected to drop, from 16% of the world's total population in 2010 to 13% in 2050

I can explain why it's cause and effect but you'll deny it. And what does it even matter you deny causation?? The correlation is there, regardless if you think it's causation or not. I'll send a searchparty.

I think you would be on far better ground if you said "Religious people exhibit a higher birth rate", which doesn't have to be associated with fertility. Ok.Religious folk have on a average a higher birth rate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_population_growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_religion

NO. Religious people have on average a higher fertility rate...that doesn't mean they are more fertile. Religious belief is related to social behavior but that's very relative.

I just base myself on Wikipedia. I don't understand why people deny the relationship religion-fertility rate.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

No... I never said fertility is a social reason.

Yes and the data show this social reason is related to religion.

Fertility rate is the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate Religious people have on average a higher fertility rate. If you understand what religions like Christiannity and Islam really are then you know that a higher fertility rate is normal, it's expected. It's an evolutionary trait. Just because two things occur together does not necessarily mean that one is the cause of the other. It could be but it shouldn't be assumed. Ok but the correlation is present in all major religions.

Why Not?

According to a religious forecast for 2050 by Pew Research Center the percentage of the world's population that unaffiliated or Nonreligious is expected to drop, from 16% of the world's total population in 2010 to 13% in 2050. The decline is largely due to the advanced age (median age of 34) and low fertility among unaffiliated or Nonreligious 1.7 children per woman in the 2010–2015 period. Sociologist Phil Zuckerman's global studies on atheism have indicated that global atheism may be in decline due to irreligious countries having the lowest birth rates in the world and religious countries having higher birth rates in general. Atheism/agnosticism is spreading and it increases in number but that's peanuts compared to growth of religion.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_religion Globally, Muslims have the highest fertility rate, an average of 3.1 children per woman—well above replacement level (2.1) due to young age of Muslims (median age of 23) compared to other religious groups. Christians are second, at 2.7 children per woman.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_population_growth Do you deny all this?