Do you believe in evolution?

Status
Not open for further replies.
BlueKumul said:
Witch hunting is not something Jesus would do. It didn’t happen because people was too Christian, but because people lacked Christian forgiveness. It had more to do with pagan superstition, or even Satanic deception.
Click to expand...
With hunting is something that Christians did in the past, and in some cases are still doing today. The Bible still contains the admonition to kill witches and some people are going to take that literally. There are already too many Christians who take parts of the Bible far too literally; witness all the threads about evolution.
 
Hume said:
We have no data for anything , including potential nothing.

Thus every answer is a blind stab.
Click to expand...
Not a blind stab, no data doesn’t necessarily mean we have no knowledge, we do. We are certain that if sound started, then the conditions before can only be described as absence of sound, otherwise the sound can not be said to have started.

The real question is, why don’t you know this? What data is needed to know this?
 
Last edited:
Hume said:
Polite reminder that the physical laws governing the early universe were very likely different from our current Newtonian observations.

The rules governing then aren’t the same as those governing now . You have to be precise in your assumptions.
Click to expand...
This is a cop out. Why would the laws be different?
 
I never dismissed the story of Adam and Eve or the fall. The story doesn’t necessarily negate evolution, either. I am saying that both creation AND evolution are entirely valid and true. Indeed, creation had to occur first, or there would have been nothing to evolve.
 
I’m trying to describe the failing of language to describe such a situation. We don’t really have language constructs to define properties of nonexistent things, while we might casually describe darkness as being “without light” there’s an assumption there that we’re describing an actual thing that exists as being dark. A room without light can be described as dark, even a fictional ergo technically non-existent room can be described that way because we’re talking about the room as if it were real.

But the second floor of a single story house doesn’t exist, nor is it being described as if it were a real place. Describing something that doesn’t exist as being ‘dark’ feels sloppy. You might as well describe it as “sugar-free” and “low-carb” or as a “no parking zone” as there’s no sugar, carbs, nor can you park there.

That’s why saying it was dark before light existed is just sloppy language. Especially if we’re talking prior to the big bang itself.
 
All elements had to be first created in the core of stars or the collision of stars - nothing would exist with out this happening - is that not true? I can see photo graphs of galaxies billions of years old long before man or even the planet existed - are they not real? I can go to the museum and see the skeletons of creatures that once walked the earth long before we did - are they not real? I have to be objective on this with no bias so Yes I do.
 
Last edited:
Dan123 said:
I’m trying to describe the failing of language to describe such a situation. We don’t really have language constructs to define properties of nonexistent things, while we might casually describe darkness as being “without light” there’s an assumption there that we’re describing an actual thing that exists as being dark. A room without light can be described as dark, even a fictional ergo technically non-existent room can be described that way because we’re talking about the room as if it were real .
Click to expand...
I think our languages are perfect but our theories are not. Nothing and something are just perspectives in our minds created by contrasting the two. We tend to believe that non existence or nothingness is really nothing but it’s not, without it, we can not have something.
All i’m saying is, something is only something because the mind contrasts it with nothing, otherwise if something is eternal then nothing is really nothing (non existent).
Dan123 said:
But the second floor of a single story house doesn’t exist , nor is it being described as if it were a real place. Describing something that doesn’t exist as being ‘dark’ feels sloppy. You might as well describe it as “sugar-free” and “low-carb” or as a “no parking zone” as there’s no sugar, carbs, nor can you park there.
Click to expand...
Second floor does exist, it is a potential, therefore we can describe its conditions but not precisely as second floor, we can just say “it is dark outside this house”.

I’m using light and sound to represent something (energy/matter), conditions at the beginning. If you think there was sugar during the big bang then it still appropriate to describe the conditions before as sugar free.
Dan123 said:
That’s why saying it was dark before light existed is just sloppy language. Especially if we’re talking prior to the big bang itself.
Click to expand...
Nothing precedes something unless something is eternal, saying otherwise is unreasonable.
 
Last edited:
the big bang theory was first put forward in 1927 by a Catholic Professor at
Louvain University,in France. Fr. Georges Lemaitre, he proposed that the Universe could
have started from a singular point, an atom. this was further developed by
Edwin Hubble an American astronomer.
 
Last edited:
As for Evolution, I believe in micro evolution as in
the survival of the fittest, but sin and the love of
money has discriminated vs the poor.Macro evolution
is an impossiblity since the law of Entrophy dictates that
things naturally goes DOWNHILL rather than improve if
not for intervention. Divine intervention at that!
 
BT3241 said:
All elements had to be first created in the core of stars or the collision of stars
Click to expand...
Hydrogen, some helium and trace amounts of lithium appeared as a direct result of the Big Bang. Those elements, mostly hydrogen, coalesced into first generation stars and started to produce other elements as you say.
 
GLam1761 said:
Macro evolution is an impossiblity since the law of Entrophy (sic) dictates that things naturally goes DOWNHILL rather than improve if not for intervention.
Click to expand...
Entropy sends things ‘downhill’ in general. However, if you expend some energy then you can travel uphill. The same with entropy. If you put energy into a localised system then entropy can reverse for as long as the energy is supplied.

If you unplug your fridge then you cut off the supply of external energy and entropy takes over: the inside of the fridge warms up to room temperature.

The earth has an external source of energy – the Sun – so entropy can be driven ‘uphill’ thanks to that external energy supply. Of course, once the Sun goes out, entropy will run downhill again and all remaining life on earth will die.
 
Are you agreeing or disagreeing ? Quite obviously hydrogen had to be present to begin the process.
 
BT3241 said:
Are you agreeing or disagreeing ? Quite obviously hydrogen had to be present to begin the process.
Click to expand...
Disagreeing. You said “All elements…” I pointed out, hydrogen was present before the first stars. Your “obviously” was not obvious in your post – you left out that detail.
 
The early elemental make up of the universe has nothing to do with it - every adom in your body was created in a stars - you deny this which is basic science
 
Noose001 said:
40.png
Hume:
Polite reminder that the physical laws governing the early universe were very likely different from our current Newtonian observations.

The rules governing then aren’t the same as those governing now . You have to be precise in your assumptions.
Click to expand...
This is a cop out. Why would the laws be different?
Click to expand...
I think I’ve hit a knowledge barrier here.

Like physicists use quantum or Newtonian textbooks for different questions, the opening moments of our universe might require the same.

For instance, if the singularity contained all the mass is the universe, why didn’t black holes immediately consume everything at the start? Certainly sufficient matter in a sufficiently small space…
How did the early universe expand faster than the speed of light? What slowed it down?
There are hundreds of these questions that we don’t have clear answers to. Might be were using the wrong rules like when a Newtonian tries to solve a quantum problem.
 
Last edited:
BT3241 said:
The early elemental make up of the universe has nothing to do with it - every adom in your body was created in a stars - you deny this which is basic science
Click to expand...
I have hydrogen atoms in my body. Some of those hydrogen atoms were not made in stars. All the other elements, yes, they were made in stars, but not all of the hydrogen.

As the Big Bang cooled protons and electrons were able to join to form hydrogen, about 400,000 years after the Big Bang. Later, that hydrogen came together under gravity to form the first stars, about 200,000,000 years after the Big Bang. Hydrogen came first.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top