• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why Darwinism is a saner attitude...

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
How they came about?, why C is see and not H or He...?

Oh, that. carbon is the atom with 6 protons in its nucleus and, so, 6 electrons in its electron shells. It typically has 6, 7, or 8 neutrons in the nucleus also. The versions with 6 and 7 neutrons are stable and that with 8 is unstable (radioactive).

Hydrogen has one proton in its nucleus and, so, on electron in the electron shells. It can have 0, 1, or 2 neutrons int he nucleus also. The version with 2 neutrons is unstable and those with 0 or 1 are stable.

Helium has two protons in the nucleus and, so, two electrons in the electron shells. It can have one or two neutrons in the nucleus with both versions stable.

The chemical properties of each are determined by the number of electrons and the energy levels they occupy. For example, helium has two electrons, which in their lowest energy state fills up the lowest energy level. That makes helium very inert chemically.

I can go on, but I think you get the picture. The number of protons in the nucleus determine the type of atom and the number of electrons in the atom. The number of neutrons affects how stable the nucleus is. The chemical properties are mostly determined by the number and energies of the electrons.

In bonds between atoms, the electrons are shared. This is a quantum effect the details of which can be determined by solving the Schrodinger equation.

Now, you forgot to say why you think this is relevant to evolution. Evolution is a theory about biology, not chemistry, after all.
 

leov

Well-Known Member
Oh, that. carbon is the atom with 6 protons in its nucleus and, so, 6 electrons in its electron shells. It typically has 6, 7, or 8 neutrons in the nucleus also. The versions with 6 and 7 neutrons are stable and that with 8 is unstable (radioactive).

Hydrogen has one proton in its nucleus and, so, on electron in the electron shells. It can have 0, 1, or 2 neutrons int he nucleus also. The version with 2 neutrons is unstable and those with 0 or 1 are stable.

Helium has two protons in the nucleus and, so, two electrons in the electron shells. It can have one or two neutrons in the nucleus with both versions stable.

The chemical properties of each are determined by the number of electrons and the energy levels they occupy. For example, helium has two electrons, which in their lowest energy state fills up the lowest energy level. That makes helium very inert chemically.

I can go on, but I think you get the picture. The number of protons in the nucleus determine the type of atom and the number of electrons in the atom. The number of neutrons affects how stable the nucleus is. The chemical properties are mostly determined by the number and energies of the electrons.

In bonds between atoms, the electrons are shared. This is a quantum effect the details of which can be determined by solving the Schrodinger equation.

Now, you forgot to say why you think this is relevant to evolution. Evolution is a theory about biology, not chemistry, after all.
It is all good but you did not answer my main question, Natural Law, where it came from?
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
All is sketchy, incomplete. as i noted elsewhere I think that Evolution is a part of ongoing creation, it never stopped.

Bullpoop and you know it.

Genetics (DNA) does not lie, cannot lie.

To you (or know people you know) get a flu jab every year?
 

leov

Well-Known Member
And why do you see that as relevant to evolution?

The properties of atoms in amino acids are determined primarily by the electron energy levels of the molecules in question. If you do a solution to the Schodinger equation for the amino acid in question, you can derive most of the properties of the amino acids. If you th a statistical analysis of groups of such molecules, you can derive the other properties of the amino acid.
I am explaining why a 'chop' of history of Natural Law is not a good ,complete theory.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
It does not lie? but we by have very little explanation how it came about.

How it came about is nothing to do with evolution, how it came about is abiogenesis. I provided a couple of links early. I do t suppose you looked at them. How it came about is becoming more and more understood.

But evolution is understood
 

leov

Well-Known Member
How it came about is nothing to do with evolution, how it came about is abiogenesis. I provided a couple of links early. I do t suppose you looked at them. How it came about is becoming more and more understood.

But evolution is understood
Devil is in details.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
It is all good but you did not answer my main question, Natural Law, where it came from?

Frankly you don't appear to have a "main question" - every post seems to go off at a tangent. It's almost like you don't really know anything and want to just keep on changing the subject.

Anyway - I don't know where "natural law" came from or even if it's a sensible question. What I do know is that postulating a god doesn't help - where did this god come from? See? Hasn't solved the problem, just moved it about a bit and got us nowhere. We know the universe and its laws exist but there is no evidence for any gods...
 

leov

Well-Known Member
Frankly you don't appear to have a "main question" - every post seems to go off at a tangent. It's almost like you don't really know anything and want to just keep on changing the subject.

Anyway - I don't know where "natural law" came from or even if it's a sensible question. What I do know is that postulating a god doesn't help - where did this god come from? See? Hasn't solved the problem, just moved it about a bit and got us nowhere. We know the universe and its laws exist but there is no evidence for any gods...
All action of elements he and I mentioned are covered by Natural Law.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
It is all good but you did not answer my main question, Natural Law, where it came from?

Oh, that's because I didn't see you asking about that.

I don't think that the origin of Natural laws is something that *can* be explained.

Why not? because the only way to explain anything is to rely on some more fundamental law. So the most fundamental laws *cannot* have further explanations.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Really?
Here's that list again from Genesis 1.

1- God created the heavens

what "heavens"?

2- and the earth
the earth is the result of left over matter of solar formation of the sun, orbitting the sun in an accretion disc and the lumping together through friction and gravity.

Is god gravity?

3- and the earth was a cloud and ocean world

As in, it's entire surface was covered in water?

Try molten lava. Followed by extreme bombardment from space rocks left over from the accretion disc, including one mega extreme collision with another, like mars-sized, planet which eventually resulted in the moon. Liquid water only came later - and never covered the entire surface

4- and the skies cleared

mmkay
i'm sure the skies cleared many a times.

5- and continents rose

no need to rise if you're not submerged off course.
but throughout history, land submerged, rose again, submerged,...
some never submerged
others never rose
otherse never rose again

so, yeah, pretty much true at any one time for some piece of land somewhere. But not really sensible in context of this list.

6- and life emerged on the land
nope, in the water

7- and then in the sea
nope, first the sea, then on land

8- and finally man.

No, other species also evolved after homo sapiens. There's no "finally" in biology.


All in all, thanks for playing, but... no.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
what "heavens"?

Everything "out there"
it comes back later and says God created the sun and such,
but that's repeating. And remember, this was oral tradition
way longer than it was written text.
First the heavens, and the earth.
It doesn't go into things alien to the people hearing this -
such as M-theory hyperspace membranes triggering big
bangs which create space and time.
It doesn't go into the dust accretion in a solar disk, or the
snowball earth or the lava earth.
It's as if Genesis is saying, "Look, the first time you could
have stood upon the earth, this is what it looked like."

But... it does say things which would have been odd to the
listeners - God "commanded" the earth to bring forth life.
Yes, as of 2018 the consensus is that life came from the
land - either in wet clay, warm ponds, volcanic porous
rock... whatever. But on the land. And then the sea.
Yes, you can say God IS gravity, and God IS evolution -
God commands and the universe creates.

At one stage the earth was largely oceanic - no land. And
the earth was cloud based, like Venus and Titan today.

It's not meant to be a text book. It's not meant to be a history
book. But sometimes, just sometimes, you get glimpses of
things people are not supposed to have known.
 
Top