Balthazzar
Christian Evolutionist
Given our sun is set to red giant, that earth will become uninhabitable, and unable to support life, how is evolution a valid theory if it's thought that life will no longer continue?
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Given our sun is set to red giant, that earth will become uninhabitable, and unable to support life, how is evolution a valid theory if it's thought that life will no longer continue?
Life ends, what has this to do with evolution.
BTW. The chances are that humanity will in all probability not exist by the time the sun goes pop. We will either have killed ourselves by our own stupidity or evolved into something completely different
How does this question make logical sense? How is the fact that Earth could be destroyed by the Sun in 5 billion years a relevant factor in the disproval of evolution and step by step natural selection?Given our sun is set to red giant, that earth will become uninhabitable, and unable to support life, how is evolution a valid theory if it's thought that life will no longer continue?
How does this question make logical sense? How is the fact that Earth could be destroyed by the Sun in 5 billion years a relevant factor in the disproval of evolution and step by step natural selection?
Still doesn't answer my question. Why do you think that fact is in any way relevant?It's not to disprove, but to strengthen the theory. I'm an evolutionist.
Given our sun is set to red giant, that earth will become uninhabitable, and unable to support life, how is evolution a valid theory if it's thought that life will no longer continue?
Still doesn't answer my question. Why do you think that fact is in any way relevant?
You're assuming life only exists on earth. I don't know if it exists anywhere else in the universe but I feel there's a strong possibility it does.
Also step by step natural selection per se can be applied to things that aren't "alive" as well. The two requisites are something that replicates itself and has slight random changes in its fitness with the increase of generations. These changes (i.e. mutation) can either benefit or undermine its ability to replicate and are inherited by the "prole" which will either get more fitness or less fitness and "selected" this way. Ideally this could be done with a robot, Dawkins even goes as far as applying it to abstract replicators like thoughts and ideas (he called them memes instead of genes in the 1970s, which ironically gave birth to the internet memes we know today)You're assuming life only exists on earth. I don't know if it exists anywhere else in the universe but I feel there's a strong possibility it does.
You didn't understand my question. I said why would the fact that at some point in time Earth won't be able to support life be relevant in determining the validity of the theory of evolution?To what? Evolution? Earth 5 to 7 billion years from now? Relevance of evolution and life on earth in 5 to 7 billion years doesn't seem relevant to you. OK. Are you referring to humans? It's still relevant unless you just choose not to think about it.
I'm not sure what we're discussing about here. I'm an atheist and also in the field of biotechnology of course I support evolution, I don't understand why you're posting a zygote having a series of mitosis now.It's difficult to imagine we evolved in this manner, but ...
You didn't understand my question. I said why would the fact that at some point in time Earth won't be able to support life be relevant in determining the validity of the theory of evolution?
If the current models are correct the Sun will turn Red Giant in about 5 billion years. Earth will be far outside the habitable zone if the scenario is correct. Either a tidally locked superhot molten world or literally absorbed by the sun nucleus depending on the severity of the expansionBased on where we came from, where we are, and 5 to 7 billion years in the future, and the earth's environment at that point would lead some to question whether any life will be present at all. I will suggest the earth will be full of life, just different than the life it supports today.
I'm not sure what we're discussing about here. I'm an atheist and also in the field of biotechnology of course I support evolution, I don't understand why you're posting a zygote having a series of mitosis now.
I'm thinking primordial soup of gasses from which we are said to evolve, from the single cell organism that is the origin of life on earth, or so we've been taught. So, either life continues or it won't. Evolving life forms isn't in question by me, only the idea that "life ends". I don't think it will, based on the theory but then I'm also a Chris6ian so maybe faith has something to do with it.
You're assuming life only exists on earth. I don't know if it exists anywhere else in the universe but I feel there's a strong possibility it does.
Given our sun is set to red giant, that earth will become uninhabitable, and unable to support life, how is evolution a valid theory if it's thought that life will no longer continue?
I'm thinking primordial soup of gasses from which we are said to evolve, from the single cell organism that is the origin of life on earth, or so we've been taught. So, either life continues or it won't. Evolving life forms isn't in question by me, only the idea that "life ends". I don't think it will, based on the theory but then I'm also a Chris6ian so maybe faith has something to do with it.
To what? Evolution? Earth 5 to 7 billion years from now? Relevance of evolution and life on earth in 5 to 7 billion years doesn't seem relevant to you. OK. Are you referring to humans? It's still relevant unless you just choose not to think about it.