• 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!

Evolution?

Alceste

Alceste

Vagabond
Autodidact said:
If this seems incomprehensible, Alceste, it means you're normal.
Click to expand...

Nah, it's comprehensible. That's the problem. It's very easy for me to picture, even with additional dimensions, and to compare what I am picturing to the phenomenon of an explosion (matter bursting from a single point), and to see it doesn't work unless the force of the original "Bang" (the force that propels the galaxies outward) decays in a perfect relationship to the velocity of the galaxies traveling through space and their distance between one another. But I don't know enough about physics to say whether that's plausible. I also don't know how exact the calculations that say everything is traveling away at the same speed are either. There is probably more wiggle room than I'm imagining, since how exact can you get just from looking at the colour of a galaxy?

Anyway, I can see why they've been adding extra dimensions to the picture - 4 is not enough.

Can I still be normal? ;)
 
Kilgore Trout

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
Alceste said:
Nah, it's comprehensible. That's the problem. It's very easy for me to picture, even with additional dimensions, and to compare what I am picturing to the phenomenon of an explosion (matter bursting from a single point), and to see it doesn't work unless the force of the original "Bang" (the force that propels the galaxies outward) decays in a perfect relationship to the velocity of the galaxies traveling through space and their distance between one another. But I don't know enough about physics to say whether that's plausible. I also don't know how exact the calculations that say everything is traveling away at the same speed are either. There is probably more wiggle room than I'm imagining, since how exact can you get just from looking at the colour of a galaxy?

Anyway, I can see why they've been adding extra dimensions to the picture - 4 is not enough.

Can I still be normal? ;)
Click to expand...

Galaxies appear to be moving away from us because the universe itself is expanding, not necessarily because the galaxies themselves are moving away from us through space. In fact, there are many galaxies in our local group which are blue-shifted. They are moving towards us faster than the rate of Hubble expansion. Galaxies which are much further away may also be actually moving toward us, but at a rate slower than that of the universe expanding, so they still appear red-shifted.

The model of the universe "exploding" from a single point is faulty. There is no center of the universe where the big bang took place. The big bang created not only all the matter in the universe, but the space as well, and continues expanding to this day.
 
Alceste

Alceste

Vagabond
atotalstranger said:
Galaxies appear to be moving away from us because the universe itself is expanding, not necessarily because the galaxies themselves are moving away from us through space. In fact, there are many galaxies in our local group which are blue-shifted. They are moving towards us faster than the rate of Hubble expansion. Galaxies which are much further away may also be actually moving toward us, but at a rate slower than that of the universe expanding, so they still appear red-shifted.

The model of the universe "exploding" from a single point is faulty. There is no center of the universe where the big bang took place. The big bang created not only all the matter in the universe, but the space as well, and continues expanding to this day.
Click to expand...

K, that makes a lot more sense, thanks. Screw the balloons, just tell it like it is. :D
 
A

Aslinitato

New Member
MarvelousWorksofGod said:
The fact everything came from one particle is so childish to me!​
Click to expand...

You can't dismiss a scientific theory based on a subjective judgment. I personally find a mysterious deity zapping all the different species of organisms into existence rather "childish" myself.

Regardless, the idea that "everything came from one particle" is irrelevant to the theory of evolution. That would be closer to the Big Bang theory, which is the supported scientific theory that all the matter in the universe was concentrated in an infinately small and intensely hot region known as a singularity, which then expanded.


MarvelousWorksofGod said:
psssss: Where did the particle come from?
Click to expand...
Utterly irrelevant to evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory only begins with the presupposition of an organism existing, which then are effected by mutation and natural selection. At the moment the scientific study of abiogenesis is studying if organic compounds can originate from inorganic matter. In fact, scientific testing has resulted in the formation of ribonucleotides, with conditions that were similar (if not the same) to those that science has hypothesized were utilized to form the first organic life forms. To wit-

Brandon Keim (Wired Science) said:
They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.



At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.​


According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”

​
Such conditions are plausible, and Szostak imagined the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing “a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis.”

​
Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland’s team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites.

​
“Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry,” said Sutherland. “They’re doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn’t be viewed as complicated.”​
Click to expand...


MarvelousWorksofGod said:
Everything has to come from something, but that would be impossible because that would be a never ending cycle until you meet the beggining, so there has to be a God
Click to expand...

The problem with the argument from infinite regress is that there is no reason for that regression to stop at your god. Logicially, if everything needed to come from something, then your god would need to come from somewhere. If they could "just exist", then the initial building blocks of the universe could "just exist". If your god somehow "came into existence" via natural or supernatural means, then the matter of the universe should logicially be able to do something similar.

However, there are formulated ideas that would explain this. For instance, there is the cyclic universe hypothesis, which postulates that the universe follows infinite and self-sustaining cycles. There is also the multiverse hypothesis,

Regardless, evolution does not exclude God. There are various Christian biologists, such as Kenneth Miller.

A tad late I know. I'm sowwy. It seems the thread has a taken an... interesting turn. :run:
 
Clover

Clover

Taoist & Shintoist Farmer
@OP: haha

I do not know if Evolution is true, but it seems to be at least somewhat logical, and if I was going to call it childish, I'd first research it so I could find info that makes it actually childish, not my opinoin.
 
Magic Man

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Clover said:
@OP: haha

I do not know if Evolution is true,
Click to expand...

Just to let you know, it is. The theory of evolution is responsible for pretty much all of the advances we've made in biology and medicine in the last 60+ years. It's as much fact as gravity is.
 
Clover

Clover

Taoist & Shintoist Farmer
mball1297 said:
Just to let you know, it is. The theory of evolution is responsible for pretty much all of the advances we've made in biology and medicine in the last 60+ years. It's as much fact as gravity is.
Click to expand...

I guess we all have our opinoins lol. I have never been told it's true, I was told it could be.
 
Magic Man

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Clover said:
I guess we all have our opinoins lol. I have never been told it's true, I was told it could be.
Click to expand...

I know. Even before I came here, I didn't realize it was a fact. I think it's mostly because of the opposition to it that it still hasn't become as much general knowledge as it should be. It's still stigmatized as something "you believe in", rather than a scientific discovery that is fact, but if you get past all of the BS, you can clearly see that it is indeed fact.
 
Clover

Clover

Taoist & Shintoist Farmer
mball1297 said:
I know. Even before I came here, I didn't realize it was a fact. I think it's mostly because of the opposition to it that it still hasn't become as much general knowledge as it should be. It's still stigmatized as something "you believe in", rather than a scientific discovery that is fact, but if you get past all of the BS, you can clearly see that it is indeed fact.
Click to expand...

Well, I prefer to focus on interesting things in life to me, like, the only thing I like that evolution vs creationism has any effect on directly is dinosaurs. I love dinosaurs, espectially the show Dinosaurs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top