Evolution: The Deal Breaker (page 8)

Ruby456

hadriel in letting belief in supernatural entities go it is possible to keep a sense of religiosity and this is what most scientists have. you can describe this as an awareness of interdependence as in Darwin. Additionally you may want to hold on to sense of there being agency - as that there are others than yourself that impact you - and this is also perfectly compatible with science.

LoveUniHateExams

However the deal breaker for me with evolution is the chick or egg problem - this is no problem at all.

Eggs were being laid long before chickens evolved, so 'egg' came first.

Having ploughed through this thread, it yet again amazes me that some people, usually creationists, confuse evolution (the origin of species) with abiogenesis (origin of life).

Jehalapeno

Guys, I understand that there is some evidence that Gravity is a thing, however, there remains one problem for me: where did gravity come from? What is the driver for Gravity? I don't know, scientists haven't given the answer I desire, so I am not so sure Gravity really is a thing.

TheLiberator

Cofty, have you read your own comments? "Science of the gaps" is more appropriate. You are just a puppet of the system that parrots everything. "God of the gaps", "evolution is a fact", "fundamentalism", "creationism"....this is nothing but loaded language. Millions of people reject all the nonsense you spew out for good reason.

bohm

lol@Jehalapeno:

It's totally true.. its the classic chicken and egg scenario... matter has gravity we are told, but you can't have gravity without matter. So which came first? It just doesn't make any sense..

Scientists are just puppets of the system that parrots everything... it's all logical caps. Like where was matter 10 million years ago when the earth was formed? I wasn't there so we can't know, and it can't have been on the earth so where was it? Nobody knows. Einsteins theory of relativity is just loaded language and baseless assertions without any evidence or ways to account for why there is space. Millions of people reject the nonsense for good reason.

Simon

If the explanation to "how did simple life begin" is "complex life created it" then I don't think that is any explanation at all, it's creating another much more difficult question to answer - how did a complex super-power suddenly appear?

"it's the gods" is the sort of explanation that superstitious ignorant people needed. I think we're better than that but apparently some people still cling to basically the same thing. Do you also believe thunder is the god's fighting? or that heavy rain and floods are the god's punishment for something? mmnn, maybe some people are still more superstitious and ignorant than they imagine.

Re: the universe and gravity. Gravity is also linked to time. Without gravity you have no time so there is no "before" the universe existed. There is also no definitive "before and after" ordering to events as we are used to them at a more micro-level. When things happen in relation to other things really depends on your viewpoint.

It's hard or impossible to wrap your head round - like the universe being infinite but not going on forever or having any "edge" (huh?). We think in our 3 dimensional euclidean space and have only recently learnt of the peculiarities of space and time where the rules we are used to don't necessarily apply in the ways we expect.

It's hard so for those who don't want to do the study: "god did it".

Ruby456

another way to say it is that everything has physical properties - many properties not yet discovered - this we can agree on.

Hadriel

The insatiable desire to bring God into the equation is exhausting.

I used the world intelligence for a reason. What that intelligence is, is irrelevant as it pertains to this discussion.

The reality is you can no more prove that evolution and the evidence of it was a result of chance then creationists can prove that it is the result of an intelligent design.

I opened the door, with an open mind but this refusal to admit ALL the possibilities is ridiculous. You're just as bad as those you're ridiculing.

I would think we're better than demanding that there's only one hypothesis but apparently not.

To suggest others are ignorant as they won't agree with you is bush-league.

When I posted the topic I was and still am very serious about the topic. It appears I must buy into one line of evidence or else. That simply wont' fly for me.

If you wish to provide thoughts or hypotheses on the driver event and how it came about I'm all ears....

sir82

where did gravity come from? What is the driver for Gravity?

Gravity is only a theory.

Many people believe, with good reason, that there are powerful Dyson vacuums just below the earth's crust, sucking mightily to hold everything down.

No one has ever disproved this, so it is therefore my firm belief.

Ruby456

hadriel the points I shared in my previous posts were from Richard Dawkins' God Delusion. It is a good read when he talks about fellow scientists' quasi-mystical responses to nature and to the enormous agency he gives to physical properties. Don't take what he says about religion too seriously as he makes a number of assumptions

Evolution: The Deal Breaker

Share this