What evolution does NOT explain

ForsakeAll2FollowJesus · Apr 9, 2005

If everything evolved from something how did the VERY FIRST thing come? dirt rolls into rocks which become sedamented with other rocks making boulders until there are mountains. but where did that first speck of dirt come from? Animals evolved from microorganisms, but where did that first orgnanism come from? The original "ingredients" had to come from somewhere. Where did the first ingredients come from?
No one has ever been able to answer me on this.

notto · Apr 9, 2005

ForsakeAll2FollowJesus said:
If everything evolved from something how did the VERY FIRST thing come? dirt rolls into rocks which become sedamented with other rocks making boulders until there are mountains. but where did that first speck of dirt come from? Animals evolved from microorganisms, but where did that first orgnanism come from? The original "ingredients" had to come from somewhere. Where did the first ingredients come from?
No one has ever been able to answer me on this.

The scientific answer is 'we don't know but we have some indications'. That doesn't lead to the conclusion that we will never know or can't know.

Some attribute it to God, some don't. There isn't evidence either way and the philosophic argument is all that remains.

As far as life, we have some indication that it came about through chemical mechanisms probably near hot vents under the ocean (at least that is what i think has the most compelling evidence). We know here dirt and mountains came from, those are well understood.

CuteAlien · Apr 9, 2005

ForsakeAll2FollowJesus said:
If everything evolved from something how did the VERY FIRST thing come? dirt rolls into rocks which become sedamented with other rocks making boulders until there are mountains. but where did that first speck of dirt come from? Animals evolved from microorganisms, but where did that first orgnanism come from? The original "ingredients" had to come from somewhere. Where did the first ingredients come from?
No one has ever been able to answer me on this.

No one can answer it for sure yet, but science does at least search for it But just looking at what has been found out so far you can do some guesses. The farther you look back in time the more simple is the complexity of the structures in the universe. Life as we know it now is very complex. The first life had much simpler structures. There are several theories how the first selfreplicating organisms came into beeing. One is that molecules collected in organic bubbles a newer theorie is that they collected first in salty ice. Only thing most scientist agree is that it origined in even simpler structures. (You can hardly blame scientists just because they haven't found out *everything* about events which happened million years ago). The same trend to simpler origins can be found in astronomy. Planets formed from dust. Dust formed by energy (simplified!). Therefore the best scientifistic guess is that the first thing to happen needs even less complexity. The less complex the original ingredient is, the more probable is it that it came into beeing.

ForsakeAll2FollowJesus · Apr 11, 2005

notto said:
The scientific answer is 'we don't know but we have some indications'. That doesn't lead to the conclusion that we will never know or can't know.

Some attribute it to God, some don't. There isn't evidence either way and the philosophic argument is all that remains.

As far as life, we have some indication that it came about through chemical mechanisms probably near hot vents under the ocean (at least that is what i think has the most compelling evidence). We know here dirt and mountains came from, those are well understood.

So, are you a Christian who believes in evolution? Are the above your beliefs and do you proclaim Jesus as Lord and Savior? I am pretty new to this and was surprised to see the cross in your profile.
thanks.

ForsakeAll2FollowJesus · Apr 11, 2005

CuteAlien said:
No one can answer it for sure yet, but science does at least search for it But just looking at what has been found out so far you can do some guesses. The farther you look back in time the more simple is the complexity of the structures in the universe. Life as we know it now is very complex. The first life had much simpler structures. There are several theories how the first selfreplicating organisms came into beeing. One is that molecules collected in organic bubbles a newer theorie is that they collected first in salty ice. Only thing most scientist agree is that it origined in even simpler structures. (You can hardly blame scientists just because they haven't found out *everything* about events which happened million years ago). The same trend to simpler origins can be found in astronomy. Planets formed from dust. Dust formed by energy (simplified!). Therefore the best scientifistic guess is that the first thing to happen needs even less complexity. The less complex the original ingredient is, the more probable is it that it came into beeing.

Where did the molecules come from, or the bubbles? Where did the salty ice come from? I really can't understand how there can be nothing....then pop!....something materializes, be it a speck of a speck of a speck or be it a big bang. There was nothing there to form the minutest speck, neither was there anything there to form the ingredients for the big bang.

raphael_aa · Apr 11, 2005

ForsakeAll2FollowJesus said:
Where did the molecules come from, or the bubbles? Where did the salty ice come from? I really can't understand how there can be nothing....then pop!....something materializes, be it a speck of a speck of a speck or be it a big bang. There was nothing there to form the minutest speck, neither was there anything there to form the ingredients for the big bang.

Why is there something rather than nothing? We don't really know. It's tempting when we don't really know to leap to a conclusion that 'Goddidit'. We christians have had egg on our faces too often in the past from ascribing God as a cause to events that later are discovered to be naturalistic. We should be a little more circumspect about it.

Speaking of 'ingredients' for the Big Bang makes it seem like there was a time 'before' the Big Bang. This is incorrect. Hard as it may be for us to grasp, time itself sprang into existance with the Big Bang. There is no 'before'. Stephen Hawing says its like asking what is north of the north pole.

ForsakeAll2FollowJesus · Apr 11, 2005

raphael_aa said:
Why is there something rather than nothing? We don't really know. It's tempting when we don't really know to leap to a conclusion that 'Goddidit'. We christians have had egg on our faces too often in the past from ascribing God as a cause to events that later are discovered to be naturalistic. We should be a little more circumspect about it.

Speaking of 'ingredients' for the Big Bang makes it seem like there was a time 'before' the Big Bang. This is incorrect. Hard as it may be for us to grasp, time itself sprang into existance with the Big Bang. There is no 'before'. Stephen Hawing says its like asking what is north of the north pole.

But there had to be something there to create the big bang. Where did that something come from.
Thank you for your honestsy in saying "We don't really know".

raphael_aa · Apr 11, 2005

ForsakeAll2FollowJesus said:
But there had to be something there to create the big bang. Where did that something come from.
Thank you for your honestsy in saying "We don't really know".

No, you're still thinking in the limitations of the cosmos we are in now. Cause and effect break down at the quantum level, we KNOW that. Cause and effect perhaps also break down at the singularity.

corvus_corax · Apr 11, 2005

ForsakeAll2FollowJesus said:
But there had to be something there to create the big bang. Where did that something come from.
Thank you for your honestsy in saying "We don't really know".

Saying "there had to be something there to create" it is really nothing more than an argument from incredulity.
As you may know, our understanding of the physical laws breaks down at the BB singularity, therefore we cannot (at the present time) really explain it.
Saying "there had to be something there to create" is an assumption, especially considering that the physical laws may have been so alien to our current understanding as to be currently unexplainable.
You've got to admit, there have been many processes that, in the past, were chalked up to a "God concept" (or "creator" or "entity" concept) that have been disproven.
Lighting and rain for example.

ForsakeAll2FollowJesus · Apr 11, 2005

corvus_corax said:
Saying "there had to be something there to create" it is really nothing more than an argument from incredulity.
As you may know, our understanding of the physical laws breaks down at the BB singularity, therefore we cannot (at the present time) really explain it.
Saying "there had to be something there to create" is an assumption, especially considering that the physical laws may have been so alien to our current understanding as to be currently unexplainable.
You've got to admit, there have been many processes that, in the past, were chalked up to a "God concept" (or "creator" or "entity" concept) that have been disproven.
Lighting and rain for example.

Just because we can now explain things, does not negate that God does them. The Bible speaks many times about God's control of the rain and lightning. He sends it where He wills, and stops it when He desires. Nothing was disproven, they are still a God concept. Thanks again for your reply.

Ryal Kane · Apr 11, 2005

ForsakeAll2FollowJesus said:
So, are you a Christian who believes in evolution? Are the above your beliefs and do you proclaim Jesus as Lord and Savior? I am pretty new to this and was surprised to see the cross in your profile.
thanks.

Welcome to the forums. A quick warning that sometimes people can get snippy on the boards if questions have been asked many times before. Don't let it discourage you.

And, though it may surprise you, I'm fairly sure the majority of Christians worldwide accept evolution as the way in which God created.

corvus_corax · Apr 11, 2005

ForsakeAll2FollowJesus said:
Just because we can now explain things, does not negate that God does them. The Bible speaks many times about God's control of the rain and lightning. He sends it where He wills, and stops it when He desires. Nothing was disproven, they are still a God concept. Thanks again for your reply.

You're welcome

You are beginning to sound like (and correct me if Im wrong), those who think that God personally creates every snowflake.
The problem with this is that these processes can be completely explained using naturalist laws. To say that "God does it" is to say that God IS natural law (for which we have no evidence).
It's a statement of faith, nothing more nothing less.

I have no issue with statements of faith.

However, I feel that they should be qualified as such, and not presented as some kind of obvious fact (although you didnt say such outright, you implied it via your Bible reference).

Furthermore, if God is natural law, then one must move beyond lightning and snowflakes and include God in other natural phenomena such as tsunamis ("God did it", natural law), earthquakes ("God did it", natural law), tornadoes ("God did it", natural law), mob rule ("God did it", natural law),
ebola ("God did it", natural law), and AIDS ("God did it", natural law).

When it comes to "God as natural law" it's really all or nothing, good and bad, life-affirming and life-destroying.

Asimov · Apr 11, 2005

ForsakeAll2FollowJesus said:
If everything evolved from something how did the VERY FIRST thing come? dirt rolls into rocks which become sedamented with other rocks making boulders until there are mountains. but where did that first speck of dirt come from? Animals evolved from microorganisms, but where did that first orgnanism come from? The original "ingredients" had to come from somewhere. Where did the first ingredients come from?
No one has ever been able to answer me on this.

Well...I can't say with absolute certainty, but I think that because matter and energy are the same, and that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, that it has always existed in some form or another.

corvus_corax · Apr 11, 2005

Asimov said:
Well...I can't say with absolute certainty, but I think that because matter and energy are the same, and that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, that it has always existed in some form or another.

By way of analogy, this was actually proposed as part of the Black Hole equation IIRC.
Essentially (and VERY condensed) the force of gravity being exerted within a Black Hole equated to mass being added, even though no actual mass WAS being added...it was just...energy.
But since the two are the same, the gravitational force (ie energy), the force (energy) of gravity contributed to the collapse to the singularity just as if actual matter were being contributed.

Asimov · Apr 11, 2005

corvus_corax said:
By way of analogy, this was actually proposed as part of the Black Hole equation IIRC.
Essentially (and VERY condensed) the force of gravity being exerted within a Black Hole equated to mass being added, even though no actual mass WAS being added...it was just...energy.
But since the two are the same, the gravitational force (ie energy), the force (energy) of gravity contributed to the collapse to the singularity just as if actual matter were being contributed.

Hold on...my brain just blew a fuse.

haha, that's pretty cool. I need to read more about black holes.

corvus_corax · Apr 11, 2005

Asimov said:
Hold on...my brain just blew a fuse.

haha, that's pretty cool. I need to read more about black holes.

Hehe
Yeah, I read "E=mc2, a Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation" a few years ago, and this was brought up in the book. I was reading this book on a 6 hour Greyhound bus trip and went (at 3 am) "WHaaaaaaaaaaaaa?!?" and woke a few people up

I had never considered that before.
The man who came up with this was Subrahmanyan Chadrasekhar ("Chandra") and his proposal was a logical catch 22 of relativity.
Energy=Mass
The force of gravity ("energy") of a black hole equates equally to mass. Therefore as gravity feeds on itself (+mass falling in), the singularity may fall into nothing we can ever hope to define (a true singularity)

"E=mc2, a Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation"..a great little book
For a layman like myself, its a great book....filled with scientific theory and the real world ramifications of such (like a storming of a German lab)

Great little book

Andrew_26 · Apr 11, 2005

I there are multipule universes out there (so no one had to do any fine tuning) who created the "machine" of the right initial conditions to create the multiple universe.....who has been "throwing the dice"

If you were to turn up on mars and find hundreds (millions) of glass domes with dials on a control box outside each one. with controls for little things such as gravity, atomic force, electron/proton weight, humidity, oxygen and evey one set to a different random value and one of these supported life what would you think.

I know what the first scientist/ engineer would say "someone has put a lot od time and effort into this"

I believe God got it right the first time

What evolution does NOT explain

Active Member

Legend

Junior Member

Active Member

Active Member

Wild eyed liberal

Active Member

Wild eyed liberal

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet

Objectivist

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet

Objectivist

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency