Evolution is Unscientific

Aupmanyav said:
What order?
Click to expand...
Excuse me?
Aupmanyav said:
It had to happen. Ample time, some 4.7 billion years.
Click to expand...
Uh uh. That's the point. It happened exactly against the way the universe is programmed to happen -- which is entropy, dissolution

The Second Law of Thermodynamics: the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time. Heat will always move from a hotter body towards a colder one.

But what caused the heat to originate in the first place? The natural state of the universe is absolute zero. A colder body cannot cause the existence of a hotter body. Order cannot come from disorder. A broken plate won't reassemble itself.

This becomes true only by the fact that the universe first ordered itself into being -- atoms formed and so on
 
Last edited:
RJM said:
Sure. But I don't get theist resistance to evolution and abiogenesis? It's just the mechanism. The Bible says God created Adam from dust. Unless someone must have the literal Biblical account of creation?

Anyway ...
Click to expand...
OK...hypothetical thought puzzle.

Let's say in the next few years astronomers detect chlorophyll on Europa.

Would that finding support Science, Religion, both or neither? Discuss...
 
RJM said:
Excuse me?

Uh uh. That's the point. It happened exactly against the way the universe is programmed to happen -- which is entropy, dissolution

The Second Law of Thermodynamics: the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time. Heat will always move from a hotter body towards a colder one.

But what caused the heat to originate in the first place? The natural state of the universe is absolute zero. A colder body cannot cause the existence of a hotter body. Order cannot come from disorder. A broken plate won't reassemble itself.

This becomes true only by the fact that the universe first ordered itself into being -- atoms formed and so on
Click to expand...
We have not yet understood appearance and dissolution. Whatever happens in the universe, even 'something out of nothing' or 'nothing out of something' , happens according to the rules of the universe. That is something that our future generations may know.
That is correct - Heat death of the universe, big chill, biog freeze, that is one scenario. The natural state of universe is not absolute zero. It will approach zero but never be there. It could be 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 Kelvin. It depends on other things. :)
en.wikipedia.org

Heat death of the universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Aupmanyav said:
We have not yet understood appearance and dissolution.
Click to expand...
Bingo. Especially how order came to exist in an entropic universe programmed for dissolution? How did the vast heat of the universe originate from a state approaching absolute zero? It's like trying to build a house of cards in a hurricane
 
juantoo3 said:
OK...hypothetical thought puzzle.

Let's say in the next few years astronomers detect chlorophyll on Europa.

Would that finding support Science, Religion, both or neither? Discuss...
Click to expand...
The search for life elsewhere in the universe starts with the search for water, without which the carbon based life existing on Earth cannot function. In a way the search for life on other worlds seems to have undergone considerable ‘mission creep’ from the assumption that for life to exist there needs to be water, to the reasoning that where water exists there is a reasonable chance of life developing.

But assuming abiogenesis of life on other worlds, it would be primitive life in the form of bacteria and archaea. Once it exists, life on earth is amazingly tenacious, able to survive in extreme conditions. But the conditions for abiogenesis would be far more specific, depending exactly, or nearly, on the same conditions that enabled it to happen on earth.

The big issue is how life could evolve from bacteria to the eukaryote life that enables progress towards higher life forms – which includes plant life – and eventually intelligent life –which includes animal life.

On Earth it happened because after 2 billion years of bacterial life, the extraordinary once in 4.5 billions years event occurred of a singular primary endosymbiosis where a bacteria absorbed an archaea which became an ‘organelle’ dependent on the bacterial host cell, eventually becoming the mitochondria that enabled the development of the eukaryote cell with its nucleus, which is the building block of higher life.

The event happened only once, after 2 billion years of bacterial life on Earth. It had never happened before and has never happened again, in spite of bacteria swarming in uncountable numbers for the 4.5 billion years of their existence.. All eukaryote cells trace back to that event.

The eukaryote cell is a marvellous thing, a universe within itself.

So it’s not so much the possibility of abiogenesis of bacterial life on other worlds (however unlikely that may be in reality) but the possibility that the same endosymbiosis between bacteria and archaea also happened, enabling the development of higher life.

Chlorophyll won't be detected on Europa, in dark waters beneath ice several miles thick. But if it was detected elsewhere in the universe the possibility of the same primary endosymbiosis having occurred there would be so unlikely that it would far more possible to have arrived there from earth -- or arrived on earth from there -- or arrived on both worlds from a comet from somewhere else? IMO

But it's just my own take, because I'm not really knowledgeable about the science ...
 
RJM said:
The search for life elsewhere in the universe starts with the search for water, without which the carbon based life existing on Earth cannot function. In a way the search for life on other worlds seems to have undergone considerable ‘mission creep’ from the assumption that for life to exist there needs to be water, to the reasoning that where water exists there is a reasonable chance of life developing.

But assuming abiogenesis of life on other worlds, it would be primitive life in the form of bacteria and archaea. Once it exists, life on earth is amazingly tenacious, able to survive in extreme conditions. But the conditions for abiogenesis would be far more specific, depending exactly, or nearly, on the same conditions that enabled it to happen on earth.

The big issue is how life could evolve from bacteria to the eukaryote life that enables progress towards higher life forms – which includes plant life – and eventually intelligent life –which includes animal life.

On Earth it happened because after 2 billion years of bacterial life, the extraordinary once in 4.5 billions years event occurred of a singular primary endosymbiosis where a bacteria absorbed an archaea which became an ‘organelle’ dependent on the bacterial host cell, eventually becoming the mitochondria that enabled the development of the eukaryote cell with its nucleus, which is the building block of higher life.

The event happened only once, after 2 billion years of bacterial life on Earth. It had never happened before and has never happened again, in spite of bacteria swarming in uncountable numbers for the 4.5 billion years of their existence.. All eukaryote cells trace back to that event.

The eukaryote cell is a marvellous thing, a universe within itself.

So it’s not so much the possibility of abiogenesis of bacterial life on other worlds (however unlikely that may be in reality) but the possibility that the same endosymbiosis between bacteria and archaea also happened, enabling the development of higher life.

Chlorophyll won't be detected on Europa, in dark waters beneath ice several miles thick. But if it was detected elsewhere in the universe the possibility of the same primary endosymbiosis having occurred there would be so unlikely that it would far more possible to have arrived there from earth -- or arrived on earth from there -- or arrived on both worlds from a comet from somewhere else? IMO

But it's just my own take, because I'm not really knowledgeable about the science ...
Click to expand...
So goes the current dogma.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Aupmanyav said:
Not likely but there could be bacterial life. Wikipedia has a detailed article on Europa and its habitability.
Europa (moon) - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
Hence the reason I qualified my question as a hypothetical thought puzzle...my question was not intended to directly reflect reality.

If you can do it, why can't I? At least I am honest enough to state at the beginning it is a hypothetical thought puzzle, unlike those who authoritatively state categorically that such and such is so without evidence.
 
Last edited:
Aupmanyav said:
It is not a matter of faith. Check in the link that I provided about 'Planatary habitbility' as to what scientists check on the subject.
Click to expand...
I think you mean what scientists surmise, guess, hope, so it is absolutely a matter of faith.
 
Last edited:
RJM said:
Bingo. Especially how order came to exist in an entropic universe programmed for dissolution? How did the vast heat of the universe originate from a state approaching absolute zero? It's like trying to build a house of cards in a hurricane.
Click to expand...
There have been many surprises for us, including Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Perhaps it will be another surprise.
 
Aupmanyav said:
The difference is that we try to explain only if asked. Otherwise, we do not touch the subject. Show me any topic started by me to condemn religion or belief in God. The theists start and topic and when we reply, they cry.
Click to expand...
YOU might be like that. But many atheists are not like that at all. In the United States many people who are atheists love to share their disbelief with others, especially when they aren't even asked. Other forums that I have been on have been overrun by atheists just pushing their disbelief and being rude to others. I used to follow a forum run by Richard Dawkins and even he finally admitted that he had to start censoring and monitoring the forum because of the atheists who were being so rude. I've seen atheists handing out literature advocating for atheism... on the bus! They should start calling themselves "Darwin's Witnesses" or something similar. For the most part this seems to be the behavior of younger atheists, but it is something that is getting pretty bad in my country.
 
Evolution is a faith. Just one of the thousands of faiths. If there is an eternity, I would like to be in the right place after this life.... is there such thing as spirits? if so I believe there is an afterlife and that these spirits are not the result of evolution but creation. Just my thoughts.... 😌
 
Yahweh kid said:
Evolution is a faith. Just one of the thousands of faiths. If there is an eternity, I would like to be in the right place after this life.... is there such thing as spirits? if so I believe there is an afterlife and that these spirits are not the result of evolution but creation. Just my thoughts.... 😌
Click to expand...
Well, your view. In my view there is no soul/spirit and no afterlife. We live only once and our identity completely dissipates after death.
Too factual and harsh view to accept by those who are afraid of their non-existence after death.
 
Aupmanyav said:
Well, your view. In my view there is no soul/spirit and no afterlife. We live only once and our identity completely dissipates after death.
Too factual and harsh view to accept by those who are afraid of their non-existence after death.
Click to expand...
If that gives you peace I am happy for you.
 
Yahweh kid said:
If there is an eternity, I would like to be in the right place after this life.... is there such thing as spirits? if so I believe there is an afterlife and that these spirits are not the result of evolution but creation. Just my thoughts.... 😌
Click to expand...

That is called Pascal's Wager
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top