Reasons To Question Evolution?

In astrophysics and cosmology, the anthropic principle (from Greek anthropos, meaning "human") is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it.

In other words: who created god?

 

And who created the God that created God? How many levels of gods are required?

 

Cosmic existence does not adjust to sentience. Other way around.

 

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

—Hawking, 1988

Scratcho I think sentience is a form of cosmic existence. Sentience literally is the existence of the cosmos, don't you think?

 

#1. Yes. #2- no.

 

I Love to think about how various types of vegetative, animal, and human life may have evolved to where they are at today.

One thing that has made me question creationism is that there are so very many differences among the before mentioned groups and add to that that many had the same environment;/reasons to evolve to many other things but turned out so different.

Also, the ecosystems often seem to work together so well that makes me think of creationism.

 

Theists have no logical reasons for denying evolution.

They are merely prisoners of their delusional faiths.

 

Why because if I don't I am no better then the religious people who blindly follow and don't ask questions. Skepticism is key. I haven't heard an argument concret enough to challenge evolution but I am always ready to admit I might be wrong. I don't think the disbelief in something is the problem I think the belief in something irrationally to the point of not questioning it yourself is the real problem with people who disbelieve in evolution.

 

If anyone wants/needs are current example of evolution at work in humans just look at allergies.
Over the last five+ decades the amount of kids who develop allergies has been growing at an alarming rate. After much research the most likely culprit is our modern lifestyle that is essentially rather sterile when compared to living conditions 100 years ago. What is postulated is that in the absence of myriad environmental stresses to the immune system, they don't develop as robustly.
If the trend continues than it is very conceivable that it will result in permanent changes to our genome.

.

 

i was just wondering Noxious, if you found the responses/explanation to your question satisfying in the other thread?

i think its an excellent observation and i found the answers to be very informative, especially from mr. writer:

 

look in that thread

 

i think thats the last time you mentioned it, would it be fair to say that you assert that the second law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution?

 

sorry to put you on the spot but just seems like your beating around that bush there.

 

also, i find it interesting that you agree solar energy is a necessity for life but you dont think it was an impetus force in evolution, could you elaborate?

 

because if we consider the possibility of a creative force, God or Creator, then I go back to the inception of the known universe as the starting point for the whole mess, including evolution.
What I said is entropy is something that has to be consider/reconciled, and probably to a greater degree than has been attained thus far.

Let me ask you this, what about evolution negates the possibility of a creator if we take it back to the inception of the universe?
You see I personally think it's a rather tenuous to adopt an attitude of complete rejection of the concept of God based solely on evolution, which seems to be the current lynchpin in most if not all discussions of the topic that that those in opposition to the concept.
Now if you want to go toe to toe with someone who believes a basic, literal, uneducated interpretation of the early portions of the Bible, well your gonna have to look elsewhere.

It is YOU and others who seem to have an issue reconciling the two concepts and think they are mutually exclusive, not me.
to be quite honest, the whole thing about evolution vs creationism is a non-issue with me.


also there is a difference between something being the catalyst for a phenomena such as life, like the sun is and something which is the impetus for such phenomena.
consider my use of impetus as intention if you will

 

good point, you are correct that evolution does not actually disprove god, it only disproves a "literal uneducated interpretation of early portions of the bible".

but since that is not your stance, what is your interpretation of god? do you consider yourself christian (you mentioned the bible)?

do you believe that god created the entire universe and chose to have a relationship with only a certain species of apes? and he listens to you? and he cares about you? and there are things that you do that can please/displease him/her?


going back to the main topic, your stance that entropy is contradictory to evolution. weather or not a god exists is actually irrelevant here.

if we consider the universe as the closed system in question, entropy will eventually happen universally after evolution has run its course, i dont see anything contradictory there, and i believe that we understand this concept scientifically so i dont really see what needs to be reconciled. please be specific on what needs to be considered/reconciled?

 

The treatment of entropy in the context of a singularity such as a black hole is something that baffles physicists, Hawking included has changed his mind about this recently and surely still ponders it. Black holes do in fact exist tho, there is plenty of evidence for them; entropy however is a tricky subject and may be treated more as a loop than a gradient, the real trickiness is how you measure and calculate increases/decreases in entropy at different points in spacetime.

These two cases (black holes, and evolution) really are not that similar though; in the case of evolution there isn't anything about it that even suggests just a little that it requires a decrease in entropy. Entropy is still increasing and the most obvious evidence for that is that the process of evolution requires an input of energy. Would you say that a refrigerator violates the laws of thermodynamics? Think of our earth as the inside of that refrigerator, and the solar system as the refrigerator itself. The sun would be like the motor that powers the refrigerator pumping refrigerant through a circuit of copper tubing. Normally, heat would move to the warmer outside of the refrigerator to the cooler inside until they become the same temperature (high entropy), the only reason that we can decrease the local entropy in a refrigerator (make heat move from the cooler inside, to the warmer outside) is because we are giving an input of energy and exploiting some laws of physics concerning the behavior of gases at certain pressures/temperatures; overall entropy is still increasing, at at a faster rate than it would if you left the refrigerator turned off. You're essentially paying for a local decrease in entropy with an overall increase in entropy elsewhere (and paying for the electricity you used, and the fuel that had to be burned to produce it). If you look at the refrigerator at an even lower level of detail, you will see that for each step of the process is completely obeying the laws of thermodynamics even though this isn't necessarily obvious just looking at the refrigerator.

When the motor in the refrigerator runs out of energy, the inside will warm until it come to thermal equilibrium with the outside reaching a high entropy state. The sun, too will run out of energy too one day and is in fact losing mass as we speak. All the carbon based biomass on the planet didn't come from nothing, the carbon came from the atmosphere and the overall mass of the planet is not increasing.

 

yea, u explained it better.

 

LOL..
what is this, a fucking interrogation....

 

well before it was you just being wrong, now its you being wrong and butt hurt.