What is evolution, not what some think

originally posted by: borntowatch


How does it do this and then why
My problem with this sort of stuff is it doesnt make any sense scientifically
Why does a cloud of dust form, then why does it condense when it should separate and then why does it ignite

I am glad to see you are asking question, but to simplify answer, let's assume - God created all, empty space, stars, planets etc... Now question would be the same - WHY? Why did he care about creating billions of galaxies with billions of stars? What is purpose, and what that has to do with his favorite creation in his image? WHY?

And now let's assume that there was no God's handy work, that after big bang hydrogen atoms started colliding, getting mass with eventually under pressure and heat started first nuclear reactions... One of those stars used all its fuel, started creating other elements witch eventually lead to collapse of the star and death - super nova explosion... long after that, dust that was left over started colliding again and forming what we know today - Sun and planets... btw, do you know that Jupiter almost got to be star as well... this is all something Dr. Tyson explained much better and more accurate then my 'one paragraph - tired of the same question over and over' explanation, but you already mentioned that your nick name is 'misleading' - that you are unable to watch scientific program. (it's only 25 bucks for BR if I remember correctly, or available on HULU for free.

Your other post, bashing science and trying to make science 'belief system' as your religion - that is really big LOL. Actually, it is more ROFL.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

And now let's assume that there was no God's handy work, that after big bang hydrogen atoms started colliding, getting mass with eventually under pressure and heat started first nuclear reactions... One of those stars used all its fuel, started creating other elements witch eventually lead to collapse of the star and death - super nova explosion... long after that, dust that was left over started colliding again and forming what we know today - Sun and planets... btw, do you know that Jupiter almost got to be star as well... this is all something Dr. Tyson explained much better and more accurate then my 'one paragraph - tired of the same question over and over' explanation, but you already mentioned that your nick name is 'misleading' - that you are unable to watch scientific program.

So stars create? Are they gods? How do they create other elements? Where did the heat come from and what caused the pressure?
What caused the BB? Why did hydrogen atoms collide and stay together when entropy suggests they shouldnt?
Where did the pressure come from? How did a star form and then start burning.
Why does dust collect in space and how does dust turn in to a star. Where is gravity from, assuming that is what made the dust collect??

I am excited for Jupiter but you have given absolutely no answers, just a lot of, well, superstition. Junk information with no real science to support it.

You are mixing lots of things, from BB to star formation. As I said, just watch the show, then ask anything that Dr. Tyson did not explain.

There is no superstition in science, you are mixing science and religion again... please stop...

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

A star starts out as a giant cloud of dust and debris that eventually condenses into one giant mass that eventually ignites.

How does it do this and then why
My problem with this sort of stuff is it doesnt make any sense scientifically
Why does a cloud of dust form,

It's leftover matter from the explosion of a prior star.

then why does it condense when it should separate

gravity

and then why does it ignite

Intense pressure and a buildup of gravity as the object gets denser and denser.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

A star starts out as a giant cloud of dust and debris that eventually condenses into one giant mass that eventually ignites.

How does it do this and then why
My problem with this sort of stuff is it doesnt make any sense scientifically
Why does a cloud of dust form,

It's leftover matter from the explosion of a prior star.

then why does it condense when it should separate

gravity

and then why does it ignite

Intense pressure and a buildup of gravity as the object gets denser and denser.

So again, where does the GRAVITY come from

How did the previous star form and where did it come from

You intentionally missed a lot of questions and answered nothing but just stated gravity, its a little sneaky of you to avoid real answers and cop out with just saying gravity.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
You are mixing lots of things, from BB to star formation. As I said, just watch the show, then ask anything that Dr. Tyson did not explain.

There is no superstition in science, you are mixing science and religion again... please stop...

Yes I am mixing lotsa a things, read my OP, I thought I made that clear

I cant watch the show as I stated, not for the same reason you would refuse to watch a Kent Hovind show.

leaves me to guess you dont know what you watched and cant explain it to me.

Science is superstition when it isnt repeatable observable and testable, in my opinion, feel free to disagree, i respect that

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

A star starts out as a giant cloud of dust and debris that eventually condenses into one giant mass that eventually ignites.

How does it do this and then why
My problem with this sort of stuff is it doesnt make any sense scientifically
Why does a cloud of dust form,

It's leftover matter from the explosion of a prior star.

then why does it condense when it should separate

gravity

and then why does it ignite

Intense pressure and a buildup of gravity as the object gets denser and denser.

So again, where does the GRAVITY come from

Well seeing as how the theory of gravity is less understood than evolution, I'm going to say that we don't know. Yet. But scientists are certainly trying to figure that out. Though the current theory says that all matter has gravity, so I guess the simple answer to your question is that the gravity came from every piece of matter being attracted to every other piece of matter. Are you trying to suggest that you don't believe in gravity?

How did the previous star form and where did it come from

Well tracking back to the first stars the interstellar dust came about after the singularity expanded and matter first formed into hydrogen.

You intentionally missed a lot of questions and answered nothing but just stated gravity, its a little sneaky of you to avoid real answers and cop out with just saying gravity.

Well if I explained the complicated process of star formation or posted a link that explained it for me, would you have honestly read it? I was trying to keep it simple enough. Though if you really want me to, I will educate you on how stars are formed.

originally posted by: borntowatch
Yes I am mixing lotsa a things, read my OP, I thought I made that clear

I cant watch the show as I stated, not for the same reason you would refuse to watch a Kent Hovind show.

On contrary, I do watch from time to time some shows that include Kent and similar YEC, but probably for a different reasons than you. For me it is unbelievable that adult, with high school diploma or higher education can base his life and belief around 2k year old folk-tale and surrounded with superstition and magic... Just astonishing, almost like your comments here.

Sometimes I wonder what it really takes for someone to be ignorant of all scientific breakthrough we had in past 200 years and believe that virgin can give a birth, that someone has power to turn water into wine or that God would made children suffer as stated in bible...

originally posted by: borntowatch
leaves me to guess you dont know what you watched and cant explain it to me.

Science is superstition when it isnt repeatable observable and testable, in my opinion, feel free to disagree, i respect that

I already explained you what is scientific view of where earth came from, how did it form, what is going on, not only in our little solar system, but also everywhere else in the universe. Science confirmed that most likely all stars have companions orbiting around them... leading us to believe that life might be not such a unique feature of earth...

Science is based on repeatable observation and test, so it does not fit your definition of superstition. On contrary, religion is exactly that... huge amount of superstition wrapped into scary scrolls... with idea of control and brainwashing...

Let me repeat Dr. Tim Minchin (it is funny every time I add his title to his name, not sure why )

Science adjusts its views based on what's observed, faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.

a reply to: borntowatch

Gravity is a function of the curvature of space-time and mass causes space-time to be deformed.

There is a famous metaphor for this, called the rubber sheet analogy: Imagine a sheet of rubber, stretched out and flat. If you place a bowling ball on the rubber sheet, it deforms the flatness of the sheet, curving the sheet, creating a dent because of its weight. If we then roll a golf ball slowly past the bowling ball, it rolls down the rubber sheet towards the bowling ball. If we couldn't see the rubber sheet, we might assume that the golf ball had somehow been attracted to the bowling ball, as if from gravity.

Of course the rubber sheet is only really a plane object and gravity actually operates in 4 dimensional space-time, also we have used gravity in our analogy so it sort of breaks down logically, but it is only an analogy. There are ways of describing this more effectively with mathematical equations, but as you may realize, it can get complex.

Anyway, working backwards, to where all this diffuse matter came from (before gravity collected it together), the matter was (mostly) created by a process known of as Nucleosynthesis. This is where nuclear reactions turn simple, light elements (like Hydrogen) into heavier, more complex ones (like Carbon) by fusing them together. We can do some of these things in nuclear reactors and can also observe the reverse happening with nuclear fission and decay. So we believe that we have good evidence about it.

There are now two ways that this is believed to have happened:

The first way is that in the heart of big stars, atomic fusion made these heavier elements. The thing is that a star has points in its life-cycle where it becomes unstable. It works like this: The atomic reactions slow down as the fuel, the simpler elements, are all converted to heavier elements. The atomic reaction pressure stops without this fuel and the the star starts to collapse under its own weight. Now the 'star stuff' started out pretty hot and the pressure of gravity adds more heat until the heavier elements created in the previous atomic process start to fuse. This causes a massive pulse of energy which blasts off the stars outer layers, distributing the newly minted heavier element away from the star. This process of collapse and change of the fused elements happens over and over. At some stage it comes to an end as stable fusible elements run out, or if the mass is large enough, the core collapses to create a singularity (also called a Black Hole).

The other way that these elements can be created is when matter falls into a singularity. Before the in-falling stuff reaches the point of no return (the Schwarzschild radius) it accelerates closer to the speed of light, which causes it to get hotter & hotter. This process also can cause Nucleosynthesis which causes some of the in-falling matter to be blasted away from the Singularity just like it blasted away from the collapsing star. We actually have the example of this happening right now where a star is falling into the singularity at the core of our Milky Way Galaxy and we can see the immense energies being produced. So much so that physicists have speculated that this may actually be the main engine of creation of the heavier elements.

Anyway, the whole 10^-63 seconds after the Big Bang to the Universe as we know it, is mostly described by existing scientific theory. Yet Science is still discovering stuff (only recently have we seen that there is an alternative to Stellar Nucleosynthesis), that is the process of discovery.

I could go into things more but a Physics or Cosmology course would do a better job than I could do in a post on a forum.

And, of course, none of this Science in any way precludes or disproves God. I think that because Science is knowable, methodic and systematic, it indicates that this Universe we observe is NOT the result of randomness.

Cheers for asking the right questions borntowatch! Keep it up.

a reply to: chr0naut

I have a question for you. If you believe all of this to be true, since as you've said we've observed it, then why do you doubt something like evolution and we constantly go back and forth about it being true? Or do you doubt everything you just said and are delivering our side of the argument? Because I must say, that was a very succinct and good description of how stars and heavier elements are formed throughout the galaxy. You must understand that the process for this takes millions upon millions of years. I'm just a little confused is all.

To be honest, I have no problem with a god existing. I just don't see the evidence for one, but if you want to make that assumption, I'm ok with that as long as you understand that processes like what you just described right there and evolution are the tools this god would use to develop the universe and everything in it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

I have a question for you. If you believe all of this to be true, since as you've said we've observed it, then why do you doubt something like evolution and we constantly go back and forth about it being true? Or do you doubt everything you just said and are delivering our side of the argument? Because I must say, that was a very succinct and good description of how stars and heavier elements are formed throughout the galaxy. You must understand that the process for this takes millions upon millions of years. I'm just a little confused is all.

To be honest, I have no problem with a god existing. I just don't see the evidence for one, but if you want to make that assumption, I'm ok with that as long as you understand that processes like what you just described right there and evolution are the tools this god would use to develop the universe and everything in it.

I do think that Evolutionary Theory is valid, but there are gaps in it describing observed Biodiversity. Stuff where the numbers come out wrong (mutation rates for genome size/type in an environment that includes no undue mutagenic sources - e.g: the Drosphila-Citronella case, or the European Peppered Moth case, or the "Nylon eating" bacteria case, among many others) or where effects on population and biodiversity are not systematic but result from turbulent or complex chaotic processes that any systematic theories will never explain (e.g: what version of Evolutionary Theory incorporates Chaos Theory, despite the fact that we know Biodiversity is absolutely the result of multiple dynamical systems?).

Other factors have validity in describing Biodiversity, despite them not being Evolutionary Theory.

Evolutionary Theory is just one tool in the toolbox. Clinging to it alone is the end of critical thinking and scientific discovery.

In regard to your questioning about why I may believe that there is a Creator God, If random actions and the laws of Physics were all that governed the Universe, then the whole thing would assume the lowest energy state (as per thermodynamics). Or Supersymmetry would not be broken and the Universe would be empty. That's the whole thing, which means everything in the universe would be the one thing or nothing.

It's not. There is variety, on variety, on variety, on variety, on variety, on variety...

Every system, every scale, everywhere, for all observed time...

And on top of that, the Anthropic Principle!

and that is inexplicable by the tools of Science.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
OP, you forgot some types of evolution:

Carpet evolution - With a long history of adaptation and evolution, the tradition of Scandinavian rug-making is among the most storied of all European rug-making traditions. Carpets

Fishing hook evolution - Fish hooks have evolved many times in numerous cultures. The earliest known examples of bent barbless hooks are from the First Egyptian Dynasty (~ 3000 B.C.) and by ~1200 B.C. barbed hooks were in use in Ancient Egypt. We have to reach farther back into more primitive cultures to trace how the fish hook was born. Hooks

Car tyre evolution - Every rotation of my car wheels cause them to evolve less tread until they need replacing. You might call this revolution evolution.


The above are just as relevant to biological evolution as you're opening post - in which you deliberately confused biological evolution with anything which had the word 'evolution' in it.

OOops crikey, I must have overloo.....
Ahhh wait, are you saying they evolved from nature with out any design, intelligent design

I also like your revolution evolution but this supports entropy and each and every evolution you listed is repeatable observable and testable.
Those I listed, not so much.

Enjoy

Yeah - I admit that was a cheap shot! Here's the 'expensive' shot.

What about the evolution of religion?
Or, more importantly, the evolution of morality?

Neither are manufactured by man by your own admission - these are divine interventions; therefore they must be created. Which begs the question "why didn't (the) god(s) get it right the first time"?

Perhaps reality is like this: the early humans who were hunter/gather's depended on nature. They therefore worshipped nature as their gods. As farming techniques began to develop communities grew, which caused a shift towards worshipping different people in different capacities - polytheism. As power became centralised with kings, the notion of monotheism took hold, to worship the all powerful god/kings who were responsible for the rains and subsequent crops. Several thousand years later, monotheism grew popular in certain regions. And here, in a few parts of the twenty first centuries 'civilised nations' a few hangers on still adhere to the god/king philosophy, waiting for there gods to deliver rain.

Three hundred years ago, these ideas were normal. Two hundred years ago they became unfashionable. One hundred years ago they were proven to be nonsense. Today, it's a crying shame that these people manage to avoid all logic, reason and scientific advances handed down to them on a plate - all the hard work had already been done. Still they fail to see the obvious.

/face palm for 'elements' of humanity

originally posted by: chr0naut
I do think that Evolutionary Theory is valid, but there are gaps in it describing observed Biodiversity. Stuff where the numbers come out wrong (mutation rates for genome size/type in an environment that includes no undue mutagenic sources - e.g: the Drosphila-Citronella case, or the European Peppered Moth case, or the "Nylon eating" bacteria case, among many others) or where effects on population and biodiversity are not systematic but result from turbulent or complex chaotic processes that any systematic theories will never explain (e.g: what version of Evolutionary Theory incorporates Chaos Theory, despite the fact that we know Biodiversity is absolutely the result of multiple dynamical systems?).

99.99% today biologist stay behind evolution and given timeline of ~3.5 billion of years for life to occur, evolve, get destroyed in multiple ELE and you got some creationist who you believe got it right, while everyone else is pointing to fossils and findings that support accepted theory of evolution?!

I would not personally care what you believe, your own choice, but repeating lies and unsupported thesis just produce more lies - not a hole in theory... but huge holes in your belief system.

Reminds me of Oliver John's clip with 97 scientist sporting global warming... just imagine the same, just with crowd that is much bigger then 1000... Just to represent mathematically how off you are...

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: borntowatch

Gravity is a function of the curvature of space-time and mass causes space-time to be deformed.

There is a famous metaphor for this, called the rubber sheet analogy: Imagine a sheet of rubber, stretched out and flat. If you place a bowling ball on the rubber sheet, it deforms the flatness of the sheet, curving the sheet, creating a dent because of its weight. If we then roll a golf ball slowly past the bowling ball, it rolls down the rubber sheet towards the bowling ball. If we couldn't see the rubber sheet, we might assume that the golf ball had somehow been attracted to the bowling ball, as if from gravity.

Of course the rubber sheet is only really a plane object and gravity actually operates in 4 dimensional space-time, also we have used gravity in our analogy so it sort of breaks down logically, but it is only an analogy. There are ways of describing this more effectively with mathematical equations, but as you may realize, it can get complex.

Anyway, working backwards, to where all this diffuse matter came from (before gravity collected it together), the matter was (mostly) created by a process known of as Nucleosynthesis. This is where nuclear reactions turn simple, light elements (like Hydrogen) into heavier, more complex ones (like Carbon) by fusing them together. We can do some of these things in nuclear reactors and can also observe the reverse happening with nuclear fission and decay. So we believe that we have good evidence about it.

There are now two ways that this is believed to have happened:

The first way is that in the heart of big stars, atomic fusion made these heavier elements. The thing is that a star has points in its life-cycle where it becomes unstable. It works like this: The atomic reactions slow down as the fuel, the simpler elements, are all converted to heavier elements. The atomic reaction pressure stops without this fuel and the the star starts to collapse under its own weight. Now the 'star stuff' started out pretty hot and the pressure of gravity adds more heat until the heavier elements created in the previous atomic process start to fuse. This causes a massive pulse of energy which blasts off the stars outer layers, distributing the newly minted heavier element away from the star. This process of collapse and change of the fused elements happens over and over. At some stage it comes to an end as stable fusible elements run out, or if the mass is large enough, the core collapses to create a singularity (also called a Black Hole).

The other way that these elements can be created is when matter falls into a singularity. Before the in-falling stuff reaches the point of no return (the Schwarzschild radius) it accelerates closer to the speed of light, which causes it to get hotter & hotter. This process also can cause Nucleosynthesis which causes some of the in-falling matter to be blasted away from the Singularity just like it blasted away from the collapsing star. We actually have the example of this happening right now where a star is falling into the singularity at the core of our Milky Way Galaxy and we can see the immense energies being produced. So much so that physicists have speculated that this may actually be the main engine of creation of the heavier elements.

Anyway, the whole 10^-63 seconds after the Big Bang to the Universe as we know it, is mostly described by existing scientific theory. Yet Science is still discovering stuff (only recently have we seen that there is an alternative to Stellar Nucleosynthesis), that is the process of discovery.

I could go into things more but a Physics or Cosmology course would do a better job than I could do in a post on a forum.

And, of course, none of this Science in any way precludes or disproves God. I think that because Science is knowable, methodic and systematic, it indicates that this Universe we observe is NOT the result of randomness.

Cheers for asking the right questions borntowatch! Keep it up.

I never started this thread to find answers, simply the answers I want dont exist.

Thanks for the details about gravity, I do appreciate them. The question though was, where does gravity come from. Its clearly there but is still a theory.

There are way to many lose ends with the different types of evolutions. As soon as an answer comes to light it is challenged by some new discovery that doesnt fit the theory.
I have long given up chasing the new revelations and then newer revelations that contradict the older revelation.

Time and time again new problems emerge with evolution that causes it to be revised.
Time and time again I read information that is way outdated being served up as if its evolutionary/scientific gospel.

I guess all I wanted to know from this thread was, can evolutionist/atheists accept that some people dont and wont believe in evolution, simply because of all the gaping holes in the theory

My answer was confirmed some pages ago

Cheers

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: borntowatch

Gravity is a function of the curvature of space-time and mass causes space-time to be deformed.

There is a famous metaphor for this, called the rubber sheet analogy: Imagine a sheet of rubber, stretched out and flat. If you place a bowling ball on the rubber sheet, it deforms the flatness of the sheet, curving the sheet, creating a dent because of its weight. If we then roll a golf ball slowly past the bowling ball, it rolls down the rubber sheet towards the bowling ball. If we couldn't see the rubber sheet, we might assume that the golf ball had somehow been attracted to the bowling ball, as if from gravity.

Of course the rubber sheet is only really a plane object and gravity actually operates in 4 dimensional space-time, also we have used gravity in our analogy so it sort of breaks down logically, but it is only an analogy. There are ways of describing this more effectively with mathematical equations, but as you may realize, it can get complex.

Anyway, working backwards, to where all this diffuse matter came from (before gravity collected it together), the matter was (mostly) created by a process known of as Nucleosynthesis. This is where nuclear reactions turn simple, light elements (like Hydrogen) into heavier, more complex ones (like Carbon) by fusing them together. We can do some of these things in nuclear reactors and can also observe the reverse happening with nuclear fission and decay. So we believe that we have good evidence about it.

There are now two ways that this is believed to have happened:

The first way is that in the heart of big stars, atomic fusion made these heavier elements. The thing is that a star has points in its life-cycle where it becomes unstable. It works like this: The atomic reactions slow down as the fuel, the simpler elements, are all converted to heavier elements. The atomic reaction pressure stops without this fuel and the the star starts to collapse under its own weight. Now the 'star stuff' started out pretty hot and the pressure of gravity adds more heat until the heavier elements created in the previous atomic process start to fuse. This causes a massive pulse of energy which blasts off the stars outer layers, distributing the newly minted heavier element away from the star. This process of collapse and change of the fused elements happens over and over. At some stage it comes to an end as stable fusible elements run out, or if the mass is large enough, the core collapses to create a singularity (also called a Black Hole).

The other way that these elements can be created is when matter falls into a singularity. Before the in-falling stuff reaches the point of no return (the Schwarzschild radius) it accelerates closer to the speed of light, which causes it to get hotter & hotter. This process also can cause Nucleosynthesis which causes some of the in-falling matter to be blasted away from the Singularity just like it blasted away from the collapsing star. We actually have the example of this happening right now where a star is falling into the singularity at the core of our Milky Way Galaxy and we can see the immense energies being produced. So much so that physicists have speculated that this may actually be the main engine of creation of the heavier elements.

Anyway, the whole 10^-63 seconds after the Big Bang to the Universe as we know it, is mostly described by existing scientific theory. Yet Science is still discovering stuff (only recently have we seen that there is an alternative to Stellar Nucleosynthesis), that is the process of discovery.

I could go into things more but a Physics or Cosmology course would do a better job than I could do in a post on a forum.

And, of course, none of this Science in any way precludes or disproves God. I think that because Science is knowable, methodic and systematic, it indicates that this Universe we observe is NOT the result of randomness.

Cheers for asking the right questions borntowatch! Keep it up.

I never started this thread to find answers, simply the answers I want dont exist.

Thanks for the details about gravity, I do appreciate them. The question though was, where does gravity come from. Its clearly there but is still a theory.

There are way to many lose ends with the different types of evolutions. As soon as an answer comes to light it is challenged by some new discovery that doesnt fit the theory.
I have long given up chasing the new revelations and then newer revelations that contradict the older revelation.

Time and time again new problems emerge with evolution that causes it to be revised.
Time and time again I read information that is way outdated being served up as if its evolutionary/scientific gospel.

I guess all I wanted to know from this thread was, can evolutionist/atheists accept that some people dont and wont believe in evolution, simply because of all the gaping holes in the theory

My answer was confirmed some pages ago

Cheers

It's pointless to debate you because you refuse to admit that you are wrong. There are no 'gaping holes' in the theory of Evolution - but you continue to insist that there are, because this is what you think.

originally posted by: MarsIsRed


Yeah - I admit that was a cheap shot! Here's the 'expensive' shot.

What about the evolution of religion?
Or, more importantly, the evolution of morality?

Neither are manufactured by man by your own admission - these are divine interventions; therefore they must be created. Which begs the question "why didn't (the) god(s) get it right the first time"?

Perhaps reality is like this: the early humans who were hunter/gather's depended on nature. They therefore worshipped nature as their gods. As farming techniques began to develop communities grew, which caused a shift towards worshipping different people in different capacities - polytheism. As power became centralised with kings, the notion of monotheism took hold, to worship the all powerful god/kings who were responsible for the rains and subsequent crops. Several thousand years later, monotheism grew popular in certain regions. And here, in a few parts of the twenty first centuries 'civilised nations' a few hangers on still adhere to the god/king philosophy, waiting for there gods to deliver rain.

Three hundred years ago, these ideas were normal. Two hundred years ago they became unfashionable. One hundred years ago they were proven to be nonsense. Today, it's a crying shame that these people manage to avoid all logic, reason and scientific advances handed down to them on a plate - all the hard work had already been done. Still they fail to see the obvious.

/face palm for 'elements' of humanity

I dont see religion evolving, morality either, I think both are de-evolving.
I think the Old Testament is a mirror to modern society, all the death and violence teaches us we cant do life on our own with out stuffing it up, due to greed and lust. Christians (me) and their stupid piety included.

The answer is God extending His grace to man and man through love extending Gods grace to others.

Your above analogy is wrong, Judaism started with shepherds and farmers prior to kings

So, if I got it right, you believe that 2 negatives give you something positive in end...

Somehow you believe in God, but not in religion, witch made you believing in God?!

Thankfully, TOE and science does not depend on your wishful thinking and your misinterpretation of science....

a reply to: chr0naut

Fair enough. Well if I gave you the impression that evolution is the end all be all, I didn't mean to do that. It certainly isn't, and like you said it is just one tool among many. Maybe eventually we could have a unified theory of everything, but at this moment the gaps in our knowledge are too great.

originally posted by: borntowatch
I never started this thread to find answers, simply the answers I want dont exist.

Thanks for the details about gravity, I do appreciate them. The question though was, where does gravity come from. Its clearly there but is still a theory.

There are way to many lose ends with the different types of evolutions. As soon as an answer comes to light it is challenged by some new discovery that doesnt fit the theory.
I have long given up chasing the new revelations and then newer revelations that contradict the older revelation.

That is how science works, it builds on the information it has to create a better understanding of things. I'm not sure why you consider that a bad thing. It starts with the premise that we assume nothing then builds the theories around the evidence we have. If the evidence says one thing then later new evidence says something different, we modify the theory to fit. The modification though still takes into account the old evidence and still explains why the old evidence is true. It is just more rounded out, more questions answered.

Time and time again new problems emerge with evolution that causes it to be revised.
Time and time again I read information that is way outdated being served up as if its evolutionary/scientific gospel.

These two statements contradict each other.

I guess all I wanted to know from this thread was, can evolutionist/atheists accept that some people dont and wont believe in evolution, simply because of all the gaping holes in the theory

I can accept that, but I find it a rather dumb reason for doing so. The better question is, why are you content to believe in something that claims to have all the answers?