-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Space-Time and Theory of Evolution
- Thread starter atanu
- Start date
Give life enough space and enough time and watch how it evolves.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I'll go with that.
Enough space and enough time?
Can time and space be considered separate and independent?
Last edited:
In my view biological evolution is matters attempt to break free of spacetime. I don't know if consciousness did it but it sure makes us think so, with things like the illusion of free-will, well maybe not an illusion if it accomplishes it in any way, even if only in the minutest scales.
When matter formed it became bound to spacetime at the macro level, then matter tries to tap back into the very energy it spawned from.
the question is :
Who gave the life in first place ?
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I wouldn't pretend to express what @fantome profane was really meaning, but I understood the statement to mean "Give life (the product of evolution) enough space (enough converging probabilities or chance occurances over a wide area) and enough time (a period required to come to fruition) and watch how it evolves (and see the mechanics of the process, in action)."
Newton certainly thought so, but it took Einstein to inform us that it was all relative.
There is simply no evidence that any "who" was involved, so why presume there was? It is simply conjecture opined by limited minds that are incapable of seeing the larger processes as work. God is the dumbed-down answer. Hopefully, we have grown enough as a species to be able to appreciate far richer and far more satisfying answers.
Last edited:
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Popular hypotheses credit a primordial soup, a bolt of lightning and a colossal stroke of luck. But if a provocative new theory is correct, luck may have little to do with it. Instead, according to the physicist proposing the idea, the origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.”
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/
In physics, no. In everyday activities, including selective breeding (evolution), yes.
There is no reason to assume there is any "who," There's certainly no evidence of a who, and even if there were a who, it wouldn't explain what mechanism was used for evolution.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
The view from physics makes the dividing line between life and non-life very very faint.
It's all just stuff. If there is stuff, there will inevitably be life, as life is obviously part of stuff.
Not so much "part of", as "one manifestation of", I think.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Yeah... It's an in-progress explanation... Very scientificy.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
That is a question that the theory of evolution does not attempt to answer.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Who gave birth to the who?
Where did the who come from?
How do you know there's a who?
That's the major question the human being try to find answser,inspite the level of science and intellegence.
Same thing about revive the death.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
As it should be, a continuum not a light switch.
1-The Creator.
2- Why you care? care about your self first.
It's like a "car" curious where the humans come from !
3-From Quran,and from facts that I believe I am created,and there is Creator.
Well. Has physics then no connection with everyday activities?
What the knowledge of Relativity suggests is that time is an artefact and that all possible space-time planes exist. Sense of and quantification of past and future depend on frame of reference of observation.
My point is that when we critique scripture why we assume that our mundane waking state sense experiences are the only possible experiences/realities? Why we assume that all frame of references are fixed and common?
I do not get the implication of space-time there.