"Evolution is responsible for life's diversity, not for gravity. You are a bit misinformed. 'Gravity' is in the 'physics' section. 'Evolution' can be found at the 'biology' section. Evolution is not 'the creator,' it is a natural phenomenon. There is no such thing as 'Creation,' except in poetic terms." G.E.
Well, it starts out nearly accurate, but this isn't his saying, it's from this guy. So I can't give him credit for it.
If (as is commonly accepted) the natural phenomenon of evolution had no end in mind when it created all living things, it is incredibly intelligent, but it forgot that they would go spinning into space without the law of gravity. So it was fortunate for us that gravity just happened to be around to stop that disaster.
Actually, evolution has nothing to do with this, it's a red herring, it does nothing to say evolution didn't happen, it just says that, somehow, without gravity, evolution wouldn't happen. It doesn't mean evolution didn't happen. I suggest leaving this one into the theoretical physicists, I'm kind of limited in my physics education. Notice, however, what he did, though, he led in with a quote about WHY evolution has nothing to do with physics, and then continued to say that it was without ever making a case for that premise. He is also describing evolution (a process) as a living thing. This is akin to saying gravitational acceleration was smart to come up with matter. It makes NO sense. So what does this paragraph demonstrate? 1) Mr. Comfort thinks evolution thinks; 2) He thinks evolutionary theory should somehow explain gravity; 3) because it doesn't address gravity, it isn't a valid theory. I guess unless we have ONE theory that explains the entire universe, Mr. Comfort just won't be satisfied...
Where did gravity then come from? If evolution had nothing to do with it, who or what created it? "Chance" or "accident" is too bigger leap of blind faith for me. The evolutionist's version of "just believe" isn't good enough. I want verifiable scientific facts.
I could probably toss out that recent understandings of gravity indicate that it is the interaction of particles in space and time and simply one of the many means by which matter interacts. It is a weak attractive force which follows a fairly predictable mathematical model on the macroscopic scale, we're still trying to understand the microscopic scale, but evolution doesn't say ANYTHING about it, it deals with anything capable of self-replication. And if he wants verifiable scientific facts, why is he so happy to embrace a religion which has so few?
And while we are looking for facts, explain to me where the other laws that govern the universe came from, i.e. the laws of thermodynamics, of motion, and the laws of heat? Why don’t we see chaos everywhere instead of order?
NONE of these are arguments against evolution, they are arguments toward physics, not biology. But I'll take this time to point out one nifty little thing, all "laws" which govern the universe come from the properties of our universe, the way matter interacts, the properties of said matter. Trying to assign "god done did it" to questions which have answers we just don't know yet still begs MANY questions, namely "why?" And to answer that last question, there IS chaos everywhere, the order we "see" is simply our brain's way of categorizing and understanding it.
Of course your "scientific" answer will be, "We don’t yet know where they came from, but one thing we are sure of, God didn’t create them."
And your only arguments are those of "first cause." Shame on you for not studying up on your very BASIC cosmology. There is no "before" matter because matter and energy are responsible for this thing we call "time." So there need be nothing before matter and energy because "before" doesn't exist.
It was Newton's law of gravitation that showed science that the gravitational constant is in direct proportion to the product of the masses divided by the square of the distance apart. However, that doesn't explain the nature of gravity. Despite its mystery, the brilliant Newton attributed its origin to the genius of Almighty God. So do I.
Here's another blatant fallacy and I'll see if you can spot it. (hint: appeal to auth___)
Now for some fun stuff, here's the list of things that are attributed to "god" but we're pretty sure don't come from anything supernatural:
Seeds to sprout
Volcanoes and earthquakes
Stars to shine
Sun to move
So please, pinning "gravity" on there is akin to all these other ones that were pinned to "god." We don't understand it yet, but that doesn't mean something supernatural did. It's a non-sequitur. This whole argument of his was a non-sequitur, and he should seriously learn more about his religion and my science.