DA_Champion wrote:virgey wrote:Evolution fails in explaining the first life among other things. In the case of the genesis of the first life it not only does not explain it, it does NOT even address it.
Evolution is about how life evolves not how life originates. That's why it's called evolution.virgey wrote:As to the subject of gravity you are correct that when we see an apple fall to the ground, we are only observing an action caused by gravitation, but this does not explain the causation for gravity itself. We only observe the interactions in the macro world. Scientists have tried to explain this causation for gravity itself, but so far have been unsuccessful. They propose all types of theories to try and explain, but there is always some effect or problem that interferes with the theory, and either the theory must be altered or thrown out, or someone comes up with a new one. Most of these theories are not based in scientific observations, but are simply mans attempt to fit all the seemingly inconsistencies into a simple and all encompassing theory. To state it another way, the theory does not always develop through tests and observations, but some theory or hypothesis' are developed and then an attempt is tried to make it fit. The holy grail for scientists is to find one simple theory that explains everything. The reason that scientists are looking for this simple theory of everything is because, it's the only logical conclusion that there can be to explain all the apparent problems with all the current multitude of theories out there now. In fact most scientist state that there has to be an all encompassing theory for everything for life and the cosmos to be possible. Now what do you suppose one very good possibility could that one thing be?
"apples fall to the ground?" is merely evidence that a theory of gravity is needed. It's an observation not a theory.
It doesn't tell you about the existence of black holes, it doesn't tell you that a beam of light emitted from the surface of the Earth will have a slightly different color once it makes it to space, it doesn't tell you that Mercury doesn't orbit the sun in a perfect circle, it doesn't tell you that an apple on the Moon would drop to the ground slower than an apple dropped from the same height on Earth, not even how much slower, it doesn't tell you that the universe is expanding and that ancient light gets redder, etc.
For all those observables, amny of which were predicted before being observed, you need an actual theory of gravity and not just an observation. A theory allows you to make a statement such as "on the moon, gravitational acceleration will be six times slower than on Earth", something later confirmed in 1969.
Theories of everything, of which I am not a fan, are a work in progress. String theory is a possibility.
I know i said I was done commenting in this thread, but I must correct you. My comments above do NOT deny what you are stating. You apparently are misunderstanding what I wrote. I stated that an apple falling out of a tree is merely an observation of what the theory of gravity predicts, and thus evidence of the existence of a gravitational force. Maybe I wasn't complete enough in my explanation. I realize that in different environments gravity would also behave differently, but that would be because of these variables. I agree with all that you are stating above. When I asked about causation, I was asking what was the cause of gravity in the first place. To say it was just there because we see its effects is a non answer in my view. Everything has a cause. I will now remove myself as this as usual always devolves into a circular argument. I only re-posted to correct what I felt needed correcting.
