For all of you "Big Bang" Believers...
- Thread starter Servant77
- Start date
the hypothesis behind the big bang theory is always being tested
telescopes are always checking whether whats out there is consistent with a big bang
telescopes are always checking whether whats out there is consistent with a big bang
Upvote
0
Yep, biology does also worry about how life started (I believe abiogenesis is part biology and part chemistry, but I may be wrong). But evolution is only a theory in the science.
Well, a scientific theory is really the strongest thing any of these things can get. even though einsteins theory of relativity has been shown to work many times, its still a theory because we dont know if there is something out there that could disprove it. However its been standing sturdy for awhile now. Same goes for evolution, and the big bang. Both keep getting evidence added to them to show that they are right, however we cant say they are 100% right, because we dont have 100% knowledge of everything.
Contrary to popular belief probably the hardest person on science are the scientists themselves. They are constantly doing experiments that could show these theories to be wrong, however quite often they just reinforce the theory.
The biggest thing with science is since the big bang created spacetime, its currently imposible to see beyond the begining of our universe to see if there is anything else out there.
One problem with god is that you cant do an experiment to show god, but you can do an experiment to show evolution.
Well, a scientific theory is really the strongest thing any of these things can get. even though einsteins theory of relativity has been shown to work many times, its still a theory because we dont know if there is something out there that could disprove it. However its been standing sturdy for awhile now. Same goes for evolution, and the big bang. Both keep getting evidence added to them to show that they are right, however we cant say they are 100% right, because we dont have 100% knowledge of everything.
Contrary to popular belief probably the hardest person on science are the scientists themselves. They are constantly doing experiments that could show these theories to be wrong, however quite often they just reinforce the theory.
The biggest thing with science is since the big bang created spacetime, its currently imposible to see beyond the begining of our universe to see if there is anything else out there.
One problem with god is that you cant do an experiment to show god, but you can do an experiment to show evolution.
Upvote
0
Late_Cretaceous
<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Can we see a show of hands from all the "evolutionists" who count Evolutionary Theory and The Big Bang theory as "one in the same"?
Upvote
0
I expect that your count will come up with zero. I don't recall seeing anyone but creationists lump big bang theory and evolutionary theory together.
Regards
The Frumious Bandersnatch
Upvote
0
Late_Cretaceous
<font color="#880000" ></font&g
I imagine that when you don't have the slightest clue what either theory is about (as we have seen over and over again from the creationists), it is hard not to confuse the two.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Servant, these are all strawmen arguments.
First, no one is saying that "two dead cells" made a live cell. Instead, the claims are that chemical reactions gave rise to life.
Second, Big Bang isn't about a "collision between two rocks". It's a theory that states that the matter/energy/spacetime of the universe appeared in an infinitely small, infinitely not event 13.4 billion years in the past and that the universe has been expanding ever since.
Third, all the data does say that all the life we see did evolve from a common ancestor that was a single cell.
For instance, all organisms use the same genetic code for amino acids. Since this is not necessary, it argues for common ancestry. Even the minor exceptions where one code will code for a different amino acid in a few organisms indicate evolution from the original code.
Upvote
0
That puts you with most Christians. And even puts you with Darwin.
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.
Upvote
0
Yesterday at 04:12 AM sr. scholls said this in Post #20
So it didn't say that God created the Universe?
"Goddidit" doesn't say anything scientific. To be scientific you have to posit a particular how "Goddidit". Evolution can be just as much "Goddidit" as creationism.
Biology, the study of life--no? Wouldn't biology consider how life came to be?
Chemistry considers this. Or biochemistry. I have seen abiogenesis discussed in intro biology courses, but evolution has as its boundary that life already exists.
I've read in previous posts on this subject in the "evolution is/isn't" thread(or maybe I'm mistaken?) that evolution has nothing to do with how life came about, just how it is changing.
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.
The only reason I brought up evolution was because of its tie with the Big Bang theory. Many evolutionists I've met count them as one in the same.
I think you mean "atheists" here and not "evolutionists" But maybe not. I haven't met any "evolutionists" who consider them the same.
I'm more interested with this breaking down of these fundamental laws that are the basis of this theory and every other with the creation of the universe and life for that matter.
The beginning of life doesn't involve any breaking down of fundamental laws.
Big Bang has all the matter/energy/spacetime in an infinitely small, infinitely dense "point". At such densities, Relativity breaks down.
For a theory to try to remain as true to pure scientific reason, it sure does bend and break alot of its own rules to gain grounds.
You forget that all theories have boundaries. Gravity doesn't explain cells and Cell Theory doesn't explain the motion of planets. Big Bang remains true to the data. It doesn't break any other rules. Relativity has always been known to break down in singularities -- black holes -- and black holes have been observed. The data is what it is.
It makes me wonder about Einstein's theory of E=MC2, why that is still a theory although it has proven itself time and again.
Why is Round Earth still a theory altho it has been tested again and again? Because there is nothing else it can graduate to.
Does the Big Bang theory have the kind of staying power to be tested endlessly and not falter?
So far, yes. It has progressed to the point that, like Round Earth, we accept it as (provisionally) true.
I think it will remain a theory and never be proven because for us to test this theory, we would have to create our own Big Bang.
OK, back to Philosophy of Science 101. Because of the deductive logic used in science, theories are never, strictly speaking, "proven". Rather, theories can be conclusively falsified. Supported theories are supported to the point where we accept them as provisionally true unless and until we get evidence to falsify it. That is where Big Bang is.
The only reason I disclaim the Big Bang theory is because you can hypothesize all you want, but until you are actually able to test that hypothesis or theory, then it will ultimately just remain that.
It will still remain a theory after testing. It will be regarded as either a (provisionally) valid theory or a falsified theory. No faith involved.
This is also true with Creationism. It all boils down to faith. Would you disagree?
Yes. Creationism is a falsified theory.
So it didn't say that God created the Universe?
"Goddidit" doesn't say anything scientific. To be scientific you have to posit a particular how "Goddidit". Evolution can be just as much "Goddidit" as creationism.
Biology, the study of life--no? Wouldn't biology consider how life came to be?
Chemistry considers this. Or biochemistry. I have seen abiogenesis discussed in intro biology courses, but evolution has as its boundary that life already exists.
I've read in previous posts on this subject in the "evolution is/isn't" thread(or maybe I'm mistaken?) that evolution has nothing to do with how life came about, just how it is changing.
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.
The only reason I brought up evolution was because of its tie with the Big Bang theory. Many evolutionists I've met count them as one in the same.
I think you mean "atheists" here and not "evolutionists" But maybe not. I haven't met any "evolutionists" who consider them the same.
I'm more interested with this breaking down of these fundamental laws that are the basis of this theory and every other with the creation of the universe and life for that matter.
The beginning of life doesn't involve any breaking down of fundamental laws.
Big Bang has all the matter/energy/spacetime in an infinitely small, infinitely dense "point". At such densities, Relativity breaks down.
For a theory to try to remain as true to pure scientific reason, it sure does bend and break alot of its own rules to gain grounds.
You forget that all theories have boundaries. Gravity doesn't explain cells and Cell Theory doesn't explain the motion of planets. Big Bang remains true to the data. It doesn't break any other rules. Relativity has always been known to break down in singularities -- black holes -- and black holes have been observed. The data is what it is.
It makes me wonder about Einstein's theory of E=MC2, why that is still a theory although it has proven itself time and again.
Why is Round Earth still a theory altho it has been tested again and again? Because there is nothing else it can graduate to.
Does the Big Bang theory have the kind of staying power to be tested endlessly and not falter?
So far, yes. It has progressed to the point that, like Round Earth, we accept it as (provisionally) true.
I think it will remain a theory and never be proven because for us to test this theory, we would have to create our own Big Bang.
OK, back to Philosophy of Science 101. Because of the deductive logic used in science, theories are never, strictly speaking, "proven". Rather, theories can be conclusively falsified. Supported theories are supported to the point where we accept them as provisionally true unless and until we get evidence to falsify it. That is where Big Bang is.
The only reason I disclaim the Big Bang theory is because you can hypothesize all you want, but until you are actually able to test that hypothesis or theory, then it will ultimately just remain that.
It will still remain a theory after testing. It will be regarded as either a (provisionally) valid theory or a falsified theory. No faith involved.
This is also true with Creationism. It all boils down to faith. Would you disagree?
Yes. Creationism is a falsified theory.
Upvote
0
sr. scholls
The dimmest of lights
Now who is the one generalizing people? Me thinky 'tis you. I never said anyone on this board counts the two theories as the same. I said I've met (as in....real life, face to face, mono y mono) that count them as the same. As far as the scientific credentials for the people I've met I don't see how you need a Bachelors or even a high school diploma to believe in a theory. I believe in theories, just not ones that try and fail to disprove the existence of God, whether consciously or not.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
The thing is, most creationist arguments and "theories" can be shown to be false with a High school education. 
Upvote
0
sr. scholls
The dimmest of lights
"Goddidit" doesn't say anything scientific. To be scientific you have to posit a particular how "Goddidit". Evolution can be just as much "Goddidit" as creationism.
How God did it. Let's start from the beginning, Genesis 1:1. If it weren't scientific at all, if there were no grounds for it to stand it could be disproven. Many people have spent their entire lives trying to disprove how God created the Universe with scientific evidence that falsifies it, so call it what you want.
Chemistry considers this. Or biochemistry. I have seen abiogenesis discussed in intro biology courses, but evolution has as its boundary that life already exists.
Thank you for clarifying that. Now I know where to direct future questions, unfortunately I don't have the ability to direct you towards a particular part of Creationism as science can do, unless you studied for yourself each day of Creation.
ere is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.
Couldn't have spoken more eloquently myself. I do not disagree with Darwin that God breathed life into the Earth, but he did not specify what kind of life, but I'm assuming he meant uni-cellular organisms that slowly evolved into complex multi-cellular organisms. Sadly we are left to speculate on what Darwin meant when he said that.
I think you mean "atheists" here and not "evolutionists" But maybe not. I haven't met any "evolutionists" who consider them the same.
Ok, I have.
Big Bang has all the matter/energy/spacetime in an infinitely small, infinitely dense "point". At such densities, Relativity breaks down.
Matter and energy.....where did it come from? If there is an explanation for everything in the Universe, then surely there must be one for that.
For a theory to try to remain as true to pure scientific reason, it sure does bend and break alot of its own rules to gain grounds.
You forget that all theories have boundaries. Gravity doesn't explain cells and Cell Theory doesn't explain the motion of planets. Big Bang remains true to the data. It doesn't break any other rules. Relativity has always been known to break down in singularities -- black holes -- and black holes have been observed. The data is what it is.
Never said that Cell Theory explained the motion of planets. Yet I take into consideration what you are trying to say, that's not what I meant. I mean for relativity to break down, then there must have been other factors taken into consideration. Is it easier for you to believe that "eureka, relativity is broken down in that one moment in time and space, and all the energy and matter was omnipresent when this all happened to make this work, nothing can really explain it, it can only be tested theoretically with the limited capacity humans have for understanding the vast nothing that we know about the Universe.
It will still remain a theory after testing. It will be regarded as either a (provisionally) valid theory or a falsified theory. No faith involved.
This is also true with Creationism. It all boils down to faith. Would you disagree?
Yes. Creationism is a falsified theory.
Then disprove it. Creationism is so simple, the only explanation for why we are living and breathing that man has not come up with. It isn't surrounded with thick layers of theoretical possibilities one after another that are left unproven. When you yourself can make life from absolutely nothing, you can create yourself your own matter and energy, using nothing that has already been made, then I will believe these scientific theories that the world has to offer. But until then I take comfort in looking outside and coming to terms with my limited understanding of this Universe that I nor anyone but the Lord can create, and will go to sleep without a doubt in my mind that I was fearfully and wonderfully made, and that I was not a mistake or fluke in the world's uncreated universe.
How God did it. Let's start from the beginning, Genesis 1:1. If it weren't scientific at all, if there were no grounds for it to stand it could be disproven. Many people have spent their entire lives trying to disprove how God created the Universe with scientific evidence that falsifies it, so call it what you want.
Chemistry considers this. Or biochemistry. I have seen abiogenesis discussed in intro biology courses, but evolution has as its boundary that life already exists.
Thank you for clarifying that. Now I know where to direct future questions, unfortunately I don't have the ability to direct you towards a particular part of Creationism as science can do, unless you studied for yourself each day of Creation.
ere is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.
Couldn't have spoken more eloquently myself. I do not disagree with Darwin that God breathed life into the Earth, but he did not specify what kind of life, but I'm assuming he meant uni-cellular organisms that slowly evolved into complex multi-cellular organisms. Sadly we are left to speculate on what Darwin meant when he said that.
I think you mean "atheists" here and not "evolutionists" But maybe not. I haven't met any "evolutionists" who consider them the same.
Ok, I have.
Big Bang has all the matter/energy/spacetime in an infinitely small, infinitely dense "point". At such densities, Relativity breaks down.
Matter and energy.....where did it come from? If there is an explanation for everything in the Universe, then surely there must be one for that.
For a theory to try to remain as true to pure scientific reason, it sure does bend and break alot of its own rules to gain grounds.
You forget that all theories have boundaries. Gravity doesn't explain cells and Cell Theory doesn't explain the motion of planets. Big Bang remains true to the data. It doesn't break any other rules. Relativity has always been known to break down in singularities -- black holes -- and black holes have been observed. The data is what it is.
Never said that Cell Theory explained the motion of planets. Yet I take into consideration what you are trying to say, that's not what I meant. I mean for relativity to break down, then there must have been other factors taken into consideration. Is it easier for you to believe that "eureka, relativity is broken down in that one moment in time and space, and all the energy and matter was omnipresent when this all happened to make this work, nothing can really explain it, it can only be tested theoretically with the limited capacity humans have for understanding the vast nothing that we know about the Universe.
It will still remain a theory after testing. It will be regarded as either a (provisionally) valid theory or a falsified theory. No faith involved.
This is also true with Creationism. It all boils down to faith. Would you disagree?
Yes. Creationism is a falsified theory.
Then disprove it. Creationism is so simple, the only explanation for why we are living and breathing that man has not come up with. It isn't surrounded with thick layers of theoretical possibilities one after another that are left unproven. When you yourself can make life from absolutely nothing, you can create yourself your own matter and energy, using nothing that has already been made, then I will believe these scientific theories that the world has to offer. But until then I take comfort in looking outside and coming to terms with my limited understanding of this Universe that I nor anyone but the Lord can create, and will go to sleep without a doubt in my mind that I was fearfully and wonderfully made, and that I was not a mistake or fluke in the world's uncreated universe.
Upvote
0
sr. scholls
The dimmest of lights
.....so to be an evolutionist, you must have your own theory? And you're not allowed to believe in any theory but your own? And you can't be in high school either!? *Gasp*
note the sarcasm please.
note the sarcasm please.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
fragmentsofdreams
Critical loyalist
28th March 2003 at 09:45 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #2
I don't know where to begin...
So instead I'll just list my favorite flavors of ice cream:
Chocolate chip mint
New York Pretzel
Cookie dough
Mmmm... Cookie dough ice cream...
Mmmm.....Cookie dough
Upvote
0
Similar threads
