Big Bang, Abiogenesis and Macro-evolution demonstrated false!?

Question

Big bang - fire a shotgun and wait to see if the pellets revolve around each other, or if they just spread out until they hit something. Why would you expect Hydrogen atoms to act any differently? If you say gravity, then I must ask what would be the initial attraction for the atoms? Other individual H atoms spreading into infinity? They don't seem like they carry much mass, and they tend to bounce off of each other. It's what makes them a gas.
Abiogenesis - You can't link amino acids together to form proteins without enzymes and ATP, but yet you need proteins to make both ATP and enzymes. Next!
Macro-evolution - Get jar. Add fruit flies. Breed as many generations as you care to, you will always only get fruit flies in the end. Mutate them if you want, see what happens. Generation after generation of broken, weird-looking flies is what you'll get!

Whoops, forgot the question. In light of these arguments, why do some still choose to believe in these topics and push them as "fact"?

Ahhh, just the kinds of answers that I expected. So refreshing.

Answer 1

If this is serious, you're a moron.

Answer 2

Ok, here we go:

First: Your graps of science in each of these examples is weak at best. If you truly want to argue and debate, it may help to know what you are speaking about. These are not processes that happen with a human lifetime, even a hundred human lifetimes, and yet your little one week job with fruit flies is supposed to be negative proof?

Second: If you think things should act the same at the atomic level as the macroscopic level, you are in for a few big surprises. If that were true, how do bumblebees fly? How do birds know how to migrate? How does DNA ever work right?

Third: You are confusing fact and theory at an alarming rate. All of what you decided to "prove" false are merely theories and those who discuss them knowledgably state as such. There is no way to prove any of these theories since they occur on a scale that beggars human compreension and time spans.

I am a Catholic school science teacher, and I am very sorry that you either did not get to take science classes, or had such poor teachers. Well, I suppose you may not have bothered listening or doing any of the work, but I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

To my way of thinking, the intricacies of each of these theories only helps to PROVE the existence of God, for hwo could such wondrous complexity come to be without some sort of divine intervention? Science does not argue that, nor do most religions argue science.

Have a nice day, and Godspeed.

Answer 3

Ok, let's say you are right for fun. I'm suprised the newspapers didn't pick up the story when this stuff was proven false. To actually prove that the big bang didn't happen would be as important as proving the existence of aliens....Yet nobody reported it and schools are still teaching this theory...hmmm, strange.

I see what you were trying to imply.....god wins by default again, right? Sorry my friend, science doesn't work that way. There are millions of other possibilities than "god", like goddess, godzilla, or space aliens who genetically engineered everything.

Do You know that the "Ralien" cult believes almost everything you do, except that your god is replaced with their aliens.
I'll bet you think those people are a bunch of whackos don't you?

Answer 4

The Big Bang fits scientific theory. If it's not a Big Bang (for example, if the universe is in a "Steady State") then observation does not fit with theory. I can't explain the whole body of the science of physics to you here, but you would do well to study it before asking that question. To my knowledge, the Big Bang theory has not been demonstrated false. It may be refined in the future, but its fundamental tenets are validated with more and more sophisticated means of observation.

As for macro-evolution, it speaks for itself. Here we are. I don't see the corollary in the fruit-fly hypothesis. There's more than just fruit flies that evolved over the eons. I don't see how that disproves natural selection and evolution. Are you hinting that there's a Divine Manipulator? Not according to high energy physics, there's not. To think that we can trace the evolution of matter all the way back to about 10^ -32 seconds ATB is pretty amazing. Why not at least look at why physicists can make that claim. They're not trying to fool you so that they can take over the world.

"The Big Bang has been thoroughly proven as false"? Oh really? Boy, you'd think I'd have heard about it. Big Time/Newsweek cover story: Big Bang Thoroughly Proven As False - Read All About It. NOT!!!

Answer 5

There's more problems with the big bang. They assume there was a single point of matter in some form all compressed down into a tiny point. The gravity would be more immense than anything that exists today.

Something would have had to cause it to explode. This would have to be an immense explosion to overcome such extreme gravity. think how things have to reach escape velocity to break earth gravity and how much energy that needs. Multiply that by the energy needed to escape the sum of all the gravity in the universe...

Non life just cannot begat life. Non living matter --> amino acids --> DNA ---> single cells? Problem: Cell has to know how to eat, what to eat (or how to use solar energy and the nutrients ASSUMED to be nearby. It needs coding to be able to replicate itself either sexually or asexually. it needs to know how to protect itself from extreme weather.

macro evolution: There is much variation within a kind: EG the Dog kind, chiuauas, coon dogs, golden retrievers....many subspecies, all dogs. It is also worth nothing that much of this variety in the dog kind was created by "selective" (RE: Guided!) breeding.

Creation demands a creator. Accident? Random change?

One thing feeds evolutionary belief: A rejection of an all powerful creator who has rules people don't want to live by, or (in the theistic crowd) a rejection of the revealed truth about said Creator in favor of an allegorical dilluted mis-interpretation of his revealed rules and providence.

"As for macro-evolution, it speaks for itself. Here we are."

Macro Evolution cannot speak for itself! The fact that we humans are here is NOT proof of particles to people evolution, any more than me showing you a 20 million dollar mansion is proof that I own it.

Other said that evolution is "merely a theory." Calling evolution a theory automatically gives it more credit than it deserves, since such theorys are relativity and gravity are observable at any time. A theory is science's version of a fact; Something that has been observed and repeated and verified so many times that it is assumed to hold true everytime it is tested.

Evolution has NEVER been observed or repeated or tested. it is indirectly arrived at by looking at creatures, noticing they have some common features and assuming that means they have a common ancestor. Assuming further that the creation and complexity we see today is the "result" of a multi-billion year series of random accidental unguided events is wilder than the wildest science fiction novel.

Note also that the billion and million year ages assigned to the universe, earth, and fossils are also INDIRECTLY inferred based on the levels of various radioactive isotopes that are present today. Another assumption made is that there was a constant decay rate, AND that there was a certain amount of parent material to begin with.

Biological and Geological evolution are modern day creation myths perpetuated by those who desire to reject theism at any cost, even the cost of facts and truth.

Look at this:

Atheists/Evolutionists on GOD

"We are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Richard Lewontin 'Billions and billions of demons', The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31.

Answer 6

The Big Bang has been thoroughly proven as false, yet so many people who are uneducated hold to it. The world chases after a lie as long as it tickles them. Black holes suck light and emit light that can not be detected. All of this happens by the force exerted when a star explodes. We would have no light if an explosion which could produce our cosmic experience happened. Simple as that.

Answer 7

Pardon, but what is your question? Do you want someone to say that theories about the begining of the universe are incorrect? What proof are you "demonstrating?" Basically, what's your point?

Answer 8

Good points regarding Abiogeneis and Macro-evolution.

I must beg to differ regarding the Big-Bang. For a discussion of the Big Bang and its Theistic implications, see http://www.godsci.org/gs/new/bigbang.html

Note: I am a Christian.

I used to be an atheist. Over a period of time however, I grew convinced of the existence of the Christian God, and ultimately committed my life to Christ (e.g., see http://www.godsci.org/gs/chri/testimony/seek.html ).

For scientific and intellectual evidence for the existence of God, see http://www.godsci.org/gs/godsci/evidence.htm

Cordially,
John

Answer 9

It's a funny thing about science. A new discovery is made. Theories are fashioned. People get convinced. Then, about the time that they are ready to die for their belief, Science goes and makes a new discovery...and rather than admit that the old theory could have been false, people feverishly try to fit these new facts into their old theories, because, God help them, they could not possibly be....
....
....
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 10

your shotgun analysis is all i read... its all i needed to read, damn if an electron is negative then how can a proton be positive? that is what your shotgun comparison sounds like to me, and mere comparison of two totaly different circumstances

Answer 11

*Still waiting for a demonstration.*
*Still waiting*