to all who believe in evolution?

Question

Sorry Read and this might help





The Big Bang has not met the requirements to be classified as a scientific Theory due to lack of supporting evidence. In the scientific community a method is used to produce a step-by-step process to explain an observation. These are the most common steps; Observation, Question, Hypothesis, prediction, experiment, analysis, decision. When an experiment is proven to be 100% reliable it becomes a scientific Law. This method being referred to is known as the Scientific Method. As Antonio Zamora explains ”The scientific method requires that theories be testable. If a theory cannot be tested, it cannot be a scientific theory”. One might reply to this statement, just because scientist haven’t found proof for the big bang doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. In regards to this logic, if scientists produce documented, testable proof using the accepted scientific method, that the Big Bang is possible, then one can claim the Big Bang to be a scientific Theory.
The idea of the Big Bang is described in the textbook The Unity and Diversity of Life “This Incredibly hot, dense state lasted only for an instant. What happened next is known as the Big Bang, a stupendous, nearly instantaneous distribution of matter and energy throughout the universe.” Scientists have yet to create something out of nothing. According to this big bang idea, between 14 and 18 billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe was smashed into a tiny space. This dot spun faster, and faster until it exploded, thus creating the Universe, and everything in it. This claim cannot be proven; observed, or tested by the scientific Laws provided by scientist, at best the Big Bang is a Hypothesis. Scientific Laws hold a much higher authority than a theory, due to the fact that a scientific Law has been proven 100% true, and tested time, and time again. According to Ross E. Koning a college professor at Eastern Connecticut State University “The scientific method is based upon evidence rather than belief. This distinguishes science from faith. A scientist is suitably skeptical of anything but good evidence”.
In the First Law of Thermodynamics: matter cannot be created or destroyed. In the beginning to the Big Bang, there is nothing present to explode, and zero energy to explode it. There are zero observations, or documented test results for spontaneous generation, let alone matter from nothing. Expecting to have matter, and energy just show up, when none is present is like taking an absolutely empty box, and after billions of years, or any other amount of time, expect to open that box, and inside have a operational world in all its complexity. Spontaneous generation something out of nothing, used to support the Big Bang is in direct conflict with the first scientific Law of Thermodynamics.
Lets examine the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Everything tends towards disorder. In the Big Bang we have a huge universe-creating explosion. Nothing orderly has ever come from a random matter explosion of any magnitude. Explosions are anything but orderly, the larger the explosions the more random the matter distributions become. If a person made a claim that thousands of bricks were set in motion by a tornado, which ultimately resulted in the orderly design, and complexity of this Spokane Falls Community College school building, people would think he was crazy. To take the point of complexity a little further, this well-designed school-building students attend is far inferior to the human eyes function; let alone the precision of the planetary orbits.
Another scientific Law is Conservation of angular momentum: According to the definition in Word Book “Objects executing motion around a point possess a quantity called angular momentum. This is an important physical quantity because all experimental evidence indicates that angular momentum is rigorously conserved in our Universe: it can be transferred, but it cannot be created or destroyed”. This spinning ball of matter, which supposedly created the earth, stars, and planets, would all need to spin in the same direction as the single object it exploded from. However their are two planets in our immediate space, Venus, and Uranus that spin backwards. Some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but also travel backward around their own planets. Even NASA’s scientists on their website ponder the many differing orbits of planetary bodies in our amazing universe.
Some newly discovered planets follow unusual orbits. Most planets travel around their stars on nearly circular paths, like those of the planets in our solar system. But a planet around the star 16 Cygni B follows an extremely elliptical orbit. It travels farther from its star than the planet Mars does from our sun, and then draws closer to the star than Venus does to our sun. If a planet in our solar system traveled in such an extreme oval, its gravity would disrupt the orbits of the other planets and toss them out of their paths.
The reason for this paper is not to push any agenda, or to now tell you I have all the right answers. The reason for this paper is to examine what we are being told by many mainstream scientists, using their own methods, models, and proven Laws. When using proven scientific evidence, along with scientific Laws in a precise, but simple order, the Big Bang holds no more ground than a belief. There is no supporting evidence to classify the Big Bang as a scientific Theory. Please refer back to the first quote stated by a member of the scientific community ” The scientific method requires that theories be testable. If a theory cannot be tested, it cannot be a scientific Theory”. To me science is evolving, and dynamic. I imagine a student writing a paper 1500 years ago on the flawed theory held that the earth is flat, and being scoffed at by that days mainstream scientific thinkers. True thinkers, and scientist should always be willing to examine what they believe to be true, and why they hold that idea to be true or false. They should also be wiling to fix a mistake if found. Nobody likes to be told what to think, and how to think it, especially when it doesn’t make logical scientific sense.

38 seconds ago - Report Abuse

Good point david. Just as god made pherow's heart hard

Answer 1

Amen...I knew it was in disharmony with the second Law of Thermodynamics, but I didn't know it was out of whack with the first.

One day, scientists should read the Bible....it will save them alot of time. They were 5000 late in discovering the world had a starting point, 3000 years later than the Bible in proving the earth was round, 4000 years later than the Bible in proving the earth was suspended and not held up by anything.....etc.

Unfortunately, noting can change a hardened heart. I liked it though!

Blessings,
David

Answer 2

This is typical disingenuous Creationist babble. Scientific principles are misapplied or misstated. First, the big bang is cosmology and has nothing to do with evolution.

The big bang has been tested. The cosmic microwave background has been mapped. Galaxies from the early universe have been observed. The requirement of "testable" is that the theory makes predictions, beyond the base data, that can be tested.

The spinning mass flying apart is an unsupported speculation. Anything prior to Planck time (10^-47s after the big bang) is not subject to study. Also, the nature of space around a spinning singularity is not subject to our common experience.

The laws of thermodynamics are obeyed. The first law is not conservation of matter, but a variation on conservation of energy. Relativity allows for interconversion of mass and energy (E=mc²). The mass-energy was present as the inception of the universe and remains constant -- no violation of the misstated law. The second law does not require uniform increasing disorder, just net increase. Small ordered islands are permitted. Space is incredibly empty. That emptiness is disorder and the disorder is increasing.

Complex molecules are formed by ultrasound induced air bubble explosions. The big bang explosion created nothing, but the cooling expanding universe allowed for condensation of matter. This is the same process by which water vapor condences (except the priciple force is gravity, not electromagnetism).

Conservation of angular momentum does not require that the planets and moons orbit or rotate in the same directions. Anyone who has paddled a canoe sees two opposite direction eddies form by the paddle blade to conserve angular momentum. Jupiter's orbit around the Sun carries most of the angular momentum in the solar system. A moon can be captured into a retrograde orbit, and the planet's orbit around the Sun will change slightly such that angular momentum (and energy) is conserved.

The orbit of 16 Cygni B's planet has little application to our solar system. the "B" refers to the fact that it is the second star (in this case of a three star system). The orbital mechanics of the system are not well characterized. The other stars may have had profound impacts on the orbit of that planet. Unlike Jupiter carrying most of the angular momentum of our solar system, the angular momentum of that system is mostly in the two stars of roughly equal mass to the Sun.

Answer 3

Thank you so very much for proving absolutely nothing.

How is your selective adaptation of the scientific method pursuant to the case you supposedly are presenting? And it is selective because, like the scientists criticized, you also tend to ignore evidence that is contrary to the opinion you wish to present.

Not every scientific theory remains, absolutely, valid. Copernicus' theory of the planet's revolution around the sun (for example) was just that, a theory, at the time he developed it. There were other 'theories' before Copernicus, including several that had the approval of church officials. None were any more or less 'theoretical' than the other, but it is only now that we can see which were only 'theories' and which was 'fact' or law.

You are, in fact, wrong in terms of a scientific theory needing to be testable. A scientific theory need not be testable to be scientific, but it must be one thing: it must eventually be confirmed by scientific proof and scientific method. Thus, it is possible to have a scientific theory (and be correct) without it being currently testable or provable.

Where the theory of Intelligent Design fails the standard of scientific proof then, as opposed to the Big Bang theory, is not in it being untestable but in failing to adhere to scientific principal. Where Intelligent Design fails is that it 'subscribes' a particular intelligence to the fabric of existence where as the Big Bang theory is relatively culture-free.

Intelligent Design would not be allowed, or even be brought up, in certain classrooms if it were not for the particular religious (and a particular kind of religious) bent to it's implications. It is one thing to say that a beam of light is being 'directed' in a certain direction, it is quite another thing to say that, since it is being directed, that the hand that is directing it must be 'Christian' in it's purposes.

Gravity (and the laws which govern it) responds to each of us equally, irregardless of culture: a nun, a rabbi, a monk, a hindu, a hermit, a satanist, and a atheist, all of a similar height and weight, fall off a ten story building at the same rate of speed, with a similar result in the end. Science applies itself, and proves itself, irregardless of the cultural inclinations in which it is tested. True science (and it's theories) does not respect or acknowledge the distinctions that cultures and religions do. Perhaps it is not the scientists who are having the problems; it is those seeking to 'prove' those distinctions that are threatened by the implications of equality. What does it say of a culture/religious belief if gravity is a greater respector of people than the people themselves?

Answer 4

Sadly, yes. I do not understand how they can handle the cognitive dissonance. You are not well-educated because you do not recognize that theory is the highest level in science. It's not a guess. It is ignorant to say "JUST a theory". The common ancestor of all apes (including humans and chimps) is a monkey and that can be proven to your satisfaction. It does not depend on the theory of evolution. It's a fact. Theories do not have proof which only applies in mathematics. Theories have evidence. There is no evidence of a god of any kind. Theories are falsifiable. That's a feature, not a bug. If evidence is produced that indicates another theory or this one needs modification, then we learned something and are thankful for it. Religion does not have that feature. And it is requred. So creation by a god is not capable of being a theory. Since the discovery of mitochodrial DNA ancestry can be determined by genetic mapping and we don't need bones to verify the theory. Theories make predictions and can be used to develop other theories and open up entirely new lines of inquiry. The theory of evolution is useful because is works, not necessarily because it is fact. Evolution is fact but natural selection is a theory. Bottom line is that it works. God as an explanation doesn't work for us and is not really an answer in that regard. Its an excuse not to think about it.

Answer 5

Experiments never prove something with 100% reliability. Such a thing does not exist in science.

Your mistake is in thinking that science is a world of black and white and it is not. It is a world of varying shades of grey. Scientists accept that the Big Bang is an idea with elements which may or may not be correct and no scientist will tell you it is absolutely undeniable...at least no reputable scientist.

When scientists talk about the big bang in terms of "explosion" or singular points, they are not talking about a single point in space exploding out into space, they are talking about a mathematical singularity and space as we know it expanding from it, but not out from it into anything. The big bang was an expansion of 3D space and everything in it.

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. As far as we know, this is true. But consider this; when a particle of anti-matter pops up in the universe, it is perfectly acceptable for it to do so, from no decernable place, as long as a companion particle of normal matter pops up somewhere in the universe at the same time. Since they effectivly cancel eachother, this is not a violation of the conservation of mass. It is also thought that an absolute vacuum cannot exist in this universe, and things known as "virtual particles" are continually popping in and out of existence as if to hold space up.

So even though a cup can't pop out of thin air, the universe can pull some pretty bizaar tricks.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe cannot decrease. It can remain unchanged or increase. This in no way means that that order cannot occure in the universe. It can and does. But it does mean that everytime the entropy of a local system decreases, somewhere in the universe, the entropy increased.

I don't know where this idea of spinning came from. When something has angular momentum it is either because it's spinning in relation to something else, IN space or it has intrinsic spin angular momentum, such as sub atomic particles, in which case it isn't actually spinning. It is a moot point to talk about the universe before the expansion unless purely for fun. We certainly can't make any definative assumptions about it so there is no ground to say it was spinning.

The way things in the universe spin is actually a complex thing and delve into the science of fluids and dynamics. Generally though, if you have a solar system of planets that all formed from the same disk, and one or a few of them are oriting the star in the opposite direction from the rest, it's almost always because something whacked into it. It's also not impossible for the same disk to spin in different directions at different radii. This can be observed when two galaxies disrupt eachother.


The rotation of planets around their axis depend on the physical attributes of the planet and the distribution of mass within it. In any case there is never a violation of conservation of angular momentum, or linear momentum within a system but the systems are often complex and we may not always know where the other componants of the system are.

So the lesson here for you is that creationist propagandists misunderstand and over simplify things.

Answer 6

As Antonio Zamora explains ”The scientific method requires that theories be testable. If a theory cannot be tested, it cannot be a scientific theory”.

This is completely wrong and anyone who took grade school science class should know this. The whole point of a classification of "theory" is to separate out the things which are testable and repeatable--we call it "Law"-- from the things which we cannot test or observe--we call those "theory." The Big Bang will always be theory because we can't travel back in time to witness it. However, it does meet the criterion of theory because it is the hypothesis that most accurately correlates with the scientific laws.

Answer 7

"Nobody likes to be told what to think, and how to think it, especially when it doesn’t make logical scientific sense."

So why do Christians? Even if the theory* of the Big Bang is proven to be false (and I doubt it can be, since it was never proved to be true in the beginning), there still is a base for the theory of evolution: Lucy, fossils, related species. Much more practical to believe in natural selection than in an outdated book, no? The idea that God created Adam and Eve doesn't account for the different human races today anyway. How did you ever pass biology?

*Theories are accepted by most people as the truth, but because they're theories and not laws, they are subject to revision. Theories remain theories because they cannot be proved by experimentation. Who is Antonia Zamora exactly, and which college gave him his degree?

I also found it amusing that the OP responded to David's comment with a smug 'exactly', but said nothing to any one of the 10 people who refuted his argument, which doesn't come from a reputable source, and is inaccurate anyway.

Answer 8

I read about three sentences and realized that it was a waste of my time. It starts out with an inaccuracy:

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

And the evidence for the big bang:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

Answer 9

rehcueguy--

We are going to disagree about just about everything that you said, even though I would wager that we both are evangelical Christians. I take the Bbile very seriously and live as Jesus tells me to, even though I know that I really can't. I am growing in HIm, however, through His grace.

But I also am convinced that the world that God has made started with something like the Big Bang (which, though the result of working backwards from teh universe's expansion, is at least plausible and certainly does sound like "let there be light") and runs on what to our eyes sure looks like evolution.

I have no trouble believing that evolution is a fact, that it is the way species change and adapt, and that it is the way God created this world to be.

Most of your argument really isn't very good, you know. A lot of it is a form of the Argument From Silence, that is, since we haven't found X, then X doesn't exist.

It does start with a bad definition of "testable." You take it to mean that the fact or existence of the Big Bang itself must be open to test and perception. But that's only part of what "testable" means. It also means "predictable," or able to predict occurances, and that the conditions and results of the whatever-it-is must be able to be tested. In that regard, the Big Bang is a plausible enough theory to hold for the time being. We have found conditions in our particle accelerators that coincide with the predicted conditions of very shortly after the Big Bang that we can continue to work with that theory in full assurance that we're not chasing ghosts.

Your statemetn about "nothing disorderly has ever come from an explosion" is an example of the Argument From Silence. What you should have said is, "Nothing orderly on the scale of my experience has ever come from one of our human-caused explosions given the time scale and size of explosion with which I am familiar."

Because, you see, we are dealing with something far bigger and far older than dynamite. Tell you what, you create an explosion--if indeed the Big Bang was in fact an "explosion" as you are using the term--the size of the Big Bang, that is, large enough to create a universe, and then wait for about 15 billion years and see what happens.

Didn't you say that every theory must be testable? Well, here's a way that you can test your theory that the Big Bang could not have happened. Let me know how it turns out.

It is hard to really belief in God, especially when He doesn't do as we'd like HIm to, which is most of the time. That's why we need to be humble before Him. While I appreciate your attempt at apologetics, and I think your heart is in the right place, I think you miss a great deal of humility and faith. So what if God built the world using a Big Bang and evolution? Can't we trust HIm to do the right thing? Especially since we've proven many times that our minds are limited enough to get things really wrong?

Answer 10

I started reading this but failed to find any question. I did find some incorrect statements though. For example, there is evidence of the big bang such as the expanding universe (if god created a umiverse why make an expanding one instead of a steady state universe) and the background radiation which could only have been produced by the big bang.

A theory does not need to be testable but requires evidence to support it

Answer 11

Ah, more verbal diarrhea from the creationists' handbook. You people wouldn't know science if it bit you in the ***!

Creationists purposely muddle the language to make themselves look educated, when in fact their only agenda is to discredit science (by using products of science such as the Internet!), thinking in their primitive ape-like manner that this would somehow elevate their ignorant, fundamentalist, know-nothing brand of religion to the same level, when in fact all it does is demean their religion further in the eyes of sensible people. Mainstream Christians ought to be on the warpath against these fools who make all Christians look like congenital idiots with their disingenuous lying.

Creationists don't know a fact from a hypothesis from a theory, and they certainly don't know statistics or physics - yet they try to use the laws of thermodynamics as if they came straight out of the Bible! What is it about the *science* of thermodynamics that endears it to you, when other scientific findings you label demonic?

Get help, you pathetic, feeble-minded losers!!