Free thinker should be able to answer this if what they believe is true, so convince me....?

Question

Please give me proof of the big bang theory and evolution. Let's assume that I think it is wrong and a way to control the minds people who are looking for a reason to be against any kind of God. But, since "I think" that this is a conspiracy that I don't personally buy into, you may not use science references as proof (biology, chemistry, anthropology/archaelogy physics or astronomy), nor can you use anything someone wrote/spoke using these theories as support. Your proof must come either as your own observations (but not conclusions) or from a discipline (non-science, remember) that has observed evolution and big bang reoccurances and can provide proof independently of science books. This is what you have asked of Christians to provide you proof of God (no bible references or references of people who speak/write on the bible), so let's reverse the roles a little. If what you believe is true, it should have logical support from other references outside of a small community.

Yes, the scienitific community is a very small community. About 1% of the world population has a university degree. Let's give scientists a good representation (which is obviously high) of 50%, meaning 0.5% of the world is a scientist. About 33% of the world population is Christian, which would mean some of the scientists, like myself. We'll go under and say 10% of scientists are Christian (it's actually more like 15% in reality), therefore 0.45% of the world are scientists who potentially believe in evolution. That is a very small population.
And, I can give evidence from my own life of a God. I have heard his direction in the past before. I have many stories with nearly impossible odds for them to be simple coincidence. Also, I can provide non-biblical historical accounts, social patterns in the world, psychological findings about faith, etc.
The major diffrence between theories of science and God is that science thinks it all happens by accident.

Answer 1

OK, so let me get this straight... You sit there using a computer that was developed using scientific principals. If you get sick, you will probably go to a doctor whose practice is applied science itself. You will probably get there by car, who's technologies were developed by the scientific method.

You do all this and want to deny science?

Answer 2

Ok here's the deal, you've put up a straw man, and claimed a fallacious argument vis a vis you're attempt to rephrase the Christian argument for God's existence, which is guilty of Petitio principii, by changing the definitions and begging the question. You mention that the Sciences are "beliefs," which is wrong. Science is nothing more or less than obeservations of the natural world. Thus by your definitions, i.e. prop one that science cannot be use, you negate the possiblity of a conclusion being that you require obeservations of the natural world to be used to prove a point which (you claim) cannot be proven by observations of the natural world (science). You think that saying that science is a "belief" is an argument because it is opposite your belief, however that is a non-sequitor. You assert P. P is a belief. Science asserts Q. Therefore you conclude that Q is a belief, which is fallacious.

Where you go wrong in this is your assumption that you can "reverse the roles." Humanist/Naturalists say, show me something observable to prove your assertion, a completely valid and necessary request in science. You say, show me something non-natural to prove a natural observation, an absurd request. Science, unlike a belief, does not posit anything that is not supported by observable evidence.

As to the substance of your request, you may be better served not to use the term "Science" as a deciever, and absurd claim, but the term "Scientists." If you belive there to be a conspiricy, then it is humans, not natural observable fact that is decieving you. This and only this is a valid way to attempt what you think you've accomplished.

As to your assertion that Christians feel wronged that they are asked to provide proof without the use of a bible, it is because we once again have different definitions. When Humanist/Naturalists ask for proof, they ask for it in the scientific sense, i.e. observable facts that can be formed into a hypothesis and tested and made into a theory. Since your hypotheisis cannot be tested, it cannot be viewed as valid scientifically. You demand that Humanists/Naturalists provide proof without fact or observable natural occurences, something that is viewed as scientifically absurd.

The difference comes full to bare with your last sentence. Science is not a "small community." It is the entirety of human experience. You, me, anyone is welcome to repeat experiments and see the results for ourselves. Granted, Scientists are a small community, because simply not everyone is capable of the theoretical underpinnings requried for advanced level scientific conjecture, but the fact is that the tests ARE repeatable. Science makes claims not because a few people believe something. Science says "this is, and I invite you to see for yourself." If you prove a scientist wrong in his assertion about an observable fact, you've only advanced science. Science as a "small community" is only meaningful if you take into account that we as a species in this universe are infintesimal.

Thus you will not find anyone who will be willing to assert that science is provible without using science, it's just an absurdity. Hope this helps.

Answer 3

Good one. Seems to me it's a fair question. If believers are constantly being challenged to prove their beliefs without quoting scripture or anything else, why should the tables not be turned around.

That said, just a couple of random observations - "Evolution starts with a single cell organism that..." OK then where did the original single cell organism come from? A biological soup of sorts I guess. The odds of life forming as a result of this "biological soup" are gazillions to one (yes that is a real number :) ). If you insist I can get you real odds. And besides where did the original contents of that biological soup come from. Scientists cannot give us a real answer to where the beginning of the beginning came from. It's the same as the big bang theory which says that at one time the universe was just one teeny singularity and that this teeny singularity then expanded to become the universe as we know it today. They admit they cannot tell us where that original singularity came from. Yet evolution is deemed a fact, while the big bang is still a theory. That doesn't give you pause?

RT66? For the record, the answer to your question about the creation account is very very simple. Genesis Chapter 1 lists the creative acts in chronological order. Chapter 2 in order of importance, the human creation being the most important because only humans would glorify their creator.

UH Photogrl, with respect? OK so our bodies can now tolerate better rid itself of a bug. Evolution? I think not. Perhaps modern medicine? Perhaps better nutrition? Besides we are still humans correct?

Answer 4

Well, as a free thinker (as I believe that I am) I can not give you absolute proof of either the Big Bang Theory or that God exists.
I can however tell you what I believe to be true, through my own experiences and theories. I don't know about the Big Bang except what I have read through science/archeology, so that's out. I don't believe in the God of the Bible so you definitely won't be getting Bible references from me. I am a Pagan, I believe in the existence of a Universal "Source" of all life, though, of course I cannot prove it's existence. I believe that this "Source" is energy and that this energy is all around us and in us. So if you would call this "Source " Divine, then everything in the Universe has Divinity within, or is a part of Divinity. We are all Divine Beings, every living being, animate and inanimate (i.e.rocks). I consider trees to be animate because they grow and change.
As for evolution? well I could point out the variety of bird, animal and plant species that belong to the same "family group", their varieties are dictated by their environment. A Blue Jay on the East Coast is very different looking from a Blue Jay on the West Coast, Crows and Ravens come from the same "family group", yet differ in their size, shape and color from region to region.
Other than that, well, I guess that's all I've got. Either you believe, or you don't.

Answer 5

Evolution starts with a single celled organism, and through time due to external factors, evolved into the millions of species you see today. We have the ability to date fossils, and see the pattern in which animals have evolved. We can even see it when we think about it logically, from amphibians who were transitional animals from water to land, to birds and pterodactyls.

If you are interested in learning more about evolution I suggest talkorigins.com

As for the big bang, it's less proven than evolution, but it comes down to all matter was either created by energy, or all matter was in one point and the mass created an explosion. Evidence would be the fact that the universe is expanding, suggesting some original force sending things in motion.

Evolution is fact, big bang is still just a theory, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, and is something else you should look up.

Good luck in your false hope.

Answer 6

If you have a child, will it be a human being or something else? That is proof evolution, as will it having similar characteristics and likelihoods of diseases (such as diabetes, etc.). Genetics are the basis of evolution, you yourself are your own proof of it.

By the way, which version of the Creation are you asked to prove: the one where man came before the plants (Genesis chapter 1), or the one where man came after the plants (Genesis 2)? That inconsistency right there tells me the Bible itself doesn't know how the Creation happened.

Besides, Creationism isn't about origins anyway. It's just a back door way to get Christianity taught in the schools. That came from documents held by the publishers of "Of Pandas and People" that got subpoenaed into US court.

Answer 7

You are an imbecile. The big bang and ToE are scientific theories, and therefore have evidence to back them up, Evidence that was born out of using the scientific method.

Your silly god imagining should be readily apparent to everybody and as such evidence should be beyond contestation. But alas all you morons have is a silly book but no rational evidence. We when people ask you not to use the bible, it is because a book filled with all sorts of inconsistencies from unverified writers is piss poor in the evidence department. If your god imagining is really real you should be able to show evidence via other methods, such as empirically testable evidence.

You can believe anything you want. Carl Sagan has said: "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."

Answer 8

Big Bang: There is simply no other way of explaining both an expanding universe and the existence of the cosmic microwave background. None. nada. The discovery of the CMB clinched the Big Bang. It is as fundamental as Newtonian physics now.

Evolution equally has been proved by DNA and the obvious conservation of systems through genes. You don't even need to LOOK at the massive fossil evidence (including numerous transitional forms), which would be impossible to explain any other way.

Although unrelated, the Big Bang and Evolution are as solid scientific principles as anything in the textbooks.

Answer 9

How about simple common sense?

All the stars/galaxies are moving away from each other at extreme speeds, how would you explain that other than at one time they must have been all together ?

Simple law of motion.

Of course, you're not really looking for a real answer, are you?

You mention a small community? Do you realize how many people support the big bang theory?

I guess millions must be a small number to you

Just so you know troll - Believing in god doesn't even classify as a theory. You need proofs for something to be a theory and for god's existence there is none

god isn't even a theory

Answer 10

Big bang proof.
Background microwave radiation.

Evolution
You.

Read this on evolution so that you at least have an idea about what you are talking about;
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

It is not a small community. Except for a very few lunatics from poorly educated countries evolution is accepted. It has more evidence than Gravity does.
Now if you aked honestly for proof of gravity there might be a problem. Nobody has that one worked out yet.

Answer 11

The reversal doesn't work because science and faith use different tests for truth. Faith tests for consistency with what is already believed, confirming established doctrine. Science tests for inconsistency, probing established theory for weaknesses and shortcomings. Faith adapts its observations to fit what it already believes. Science must modify its beliefs to accommodate new data.

Science develops tools to improve its observations: telescopes, microscopes, spectrometers, accelerators, etc. Faith develops rhetoric and apologetics to defend against innovation and deconstruction. Science regularly questions and tests its established literature. Faith can only interpret theirs (under pressure from reality).

Evolution was derived from and is based on observation. High School biology students learn about genetics from breeding fruit flies. Just last week, geneticists isolated a gene common to all small breeds of dogs. Astronomers have mapped a background radiation pattern consistent with the Big Bang theory. And the surprise discoveries of things like quasars, pulsars, x-ray sources, gamma ray bursts and the movements of stars and galaxies have led them TO such theories. Obviously we have no video of the Big Bang, but its occurrence is consistent with what we observe. A literal interpretation of Genesis 1 requires a god simply because it makes no natural sense. God is an unilluminating, universal patch to cover the logical fallacies of the account. (Exactly WHAT did God create on the second day?)

I don't know how to operate a radiotelescope array, or an electron microscope, a gene sequencer or a gas chromatograph. I have to rely on the fact that those who DO use those instruments agree on their findings more often than disagree, and their disagreements resolve into more comprehensive explanations of our world. When theologians disagree, they end up anathematizing each other as heretics. And when they get caught between scripture and a logical fallacy, they declare a "Mystery" and praise the incomprehensible greatness of God.

What has a scientist to gain by ignoring God? Wealth? Power? Not that I've seen. What has a religionist to gain by proclaiming a God who has an interest in the thoughts and behaviors of individuals, and the power to enforce his opinions? Well....

The emerging debate on global climate change is a case in point. Around 98% of the world's climatologists agree that our climate is changing, becoming more inhospitable to humans, that humans have contributed to that change in some degree, and that we need to do something about it. They base their conclusions on rigorous observations and test results. Some religionists agree with them. However, the noisiest religionists, often identified with politically conservative and business interests, either dismiss or minimize the claims as "cyclical variation", or they suggest that it is simply a sign that the end is coming and doesn't matter. Rather than waste time and money on a possibly (2%?) non-existent crisis, they prefer to gamble with their children's future in the belief that God would never let us go extinct. They don't make scientific observations of their own, they merely shop for whatever "data" supports their point of view and "teach the controversy", expecting the world to ignore the fact that theirs is an extreme minority.

There are degrees of proof. The Ptolemaic theory of cosmology worked well enough until Copernicus and Galileo came along and proved it wrong. Isaac Newton's theory of gravitation was adequate for most observations but Einstein came up with a better one. We can't see the Big Bang but we can see its consistent fingerprints. (In contrast, Intelligent Design points to complexity and proclaims, "See? God!" without determining whether it was Jehovah, Bigfoot, space aliens or just 5 billion years of change.)

Science comes to its (tentative) conclusions only when it is the simplest, most sensible answer. Religion does not have that burden. It only has to say, "God did it."