Facts for 'million year theory' and 'big bang'?

Question

No possible justification can be found to back the theory of 'THE EARTH IS A MILLION YEARS OLD' and i'm not simply saying this because of religion.
There is no proof of the 'big bang' nor is there proof for any other type of evolutional theory. If so, please tell me because I would genuinely like to hear your reasoning for saying that one day, a fish grew legs and in time evolved into a human being.
It simply can't be justified or backed by fact.
No one can prove that a human evolved from a monkey. Please, if you do, tell me.
Then comes the other thought, if evolution WERE real, then how come monkeys now don't evolve into humans and why do humans not have monkey babies??

I have studied biology, chemisty, advanced physics and modern geology.
And I am not limiting myself to any religious principles. I simply want to know what proof evolutionists have for 'million year theory or, as one answered, 4.5 billion year'. There are many different takes for evolution and I am very well read with them.

Answer 1

Alright. There is some evidence of the Big Bang. There is a cosmic radiation background buzzing through the universe, that can be measured. The outside of the universe has actually been mapped, with bumps and low points. These are thought to be the areas where the "cosmic slush" at the beginning of time either clumped more together or was spread farther apart. I can't believe that you'd think the Earth is that young in any way, but planets are formed in protoplanetary disks, which are spinning groups of matter in space where gravity pulls large group together, which merge and form things like planets and Suns, depending on temperature.
As for evolution, there is substantial evidence pointing toward the process of natural selection. It is *NOT* a "fish grew legs and in time evolved into a human being". Evolution is a highly complex process, and it's not a perfect theory yet, but the evidence is there. There are even signs of evolution taking place right in front of our eyes. Just take some time to look up some real hard scientific evidence, and I assure you, there is plenty, and you'll see why there's a reason evolution is accepted by all biologists as a fact.
Keep in mind the creation of the Universe, the Earth, and new species through evolution takes far too much time for most to possibly fathom. It's like looking at a tree for a second and thinking it's not growing.
This is also why your absurd question about monkey babies is not true.

Answer 2

I am taking you at your word that you are sincerely interested in the answer ...

You have a lot of glaring misunderstandings about evolution.

1. The earth is not just "a million years old" ... it is 4,600 million years old (4.6 billion years). This is a *huge* difference ... and an important one ... 1 million years is not nearly enough for evolution of life as we know it.

2. You use the word "proof" ... science doesn't deal in "proof", it deals in "evidence" which is *very different*.

3. Evolution and the Big Bang are completely unrelated theories. Either one could be totaly false, and the other could still be totally true. They are not connected.

4. > "I would genuinely like to hear your reasoning for saying that one day, a fish grew legs" No scientist believes that "one day" a fish grew legs. It is always gradual ... very very slow and gradual.

5. >"No one can prove that a human evolved from a monkey" That's because no one *says* that a human evolved from a monkey! Scientists believe that humans and monkeys have a common ancestor ... that is a *very* different statement, and until you can see just how different those two statements are, you will never be able to understand evolution.

6. > "if evolution WERE real, then how come monkeys now don't evolve into humans" ... because even if monkeys had evolved into humans (which they did not), evolution does not repeat itself.

Summary: You have rejected evolution based on a really really BAD understanding of it. I mean *REALLY* bad. You barely understand it at all. You claim to understand it, but that above are 6 *glaring* mistakes in only a few paragraphs of text.

I'm not trying to be mean by saying that ... it's probably not your fault. I'm just trying to nudge you into realizing that whoever has been feeding you information about evolution, is deliberately trying to build an absurd understanding of evolution so that they can call it absurd. It is a common tactic among creationist web sites and books.

You would not go to an atheist for your sole source of information about religion ... you would not ask a die-hard anti-semite to explain the pros of Judaism ... and you would not trust an anti-American terrorist for unbiased information about American democracy ... so why would you trust anti-evolution people to give you honest information about evolution?

Please read more .. and at least try to understand evolution a bit better ... before you reject it outright. That is the intellectually honest thing to do.

I'd be glad to answer your questions ... but not from someone who is willing to reject something without a genuine desire to understand it first.

Answer 3

I will limit my response to telling you something about evolution that you should be able to understand because it is happening today in hospitals around the US (and probably the world).

Penicillin was discovered in the 1930s. It was a miracle drug. It saved many lives because it killed almost all infectious bacteria. But, it didn't kill 100% of the bacteria. Some very small percentage did not die when attacked with penicillin. That very small percentage was/is a perfect example of "survival of the fittest", in this case, the fittest being the bacteria not killed by penicillin.

That bacteria that survived produced more bacteria. And, what was the result? That next generation of bacteria was also mostly resistant to penicillin. Not only did the resistant bacteria continue to multiply, but the penicillin continued to kill other bacteria that might have competed with the resistant bacteria. So, the resistant bacteria had free range and multiplied even faster.

Newer more powerful anitbiotics were invented. The bacteria evolved again and again. Always producing a new resistant strain.

Today we have staph infections running rampant in hospitals. This is a direct result of evolution in bacteria surviving antibiotics.

You may say what does this have to do with "monkeys becoming humans" (which is not what evolution is about, by the way), but it is the very basis of evolution and because bacteria can produce new generations about every 30 minutes, it can happen in our lifetime. It is hard to see evolution in organisms where new generations take years instead of minutes, but the principle is the same.

You can contact me direct if you would like to discuss this further. But, please, only if you really want to learn.

Answer 4

I am going to set aside the issues about evolution. Unless you are willing to take both a biology and chemistry class there is no point in having such a discussion.

However, you are right, the earth is *NOT* 1 million years old. It is, in fact, much older.

As for the Big Bang having no proof, there are several different observations that require explanation *if* the big bang were false, and I am more than willing to have you edit your question to respond.

First, while there are a few galaxies moving towards ours, all galaxies at distance are moving away from us; and the further away they are the faster they are moving. Why? If the universe were "steady state" would we expect to find galaxies in a hodge podge coming and going randomly?

Everywhere you point a radio telescope you detect a faint glow as it the sky itself glowed. It glows everywhere at the same temperature: 2.72 degrees Kelvin. Why this temperature and why everywhere?

As far as anyone can tell the universe is about 74% hydrogen, 24% helium, and 2% everything else. Why?

Using X-ray detectors, we know that the universe is entirely "matter" and no "anti-matter." Why?

Deep sky photographs of the night sky show that galaxies are not uniformly distributed over the sky, but rather are clumped together. Why?

This next question may seem simple, but it has deep implications: Why is the sky dark at night. If the universe were infinite then every line of sight into the sky would, eventually, end up intersecting a star. Given the range of different star type we see at night a back of the envelope calculation indicates that the night sky should be visibly about as bright as the daytime sky. It isn't. Why?

Finally, where does gold come from? Of the three gifts mentioned as coming to the Christ child, answering this question leads directly to notions of the age of our planet and out solar system. Stars like our sun are not capable of producing gold. In fact, no star using its normal fusion reactions to produce light and heat can produce gold. So, where did the gold given to our Lord come from?

HTH

Charles

Answer 5

If you think that evolution is fish growing legs in one day or humans giving birth to monkeys, then you clearly need to do a bit more reading.
Evolution takes millions of years. Our common ancestor with the monkey existed about 15 million years ago. That is why we share so much DNA with the monkeys, and, in fact with other mammals. There is ample proof for both evolution and the Big Bang, but no one can make you believe it if you have already decided to reject it. You are willing to suggest that evolution does not exist because no one has seen it happen, So I would expect that you reject Creation theory because no one has seen it occur.

Your opening sentence claims that you are not saying this just because of religion; but I'm willing to suggest that religion is a large part of it.

Answer 6

Apparently, you do not have enough knowledge and have way too much prejudice to even fathom the limit of your own ignorance. You start by stating that "no possible justification can be found to back the theory" (by the way, the earth is NOT a million year old, it is 4.5 billion years old, that is 4500 times more...) essentially ruling out any possibility of admitting that you can be wrong -- or that the crummy holy book you call truth can be anything but the *whole* truth.
No proof of the big bang? How do YOU know? You got a degree in cosmology perhaps? No proof of evolution? Got a degree in biology and paleontology?
Your feeble arguments are not even used by semi-serous creationists anymore, for they covered themselves with ridicule uttering them.
So, you have a choice: accept that you could be wrong form the start, and do not demand that we educate you.
If you keep this attitude, you will remain the ignorant you are now.

Answer 7

a million) there is an overpowering mountain of info for the large Bang. specific, i can flood this question with a catalogue of it if needed. 2) the large Hadron Collider at CERN would not surely mirror the large Bang (and hence has no skill to create one), it in basic terms simulates many of the circumstances precise AFTER the large Bang

Answer 8

i used to ask the same question. and it is good for you that you try to seek out the real answers. here is a video that may somewhat give you an idea how science found out that God created the universe.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1149534259046443854&q=order+of+the+heavens&hl=en

Answer 9

i agree with you 100%