Big bang requires evolution?

Question

Accourding to accepted science, the Big Bang is how we got here, and we (people) couldn't have ended up here unless the big bang set in motion some sort of evolution (or the theory is wrong - whichever)
SO because of that, the big bang, requires evolution, to complete it's means of getting us here.

AND evolution from a big rock, to chemical soup, to amebas, to fish or whatever, so dinosaurs? then to small animals, then to everything else, requires that when we began -
which the big bang theory states was a big bang
we had a hunk of rock and carbon and nitrogen.
So those things had to fuse to create all other naturaly accouring chemicals, which then had to chance get together and create living organisms.
THAT ^^ is in no way reproducable, and therefor is not a scientific theory.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/geo_timeline.html
http://www.carm.org/evolution/evtimeline.htm
^ Evolutionary timelines, although I'm sure you know them.

Thanks, tell me what you think.

Actually I was refering to certain chemicals fusing together to make other chemicals in the absence of any other chemical. Which is not reproducable.
And theories, to be shown true, must be reproducable.

Togethr - your wrong actually, you can reproduce a car reck.

The Big Bang, in it's current, accepted form, is what I'm refering too, and many theologens don't accept the 'God Bang' while some do, I'm of the school that does not.

Also - How did we get here without evolution if we were banged?
Unless you are refering to the 'God Bang' then there is no way, so in it's accepted (by scientists) form, (SECULAR FORM) it requires evolution.

Thank you, actually I understand science very well, and at the moment I am only talking about the Big Bang, which has nothing to do with creationism. I understand that if one if false it in no way makes the other true, I'm just showing how it could be false.
Thank you for bashing me instead of relying on your science, but I'm afraid that only makes you look silly.

Friedrich, thank you, the reason for the question is because many accept the Big Bang as a law more than a theory.
Thank you for staying respectful in your post.

Friedrich, thank you, the reason for the question is because many accept the Big Bang as a law more than a theory.
Thank you for staying respectful in your post.

Haysoos - for the big bang to be the way that the world and people got here we would need to follow it up with evolution, or GOD. Either way, (the God one is refered to as theistic evolution, which I do not agree with but is a way of looking at things).
The big bang is just the start, if we are actually talking about origins, but if we are talking about a lifeless planet, can be the whole story.

Mr. Geek, what you are refering to is theistic evolution, and while I have considered it, I don't think it is true.
God would not have given us something just to confuse us.

Answer 1

Ok, fine, give me an alternative that fits the facts, and I'll consider it.

Answer 2

"THAT ^^ is in no way reproducable, and therefor is not a scientific theory"

Apparently you have no idea how science works. "Reproducable" does not mean that the entire process needs to be reproduced - only that the results of the specific studies need to be reproduced. Can we reproduce the observations that provide the evidence for evolution? Sure, no problem. Can we reproduce the observations that provide the evidence for the big bang? Yup, no problem.

Suppose my car suddenly went out of control, ran off the road, and hit a tree. I noticed that there was a loud cracking sound just before it happened, and the steering wheel froze so I couldn't turn it. Now after the fact, I come up with the theory that my car's steering widget snapped, causing the problem and the accident. To test my theory, I get another of the same kind of car, put pressure on the steering widget, and observe the results. The steering widget snaps, makes the same kind of sound, and the steering wheel locks up. I conclude that my theory was correct.

Then someone else comes along and challenges my explanation, saying that he doesn't believe that a broken steering widget would lock up the steering wheel, but rather would let the steering wheel spin freely. So I run my study again, and get the same result I did the first time - the steering wheel locks up.

I just reproduced the evidence that supports my claim that the problem was a broken steering widget. Did I have to repair my car and run it into a tree again to reproduce my evidence? Nope. That's how science works.

In addition, being reproducable is not a characteristic of a theory.
================
"Also - How did we get here without evolution if we were banged?"

Um, our mothers were banged?
================
"Thank you, actually I understand science very well"

No, you don't.
Talk is cheap, and you've already undermined your ability to make that claim.

Answer 3

Ever heard anyone describe an automobile wreck? Two cars coming head on, crash into each other, people are injured and in the end you have two pieces of twisted mangled metal objects. The event could never be reproduced, therefore it is not real / didn't happen? Sounds like the perfect defense in a court case where someone is trying to establish responsibility for the accident.
And I'm quite certain any Judge or Jury would throw that defense out.

Answer 4

Jessica, evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang.

I have seen some Christians use the term "evolution" to refer to any changes/development of the universe, but this is a misuse of the term. Evolution applies specifically to the development of life on Earth, billions of years after the Big Bang. Evolution does not even pertain to the creation of life (abiogenisis), but only with life as it changes.

Misusing the term "evolution" results in some of the negative responses because people get tired of Creationists who do not have a grasp about what they are talking about trying to sound as if they do. You truly do seem smarter than that, based upon some of your prior posts.

Others have addressed the issue of testing theories. I truly hope you read and understand them.

Be well.

Answer 5

Has anyone even considered the possibility that maybe Christians AND evolutionists are right? Don't you think it is possible that God created the Earth through evolution? What is one day to God? God's time is very much different from ours. As a matter of fact I don't believe God works in time. I think God said He created the Earth in six days and rested on the seventh so that we could understand what He was saying. So perhaps the time God created the animals perhaps He didn't take one Earth day but perhaps He took billions of years. In human time it is uncomprehendable. However, in His time is very plausible. Is there a fact to link God and evolution together? I don't know. However perhaps God used a Big Bang to create the Earth. Just a thought to consider. 8^D

Answer 6

The Big Bang does not require evolution at all.

Evolution requires that life exists, and for life to exist, it requires a universe, which we have evidence formed in the Big Bang.

So you've got it completely backwards. Scientific evidence for abiogenesis (the origin of life) builds on the atoms and materials that formed from the Big Bang - but there is no part of the Big Bang theory that requires for life to form after it.

And the elements of the theories, from fusion of atoms, to creating chains of complex molecules from basic molecules using only an input of energy, to laboratory induced changes in the genetic proportions of living populations are reproducable.

They are just as scientific as forensic science matching rifling from a bullet fired from a crime scene to a specific firearm.

UPDATE -

Yes, for us to exist in the form we are now, and match the physical evidence we observe in the universe around, we needed to have the Big Bang, followed by the formation of the solar system out of interstellar gases, and then later the development of life through abiogenesis, followed by evolution of that life.

But, there's absolutely nothing in the Big Bang theory that requires evolution to occur.

To reference the car crash analogy several above have postulated - the car crash absolutely requires that there was two cars, built in factories from raw materials, but there is absolutely nothing in that automobile factory that requires that there eventually be a car accident.

The Big Bang is the theory of how the universe formed. Period.

The fact that life developed and evolved after that has nothing to do with the actual formation of the universe itself.

I'm not sure why you have difficulty comprehending this.

Further update (to johnny_rico9 below):

The chalk layer is not universal. If you can show me a chalk layer here in Alberta (where I live), then I'll be willing to investigate your global flood hypothesis. Until then, you fail.

Answer 7

Experimental results have to be reproducible, not the exact processes. For all the trillions of stars in the universe, no two are identical. We can use the stars at our laboratory for astronomical studies. We don't need to assemble a star to know that they are powered by fusion.

As it has been demonstrated that heavy elements are form in supernovas, and that a primitive atmosphere can generate complex compounds. I'm not referring to the Miller-Urey experiment alone -- the process occurred on Saturn's moon Titan.

Answer 8

You have done an excellent job of summing up 12,000 gigabytes of information in 2 paragraphs and only mildly comprehinsible to a 12 year old. Google Stanley Lloyd Miller. He DID create life from those chemicals and it has been reproduced hundreds of times since.

Answer 9

umm, dear, the theories of evolution, and the big bang are in seperate schools of science...

You can have a strong grasp on one, and reproduce it, without having to reproduce or even accept the other, and vice versa

Answer 10

I'm confused what's the difference between a 'god band' and the 'big bang'?

Answer 11

The Big Bang does not require evolution. In fact, the Big Bang was originally formulated by a theologian. What else would "Let there be light." be?