What's with the "evolution and big bang theories are wrong" arguments? Is this some new curriculum

Question

at religious schools?

Obviously, these are the two parts of modern science that are most problematic from the standpoint of Biblical doctrine. But we seem to be getting a lot of naif arguments here in R&S that both of these scientific theories have been falsified. These two theories seem to be paired or even unified into a single idea in the minds of some R&S posters, whereas in the scientific world, they are parts of two different scientific disciplines---there is essentially no one who works on both theories.

As an astronomer, it's a bit of a nasty surprise to see the Big Bang theory being given the Scopes Trial treatment. I mean, do you people realize that you can actually see the Big Bang, happening right now, with telescopes? The fundamental observation of the Big Bang theory is that the Universe was hotter and denser in the past. Given the finite speed of light, this past history can be seen directly---the Universe actually was hot and dense billions of years ago.

http://science.hq.nasa.gov/universe/science/bang.html

The claim "you can see the Big Bang now" is essentially a statement about the entire field of extragalactic astronomy. If you look at matter or galaxies that are billions of lightyears away, nothing makes sense except in the context of the Big Bang Theory---at least in its weakest form, which is concerned only with events after the first minute or so.

lillyflower --- There are several proposed scientific theories that try to deal with the origin of life. None are widely accepted. Therefore, we can say that there is no accepted scientific explanation. Science makes no claim to explaining everything, and of course some scientific explanations will in the future likely be shown to be wrong. Scientific resutls are, by their very nature: tentative, incomplete, and contingent upon future experiments or observations.

moosemose--- Similarly, there is no generally accepted theory about the origins of the Big Bang. As you go back in time, things get hotter and denser and hotter and denser, and a fraction of a second after the "Bang" itself, we know that the material of the Universe was so hot and dense that we cannot understand it with what we know of physics. So our understanding breaks down. The amazing thing, however, is that this breakdown is so close to the "Bang"---just a tiny fraction of a second. The dynamics of even the first few minutes leave analyzable traces in the form of isotope ratios of the light elements. And the time 400,000 years after the "Bang" has now been studied in tremendous detail by radio telescopes.

jeancommunicates--- It is possible that God created everything just as we see it, a short time ago, or perhaps a long time ago. But the Universe looks like it is 13.7 billion lightyears across, and it looks like all the matter evolved from a Big Bang. The light we see from the Early Universe might have been "created" in flight, to look like the Big Bang. But it seems to me that if that's the way things really are, then that's the way God wants us to see Creation. There is an awful lot of detail in the Big Bang theory. Fourty years ago, there were several theories of cosmology. Now they have all been ruled out by observations, and the only theories left are Big Bang theories. There are several "Big Bang theories". The current standard theory is "Lambda Cold Dark Matter Omege =1 Big Bang", but there are several other variants of the Big Bang theory that are being studied. None of the old, non-Big Bang theories are still around, because they don't fit observations.

Answer 1

It is not a "new" curriculum, rather lack of a curriculum.

Answer 2

Our modern-day math and suggestions falls to bits at a factor 1e(-40 3) seconds after the vast bang adventure at t0. At that factor the singularity already exists, and is a million Planck length in diameter, unspeakably warm, and as dense as you're able to assume with the entire universe filled into such an unimaginably small quantity. The 4 forces (gravity, electromagnetism and the two nuclear forces) have been in the previous unified right into a single superforce, which may well be Quantum Supergravity. we do not know sufficient approximately this, so we will not do any added calculations to get closer to t0. on the factor the place our modern-day math starts off working back, gravity separates from the different 3 unified forces. we could wait till the Superunified stress is defined in the previous we are able to bypass deeper. precisely what exceeded off at t0 continues to be cloaked, so all that's attainable are hypotheses in accordance with different coming up recommendations in very freaky maths. Branes recommend, working example, that the Singularity that formed the universe known while 2 branes intersected at a factor - the factor became the Singularity. yet another attitude in this defined the Singularity as a digital particle. those debris pop in and out of existence for all time interior the conventional worldwide, and such an adventure on a very large scale might have formed the universe. word that the 'you would be unable to get something from not something' objection is already blown by ability of digital debris, or maybe however this style of huge digital particle is probabilistically not likely, such percentages won't be a difficulty in a pre-universe atmosphere of no-time/no-area. there's no thank you to make those issues lots greater palatable. no one fairly is conscious yet, and there are merely a number of of cool recommendations devoid of thank you to be certain which, if any, is the only. you're able to additionally shoehorn God in there in case you're able to - however he's not in any respect been everywhere looked in in the previous. CD

Answer 3

We all know the truth, and arguing with the bible thumpers is not going to change them.

The real question in my opinion is not how do we convince them but how do we make sure they are kept away from any important positions of trust. Politics for sure but others like keeping them away from our schools boards, away from our children.

I am not a hardliner yet, but I see eventually religious schools being banned unless they are forbidden to teach points of view not consistent with science.

We as a people can move forward in amazing new frontiers of science if the religious dogma in our politics was removed i.e. stem cell research. We can get behind our leaders and push forth on radical new idea's that will change everything we think of now.

Of course making zombies and suffering half brained clones is not an area where science is strong, we need to ask strong questions on whether just because we can--- should we?

sorry , I started off on a tangent and never looked back lol

Answer 4

You are the scientist. You tell us how the Big Bang theory went from non living material to living. What gave it the spark of life? Why can we not recreate that spark of life today?

We cannot. I like the open ideas and the talk about creationism, Big Bang, Evolution. It makes people either think or close their minds and swear and be hateful.

I was glad to see you presented a logical and non emotional question. I would like the answer though to how does living life come from non living heat, rock, or other things?

Answer 5

Of course we "Realize" U can "See it", do U "Realize" that while U can "See it", U CAN'T Prove how it Occurred??? Something from Nothing??? And do U also "Realize" that More People believe in a God who created the Universe, than the "Big Bangers"??? When U figure out the "Singularity", let Us know. John

Answer 6

"nothing makes sense except in the context of the Big Bang"

I disagree. God created it all. It makes more sense than your Big Bang.

Since you know quite a bit about science, have you ever noticed the great difference between man and a snake? It is as if God created them to be exact opposites and more opposite than any other animal.

Answer 7

I don't know of scientific evidence that falsifies these things, but I am confident neither has been proven by way of modern science either. And because they contradict Scripture, those of us who have faith trust more in God than in things like modern dating methods and our current scientific theories.

Answer 8

You would have thought people would learn that churches are not research centers after that whole Galileo fiasco. Biblical literalists will simply never admit they are wrong. If the Bible said pi was exactly 3, they would believe it...oh wait, the Bible does say that.

Answer 9

Ignorance is the best way to argue against evolution. The more you learn about the science of evolution, the harder it is to deny it. Once you have learned all the science, it is impossible to deny it.

Answer 10

There is no "argument", accept for the disdain from the fundamentalist christians.

That is what amazes me about the U.S.... we ignore our scientists to make the ignorant happy... leading to uneducated children.

Answer 11

I will only address the issue of evolution, because I'm sure that, like a row of dominoes, when one falls, the rest do, too.

Evolution is neither logical NOR scientific - WAIT - hear me out!

Let me start with the very UNscientific methods that evolutionists have used in order to support their theory.

The Piltdown man is the laughing stock of all evolutionists and every one of them should hide their head in shame over this.

The evidence that led to the existence of the Piltdown man was "planted" by some rather over-zealous archeological students trying to gain fame as well as support for evolution.

They "discovered" the bones later, and built the Piltdown man as the missing link!

Obviously, these phonies had never bothered studying biology or zoology, or they would have known that they built their Piltdown man based on the tooth of a dead boar - A WILD PIG!

This is only one example, and the most extreme example of the intellectual dishonesty that evolutionists have stooped to to support their claims, and this alone should be sufficient to throw out the entire theory.

But that's not the end of it all.

Yes, yes, yes - I know that this is getting the dander up on a lot of evolutionists, but you need to learn the REAL facts behind the theory of evolution.

Please keep reading.

Evolution was based on Darwin's misconception that the living cell was the smallest divisible part of a living thing.

He simply DECIDED that the cell was filled with some kind of "ambiotic" fluid, and that while in the mother's womb, the "undesignated" cells can be reformulated by external stimulii.

Let's just take a quick look at the cell for just a moment.

We have such things as the nucleus, the mitochondria, proteins, DNA, RNA, et cetera.

Let's do a little REAL scientific investigation into these elements which Darwin knew absolutely NOTHING about.

(By the way, before I continue, let me point out that when you begin with a faulty premise, the conclusion will ALWAYS be wrong, and this is exactly what Darwin did - used faulty science to build a logical case based on his own imagination!)

First, the mitrochondria. This is the "powerhouse" of the cell, and it converts raw materials into usable energy within the cell.

The only problem is that the very first step of this "energy cycle" is to lose 1 or 2 units of energy.

If evolution and blind chance were in control, this step would have stopped the entire process instantly! Furthermore, this process flies in the face of the KNOWN and PROVEN laws of science called the Laws of Thermodynamics, which you can do your OWN research on.

There is WAY too much science to go into every detail, so let me jump straight to the DNA.

The DNA is a highly complex double-strand of molecules that make up a living Data Information Storage and Retrieval System with millions of terabytes of data stored in the molecules, and this information is pre-programmed to control the entire growth process. There can be NO random chance involved here, because Information can not be produced by random noise! (Just ask any computer programmer, which - by the way - I am.) It takes THOUGHT to arrange bits into usable data!

The DNA has been compared to a Cray Supercomputer, in which the Cray was left behind in the dust! Now, we all know that the Cray had to be designed, built, AND programmed by intelligent men and women. Yet, people still insist that the DNA, which far supercedes the Cray, could have been the result of a series of accidents! TOTALLY illogical and VERY unscientific!

Now, let's look at how the DNA works.

The DNA is a double-strand of highly complex molecules connected together and coiled up in a highly efficient Helixical format.

The DNA first uncoils itself (now how in the world did it learn THAT trick?), then it splits into the two separate strands, just floating around in the nucleus, then it begins to attract (yes - just like a magnet) the necessary molecules to make an exact mirror image of itself. This is called RNA. The RNA goes off to do some other "cool stuff", but in the meantime, the two strands of DNA find each other, reconnect to each other, then coil itself back up into the helix!

The RNA goes about formulating proteins that the body needs, sending signals to the rest of the body, and also duplicating itself to create a copy of the original DNA strand in order to duplicate the cell with identical DNA. These two new strands of DNA, inside a new nucleus within a new cell, then find each other, combine, and coil up into a Helix.

In the meantime, when the RNA has finished it's job, it "falls apart", giving up the molecules that formed it, in order for them to do other "things".

This process, along with the information stored within the confines of the DNA is so extremely complex, that according to at least ONE scientist, Dr. Flue, there is no amount of time in the universe to allow this to occur spontaneously!

He had to renounce his atheistic stand because of his share of the studies of the DNA. He said in an article that to continue to believe in evolution would constitute intellectual suicide!

The SMARTER you get, the more you realize that evolution is totally false!

Oh, and one last scientific point - I mentioned the laws of thermodynamics. These are the laws that govern the distribution of energy in a closed system. Along with the laws of thermodynamics is also the laws of entropy, which is a measure of the amount of chaos that has occurred.

Basically, energy runs DOWN. A windup toy does not wind itself up. A pot on a cold stove does not start heating itself up. Energy must go INTO these things by an external force being applied.

The very idea of evolution contradicts these known and proven laws because the laws of science insist that everything is moving from order towards chaos, but evolution requires that chaos becomes order for it to function!

Thus, in conclusion, using REAL science and REAL logic, evolution is just downright false.