Problems with the Big Bang theory

[Relambrien]

Re: Problems with the Big Bang theory

I can never belive that the Big Bang theory real.NEVER

Who wants to come from a monkey anyways. God is infinite and can do infinite.

Behold, another person who does not understand the word "theory" in a scientific sense, and who doesn't know the first thing about evolution.

I'll do you a favor and clear up both of your misconceptions now.

First, the word "theory." It is not simply an idea that someone comes up with that people say "Hmm, sounds neat." No, that would be a hypothesis. A theory is an idea that has been extensively researched and tested by many, many scientists, and which has been found to be accurate. A law is a theory that is pretty much guaranteed to be correct, simply because no other explanation is viable. For instance, gravity. Gravity is the only viable explanation as to why the Earth orbits the sun, etc., has been extensively tested, and therefore is a law. (These are simplistic definitions of course, and you could find more in-depth ones if you searched, but these are enough for the purposes of what I'm trying to say)

Next, your foolish thought that evolution says humans came from monkeys. That's not how evolution works, my friend. In fact, the belief that humans evolved from monkeys is the hallmark of a person who doesn't understand evolution.

Evolution states that, many many years ago, there was a certain species. Its descendants, through evolution and natural selection, began to differ from each other in a process known as "divergent evolution." One branch went to form modern humans, the other branch went on to form modern monkeys. So while humans and monkeys are related, humans did not evolve from monkeys. Both came from a so-called "common ancestor."

[Relambrien]

Re: Problems with the Big Bang theory

NOTE: There is a deleted post between this one and mine above; I didn't originally double post. My post here also references part of the deleted post.

Humans that are black and white are not different because they may have came from a different species.

Umm...exactly, because somewhere down the line genetic variation caused a difference in skin color and evolution diverged further (though at this point, it was probably extremely recently in terms of evolutionary timeframes).

It's the same reason Asians have distinctive eyes: divergent evolution by genetic variation. They're still human, just with different genetic traits. If left to nature however, blacks and whites and Asians would all evolve differently and become different species based on needs.

The thing is that human evolution has pretty much ceased due to man's intervention in nature. Of the four things necessary for evolution (genetic variation, struggle for survival, differential survival and reproduction, and overpopulation of organisms), struggle for survival has been completely eliminated thanks to medicine and such. Where in the past someone with a weak immune system would have died at a young age, he can live a perfectly normal life and have children today.

But that's all pretty irrelevant so I'll just stop there.

[Reach]

Re: Problems with the Big Bang theory

There are a lot of things to address here, but this one really knocked me back with it's stupidity .

If there is a painting then there has to be a painter for a painting can not have painted itself. The painting itself is proof there is a painter. If there is a building then there is builder.

This is a tautology and it holds no water.

So, if there is some grass this is proof there is a grasser? If there is a rocker this is proof this is a rocker...er? If there is a puddle then there is a puddler?

No. Besides, this just counteracts your whole argument anyway since God must be proof that there is a Godder. And if you can say God can exist without a Godder then clearly you admit your argument is wrong and not all things need creators.

watching Way of the Master videos

Well this explains everything. >__>

These guys are ridiculous and many of their arguments could probably be classified in a list of the worlds dumbest arguments. I mean, the banana argument? He uses a domesticated banana, which immediately falsifies everything he says (as a matter of fact his argument ironically supports evolution lol). These guys are just unbelievable. Get a better source of information please D;

[Verruckter]

Re: Problems with the Big Bang theory

Umm...exactly, because somewhere down the line genetic variation caused a difference in skin color and evolution diverged further (though at this point, it was probably extremely recently in terms of evolutionary timeframes).

It's the same reason Asians have distinctive eyes: divergent evolution by genetic variation. They're still human, just with different genetic traits. If left to nature however, blacks and whites and Asians would all evolve differently and become different species based on needs.

The thing is that human evolution has pretty much ceased due to man's intervention in nature. Of the four things necessary for evolution (genetic variation, struggle for survival, differential survival and reproduction, and overpopulation of organisms), struggle for survival has been completely eliminated thanks to medicine and such. Where in the past someone with a weak immune system would have died at a young age, he can live a perfectly normal life and have children today.

But that's all pretty irrelevant so I'll just stop there.

Yes, and in the same way, in a few generations, there would be no organisms left with that specific trait that is he weak immune system, as they would all have died before being able to carry the gene.

[devonin]

Re: Problems with the Big Bang theory

brandonmcginnis: I'd already cleared several such religious posts from this thread under rule 5 which forbids the making of unfalsifiable claims. You've stated claims that are made in the bible, and in order to defend their validity have pointed to something else it says in the bible. Circular logic is invalid. You've made a clockmaker appeal, which holds at least a little bit of value, but misses one key point: If a can of paint fell over and spilled on a canvas, you have a painting, you even have a painter: the can of paint. What you don't have is intelligent directed purpose in creating that painting, but in today's world of ridiculous art fanciers, you can probably still sell it for millions. Point being? Effects needing causes in no way requires intelligent and deliberate causes.

Verruckter: Around here, saying "You don't know how to use this forum" pretty well constitutes flaming. Address points, not people if you're trying to claim a lack of valid points.

u84: I'm glad you respect everyone's opinions, but posting "I disagree" with no evidence except an appeal to an unfalsifiable belief system technically breaks two rules at once.

Brandon again: You highlighted the word "theory" like the mere presence of the word was a scathing condemnation. In science the word has a far different meaning than it does among us laymen. A Scientific Theory (capital S, capital T) is a hypothesis (which means the same thing most people mean when they say theory) that has been tested, repeatedly, and found to correspond to reality and to stand up to a reasonable deal of scrutiny. Neither you nor I are in a position to challenge such capital T Theory until we've done a few more years of study and education. And even though this isn't a discussion for this topic: Anyone who says "evolution means we came from monkeys" simply doesn't understand evolution. We and Monkeys came from a seperate and distinct common ancestor.

Ah, sniped by Relambrien.

The only reason I didn't delete even more of the posts dealing with religion in this thread, was that several of the responses were perfectly valid and reasonable, and the topic itself is too inappropriate for the forum to split off into its own thread.

brandonmcginnis, I stated earlier in the thread that this was not to try to turn into a religious discussion, that it was discussing only the scientifici ramifications of the Big bang theory. If you are going to insist on reintroducing unfalsifiable religious claims into it, we're going to have to ask you to leave.

[Verruckter]

Re: Problems with the Big Bang theory

Verruckter: Around here, saying "You don't know how to use this forum" pretty well constitutes flaming. Address points, not people if you're trying to claim a lack of valid points.

I would agree if my "attack" was unjustified.. but in this case, his fault was so obvious, it was in big, bold, red letters.

[devonin]

Re: Problems with the Big Bang theory

So point out how the claim had no basis in fact, and that in CT you aren't allowed to make claims with no basis in fact. This can be done without saying "You're an idiot, go away"

[Verruckter]

Re: Problems with the Big Bang theory

So point out how the claim had no basis in fact, and that in CT you aren't allowed to make claims with no basis in fact. This can be done without saying "You're an idiot, go away"

Ah, alright

[Relambrien]

Re: Problems with the Big Bang theory

Thanks devonin, now you made it seem like I double-posted.

I wonder if perhaps we should make a compilation of some of the scientific terms often used in CT, like you did for religious terms. I've seen confusion on the definition of "theory" a few times, as well as other things, so it might help to clear up confusion.

[Tokzic]

Re: Nothing

ok. first things first. the question. Who made God or how was God made? If something had to of created God then there had to have been a greater God to create that God. Then we have another problem. Who created the bigger God. There had to be a bigger bigger God to do that and then a bigger bigger bigger God etc. commandment #1= You shall have no other gods before me(me=God). To solve that is to say that there has to be a god that is eternal and infinite. That is God. God will never change and will always stay the same. God was and is and is to come and will always be God. Who can be an atheist when there is a fact you can prove to them. For Atheist or those who want to read cuz this will be interesting. If you dont believe in God. God is hard to believe he exists because we humans are imperfect and he design us to question ourselves and only belive what we see unless if our faith is strong. INTERESTING FACT HERE!!!!! If there is a painting then there has to be a painter for a painting can not have painted itself. The painting itself is proof there is a painter. If there is a building then there is builder. If there is creation then that is proof that there is a creator for creation can not create itself for it must have a souce and that is the creator GOD!!! NO BIG BANG it is just a theory not proven, sorry those who believe in it but you might want to rethink. I am no scientist but I am God's creation, a servant of God, made in His image. Any questions then pm me or do it some other way. I can talk about millions of things and answer them with the best I can. I am 13 you know. I doesn't matter about the age to be smart for God created each of us to be different from eachother

None of your points have any evidence behind them, and your argument sounds like preaching. It's arrogant beyond belief to say that atheism isn't valid in the face of fact, especially when you didn't give a fact beforehand, but an illogical speculation. Please study the rules before you post in CT again.

If a can of paint fell over and spilled on a canvas, you have a painting, you even have a painter: the can of paint.

But how did the can of paint come to being, and what caused it to spill?

[devonin]

Re: Nothing

None of your points have any evidence behind them, and your argument sounds like preaching. It's arrogant beyond belief to say that atheism isn't valid in the face of fact, especially when you didn't give a fact beforehand, but an illogical speculation. Please study the rules before you post in CT again.

This has already been stated, restated, and then stated officially. It didn't need another one.

But how did the can of paint come to being, and what caused it to spill?

Yes, that's the problem of infinite regress, and why the entire discussion about causeless causes is silly, but my point in proposing that example of cause and effect was that brandonmcginnis was pointing only to things that couldn't in his opinion occur randomly. One of his examples was that paintings need a painter. I was simply demonstrating that you can generate a painting without a painter. Or at least, if you define "painter" as "the cause of a painting" that you can have a painting without an intelligent, planning painter.

[ledwix]

Re: Problems with the Big Bang theory

How do you solve infinite regress? There has to have been a beginning to time, right? I don't see any other way without ad hoc'ing everything with multiverse stuff.

[devonin]

Re: Problems with the Big Bang theory

You don't solve infinite regress. That's why science is concerned with the effects of the Big Bang when discussing the theory, instead of trying fruitlessly to find a cause for it outside of itself.

That's also why religion likes to take shots at science because religion claims to have an answer to infinite regress: A being that doesn't have to obey those rules.

Science however is prepared to actually admit that it doesn't know for sure what caused the big bang, and are content to simply study the effects.

[hayatewillown]

Re: Problems with the Big Bang theory

Behold, another person who does not understand the word "theory" in a scientific sense, and who doesn't know the first thing about evolution.

I'll do you a favor and clear up both of your misconceptions now.

First, the word "theory." It is not simply an idea that someone comes up with that people say "Hmm, sounds neat." No, that would be a hypothesis. A theory is an idea that has been extensively researched and tested by many, many scientists, and which has been found to be accurate. A law is a theory that is pretty much guaranteed to be correct, simply because no other explanation is viable. For instance, gravity. Gravity is the only viable explanation as to why the Earth orbits the sun, etc., has been extensively tested, and therefore is a law. (These are simplistic definitions of course, and you could find more in-depth ones if you searched, but these are enough for the purposes of what I'm trying to say)

Next, your foolish thought that evolution says humans came from monkeys. That's not how evolution works, my friend. In fact, the belief that humans evolved from monkeys is the hallmark of a person who doesn't understand evolution.

Evolution states that, many many years ago, there was a certain species. Its descendants, through evolution and natural selection, began to differ from each other in a process known as "divergent evolution." One branch went to form modern humans, the other branch went on to form modern monkeys. So while humans and monkeys are related, humans did not evolve from monkeys. Both came from a so-called "common ancestor."

However, even with extensive research, a theory is a theory, nothing more. You can believe that, but what happens if that theory is truely irrelevant to the creation of humans?
After all we don't call it the Big Bang Law.

You can still believe in it however, you can almost think of it being a religion, you know, using the whole "God create this" or "The big bang created this".

You don't need to be an ass about it and say "misconceptions". Don't act like it's such a big deal or a liberty given to you. Critical thinking is where you debate about things, not condescend.

[Relambrien]

Re: Problems with the Big Bang theory

However, even with extensive research, a theory is a theory, nothing more. You can believe that, but what happens if that theory is truely irrelevant to the creation of humans?
After all we don't call it the Big Bang Law.

Exactly, because it hasn't been shown to be the only remotely viable solution to the problem, simply one of the more viable ones. If further evidence comes in and shows that the other solutions can't be right, then yes, we would call it the Big Bang Law. It's just that that isn't very likely to happen.

I mean, the law of gravity isn't the only possible reason the Earth orbits the sun. Maybe the Earth and the sun just like each other, as do all the other things orbiting celestial bodies. But that just isn't viable, which is why gravity is considered a law.

You don't need to be an ass about it and say "misconceptions". Don't act like it's such a big deal or a liberty given to you. Critical thinking is where you debate about things, not condescend.

I will call it what it is. It was a misconception, therefore I will call it a misconception. I'm not going to sugarcoat things and say that it was a "partially correct idea" when, in fact, it was a misconception by definition.

The problem is that "misconception" seems to be grouped with "stupidity" or "idiocy" when it's just an incorrect idea. People are too quick to assume things.