|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution and Big Bang theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
notwise Inactive Member |
In many of the topics made by creationists I often see Evolution and Big Bang theory confronted at the same time, because many creationists think that both theories were made together as a conspiracy to try to disprove the existence of god. While it is true that in science these two theories are unrelated, as far as creationists are concerned they couldnt be more related.
In some of my replys I tend to look like I feel that big bang theory and evolution are related, this is because they are both part of science and to describe the universe you have to include all aspects of it so to say that evolution and big bang theory should be kept very seperate is something I dont agree with. History would be incomplete without both of them together. When I was younger and was only interested in cosmology, physics, astronomy, etc... I was prepared to defend my beliefs but it seemed that every time I ran into a creationist they always wanted to try to disprove evolution, even when I had only mentioned Big Bang theory! Eventually I decided that I had to learn some more about evolution. I think the people who believe that evolution and Big Bang theory should be kept seperate are people who mainly study evolution because although my learnings of biology have never mentioned any physics, my learning of physics have often mentioned evolution, not discussing the science of it persay but including it in history so there is no blank spot in the timeline. To me everything in science is related because it all has the same goal. Its like having detectives in a murder case keeping their evidence seperate and never discuss how they all fit together to show what happened. Anyway tell me what you think. This message has been edited by notwise, 06-28-2005 03:03 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminSylas Inactive Member |
Moved from Proposed New Topics by AdminSylas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 504 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
{Edited by Snow: Off-topic}
This message has been edited by GAW-Snow, 06-28-2005 05:44 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The reason why they are seperated is easily explained. If we falsified the Big Bang Theory, we have not falsified the Theory of Evolution. That is the nature of the seperation.
If we want to study 'how man got to be here' and we opt for a naturalist approach then, we would probably include both the Big Bang and Evolution. You mention that when you study physics you touch upon evolution. You seem to explain that by saying that it puts things into a timeline which is useful. Perhaps this is because of the old chain? Physics -> Chemistry -> Biology Where physics is what is needed to explain chemistry which is needed to explain biology. Physics explains things that come before chemicals, and that which will come after them. Chemistry came before Biology and will be there after it. Biology doesn't 'start' with the Big Bang (it starts with biogenesis), so when discussing evolution, the big bang is not really relevant. When discussing the history of the universe from start to finish, the big bang and evolution can be discussed together. So basically, I agree that when discussing 'origins' in general, the big bang is as relevant as evolution...but the two are seperate as much as fishing and agriculture are unless one is talking about 'harvesting food'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
notwise Inactive Member |
"Why would you want to put yourself through such torture?"
Quoted Because I feel an obligation to help people understand the universe/themselves more clearly. Sort of like freeing people in a sense. We can get more things accomplished if we are all on the same level. Unfortunatly it oftentimes doesnt have a happy ending. "Most creos I have talked to don't know the first thing about science."Quoted I agree with you. That is why I want to show them more, if you and a couple other people were mowing a lawn and you saw someone struggling to operate a lawnmower because they didnt understand it you would show them in order to get the lawn mowed more quickly. If you can tell right away that the person is not capable of understanding or will not consider what you have to say then it will not get the lawn mowed any faster so don't bother. "Actually, "I heard somewhere that..." will be repeated often by them."Quoted Most of the time the things they say after the ... are ideas that they have come up with in their spare time or they heard their pastor say and are usually based off misconceptions or have a vital flaw. Am I right GAW-Snow? Also I would like to add that in the short time I have been here I have gotten in trouble at least once and that sometimes I look like a very biased, or sometimes even hateful, person, Im just havin' one of those good moments right now ya know, gotta help my fellow man. You should see me out in the battle field .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: and
"Most creos I have talked to don't know the first thing about science." Quoted and
notwise writes: "Actually, "I heard somewhere that..." will be repeated often by them."Quoted Hello, notwise. If you push the "peek" button, you will see how I have made these quote boxes. In fact, I highly recommend "peek". As you read the posts here, you will see all sorts of nifty, cool effects that people use in there posts, and "peek" will allow you to see how they do it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5287 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
A key idea in science is consilience; widely diverse areas of knowledge turn out to have connections and provide mutual support for each other in various ways. This applies across the board; linguistics, biogeography, geology, psychology, and everything else. It does not mean that the distinctions between scientific domains is meaningless; it means that since they all work in the one world there is often overlap in some of the problems.
To press your analogy: if scientists are like detectives, then they may all apply similar methods, and they may share their sources; but they still keep their case files clearly distinct! That creationism has problems with both evolution and cosmology is not an adequate justification for combining them. On that basis we should include geology, linguistics, archaeology, history, philosophy, and a few other fields of study as well! Actually, I do think we should pay much more attention to astronomy generally in the whole creationism debate; it is not merely the Big Bang that causes them difficulties. Just the size of our own galaxy is inconsistent with young earth creationism. Sometimes evolution and cosmology are singled out for combination because of a metaphysical notion of progress. Ironically, this is regarded as a misleading by many mainstream cosmologists and biologists. Evolution has no ordained direction, as far as we can tell. The concept of a grand ladder of nature that celebrates a march of progress all the way from primordial quark-gluon soup to humanity is an anthropomorphic notion that is more misleading than useful, in my opinion. The unity of knowledge encompasses all the fields of science; but we can identify different domains of interest. There is nothing at all as far as I can tell in biological evolution that gives a useful insight into cosmology, or vica versa. There may be analogies; but these are as often misleading as they are illuminating. The technical details are totally distinct. Philosophically there is an interesting distinction as well. Big bang cosmology attracts a lot of criticism -- most of it incompetent -- from individuals who perceive it as a kind of creationist notion, due to the notion of a beginning of time. A number of the big bang critics are atheists or agnostics with a strong philosophical aversion to origins of any description. Cheers -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
notwise Inactive Member |
sorry Im a bit old fashioned but yes I will do this thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I fondly remember a book written by Prestin Cloud, Cosmos, Earth, and Man. It started with the Big Bang, describing, with the knowledge of that time, the conditions the universe in its first seconds, went on to nucleosynthesis, initial galaxy formation, formation of the sun and earth, beginnings of life on earth, and the evolutionary history of life on earht, culminating in the evolution of humans.
Terribly out of date by now, but it was a fun book that basically had the major events of the history of the universe (if you consider human evolution to be a major event) laid out nicely. There was a later book that tried to do the same thing, but Dr. Cloud's book was far better written, in my opinion. The problem that creationists have with Big Bang and the theory of evolution is that they explain a history of the universe that is at odds with the ancient Middle Eastern creation myth that they, for some unfathomable reason, cherish. The linkage that the creationists try to pull off is that they think that if they can successfully refute Big Bang or Abiogenesis, then the Theory of Evolution will be refuted, and vice versa. This is incorrect. The reason that these theories are not linked in the way that creationists wish them to be linked is that the data that supports each of these theories are obtained interpreted independently of one another. Suppose that abiogenesis is shown to be impossible. This in no way refutes the abundance of evidence that life has existed for at least three and half billion years on this planet, that species have evolved from previous, very different species, and that all known species have evolved from one (or a very small number of) original species. At most, all we will be able to say is we don't know how life first came to be, but we will still be very confident that all known life has evolved from a small number (perhaps only one) ancestral species over the course of three and half billion years. The same can be said if the Big Bang theory is overturned. Likewise, if it can be shown that "macroevolution" is impossible, that in no way refutes the evidence from physics and astronomy that the universe is thirteen billion years old, at least, and that the earth has existed for four and a half billion years. If the creationists want to "prove" that the earth is only about 6000 years old, then they need to disprove Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution separately. Their attempts to disprove the age of the universe by focusing only on one of these issues indicates either a misunderstanding of the science, or perhaps laziness. Suppose that the Big Bang theory is
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
notwise Inactive Member |
Sylas writes:
Pretend like Sylases reply is right here, I dont want to crowd the forum for no reason.
Thanks that makes alot of sense. Do you have a degree in physics or something. I also never thought about how my argument for evolution and Big Bang theory being connected by the fact that they both provide evidence against young earth creationists also pertains to many other fields as well. Thank you for your insights!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
notwise Inactive Member |
chiroptera writes: I fondly remember a book written by Prestin Cloud, Cosmos, Earth, and Man. It started with the Big Bang, describing, with the knowledge of that time, the conditions the universe in its first seconds, went on to nucleosynthesis, initial galaxy formation, formation of the sun and earth, beginnings of life on earth, and the evolutionary history of life on earht, culminating in the evolution of humans. Ive been looking for just such a book!! However since it is outdated, my search continues.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
notwise Inactive Member |
You have elabborated on some of the points that modulous made and your argument is so far crystal clear. You have shown me some new ways to think about things. I assume you are not done?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dead Parrot Member (Idle past 3372 days) Posts: 151 From: Wellington, NZ Joined: |
You could try "Genesis" by John Gribbon. It's also a little out of date (1986) but it's only missing some of the advanced physics (branes/strings): otherwise it runs through the same set of how-we-got-here. Given that Gribbon is a very "readable" author, it's well worth tracking down...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3670 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
There is far more "design" in cosmology than in biological evolution :-) As Sylas says
Evolution has no ordained direction, as far as we can tell. where-as Big-Bang cosmology is so ordered, it stinks of design! Primordial elements clumping together into the first generation of stars, which only work because the fundemental constants are so fine-tuned to allow the proton-proton chain chance to work. Then these stars just so happen to be the element cookers that generate all of the heavier elements and then kindly distribute these elements throughout the universe, just so that the next generation of star-formation has everything it needs to allow us to come into existence! Now any god who thought up that lot must be pretty clever... but our God is such a genius that He even throws in the anthropic principle, just in case anyone is foolish enough to try and use this almost-infallible design argument to prove His non-existence re the Babelfish :-)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
where-as Big-Bang cosmology is so ordered, it stinks of design! Primordial elements clumping together into the first generation of stars, which only work because the fundemental constants are so fine-tuned to allow the proton-proton chain chance to work. Then these stars just so happen to be the element cookers that generate all of the heavier elements and then kindly distribute these elements throughout the universe, just so that the next generation of star-formation has everything it needs to allow us to come into existence! Exactly. And if on one fateful day during the war, my father's train had arrived a little bit later or a litle bit earlier, he would never have met my mother--for they met at a train station; and the being known as myself would never have come into this world. I was designed, which makes me feel rather special.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024