|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Buckets writes: If the Big Bang occurred, then how did life occur after it? Abiogenesis? Penspermia? What theories propose a non-religious view to the origin of life after the Big Bang (that are scientifically sound)? This sounds no different than your original question. It's been explained that the Big Bang is related to abiogenesis in only the most indirect fashion. I could just as nonsensically ask, "If I was born, then how did I come to be in front of this computer typing this message?" Except that if I wasn't born I wouldn't be responding to you now, one has almost nothing to do with the other.
For the 2nd question, if someone doesnt believe in God, then isn't it NECESSARY for one to support the Big Bang theory? Or are there other theories? This is like saying, "If you're not a Republican then you must be lesbian." Once again, one has almost nothing to do with the other. Scientific theories are not constructed for the purpose of denying God. A theory is constructed to explain and make sense of a body of evidence from the natural world in order to better understand the physical universe.
Lastly, is the Big Bang still valid? The short answer is yes. The slightly longer answer is that Big Bang theory, like all other theories, is tentative and will continue to be accepted by the scientific community for only as long as no other theory comes along that better explains the evidence. You're going to have a lot of difficulty arguing with your buddy because your confusions are soundly based in a typical fundamentalist distrust of science. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buckets Junior Member (Idle past 5826 days) Posts: 7 From: CA, USA Joined: |
Firstly, I don't debate using "If you don't believe in God, you must believe in the Big Bang". I'm simply asking questions. I'd rather people answer questions than poke fun.
Simply, if the Big Bang occurred, through what processes did life develop? (I'm not just implying abiogenesis) Again, how does an atheist explain the origin of the universe? My last question was answered. Hopefully I've posed my questions as objectively as possible so as not to fluster Percy any more than I have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Simply, if the Big Bang occurred, through what processes did life develop? Presumably, through the same processes if the Big Bang did not occur. What is puzzling about the way you phrase your question is that the "if" part has little to do with the question part. It's like asking, "If the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, what did you have for breakfast yesterday?" Do you see? The question is a complete non sequitur in regards to the "if". I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Hi Buckets,
No one is poking fun at you. As you can see, Chiroptera is giving you the same style of answers I gave you, and it's because instead of incorporating our responses into your thinking, you're just rephrasing the same question over and over again. We're trying to find ways to get you to start taking into account what we're telling you. Let me take a different tack by posing a question for you: How did Noah's flood lead to Jesus dying for our sins? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Simply, if the Big Bang occurred, through what processes did life develop? (I'm not just implying abiogenesis) One alternative to the standard Big Bang theory is the "Brane Storm" Theory (Ekpyrosis):
quote: and Questioning the Big Bang - Could universe follow a cycle without end? quote: In other words, the Big Bang theory could be wrong, but the universe would still exist, our solar system would still be formed from the debris of stellar death (novas), and the rest of the questions would be totally unaffected. How we think of the origin of the solar system, and then of life on this particular planet, is independent and unaffected by the validity of how we think the origin of the universe occurred. Enjoy. ps -- welcome to the fray. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The easiest way to see that the BB, abiogenesis, and evolution are independent is to see that we could combine them or their opposites any way we choose.
For example, we might suppose that the Big Bang is "just one of those things that happens from time to time", as one physicist put it; that abiogenesis from chemicals occurred, and that then one day God was watching the universes grow, saw that one of them had life on it, and said to himself: "This is drab green slime, but it it has potential. I'm thinking giraffes, and wombats, and maybe one with a really big nose ... what this place needs is some Guided Evolution!" Or you could have God creating the Unverse let's say 6 billion years ago, with the appearance of being twice that age and starting with a Big Bang. Then he goes off and does something more interesting while abiogenesis and evolution take their merry course. Now, no-one (AFAIK) does have cosmologies along these lines, but each is self-consistent; and the possibility of picking and mixing like this shows that the three questions are logically independent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6030 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
What theories propose a non-religious view to the origin of life after the Big Bang (that are scientifically sound)? Depends on what you mean by non-religious. It is scientifically sound to say that life was created. Humanism needs mechanisms at the risk of ridiculous pondering. Most folks here at evc believe they're right. So most won't tell you what is based on questionable fundamentals and what is actual truth.
For the 2nd question, if someone doesnt believe in God, then isn't it NECESSARY for one to support the Big Bang theory? Or are there other theories? No, most atheists are extreme skeptics only believing in what their senses relay. Nothing to stop anyone from rejecting everything they haven't seen. But, it does fit well with their beliefs.
Lastly, is the Big Bang still valid? If it is, it shouldn't be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4600 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
No, most atheists are extreme skeptics only believing in what their senses relay. Not exactly true. Senses are limited. A scanning electron microscope, for example, can make up for what the eye lacks. An athiest also does not require their personal presence for understanding a particular topic, evidence of others work is also good.
Nothing to stop anyone from rejecting everything they haven't seen. True, but this does not impact reality. A resposible person would investigate the particular topic before rejecting anything. This applies to anyone, not just athiests.
But, it does fit well with their beliefs. Incorrect. Based on my experience all athiests I have met do not base their "belief" for or against Big Bang on atheism, its based upon evidence.
If it is, it shouldn't be. (Big Bang being valid) This would be an example of rejecting reality in support of a religious belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6030 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Touche.
This would be an example of rejecting reality in support of a religious belief. Your reality is a religious belief and my "religious belief" is a reality. Was that a typo?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4600 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Your reality is a religious belief I am not an athiest. I just happen to agree with evidence, hence I can relate.
and my "religious belief" is a reality. Lack of evidence to support your religious belief suggests to me that your reality needs some tinkering.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Depends on what you mean by non-religious. It is scientifically sound to say that life was created... ... though for some reason scientists haven't noticed how "scientifically sound" it is.
If it is, it shouldn't be. Well, it's those pesky scientists again, I'm afraid. They have this nasty habit of saying "what does the evidence support?" rather than "what would pander to Vashgun's prejudices?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I'm going to try again to see what it is that you're really asking, Buckets.
Simply, if the Big Bang occurred, through what processes did life develop? Is "Big Bang" the way you are stating a universe that runs soley through natural laws without the direct intervention of God? Is your question, "If the universe operates exclusively through natural law without divine intervention, then how did life develop?" A better way to phrase this question would be, "What is the purely naturalistic explanation for the origin of life?" Is that the question that you are trying to ask? Or are you really wondering if there is a direct connection between the Big Bang and the origin of life? I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buckets Junior Member (Idle past 5826 days) Posts: 7 From: CA, USA Joined: |
That is exactly what I was trying to say. "What is the purely naturalistic explanation for the origin of life?".
Obviously, God and the Big Bang have something to do with life (depending on your opinion), but I wouldn't want to incite any more "That's like saying the cop eats a donut, after he eats a hamburger!!!".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2642 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
If you're interested in abiogenesis, there are at least several threads open that discuss the origin of life from non biotic material.
Just use the search link up at the top of the page and look for abiogenesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5869 days) Posts: 253 Joined:
|
I find it amusing that evolutionists insist that abiogenesis be taught right alongside evolution as "fact" in the schools. The two go together and always have.
But anytime abiogenesis comes up in an argument against evolution, it's "See how ignorant and uneducated you are! You don't even know that evolution and abiogenesis are two completely different theories!" And it's obvious why they don't like the two to be linked. Both are flawed, but abiogenesis is sooooo obviously flawed they don't like having to defend it. And the Big Bang? Well, just look at the history. All three of these stories were made up and spread about and shoved down everyone's throat by the same bunch. The Big Bang was indeed resisted, for good reasons and for silly reasons. Only after it was demonstrated that it was sufficiently compatible with atheism was it accepted. Seriously, the only thing really tipping the scales in favor of the BB vs. the steady state at all is the redshift first observed by Hubble. There was no new evidence submitted at all during the decades it took for it to become accepted. (Some will say the steady state has a conservation of energy problem, but BB has more than one of these and they're all several orders of magnitude larger. It's like comparing a bucket of water to the Indian ocean!) And don't forget the oldest member of the family: gradualist 'geology'. Have layers ever been observed building up gradually over time. Yes! The 'tels' in the Middle East were all built up this way. They're all man-made. Other than that, you won't see land building up the way gradualist geology speculates. What does every member of the group have in common? (I mean those who actively promote the 4 stories of origins, not the unfortunate folks who have been misled.) They all desire that the stories they invent should be accepted, and historical records should be rejected. Historical records from all over the world. And they appeal to our arrogance, telling us our ancestors were "primitive" and "superstitious", but in this age we can be "enlightened". Now of the four, the case for evolution is actually the strongest. Not because it is valid; rather because it it made 100 different ways using everything they can dream up. And to thoroughly debunk it, they claim you must debunk each and every piece of it. But think about it. If there's any lifeform, even just one - any lifeform that evolution can't explain, it fails as an explanation of origins. Even a single organ that is beyond evolution to bring about demolishes it, right? "Oh no!" they'll respond. And they'll rant or talk down to me like I'm a kindergartener depending on which one is first. Yes, they will. They won't be able to stop themselves. I'm not the first to say evolution could be refuted in this way. No, Charles Darwin himself wrote it into the book they consider to be sacred text. And they'll read this, and know he wrote it, and still come tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Why? Because the only way to defend evolution is to snow the opposition under with a vast, unending multitude of lies. And once a person sees that all it takes is one single link to break the chain, it's not hard at all to find such a link. For each link is very weak. They don't bind people with the strength of this chain; rather they weigh them down with its sheer bulk. And all a person has to do is look around this forum right here to see that this is so. How does any discussion of an evolutionary topic go? Snow the person under with tons of nonsense. Oh yes, and redefine terms a dozen times or more. There isn't a single link in the whole long chain of crud that can't be broken, and they themselves must know this - no question. Now why must these things all be grouped together and taught as fact? Why is must it be illegal to mention any hint of weakness in any of these "theories? This is not the case with sciences dealing with present-day events. It's not the case even with history dealing with recent events. One can discuss the controversy about the Kennedy assassination in class, no problem. Question the textbooks' stories on Ben Franklin or Tom Jefferson? Sure, why not. But question a sacred tenet of evolution? No way! (I don't mean to say a child will be jailed for asking, but the teacher is required to only affirm the doctrine, even when it is out-of-date by decades.) And it's no surprise that the same people who accept any one of these things will usually accept all four. For they form an extended chain. If a person finds one to be in error, they will surely question the other three. Now I readily concede that persons do exist who mix things up and accept part of this chain while rejecting other parts. I also concede that this is a trick I could not pull off. But my point is that those who have rejected abiogenesis have at least questioned the other three issues. One of my other favorite issues is the number of "scientists" they claim they have backing their side. Let's see now... I go to school, and they teach me lies. I go to college, and they teach me lies. College costs big money, but they don't appreciate that. They base my grade on whether or not I accept these lies. Not "can I remember and regurgitate them?" No. The issue is "do I believe them?" Why in the world should I pay one cent for such treatment? Now not all professors are like that. In fact most are not. But there are enough to get the job done. They only need one solid barrier to keep you from getting your degree. (How well these people understand issues involving the number one!) And there goes the student's family's fortune down the drain. There are those who have braved the system and made it through, praise God for each one of them. But given alternatives, most folks choose a path of less resistance. The weakness of the system is that people aren't immune to truth, and many catch it after they've already made it through the system. They have their own difficulties, of course. Now I recommend to anyone who cares about these things that they pick the strongest part of the strongest of these four stories, and take a good close look at it. What assumptions does it require up front? Does it employ circular reasoning or any other logical fallacies? Is it based on solid science, or speculation? (I mean really solid - not just a reputation). If you didn't believe the evolutionist stories, would you interpret it the way they do? Oh, and don't be intimidated by mumbo-jumbo. I haven't seen much at all that I couldn't have tackled when I was 12 years old, not even in real science. Okay, that's a trick statement. I was smarter then than I am now. But none of it's as hard as they make it out to be. It bears repeating how weak abiogenesis is. The advocates of evolution are reluctant to include it, and that's a dead give-away right there. Darwin himself was reluctant to offer more than threadbare speculations about a primordial pond, and they haven't improved the case much. Sure they make a big deal about synthesizing compounds in a lab, and claim they're creating life... but is it so? Or is it more mumbo-jumbo? Well, look into it. Look at the scale of the issue. It's like saying a toddler stacking one brick on top of another is building the Empire State Building. They're a long, long, long ways away. Farther actually, but I got tired of typing the word 'long'. And I'm talking about 'expert scientists' working with state-of-the-art equipment. Life only comes from life. That's a law of science. That's a well-established fact. Anyone disputing it has quite a large burden of proof (if you want to actually be scientific about it). Now given a law of science that says one thing, why would people be adamant that it should be discarded, and frequently hateful toward persons who accept this law? Why would they claim it isn't so without presenting any serious evidence? Why would they... aw shoot, just watch what they do. It's often entertaining once you get past how pathetic it is. ...and we all know the reason why.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024