|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hi, Buckets. Welcome to EvC.
Is abiogenesis always in direct relation with the Big Bang theory, where the Big Bang lays it out, and abiogenesis works from there? The Big Bang theory and abiogenesis have nothing to do with one another, except that they are both theories about portions of the history of our real world. The Big Bang is a theory that describes the early universe as hot, dense, and expanding, and uses this (along with the known laws of physics) to explain how this hot, dense, and expanding early universe developed into the universe we see around us. Abiogenesis is the the study of how life might have arisen on the early earth. It takes the existence and state of the universe as a given. Sort of like how my family can trace its origins in Ohio and the subsequent migration to Oregon by way of Kansas without ever knowing how my earliest American ancestors actually came to North America. -
In addition, how exactly does a single celled organism develop from nothing? Gradually, through small steps. This is still a subject of intense research and debate. This link will describe some of the main points of the main possibilities. Other people here will be glad to supply more details if there are more questions. I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
It is a fairy tale, that if true would imply utter hopelessness. I choose to believe in good things instead of this disgusting theory. But hopelessness, good, and disgusting have nothing to do with being true or false, do they? Or are you admitting that creationists prefer to believe in a good fairy tale over a hopeless and disgusting reality? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
A sick retarded God perhaps. You should read the books of Genesis, Exodus, and Joshua. Taking it all literally, it would appear that the fundamentalists worship a sick and retarded god. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Of course Creationists prefer their religion to meaninglessness! Meanless, much like your post. It doesn't address the point that I was making. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
if someone doesnt believe in God, then isn't it NECESSARY for one to support the Big Bang theory? Huh? No. Why? I don't think that most people, atheist or not, really care about the origins of the universe or its history, except for some science types and the few nutcakes that frequent fundamentalist churches. In fact, if one really, really needed a theory that denied God, there was the Steady State Theory. In fact, Hoyle formulated the Steady State Theory because he (and others) felt that there was too much of an implication for a Creator. But the reason that those who don't believe in God and those who do believe in God accept Big Bang is that is what the evidence shows. And that is the important thing -- the evidence. Without evidence, then those who don't believe in God (and presumably many who do believe in God) would simply answer, "I don't know," when asked about the origins or early history of the universe. Incidentally, atheists don't need to believe abiogenesis or evolution, either. Edited by Chiroptera, : edited the first paragraph: I didn't want anyone to think that I didn't care. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
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. Well, I agree that the two go together, but they remain very different things. On the other hand, Big Bang and abiogenesis/evolution don't go together. They are totally, utterly unrelated subjects. -
I haven't seen much at all that I couldn't have tackled when I was 12 years old. Huh. And you still seem to have a 12 year old's knowledge of the subject. Is that when you dropped out of school? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Damn it, Dr. A! You're giving away the game! Our evil atheist conspiracy will never work unless we can convince the rubes that we have all the answers!
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
You may choose to view the speculations invented to replace the history of life and the speculations invented to replace the history of the rest of the cosmos as unrelated. Not everyone is required to make the same choice. I fail to see any legitimate reasons for doing so. The reason one makes this choice is that these two theories are in different fields of science and are supported by different evidence using different methods. Big Bang could be disproven next week -- counter evidence could turn up, and an new theory could be constructed that would account for all this new evidence as well as the old evidence. However, this evidence would be based on astronomical observations (and perhaps reformulated the laws of physics); the evidence for the evolution of life on earth would remain, and the theory of evolution would be untouched by this. On the other hand, the theory of evolution could be changed or discarded. New evidence geologists studying the earth or biologists in their laboratories could discover new, hitherto unseen evidence that would overturn the theory of evolution. But this would have nothing to do with the astronomical observations that have led to the conclusions of the Big Bang theory. This is sort of like the history of my family in North America. We don't know how my family originally came to North America. But we do have evidence that at one point they were in Ohio, moved down to Kansas, and then moved to Oregon. Now this is entirely independent of how my family arrived in North America to begin with. We could find evidence that they originally arrived in Virginia in the early 1800s. Or we could find out that they arrived at Ellis Island in the late 1800s. Either way, it wouldn't change the part of the history where they moved from Ohio to Kansas to Oregon. Similarly, we could find new (and to us) interesting evidence that instead of going directly to Kansas, my family lived in Saskatchewan for a bit. But this change would have no bearing on how may ancestors originally arrived in North America. -
How did it end? Did evolutionists find a way to squeeze in evolution and abiogenesis in the allotted time? Not hardly! What happened was the Big Bang replaced the Steady State, and one day the cosmologists said "No." The Big Bang means there's now a limit. They did foresee this. At the time they were making it up they checked and found out that evolutionists only needed a billion years for their story. They decided to give them plenty of extra time just to be safe: four billion years. Four times what they thought they'd ever need! But in just a couple of short decades... oops! Actually, this is untrue. Cosmologists could care less what biologists "need". In fact, you have brought up an important point. If scientists were motivated by a need to "prove" long ages and to "interpret" their data the way that they need to, then they would have stuck with the Steady State Theory. They would just have "interpreted" all the evidence in a way to maintain it. There was a resistance from some at first to the implications that the universe might only have a finite age -- Hoyle, for example, felt that this would end up implying the existence of a creator, and that's why he was pretty much against the Big Bang Theory. The fact that scientists switched from believing in an eternal universe to the Big Bang model pretty much shows that they do honestly look at the data and reach the conclusions that the data indicate. -
The radiometric dates were all calibrated to match the 'fossil column' of their day. This, too, is not true. Radiometric dates are "calibrated" through experiments in physics laboratories, and physicists, like cosmologists, don't really care what geologists "need". -
They know they won't get it, and it's humiliating business begging for time. Huh? This makes no sense. You just claimed that they've been given what they "need" whenever they have asked for it. Your own conspiracy theory is confused. -
quote: I can only wish I had. That's okay. You're doing a fine job of maintaining a breathtakingly profound ignorance of the subjects against which you are debating. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Notice I said "were" and C says "are". Oh that's so clever. Change the tense in order to make a (partially)true statement that appears to contradict another true statement. I'm just so impressed with your arguing skills! ... Now you might want to run along and find someone else to dispute with for a while. Someone who you can pull that trick upon, and they won't notice you changing 'were' to 'are'. This is clearly a tactic of desperation now that you realize that you really have no argument. Is there a need for me to say anything more? You have lost, you realize that you have lost, and you have now made it clear to anyone reading this exchange that you have lost. I will engage again if and when you bring anything substantial to the table. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
RAZD quoting CTD:
How exactly would an argument from incredulity go? "I don't believe it and neither should you."
Exactly.... I have to admit, that is a pretty good characterization of the Argument from Incredulity. You can observe a lot by watching. -- Yogi Berra
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
If you haven't already guessed, yes. I work on abiogenesis. I'm in love. In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Now don't this beat all! Wasting bandwidth arguing about definitions is a common tactic for those who have poor logic skills and who are ignorant of basic facts, but I can't quite remember another time when someone was wasting time and effort arguing about arguing about definitions!
In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
You may be wondering why anyone would bother redefining a term to include something it formerly excluded. You seem to bring up "redefinition of words" a lot in your posts. Have you considered that perhaps the problem is actually poor reading skills and lack of logical ability on your part? In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024