100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid

[Keith&Co.]

Why are you asking questions about the creation of the universe??

Trying to parse your complaints about evolutionary theory.

The concept of being able to create matter was above your pay grade why do you want to go here??

it appeared to me that's where you were trying to go.

Relevance??

Eh.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Does the Big Bang Contradict Creation?

Do you have any of your own questions to ask, or is it all going to be quoting someone else?

 

[skepticalbip]

Does the Big Bang Contradict Creation?
]

Well, it certainly contradicts the Biblical six day creation story in Genesis that happened something like six thousand years ago.

Other than that there are several errors in your story but then they are fairly irrelevant to your general assumption that “goddidit”. The idea that god was the cause of the BB is now accepted by the Catholic church but not by most protestant sects in the US – they cling to the Genesis story.

To the question of the BB: The theory itself has some serious problems that cosmologists are struggling with and the problem isn’t the god thing. The problem is a physics thing. Because of these problems, there have been several alternative theories about the nature of the universe. Among these theories are a couple oscillating universe models that look promising. Of course Hindus can look at these models and proclaim that they support their belief of the universe being a Brahma dream that vanishes when he wakes and is recreated when he sleeps again.

The problem with religious interpretations of scientific theories is that any time there is a gap in scientific understanding (such as the true nature of the universe) the religious will shoe-horn god in to fill the gap. In this regard, I think the fundamentalists are the only ones showing faith. Those who accept the science that contradicts their holy scripture but look for gaps to squeeze their god into are just struggling to justify their faith.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Does the Big Bang Contradict Creation?
]

Well, it certainly contradicts the Biblical six day creation story in Genesis that happened something like six thousand years ago.

Other than that there are several errors in your story but then they are fairly irrelevant to your general assumption that “goddidit”. The idea that god was the cause of the BB is now accepted by the Catholic church but not by most protestant sects in the US – they cling to the Genesis story.

To the question of the BB: The theory itself has some serious problems that cosmologists are struggling with and the problem isn’t the god thing. The problem is a physics thing. Because of these problems, there have been several alternative theories about the nature of the universe. Among these theories are a couple oscillating universe models that look promising. Of course Hindus can look at these models and proclaim that they support their belief of the universe being a Brahma dream that vanishes when he wakes and is recreated when he sleeps again.

The problem with religious interpretations of scientific theories is that any time there is a gap in scientific understanding (such as the true nature of the universe) the religious will shoe-horn god in to fill the gap. In this regard, I think the fundamentalists are the only ones showing faith. Those who accept the science that contradicts their holy scripture but look for gaps to squeeze their god into are just struggling to justify their faith.

Astronomer Hugh Ross goes even farther, though. He states that although there are many competing models and theories on the Big Bang event, each with its own details, all agree on two basic premises: At some certain point in the past the universe began to exist and it has been expanding ever since. Ross argues that both these premises are clearly taught in Scripture. He writes, "The Bible's prophets and apostles stated explicitly and repeatedly the two most fundamental properties of the big bang, a transcendent cosmic beginning a finite time period ago and a universe undergoing a general, continual expansion. In Isaiah 42:5 both properties were declared, 'This is what the Lord says-He who created the heavens and stretched them out.'"(3) Ross notes also that there are at least eleven Bible verses that talk about God's "stretching out" the universe.(4)

 

[none]

Astronomer Hugh Ross goes even farther, ... At some certain point in the past the universe began to exist and it has been expanding ever since.

how does Ross know that? what makes it not speculation?

 

[Keith&Co.]

i thought Ross was an astrophysicist?

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Astronomer Hugh Ross goes even farther, ... At some certain point in the past the universe began to exist and it has been expanding ever since.

how does Ross know that? what makes it not speculation?

But in the twentieth century, several things happened that radically contradicted the idea of an infinitely old universe. First, two scientists noticed that all galaxies seemed to be receding from each other - the same way dots drawn on a balloon get farther away from each other as the balloon is inflated. Then, Einstein's theory of general relativity demonstrated that the universe must be expanding. Later, astronomer Edwin Hubble noted how starlight was shifting to the red spectrum as we observed them, demonstrating that not only stars and galaxies were moving away from each other, but the very space between them was stretching.(1)

The implications of a universe that wasn't infinitely old made things very problematic for those who felt it came too close to describing a biblical-type creation. In fact, a famed astronomer named Fred Hoyle advanced an alternate theory known as the "Steady State Universe". In this model, Hoyle and others proposed that matter was being formed all the time, so it only looks like the universe came from a singularity. Unfortunately, in the 1960's scientists discovered background radiation that proved the steady-state model wasn't tenable. Now, almost all scientists accept the fact that the universe had a beginning a finite time ago.

http://www.comereason.org/Big-Bang-vs-Creation.asp

 

[Keith&Co.]

Now, almost all scientists accept the fact that the universe had a beginning a finite time ago.

Really? Can you support this assertion? Is that what almost all scientists really feel? Or might some of them quibble with the wording at least a little bit?

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Now, almost all scientists accept the fact that the universe had a beginning a finite time ago.

Really? Can you support this assertion? Is that what almost all scientists really feel? Or might some of them quibble with the wording at least a little bit?

In fact, a famed astronomer named Fred Hoyle advanced an alternate theory known as the "Steady State Universe". In this model, Hoyle and others proposed that matter was being formed all the time, so it only looks like the universe came from a singularity. Unfortunately, in the 1960's scientists discovered background radiation that proved the steady-state model wasn't tenable. Now, almost all scientists accept the fact that the universe had a beginning a finite time ago.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Steady State theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In cosmology, the Steady State theory is a generally discredited[1] expanding universe model alternative to the Big Bang theory of the universe and its origin. In steady state views, new matter is continuously created as the universe expands, thus adhering to the perfect cosmological principle (the principle that the observable universe is basically the same in any time as well as any place).

While the steady state model enjoyed some popularity in the mid-20th century, it is now rejected by the vast majority of cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers, as the observational evidence points to a hot Big Bang cosmology with a finite age of the universe, which the Steady State theory does not predict.[2]I



Cosmic microwave background

For most cosmologists, the definitive refutation of the steady-state theory came with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965, which was predicted by the Big Bang theory. Stephen Hawking described this discovery as "the final nail in the coffin of the steady-state theory." The steady-state theory explained microwave background radiation as the result of light from ancient stars that has been scattered by galactic dust. However, the cosmic microwave background level is very even in all directions, making it difficult to explain how it could be generated by numerous point sources and the microwave background radiation shows no evidence of characteristics such as polarization that are normally associated with scattering. Furthermore, its spectrum is so close to that of an ideal black body that it could hardly be formed by the superposition of contributions from a multitude of dust clumps at different temperatures as well as at different redshifts. Steven Weinberg wrote in 1972,

The steady state model does not appear to agree with the observed dL versus z relation or with source counts ... In a sense, this disagreement is a credit to the model; alone among all cosmologies, the steady-state model makes such definite predictions that it can be disproved even with the limited observational evidence at our disposal. The steady-state model is so attractive that many of its adherents still retain hope that the evidence against it will eventually disappear as observations improve. However, if the cosmic microwave radiation . . . is really black-body radiation, it will be difficult to doubt that the universe has evolved from a hotter denser early stage.[6]

Since this discovery, the Big Bang theory has been considered to provide the best explanation of the origin of the universe. In most astrophysical publications, the Big Bang is implicitly accepted and is used as the basis of more complete theories.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Really? Can you support this assertion? Is that what almost all scientists really feel? Or might some of them quibble with the wording at least a little bit?

In fact, a famed astronomer named Fred Hoyle advanced an alternate theory known as the "Steady State Universe". In this model, Hoyle and others proposed that matter was being formed all the time, so it only looks like the universe came from a singularity. Unfortunately, in the 1960's scientists discovered background radiation that proved the steady-state model wasn't tenable. Now, almost all scientists accept the fact that the universe had a beginning a finite time ago.

Yes, you repeated the claim.
Very impressive, Dr. It's like you have mastered the skill of cut and paste.
Now, is there anything like an independent survey that shows this to be true, because repetition is not quite the same as support.

Anything? I mean, there's surveys that show that evolutionary theory is accepted by over 95% of all scientists in the country. The number goes above 99% among those trained in biology. When you say 'almost all' accept this idea, does it really mean that very idea, without any sort of quibble like 'the universe in it's current state,' and how many is 'almost all?'

 

[bilby]

Does evolution exist??

Sure it does, one needs to look no farther than recent history to see the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Evolution is easy to see in many life forms.

Yes, absolutely.

I believe the question that drives these conversations is more about evidence of how life was / is created

That is not strictly a part of evolutionary theory, it is its own separate field of study, called abiogenesis.

and whether we evolved from other creatures such as apes or monkeys to be the humans we are today.

Yes, we evolved from other creatures; we ARE apes, and so were our immediate non-human ancestors. This is well evidenced, and not in serious dispute except by the wilfully ignorant.

I generally tell scientist they need to solve the "live essence" part of the equation before momving on.

Then you are about three centuries behind in your learning. There is no such thing as 'life essence'; everything is made up of the same kinds of things - Quarks, Leptons and Bosons - none of which are unique to 'life' or 'non-life'. 'Life' doesn't have a clear definition that is universally accepted, so there is no sharp dividing line between life and non-life; for example, some definitions have viruses as 'life' and others have then as 'non-life'.

Life begets life, life only comes from life .......... where did that initial life essence come from to pass on??

As there is no such thing, the question makes no sense. Simple things can become more complex, given an input of energy. The sun provides plenty of energy; simple molecules can become complex molecules with the right conditions, and once a complex molecule arises that has the property of catalysing the production of more molecules similar to itself, evolution will inevitably lead to greater and greater complexity - but no matter how complex it all is, it still comes down to the same fundamental physics and chemistry that underlies everything.

If you say elemental molecules sparked by electricity then surely you can recreate it in a lab or bring life back to the dead.

Multicellular life is far too complex for this to be achievable in all but the most unusual cases; however, depending on your definition of 'dead', it is arguable that modern hospitals do routinely bring life back to the dead. Unicellular life is less complex (but still very complex indeed), and there are a number of research projects under way that aim to build a living cell from scratch. It is difficult, but far from impossible.

Where is that missing evidence where we transitioned from walking on all fours to tow legs, you know those human skulls that have holes in the rear and not at the base??

Why would such things be expected? Bipedalism pre-dates humanity by a very long time - those transitional skulls exist, but they are not human skulls.

Matter can neither be neither created or destroyed, if not a God then where did matter come from??

Actually, matter can easily be created and destroyed - so easily, that it happens all the time, all by itself. We can detect this happening, for example through the Casimir Effect.

However, if it were true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it is unclear how this 'fact' could be overcome by adding another entity. Indeed, to add a God is to step away from our goal - now we not only need to explain where matter came from, but also where God came from. At best, adding God to the equation achieves nothing (replacing an unknown with a new unknown); but in fact it doesn't even manage that; replacing an unknown with an even less well understood and harder to measure unknown is making things worse, not better, from the point of view of someone trying to understand how things work.

Not only is 'God' not the answer to the question 'Where did everything come from'; It isn't even an answer, because 'God' is necessarily included in 'everything'. There are only two possibilities; Either something always existed, or something came from nothing. Postulating a God, no matter what properties you imagine it to have, does nothing to change this.

If 'God' is your answer, then you haven't understood the question.

Surely you scientist can create matter in your labs??

Creating matter is easy and routine - E=mc², so a little bit of matter needs a lot of energy to create. Of course, unlike the quantum fluctuations that are responsible for the Casimir Effect, this is not creation ex-nihilo, but rather a demonstration that the Law of Conservation of Mass and the Law of Conservation of Energy are, in fact, only applicable under certain circumstances, and that they are facets of a more universal Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy.

 

[none]

...
Now, almost all scientists accept the fact that the universe had a beginning a finite time ago.

http://www.comereason.org/Big-Bang-vs-Creation.asp

I am not interested in an appeal to authority, so what? I asked how it was known that the universe had a beginning.
if you knew anything at all about astrophysics and the early universe you'd know the answer.
there maybe expansion but that isn't what I asked about...
how is it known that universe had a beginning?

 

[atrib]

Well, it certainly contradicts the Biblical six day creation story in Genesis that happened something like six thousand years ago.

Other than that there are several errors in your story but then they are fairly irrelevant to your general assumption that “goddidit”. The idea that god was the cause of the BB is now accepted by the Catholic church but not by most protestant sects in the US – they cling to the Genesis story.

To the question of the BB: The theory itself has some serious problems that cosmologists are struggling with and the problem isn’t the god thing. The problem is a physics thing. Because of these problems, there have been several alternative theories about the nature of the universe. Among these theories are a couple oscillating universe models that look promising. Of course Hindus can look at these models and proclaim that they support their belief of the universe being a Brahma dream that vanishes when he wakes and is recreated when he sleeps again.

The problem with religious interpretations of scientific theories is that any time there is a gap in scientific understanding (such as the true nature of the universe) the religious will shoe-horn god in to fill the gap. In this regard, I think the fundamentalists are the only ones showing faith. Those who accept the science that contradicts their holy scripture but look for gaps to squeeze their god into are just struggling to justify their faith.

Astronomer Hugh Ross goes even farther, though. He states that although there are many competing models and theories on the Big Bang event, each with its own details, all agree on two basic premises: At some certain point in the past the universe began to exist and it has been expanding ever since. Ross argues that both these premises are clearly taught in Scripture. He writes, "The Bible's prophets and apostles stated explicitly and repeatedly the two most fundamental properties of the big bang, a transcendent cosmic beginning a finite time period ago and a universe undergoing a general, continual expansion. In Isaiah 42:5 both properties were declared, 'This is what the Lord says-He who created the heavens and stretched them out.'"(3) Ross notes also that there are at least eleven Bible verses that talk about God's "stretching out" the universe.(4)

The Bible is a collection of mythology and folklore, popular among our ancestor thousands of years ago, who had little knowledge of the universe they lived in. To suggest that the authors of the Bible had any knowledge of the beginnings of the universe or its subsequent expansion is foolish.

 

[atrib]

how does Ross know that? what makes it not speculation?

But in the twentieth century, several things happened that radically contradicted the idea of an infinitely old universe. First, two scientists noticed that all galaxies seemed to be receding from each other - the same way dots drawn on a balloon get farther away from each other as the balloon is inflated. Then, Einstein's theory of general relativity demonstrated that the universe must be expanding. Later, astronomer Edwin Hubble noted how starlight was shifting to the red spectrum as we observed them, demonstrating that not only stars and galaxies were moving away from each other, but the very space between them was stretching.(1)

The implications of a universe that wasn't infinitely old made things very problematic for those who felt it came too close to describing a biblical-type creation. In fact, a famed astronomer named Fred Hoyle advanced an alternate theory known as the "Steady State Universe". In this model, Hoyle and others proposed that matter was being formed all the time, so it only looks like the universe came from a singularity. Unfortunately, in the 1960's scientists discovered background radiation that proved the steady-state model wasn't tenable. Now, almost all scientists accept the fact that the universe had a beginning a finite time ago.

http://www.comereason.org/Big-Bang-vs-Creation.asp

There is nothing in common between the Biblical story of creation and our current day understanding of how the universe may have originated, and how it works. The Bible is demonstrably wrong in many of its claims about our reality, the creation story in Genesis being just one of them. To believe that the people who collected the stories of the Bible might have had knowledge of the origins of the universe is foolish at best.

 

[atrib]

Does evolution exist??

Sure it does, one needs to look no farther than recent history to see the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Evolution is easy to see in many life forms.

I believe the question that drives these conversations is more about evidence of how life was / is created and whether we evolved from other creatures such as apes or monkeys to be the humans we are today.

Biological evolution happens, and is not disputed among modern scientists.

I generally tell scientist they need to solve the "live essence" part of the equation before momving on.

Biological evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. Why is this part so difficult to understand to so many people?

Life begets life, life only comes from life .......... where did that initial life essence come from to pass on??

There is no such thing as life essence. Disagree? Prove me worng.

If you say elemental molecules sparked by electricity then surely you can recreate it in a lab or bring life back to the dead.

And some day our descendants may have the ability to do that. Create life.

Where is that missing evidence where we transitioned from walking on all fours to tow legs, you know those human skulls that have holes in the rear and not at the base??

Try reading a book on evolutionary biology, and following up on the numerous references cited therein. Where have you looked?

Matter can neither be neither created or destroyed, if not a God then where did matter come from??

Where did God come from? You have trouble believing matter and energy could have been created by natural processes, but you appear not to be a least bit skeptical of a supernatural, all powerful entity that can create universes just existing?

Surely you scientist can create matter in your labs??

How do you know they haven't? Your knowledge of current science seems limited. I suggest you educate yourself somewhat before you expose your ignorance any further.

 

[skepticalbip]

Well, it certainly contradicts the Biblical six day creation story in Genesis that happened something like six thousand years ago.

Other than that there are several errors in your story but then they are fairly irrelevant to your general assumption that “goddidit”. The idea that god was the cause of the BB is now accepted by the Catholic church but not by most protestant sects in the US – they cling to the Genesis story.

To the question of the BB: The theory itself has some serious problems that cosmologists are struggling with and the problem isn’t the god thing. The problem is a physics thing. Because of these problems, there have been several alternative theories about the nature of the universe. Among these theories are a couple oscillating universe models that look promising. Of course Hindus can look at these models and proclaim that they support their belief of the universe being a Brahma dream that vanishes when he wakes and is recreated when he sleeps again.

The problem with religious interpretations of scientific theories is that any time there is a gap in scientific understanding (such as the true nature of the universe) the religious will shoe-horn god in to fill the gap. In this regard, I think the fundamentalists are the only ones showing faith. Those who accept the science that contradicts their holy scripture but look for gaps to squeeze their god into are just struggling to justify their faith.

Astronomer Hugh Ross goes even farther, though. He states that although there are many competing models and theories on the Big Bang event, each with its own details, all agree on two basic premises: At some certain point in the past the universe began to exist and it has been expanding ever since. Ross argues that both these premises are clearly taught in Scripture. He writes, "The Bible's prophets and apostles stated explicitly and repeatedly the two most fundamental properties of the big bang, a transcendent cosmic beginning a finite time period ago and a universe undergoing a general, continual expansion. In Isaiah 42:5 both properties were declared, 'This is what the Lord says-He who created the heavens and stretched them out.'"(3) Ross notes also that there are at least eleven Bible verses that talk about God's "stretching out" the universe.(4)

I am not familiar with Hugh Ross but if he thinks the only theories are various BB models then he isn't much of an astronomer and certainly not a cosmologist. My guess is that you don't really have a clue what he actually said and are just giving your confused interpretation of his statement. Although he could be someone who is deeply religious and is trying to create theories with gaps large enough for his god to fit into. There are certainly models (though admittedly not the most popular) that have the universe eternal and repetedly undergoing different phases but with no beginning and no end.

ETA:
AHA, I looked up Hugh Ross. He certainly isn't a cosmologist. However he is does have some study of quasars and galaxies but his claim to fame isn't in the sciences but for his support for creationism, Noah's flood, denial of evolution, etc. I guess that is why I hadn't heard of him in the field of cosmology... he ain't. So maybe you did understand what he said but what he said wasn't anywhere in the ballpark of what cosmologists are considering about the nature of the universe.

 

[bilby]

...

If you say elemental molecules sparked by electricity then surely you can recreate it in a lab or bring life back to the dead.

And some day our descendants may have the ability to do that. Create life.

...

I think it is quite likely to occur in my lifetime. The J. Craig Venter Institute are working on it; and (depending how you define the goal) may even have already succeeded. If you can make all the parts for a car using only mineral ores; and you can assemble a car from previously made parts, then it is fair to say that you have the ability to make a car - even if you have not yet actually done the whole process from beginning to end on your own. There do not seem to be any remaining hurdles to the creation of an entirely artificial living cell other than time and funding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

In Isaiah 42:5 both properties were declared, 'This is what the Lord says-He who created the heavens and stretched them out.'"(3) Ross notes also that there are at least eleven Bible verses that talk about God's "stretching out" the universe.(4)

And none of them is a reference to an expanding universe. Isaiah 40:22 indicates the sense in which these references to "stretching out the heavens" were understood by the authors, and by everybody who read the bible until the universe was discovered by scientists to be expanding: "He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, _ and spreads them out like a tent to live in". A canopy, a tent to cover the flat Earth of Hebrew cosmology, not something that describes a universe expanding in all directions.

 

[Iznomneak]

Matter can neither be neither created or destroyed, if not a God then where did matter come from??

If god can create matter, then your premise "Matter can neither be neither created or destroyed" must be false.