Big Bang and creation of the universe

Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM

04/06/2005 02:59:11 PM · #26

Originally posted by cpurser:

I oppose the theories... but because it is scientific crap. ...most stories related to evolution, fossils, etc, are stated as fact, not theory.

Regardless of your views on religion, you are illustrating a common misperception about the term "theory" when it's applied in science. A theory in general English is an unproven guess or idea. In science, that's called a hypothesis. A scientific theory, such as the theory of evolution or quantum theory, is an explanation of a complex process based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by many independent researchers. A scientific theory is accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. In other words, a scientific theory IS a fact, so presenting it as such shouldn't be a problem unless the theory is proven wrong by the same process, at which time it ceases to BE a theory.

ReallyColorBlind

Canon EOS-70D

04/06/2005 03:01:34 PM · #27

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
... complete with a several-billion year fossil history in place.

With the no ability to check the accuracy of carbon dating except on a micro scale, it's tough for me to be confident in the macro "billion-year" measurements.

If you're willing to be open minded, check out this book:
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood (7th Edition) by Walt Brown

We've been taught to believe in evolution, but have you ever been taught to believe in creation? If you want to look at scientific theory from a creationist's point of view, this is an excellant book. The author even quotes evolutionist's comments about flaws in evolution (and he sites the reference for those quotes as well).

04/06/2005 03:01:46 PM · #28

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by cpurser:
I oppose the theories... but because it is scientific crap. ...most stories related to evolution, fossils, etc, are stated as fact, not theory.

Regardless of your views on religion, you are illustrating a common misperception about the term "theory" when it's applied in science. A theory in general English is an unproven guess or idea. In science, that's called a hypothesis. A scientific theory, such as the theory of evolution or quantum theory, is an explanation of a complex process based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by many independent researchers. A scientific theory is accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. In other words, a scientific theory IS a fact, so presenting it as such shouldn't be a problem unless the theory is proven wrong by the same process, at which time it ceases to BE a theory.

Exactly...it's silly to state that the word "theory" means it's negotiable. There's no doubt that evolution is not just treated as a "theory" as we know it.

04/06/2005 03:06:16 PM · #29

Originally posted by ReallyColorBlind:

If you're willing to be open minded, check out this book:
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood (7th Edition) by Walt Brown

Actually, I've given up on this sort of study for now. I think there's evidence for a creator, but I also think there's evidence that suggests the 'creation story' is metaphorical as presented in Genesis. The fact is, I don't know. I'm quite happy to be agnostic about the way the universe was created...evolution could have been a key element in the design of this world.

?

Spiritual experience and searching has lead me to be convinced that there is a god...the creation stuff I'll leave alone for now.

Message edited by author 2005-04-06 15:07:28.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

04/06/2005 03:07:05 PM · #30

Originally posted by ReallyColorBlind:

Originally posted by cpurser:

Why are scientists/educators so opposed to challenging the prevailing theories? Why not allow a sticker in a textbook stating that Evolution is a theory, not fact? Why not ask students to think about the evidence and challenge the theories?

-Chad

Well said (I agree with your entire statement). I was going to try to add something to it, but I think you did a fine job.

Well, there is a major fallacy in your thinking. Science educators are hardly opposed to teaching independent thought. The challenging of theories is precisely what has gotten us as far as we have gotten. It's dogma that we need to be on guard for, and this is just what creationism is. For clarification, when I say creationism, I refer to the stalwarts who steadfast adhere to a literal reading of the biblical account of creation.
The *fact* is that all we know about our world, our universe, is what we can physically test and prove or disprove. This is how science advances, how Man's state of understanding of our universe expands. No one debates today that Classical Newtonian physics revolutionized the way we understand motion, and it underlies nearly all motion-realted engineering calculations, which in turn are used to create all of the wonderful mechanical devices we have at our disposal today. No one thinks twice that these devices work... yet Newtonian physics was just a theory, and was not entirely correct, as shown by the success of Einstein's special and general relativity in explaining observed discrepancies in Newtonian mechanics.
Yes, evolution is a theory as well, however the evidence supporting evolution, which is unequivocal and enormous in volume, has not been refuted by one experiment. Ever. Now, we can postulate that evolution is a manufactured aspect of a created universe, and if this is what one believes I cannot refute this point of view. After all, it is an "appeal to authority", a logical conindrum that has no solution. You say it is so because God made it so, and on what grounds can this be challenged? It cannot, beacuse it cannot be tested.
Bottom line, philosohpers have debated the question for eons, but it is impossible to either prove, or disprove, the existince of a higher power. Whether an individual believes in a higher power, and if so how that belief is manifested (Christian, Islamic, Jew, Buddhist...) is simply a matter of, well, faith. Religion is thus an intensely personal thing, not something that individuals should attempt to impose upon others.
Science, on the other hand, is the study of observable, testable fact. From these facts, we draw hypotheses, theories, of which evolution is one. What "reformists" (a euphemism if I ever heard one) would have us believe is that we should throw out teaching the facts because the hypotheses drawn from them threaten their belief systems. I think not.

04/06/2005 03:09:15 PM · #31

...because there's no such thing as a dogmatic scientist.

There are many debates where I'm very embarrassed at the way that Christians approach the answers. The evolutionism vs. creationism debate is one where both sides baffle me with their dogma.

Message edited by author 2005-04-06 15:10:29.

04/06/2005 03:15:38 PM · #32

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

With the no ability to check the accuracy of carbon dating except on a micro scale, it's tough for me to be confident in the macro "billion-year" measurements.

Who says we have no ability? Atomic theory (there's that word again) on this level is one of the most stable and predictable things we can measure. Our very standard of time is based upon measurements of Cesium atoms. We can easily model rates of radioactive decay- that's simple physics. We can confirm those models over a modestly long term by comparing samples of things who's dates are verifiable (ancient Egyptian scrolls, for example) to what we would expect for the models.

cpurser

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM

04/06/2005 03:18:25 PM · #33

Problems like (just to name a few):

* The Helium Mass 4 Gap
* Dark Matter
* Ort Cloud
* Spontaneous generation
* Mutation into distinct species

have NOT been proven/verified multiple times. Therefore, it cannot be said that evolution is fact.

One thing that HAS been proven as fact is "micro-evolution", which are the changes within a species or "kind". This is not disputed, and is observed every day.

-Chad

Message edited by author 2005-04-06 15:22:38.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

04/06/2005 03:19:51 PM · #34

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Without a doubt, one does not need to dig far into the history of science to find evidence of dogmatic behavior. Sadly, it seems to be a part of human nature. Dogmatic acceptance of previous teachings has at times stymied the advance of knowledge for hundreds of years. Yet, in the end, objectivity prevails. The success of the scientific method is that it relies on repeated testing and re-testing of hypotheses, so dognatic thinking will eventually be overcome by the preponderance of evidence.

ReallyColorBlind

Canon EOS-70D

04/06/2005 03:22:33 PM · #35

Unless you start with something that is a million years old, you cannot conclusively say that it is a million years old based on your theories.

Fact: I have a friend who worked on the first Apollo mission to the moon. They had to figure out how to land the module in several feet of moon dust because based on scientific THEORY of the earth being billions of years old, that's how much dust there should have been. They were very concerned about having to make a blind landing on instruments only. When the module landed, there was less than a quarter of an inch of moon dust. (For those who believe in creation; doing the math, a quarter inch of moon dust would equate to the earth being 6000 to 10000 years old).

Just one example of how scientific theories really missed the mark. (Oh yeah, and they never seem to report when one of their theories goes bust).

04/06/2005 03:29:34 PM · #36

Originally posted by kirbic:

The success of the scientific method is that it relies on repeated testing and re-testing of hypotheses, so dognatic thinking will eventually be overcome by the preponderance of evidence.

Sure, but the key word might be 'eventually'. I think treating the 'theory of evolution' as a theory...something to be discussed...is a healthy thing (unless the only reason for doing so is religious dogma).

04/06/2005 03:31:08 PM · #37

Originally posted by ReallyColorBlind:

Just one example of how scientific theories really missed the mark. (Oh yeah, and they never seem to report when one of their theories goes bust).

Exactly...I'm not anti-science (what a stupid thing that would be).

Both anti-religious science and anti-scientific religion are ridiculous (albeit, the second one being more so) and hinder the search for truth.

Message edited by author 2005-04-06 15:31:26.

04/06/2005 03:43:01 PM · #38

This is a very frustrating argument. Fundamentally creationism cannot be disproved. Every bit of evidence can be woven into a creationist story.

Evolutionists can never prove the theory of evolution: it is just too big and complicated to be proven to be correct in every minute aspect, without exception.

That evolutionary biology has been studied for decades at the highest levels and no-one has been able to demonstrate persuasively that evolution theory does not hold true, suggests that it is a pretty good theory. The chances of it being fundamentally wrong are enormously low, because there is so much evidence suggesting it to be correct.

Creationists can continue to pick holes in the theory (there will be holes - its scope means that it must be a generalisation, which may be refined infinitely). These do not "disprove" the whole theory, in the same way that the development of theological interpretation is not generally held to "disprove" an entire religion.

So:

1) man 3000 years ago writes down what he interprets to be word of god. Answer to man's existence: god did it. No evidence ever found to evidence the belief. Always defended as being an article of faith that does not need to evidence itself.

2) development of modern principles of science, and thousands of highly educated people devote their lives to exploring and evidencing a theory, for which there is no persuasive evidence to the contrary: evolution can occur without having to resort to the divine by observable processes. Revolutionary developments in biological understanding (the discovery of DNA and gene sequencing) and it all fits neatly into the theory. Increasing mountains of evidence in support.

And people really still believe in (1)? The only explanation in my book is that they have been told that (1) is correct by people they trust, and (2) has never been explained properly.

04/06/2005 03:44:29 PM · #39

As for books like those produced by Walt Brown, widely discredited for their misinterpretation and misrepresentation of scientific papers (eg the famous reference to man being genetically closest to a rattlesnake - evidenced by his son's science fair project (and even then a misrepresentation of the results!)). If they had any scientific value, be assured that a bright spark scientist would be on his way to a Nobel prize and limitless prestige and wealth by revolutionising biology for the 21st century with the compelling "truth"!

04/06/2005 03:56:48 PM · #40

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

The only explanation in my book is that they have been told that (1) is correct by people they trust, and (2) has never been explained properly.

Interesting point.

Like I said, I've stopped caring but this is mostly because there seems to be little information that I've received that has been outside of the context of the debate.

I'd love to know more about this but very little of the information I come across seems to be objective.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

04/06/2005 04:07:23 PM · #41

My best advice to anyone - believers and non-believers - NEVER stop seeking the truth! :)

scuds

Canon EOS-30D

04/06/2005 04:09:27 PM · #42

Everytime I see this thread I think it's going to mention my entry, or hammer it down...

Entitled "Creation of the universe".

04/06/2005 04:30:57 PM · #43

Originally posted by cpurser:

Problems like (just to name a few):

* The Helium Mass 4 Gap
* Dark Matter
* Ort Cloud
* Spontaneous generation
* Mutation into distinct species

have NOT been proven/verified multiple times.

I'm not familiar with the helium mass or spontaneous generation issues, but I don't think dark matter or the Oort cloud are considered theories. Scientific theories are used to describe complex sets of related processes or events, not whether a particular object exists or not. If we went out with a spacecraft and actually found dark matter, it wouldn't then be called the Theory of Dark Matter. We would simply say that it exists. THIS might explain it better than I can.

Mutation into distinct species is an aspect of the theory of evolution, which has indeed been supported with tangible proof. In a nutshell, Darwin went out and found similar animals that had become geographically isolated, and over generations developed into different species suited to each particular environment. For example, marine iguanas have special adaptations that allow them to thrive in saltwater that would kill land iguanas. The two do not interbreed, yet through DNA analysis we can link them to a common fossil ancestor that lived before the two areas became geographically isolated. If you find several thousand similar connections, that becomes pretty compelling evidence of fact.

Message edited by author 2005-04-06 16:42:17.

04/06/2005 04:37:10 PM · #44

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

I'd love to know more about this but very little of the information I come across seems to be objective.

I read a good history of the big bang theory recently - Simon Singh's "Big Bang". Some reviews.

It is a history book explaining how the theory came about, as much as explaining the theory. I found it compulsive reading.

Note that the reviews I linked to are from mainstream press and established scientific journals. This book is not out there to make a point in the debate here - it explains the reasoning behind the theory. It also sets out in the early chapters a number of creation theories from various civilisations - again, as an explanatory history (it focusses on the development of the big bang theory because that "story" is recent and known). It explains why the theory is considered by the scientific community to be "proven".

Have not read any books that I would particularly recommend on evolution recently. I really enjoyed Richard Fortey's "Life, a biography", but it is quite an in-depth read. Bill Bryson relies on it quite heavily in his very readable "A short history of everything". that is also a very good read for understanding a lot of modern scientific thinking and the reasons why it has come about.

I am currently reading a short guide to the Philisophy of Science - that goes into some depth relevant to the issues here: the concept of "proof", and what is science anyway? It is a bit dry - it is losing out to a couple of other good reads at the moment.

As far as I understand, books from the opposing camp tend towards a criticism of the evolutionary theory in a series of specific examples. However, they cannot provide an explanation of why the creationist theory is correct, as that is fundamentally a matter of faith and interpretation of religous texts. Might be interesting to read an analysis of the religious texts (and the various texts themselves) to understand better how the belief system has developed. I cannot recommend anything other than translations of the various texts themselves.

Message edited by author 2005-04-06 16:38:52.

04/06/2005 04:41:27 PM · #45

Originally posted by ReallyColorBlind:

They had to figure out how to land the module in several feet of moon dust because based on scientific THEORY of the earth being billions of years old, that's how much dust there should have been....doing the math, a quarter inch of moon dust would equate to the earth being 6000 to 10000 years old).

That was a hypothesis, since obiously it had not yet been independently proven. Their working model at the time suggested that the moon should have a lot of dust, but that does NOT make the model a scientfic theory. Scientists are a skeptical lot by nature, and they don't consider something fact until it has been proven multiple times with evidence. I'm sure their model has since been modified, with lava flows or asteroid impacts that would account for the observed discrepancy. Remember cold fusion? The press hailed it as a reality, but scientists were tripping over themselves in a rush to prove or disprove the findings.

04/06/2005 04:52:40 PM · #46

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by cpurser:
Problems like (just to name a few):

* The Helium Mass 4 Gap
...

I'm not familiar with the helium mass or spontaneous generation issues, ...

Helium 4 Mass Gap, I think, relates to the early combination of atoms in mathematical models of the big bang and the failure of early theories to explain the creation of certain heavier elements This explains better than I can how the issue was resolved in 1957:

//www.np.ph.bham.ac.uk/research/anthropic.htm

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II