Big Bang or Evolution have more direct evidence

[First Baseman]

I vote for evolution.
The math is simpler.

Actually, if you go with Occam's razor the simplest explanation is Genesis 1:1. You need no math for that.

 

[Valjean]

No they aren't, they are theories only, guesses made from observing present facts. You certainly cannot prove either actually happened. It is fact to you based on your faith in present day theories.

You think a theory isn't a fact?
You think it's possible to "prove" a theory?

 

[idav]

Your picture is in the present, you and scientists assume it is in the past. You are simply making guesses based on facts. That is what they do in Vegas.

They are pictures of the past, not pictures of the present. That is not at all a valid comparison. Picking lottery numbers based on passed results is not at all like investigating passed events and coming to conclusions about what happened.

A valid comparison is investigating evidence and facts via DNA that a serial killer is guilty of multiple murders, and it has nothing to do with what we think the serial killer will do in the future. We aren't trying to guess the future, just the facts sir.

 

[First Baseman]

You think a theory isn't a fact?
You think it's possible to "prove" a theory?

Theories are not facts. They are possible conclusions based on assumed factual premises.

Sure it is. Scientists have been and still are trying to prove relativity is fact.

 

[First Baseman]

They are pictures of the past, not pictures of the present. That is not at all a valid comparison. Picking lottery numbers based on passed results is not at all like investigating passed events and coming to conclusions about what happened.

A valid comparison is investigating evidence and facts via DNA that a serial killer is guilty of multiple murders, and it has nothing to do with what we think the serial killer will do in the future. We aren't trying to guess the future, just the facts sir.

They are pictures of what you see in the present. You are assuming they are pictures of the past. Can you prove they are? Do you know for a fact that what you are seeing is not a 4th dimensional optical illusion? No, you dont.

 

[idav]

They are pictures of what you see in the present. You are assuming they are pictures of the past. Can you prove they are? Do you know for a fact that what you are seeing is not a 4th dimensional optical illusion? No, you dont.

I've gone to some lengths to make sure, at least for myself. I've even considered the fact that perhaps the universe was time traveling and only make it appear as if the universe is 14 billion years old but I remember that thought experiment going against the evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, if you go with Occam's razor the simplest explanation is Genesis 1:1. You need no math for that.

It's simple, but has no predictive value.
So it isn't even in the running regarding a theory in science.
Perhaps in religion it's simpler than some other creation models.

 

[idav]

What convinces me that it's a good theory is that I hear of no dissent from those who actually learn the physics behind it.
Given that people of many different faiths & non-faith agree, this points to its being a logical conclusion from the agreed upon premises.

Well I'm not mathematician but I can conceptualize all the experiments just fine and too many institutions getting the same results, even the institutions which would rather find different results lol.

 

[idav]

They are pictures of what you see in the present. You are assuming they are pictures of the past. Can you prove they are? Do you know for a fact that what you are seeing is not a 4th dimensional optical illusion? No, you dont.

Here is another way of putting it. If you were on a planet millions of light years away, in theory when you look at the earth, it would be the time of the dinosaurs. This is common sense. If I shine flashlight into space, it will take millions of light years to reach something millions of light years away.

 

[McBell]

Actually, if you go with Occam's razor the simplest explanation is Genesis 1:1. You need no math for that.

Except that Occam's Razor does not apply to wishful thinking.
That means using Occam's Razor, creationism isn't even in the running.

Nice try though.

 

[McBell]

They are pictures of what you see in the present. You are assuming they are pictures of the past. Can you prove they are? Do you know for a fact that what you are seeing is not a 4th dimensional optical illusion? No, you dont.

You reveal your ignorance is not limited to evolution..

You might want to look up and understand the speed of light and how it applies to you looking the arrogant fool right now.

 

[Valjean]

Theories are not facts. They are possible conclusions based on assumed factual premises.

Hogwash! -- you don't understand what a scientific theory is, or a scientific fact. Germ theory is also fact. Heliocentric theory is also fact. Spherical Earth theory is also fact.
Get with the program.

Sure it is. Scientists have been and still are trying to prove relativity is fact.

Balderdash! Scientists don't try to prove anything. That's not how science works. Scientists try to disprove things -- that's the process.
When a theory stands up to every effort to disprove it, it's accepted as fact, and, of course, it remains a theory, as well.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well I'm not mathematician but I can conceptualize all the experiments just fine and too many institutions getting the same results, even the institutions which would rather find different results lol.

Aye, some aspects of it, when dumbed down to my level, are accessible.

 

[First Baseman]

It's simple, but has no predictive value.
So it isn't even in the running regarding a theory in science.
Perhaps in religion it's simpler than some other creation models.

Well, to get to the predictive value you have to go to Revelation for that.

 

[First Baseman]

Here is another way of putting it. If you were on a planet millions of light years away, in theory when you look at the earth, it would be the time of the dinosaurs. This is common sense. If I shine flashlight into space, it will take millions of light years to reach something millions of light years away.

But my point is that you don't know that for a fact. You think it is true but the truth is that you just don't know whether it is or not.

 

[First Baseman]

Hogwash! -- you don't understand what a scientific theory is, or a scientific fact. Germ theory is also fact. Heliocentric theory is also fact. Spherical Earth theory is also fact.
Get with the program.
Balderdash! Scientists don't try to prove anything. That's not how science works. Scientists try to disprove things -- that's the process.
When a theory stands up to every effort to disprove it, it's accepted as fact, and, of course, it remains a theory, as well.

Sir, you brain thinks on a far different wavelength than skeptical reality. I wish you the best, though. Good luck.

 

[idav]

But my point is that you don't know that for a fact. You think it is true but the truth is that you just don't know whether it is or not.

I am as sure about that as I am that I have the ability to see things. Thats why I would call it direct evidence.

 

[idav]

Apropos the impossible Big Bang Theory, watch this video:

“Oops! Universe Expanding Too Quickly" - *media snipped*

Does the speed make much a difference in the actual theory of expansion? That electric universe thing was interesting.

Does the fact that we can just peer back and time and check kinda validate the theory of inflation?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, to get to the predictive value you have to go to Revelation for that.

Is this Revelation something which makes predictions possible to verify or disprove by experiment?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Which has more direct evidence to support the notions. Big bang theory or theory of evolution?

I almost want to say they are on equal grounds as observable fact.

At least with the big bang we are able to look into the past, due to the fact that when we look at the stars we are seeing a snapshot of them back in time.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/lightspeed.html

We have also have observed speciation of plants and insects which have quicker generation turnarounds.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

So which has more direct evidence or is observing not enough, are they faith based?

In each case the evidence we have points to a specific creation event for everything- space/time mass/energy, and also with life, it appeared and unfolded - changed over time from a simple beginning. That either of these things happened accidentally is an entirely separate belief system though isn't it?