Big Bang or Evolution have more direct evidence

[idav]

I don't need science to know that you can't look at a picture of something in the present and be able to tell me what happened in the past. It's common sense.

First baseman, you should realize that all pictures are of past events. Nobody on earth can show you a picture of the present. Your really grasping at straws here.

 

[Valjean]

Theories are not "facts," they are models of interpretation that have heuristic value and predictive efficacy.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Microbiologist Michael Behe has effectively exposed some of these weaknesses at the cellular level by his case for irreducible complexity in various microscopic molecular machines like the flagellum. He was even subjected to a court case on this--a kind of Salem witch hunt, but I see no credible explanations from orthodox evolutionists that effectively counter his case.

Behe's a religious propagandist who's been refuted more times and from more different sources than I can count, and if you don't see any credible counter-explanations you haven't looked. They're all over. They're even all over YouTube.

Similarly Oxford biologist Rupert Sheldrake has countered conventional evolutionary theory with a fascinating defense of "morphic resonance" as a key component of evolution. The fact is that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, but only with the development of life forms once life emerges.

You really need to find some better sources, Berserk. Sheldrake's a New Age mystic with a degree. His "morphic resonance" has never stood up to testing, nor, as far as I know, have his telepathy or precognition hypotheses. In additional to countering conventional evolutionary theory, he also counters DNA as a biological blueprint.

The fact is that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, but only with the development of life forms once life emerges.

Well, who ever said otherwise? That's sixth grad biology.

Sheldrake's work is widely dismissed as pseudoscience by the scientific community.

Jesus said, I am the way, the truth and the life. If you do not know Him you cannot know truth. This explains your confusion.

Now you've opened the door for us to question the sources of your assertions.

 

[Berserk]

valjean: Behe's a religious propagandist who's been refuted more times and from more different sources than I can count, and if you don't see any credible counter-explanation...they're even all over YouTube.

I've researched both Behe and the counter-arguments, and so far, found nothing convincing. Are you actually capable of transcending fallacious appeals to authority and presenting a counter-case yourself? If so, please do. I'm really interested. In my own professional field, I've found that the best way to expand the horizons of one's understanding is to provisionally assume the scholarly consensus is wrong and then ask what would then have to be true. Every theory needs to be in principle falsifiable if it is meaningful.

Valjean: You really need to find some better sources, Berserk. Sheldrake's a New Age mystic with a degree. His "morphic resonance" has never stood up to testing, nor, as far as I know, have his telepathy or precognition hypotheses. In additional to countering conventional evolutionary theory, he also counters DNA as a biological blueprint.

Please season your penchant for bluster with a modicum of rigor and engage his specific studies and research with reasoned counterarguments.

 

[HonestJoe]

Because it seems people believe in evolution for the most part and not so much the Big Bang, yet they both have direct evidence. I even thought the Big Bang easier to prove cause with evolution we can't take pictures of the past like we can with the cosmos though fossil record is super close to that criteria.

Fair enough, but it was still inevitable that it would only trigger arguments.

The problem is that both theories are really sets of theories that most people (myself included) don’t understand in enough detail to make any kind of accurate assessment and I don’t think you can quantify the evidence for either to boil is down to a simple compassion of which has “more”. As best I can tell, they’re both strongly supported as general principles but both have specifics and details that remain unclear or formally disputed. As much as the quality of their respective evidence can be compared I doubt there is all that much in it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Did you notice that they mentioned that they had proved things in the Harvard article? There is no such rigid proof in the theory of macro-evolution or Big Bang Theory or relativity. That is what I'm talking about. There is a big difference between a theory that has been proved and ones that haven't.

There is no "rigid proof" in science. There is evidence and probability.

You disregard one scientific theory as "just a theory" while accepting another that is also "just a theory" (the theory of gravity would be another example I don't think you'd object to). The thing about the theory of evolution is (and I'm sure others have made you aware of this) that it is one of the (if not the most) most well-evidenced and robust scientific theory currently in existence. And it's not just evidence from one particular field of science - we're talking about evidence from most fields of science, all converging on the same conclusion that evolution is a fact of life. The theory of evolution has been "proven" in the same sense that germ theory has been "proven" in that all existing evidence attests to the veracity of both scientific theories. But neither of them are going to become scientific laws.

 

[idav]

Fair enough, but it was still inevitable that it would only trigger arguments.

The problem is that both theories are really sets of theories that most people (myself included) don’t understand in enough detail to make any kind of accurate assessment and I don’t think you can quantify the evidence for either to boil is down to a simple compassion of which has “more”. As best I can tell, they’re both strongly supported as general principles but both have specifics and details that remain unclear or formally disputed. As much as the quality of their respective evidence can be compared I doubt there is all that much in it.

Far as I can tell nobody has actually formally disputed either theory. Even the people in this thread that dispute the big bang with evidence haven't actually disputed that expansion is happening.

There is no "rigid proof" in science. There is evidence and probability.

You disregard one scientific theory as "just a theory" while accepting another that is also "just a theory" (the theory of gravity would be another example I don't think you'd object to). The thing about the theory of evolution is (and I'm sure others have made you aware of this) that it is one of the (if not the most) most well-evidenced and robust scientific theory currently in existence. And it's not just evidence from one particular field of science - we're talking about evidence from most fields of science, all converging on the same conclusion that evolution is a fact of life. The theory of evolution has been "proven" in the same sense that germ theory has been "proven" in that all existing evidence attests to the veracity of both scientific theories.

This makes a decent point pertaining to the OP, that evolution has many sciences supporting the theory where as Big Bang theory requires more specialized fields.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Theories are not "facts," they are models of interpretation that have heuristic value and predictive efficacy. There is far more varied relevant data for evolutionary theory than for the Big Bang theory. But that is both a strength and weakness for evolution in this comparison. It is a strength for evolution in the sense that this theory generates far more predictions that can then be tested. It is a weakness in that evolutionary theory, though impressive, can be exposed to crippling weaknesses that don't encumber the Big Bang theory.

Microbiologist Michael Behe has effectively exposed some of these weaknesses at the cellular level by his case for irreducible complexity in various microscopic molecular machines like the flagellum. He was even subjected to a court case on this--a kind of Salem witch hunt, but I see no credible explanations from orthodox evolutionists that effectively counter his case. Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box," has never to my mind been adequately countered. Irreducible complexity refers to the fact that certain microscopic systems utilize machine like components whose parts are each essential to function and cannot plausibly be conceived as the result of slow, gradual, incremental, adaptive change.














Similarly Oxford biologist Rupert Sheldrake has countered conventional evolutionary theory with a fascinating defense of "morphic resonance" as a key component of evolution. The fact is that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, but only with the development of life forms once life emerges. And consciousness is a relevant but scientifically unknown variable, whose relevance to random selection and genetic mutation is unknown. Threads on both Behe and Sheldrake would, I think, be very stimulating and productive. There are several YouTube videos for both.

It won't do to solve all these problems by simplistically appealing to the vast period of time life has been evolving on earth.

Michael Behe has failed to make his case for irreducible complexity. I'm sure he'll keep trying though.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Jesus said, I am the way, the truth and the life. If you do not know Him you cannot know truth. This explains your confusion.

Odin said, This thing is beyond your understanding, my child. Think no further on the matter and maybe you will read the riddle in the end. Who knows? Meanwhile the air is fresh and the day golden and my palace is near at hand. The young should enjoy themselves while they may, so come!

 

[HonestJoe]

Far as I can tell nobody has actually formally disputed either theory. Even the people in this thread that dispute the big bang with evidence haven't actually disputed that expansion is happening.

The general principles are fairly settled, I said there are specific details that are formally disputed. Within the actual scientific communities studying and researching in the two fields, there are differences of opinion and ongoing developments in the wider understanding. Neither theory (or set of theories) are set in stone.

 

[gnostic]

Michael Behe has failed to make his case for irreducible complexity. I'm sure he'll keep trying though.

Behe is an idiot, and not a good scientist.

He should know that if he can't present evidences for Designer, then his paper isn't testable or falsifiable, so he should discard it because he has already been refuted.

Even his own biochemistry department have made disclaimer that just because it work as a lecturer at their university, doesn't mean they support his refuted hypothesis. He is letting his biased belief in the Designer to dictate his work, and not on verifiable and empirical evidences. To other biochemists, Behe is a disgrace to his profession.

 

[viole]

Did you notice that they mentioned that they had proved things in the Harvard article? There is no such rigid proof in the theory of macro-evolution or Big Bang Theory or relativity. That is what I'm talking about. There is a big difference between a theory that has been proved and ones that haven't.

Can you make me an example of a scientific theory that has been proved?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Whether these things happened with intent or not doesn't change the direct evidence we do have.

Like for the big bang for example. We have evidence that the universe has been expanding for 14 billion years, the fact is the expansion. whether or not intent is involved is not part of the theory. I believe there is intent within the system of things but that is harder to prove. Heck every aspect of the universe could have intent involved and it will still look like nature.

I think that's a good point, 'nature' is always going to appear 'natural' to us by definition, we are born and live as part of it