• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

If the Big Bang was proved false what alternatives would evolutionist have?

Sculelos

Sculelos

Active Member
In light of the Electric Universe world-view which states that Energy is Matter and Matter is Energy and they are both Electricity and that Gravity does not exist separate from Magnetic Attraction as Gravity really is just the weakest kind of magnetic attraction.

If you understand all this you would understand the fundamental flaws inherit in the big bang theory, in fact due to laws of physics the big bang is actually impossible

What in reality is perceived is a growing Universe, this is often times called expansion but we know that nothing expands unless matter is constantly being added and we know that Neutrons make up 100% of the Mass in the Universe and Electricity also known as Electrons make up 100% of the Structure of the Universe. That is to say Electrons give Neutrons form and function and Neutrons give Electrons a Canvas to work on. Electrons CAN create Neutrons but Neutrons CAN NOT create Electrons.

Understanding this Laws of Nature what viable options do Evolutionist honestly have without the big bang being viable?

A Great Read: EU View | holoscience.com | The Electric Universe
 
tumbleweed41

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
And this...

Sculelos said:
In light of the Electric Universe world-view which states that Energy is Matter and Matter is Energy and they are both Electricity and that Gravity does not exist separate from Magnetic Attraction as Gravity really is just the weakest kind of magnetic attraction.....
Click to expand...


is laughable. :facepalm:
 
Terrywoodenpic

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Sculelos said:
In light of the Electric Universe world-view which states that Energy is Matter and Matter is Energy and they are both Electricity and that Gravity does not exist separate from Magnetic Attraction as Gravity really is just the weakest kind of magnetic attraction.

If you understand all this you would understand the fundamental flaws inherit in the big bang theory, in fact due to laws of physics the big bang is actually impossible

What in reality is perceived is a growing Universe, this is often times called expansion but we know that nothing expands unless matter is constantly being added and we know that Neutrons make up 100% of the Mass in the Universe and Electricity also known as Electrons make up 100% of the Structure of the Universe. That is to say Electrons give Neutrons form and function and Neutrons give Electrons a Canvas to work on. Electrons CAN create Neutrons but Neutrons CAN NOT create Electrons.

Understanding this Laws of Nature what viable options do Evolutionist honestly have without the big bang being viable?

A Great Read: EU View | holoscience.com | The Electric Universe
Click to expand...

Every thing here is very bad science..... FAIL
 
fantome profane

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
If the Big Bang were proven false it would not change my opinion of the theory of evolution in any way.

There is no connection.

The very question indicates that you don't understand the what evolution is.
 
Sculelos

Sculelos

Active Member
Willamena said:
Evolution would still be a viable option.
Click to expand...

Well we can assume if the Universe is growing then matter is constantly being added to it. Knowing this true we could also state that matter formed itself from the energy that came from outside of our universe and if matter is being added to our universe there must be energy outside of our universe. The question that remains then is why is energy being added that is not within our universe?

tumbleweed41 said:
The Big Bang has nothing to do with Biological Evolution.
Click to expand...

I understand that they are fundamentally different theories but if Creation is more complete and more coherent in it's explanation then why would anyone think Evolution is true if it does not explain origins?

Any theory that explains life must explain origins and we do know that origins existed at one point in time because the universe is growing, if the universe is growing then energy is constantly being added to our universe, if energy and matter is constantly being added then it must come from outside our universe if that is true and it is true then something must be outside of our universe to add the energy.

The Question then becomes: What is Outside Our Universe Adding Electricity and Matter to our Universe?
 
Magic Man

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Sculelos said:
...why would anyone think Evolution is true if it does not explain origins?

Any theory that explains life must explain origins...
Click to expand...

This pretty much sums up the problem with your posts. Evolution is not meant to explain the origin of life, and a theory explaining how life became as diverse as we see it today does not need to explain the origin of life.
 
mycorrhiza

mycorrhiza

Well-Known Member
Sculelos said:
Well we can assume if the Universe is growing then matter is constantly being added to it. Knowing this true we could also state that matter formed itself from the energy that came from outside of our universe and if matter is being added to our universe there must be energy outside of our universe. The question that remains then is why is energy being added that is not within our universe?
Click to expand...

You don't need to add matter for the Universe to expand. All you need is for the objects to move further apart from eachother.


I understand that they are fundamentally different theories but if Creation is more complete and more coherent in it's explanation then why would anyone think Evolution is true if it does not explain origins?
Click to expand...
Why doesn't germ theory explain how nuclear fission works? Evolution as theory doesn't deal with the origin of life nor the origin of the Universe. There's no reason to expect it to do so.
 
Sculelos

Sculelos

Active Member
Magic Man said:
This pretty much sums up the problem with your posts. Evolution is not meant to explain the origin of life, and a theory explaining how life became as diverse as we see it today does not need to explain the origin of life.
Click to expand...

Genetically we are all identical. Understanding this we should all look like clones if that were the sole factor however it is not.

RNA gives us variety. You could have a Banana and a human and even though we are nearly 99% similar in Genetic composition our RNA is 99% different.

So we see that RNA structures our DNA and we see that DNA orders our RNA. However RNA is not built in a strict fashion so any RNA strand can typically vary up to around 400% if conditions permit.

For example look at Dogs.

Chihuahua is about 7 lbs on Average and about 8 inches tall on average, they are regarded as one of the smallest breeds of Dog.

In comparison take a Great Dane that Weights about 160 lbs on average and is 32 inches tall on average.

To find the Mean we take the average of both dogs this is the 100% line.

20 Inches tall and 83 lbs would be about average.

Now this shows a size graph of how RNA can vary.

12.5% - 2.5 in, 1lb
25% - 5 in, 5lbs
100% - 20in, 83lb
200% - 30in, 124lbs
300% - 40in, 166lbs
400% - 80in, 332lbs

Notice how typically no breeds will go below the 25% line nor above the 300% line but under extreme circumstances they can go to about 12.5% minimum or about 400% maximum.
 
LuisDantas

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Evolution is biological. Big Bang about as far away from it as any idea can possibly be.

The closest they come is that a naturalistic worldview has no reason to reject either.

Even then, it is not like a Theistic worldview has such reason either.

As for genetics, I will just say that what Scuelos is saying here does not make a lot of sense and is certainly not a good presentation of genetics.
 
Draka

Draka

Wonder Woman
639_tommy-lee-jones-serious.gif
 
Sculelos

Sculelos

Active Member
tumbleweed41 said:
The vast majority of mutations are neutral.

Mutation
Click to expand...

Yes most of them are Neutral but think it's because we have replicating sets of DNA and RNA. DNA is stored in RNA and RNA is stored in DNA. So if you could separate them you would have nearly two complete sets of RNA and DNA. These two ranges tend to average each other out which is why humans and animals tend to have an average range of sizes.

The problems with DNA damage only tend to arise when both sets are damaged in the same way. However this is not very likely as if you take 1% and 1% out of say 100% you only have about a 1/10,000 chance of having a MAJOR defect occur in a single individual. However if you are talking about incest there is more like a 50% chance of major damage occurring due to the fact that while both of you have 2 sets there is 1 set in Each that is damaged and if the damaged sets mach up there will be significant damages in both the DNA and RNA sequences.

Think of it like having two coins with two sides, in this situation there is 4 possibilities but 2 of them will lead to defects. This is why we don't interbreed as a 50% chance is unnecessary when you can pick someone who is hopefully at least 7 generations removed from you and only have a .01% chance of producing a severely malfunctioning baby.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Way way back in the day, when the steady state theory held sway, I had no problem with evolution. The big bang theory changed nothing. A complete description of this stochastic process does not include the origin of the universe, ie, it simply assumes that the universe exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top