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

[FearGod]

All humans share 100% of the same Genetics. All humans have about 1% of their genetics damaged with 'Mutations' these mutations are never good only harmful and if enough combine in a short enough period of time aka 7 generations it can cause severe birth defects that usually mean end of line for the infected offspring.

CDC Lists Top 6 Types of Birth Defects

 

[tumbleweed41]

.... but think it's because we have replicating sets of DNA and RNA. DNA is stored in RNA and RNA is stored in DNA. .....

 

[Draka]

Tommy doesn't even have to raise his hand. The facepalm is purely implied.

 

[bobhikes]

The big bang theory is about how the universe formed the planets and such. Abiogenisis is about how life formed.

Evolution starts after those. It is all about how life got from the early bateria to all you see today.

So as long as you can somehow create the planets and life, evolution can still work. Doesn't matter how you create the planets and life; ie god is a posibility, as long as the planets and life are created.

 

[Sha'irullah]

The almighty Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution as evolution is purely biological. The Big Bang is a cosmological genesis not an abiogenesis.

Another great fail in logic it seems. What is this? Like score 40 I think

 

[gnostic]

Evolution is biology.

The Big Bang is astrophysics cosmology, and has nothing to do with life or biology.

And evolution has nothing to do with how life first came to be (ie. the origin of life). Evolution deal with changes of life (such as biological diversity) that already existed or existing, due to changing environmental conditions.

If you really want to know about the origin of life in science, then this is abiogenesis, not evolution.

And lastly, evolution is not a study of life (biodiversity) of another planet. There may be life in other planets in other star system, but if there were other lifeforms out there, scientists can only speculate about extraterrestrial biological life.

 

[gnostic]

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

I wouldn't even call it science.

It is a mishmash of every possible scientific ignorances rolled into one.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I love this question honestly, it implies that the Bang Bang theory was somehow made up at random.
Also the Big Bang cannot be proven false as the basis for a scientific theory is not used int he same colloquial form.

Big Bang, is a fact but as to ow it occurred, we do not know. But we know it happened hence the current expansion of the universe.

 

[Zanuku]

I have the answer!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sculelos, I'd just like to point out something. You keep stating things that are outright wrong, then ignoring the fact that you were wrong and pretending it never happened. Look here:

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

When someone explains to you that this is not true, you change to saying this:

All humans share 100% of the same Genetics. All humans have about 1% of their genetics damaged with 'Mutations' these mutations are never good only harmful and if enough combine in a short enough period of time aka 7 generations it can cause severe birth defects that usually mean end of line for the infected offspring.

Then somebody explains to you that this isn't true either, so you start saying:

Yes most of them are Neutral but think it's because we have replicating sets of DNA and RNA.

You clearly and demonstrably haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. You get all of your science from bizarre, pseudo-scientific blogs and you can't even keep a single one of your scientific claims consistent. We are not all genetically identical, not all mutations are harmful, and the big bang theory does not have anything to do with evolution.

 

[Ouroboros]

Big Bang wouldn't affect Evolution on single bit, because Evolution was a theory in existence a long time before Big Bang was theorized. Before that, the universe was considered static and eternal. Even under the idea of a unchanging universe, no one complained about Evolution.

Based on history, the OP has no case.

 

[Sculelos]

Sculelos, I'd just like to point out something. You keep stating things that are outright wrong, then ignoring the fact that you were wrong and pretending it never happened. Look here:

When someone explains to you that this is not true, you change to saying this:

Then somebody explains to you that this isn't true either, so you start saying:

You clearly and demonstrably haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. You get all of your science from bizarre, pseudo-scientific blogs and you can't even keep a single one of your scientific claims consistent. We are not all genetically identical, not all mutations are harmful, and the big bang theory does not have anything to do with evolution.

Some things are very hard to talk about without stating things that are slightly wrong. Genetics are very close to identical like 99.1%+ identical with only a very few markers that have been restricted to make up the .9% difference and give people individual traits.

Mutations don't add nor remove data but they do rearrange the sequence of data. I've personally never seen a beneficial mutation, that is to say I've seen mutations but all of them have been harmful or neutral.

It's very clear to me that the big bang does not have anything to do with evolution, what's not clear to me is any sort of alternative explanation short of creation.

 

[Meow Mix]

Some things are very hard to talk about without stating things that are slightly wrong. Genetics are very close to identical like 99.1%+ identical with only a very few markers that have been restricted to make up the .9% difference and give people individual traits.

Mutations don't add nor remove data but they do rearrange the sequence of data. I've personally never seen a beneficial mutation, that is to say I've seen mutations but all of them have been harmful or neutral.

It's very clear to me that the big bang does not have anything to do with evolution, what's not clear to me is any sort of alternative explanation short of creation.

You're setting up a false dichotomy. Just because you can't think of any alternatives doesn't mean other alternatives don't exist. The only time there is a true dichotomy for such reasoning to work is when both options are logically exhaustive (e.g., anything other than the positive or its negation entails a superposition or contradiction -- which is not the case with "big bang vs. creation.")

 

[Freelance_Policeman]

Sculelos, what grade of school are you in? What science magazines or blogs do you read? Do you come up with this stuff yourself? I'm trying to understand how you get to these conclusions.

 

[Sculelos]

Sculelos, what grade of school are you in? What science magazines or blogs do you read? Do you come up with this stuff yourself? I'm trying to understand how you get to these conclusions.

I graduated some time ago. As for science I'm not really entirely sure, I read a lot of different stuff from a lot of different sources.

Most of my conclusions are my own based on my own observations or study of work done by others.

While it might look like I've just gone off the deep end if you really think about what I'm saying regarding the 12 main theories in the original post you will see that they all fit together smoothly and perfectly and without each other combined don't work at all.

Edit: Looks like I forgot what OP I was referring to but this was it if you were interested http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ism/151768-12-theories-why-creation-true.html

 

[Sunstone]

Do we have an award for stupid thread titles?

 

[Freelance_Policeman]

I graduated some time ago. As for science I'm not really entirely sure, I read a lot of different stuff from a lot of different sources.

Most of my conclusions are my own based on my own observations or study of work done by others.

While it might look like I've just gone off the deep end if you really think about what I'm saying regarding the 12 main theories in the original post you will see that they all fit together smoothly and perfectly and without each other combined don't work at all.

Edit: Looks like I forgot what OP I was referring to but this was it if you were interested http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ism/151768-12-theories-why-creation-true.html

Your OP demonstrated your ignorance of physics, yes. By the way, converting a neutron to energy and then into an electron would work. Electricity is only a type of energy. Magnetism is a completely different force than gravity. I forgot what else you posted.

No offense, but science just isn't your strong suit. Research your topics before you post.

So did you come up with all this yourself? Or did you find this somewhere?

 

[fantome profane]

I graduated some time ago. As for science I'm not really entirely sure, I read a lot of different stuff from a lot of different sources.

Most of my conclusions are my own based on my own observations or study of work done by others.

While it might look like I've just gone off the deep end if you really think about what I'm saying regarding the 12 main theories in the original post you will see that they all fit together smoothly and perfectly and without each other combined don't work at all.

Edit: Looks like I forgot what OP I was referring to but this was it if you were interested http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ism/151768-12-theories-why-creation-true.html

In the future you should take a good look at those sources and ask yourself if they are legitimate sources on science based of good solid research, or it it is just some guy on the internet making stuff up.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Some things are very hard to talk about without stating things that are slightly wrong.

"We are genetically identical" isn't "slightly wrong", it's just wrong. "Mutations are always harmful" isn't "slightly wrong", it's just wrong. These are extremely basic things that anyone who actually knows anything about genetics would not get even "slightly" wrong.

Genetics are very close to identical like 99.1%+ identical with only a very few markers that have been restricted to make up the .9% difference and give people individual traits.

Which is completely different to what you said before. Therefore, you were wrong and clearly don't know what you are talking about.

Mutations don't add nor remove data but they do rearrange the sequence of data. I've personally never seen a beneficial mutation, that is to say I've seen mutations but all of them have been harmful or neutral.

That is also not what you have said before.

It's very clear to me that the big bang does not have anything to do with evolution, what's not clear to me is any sort of alternative explanation short of creation.

You're extremely fond of completely changing your statements, aren't you?

 

[Alceste]

In the future you should take a good look at those sources and ask yourself if they are legitimate sources on science based of good solid research, or it it is just some guy on the internet making stuff up.

Scululos IS the guy on the internet who makes up all the stuff.