• 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!

The Big Bang and Evolution

siti

siti

Well-Known Member
Valjean said:
Balderdash!
Click to expand...
Geez I wish I'd said that! I certainly can't think of a better word for some of what I've read in this thread. Poor old Ubon must be (like me) wondering where the hell he has wandered into.

Anyway - the evidence for the Big Bang are red shift and the cosmic microwave background and the BBC has a fairly simple explanation that should be accessible to most education levels represented in RF. I don't mean that disrespectfully at all - or do I? I suppose that's open to interpretation - as, of course, is the conclusion that this evidence supports the idea of a Big Bang - but the alternative scientific explanations (steady state universe etc. have been fairly roundly discredited by the accumulated evidence of the last 70 years).

And here is a video with evidence supporting evolution

Take it or leave it - but you can't say the evidence doesn't exist.

And, as the OP suggested, now that we have the evidence, we have to conclude either that this is the way God did it or that this is the way Nature did it. The evidence doesn't say either way - but it does suggest that nature was more than capable - once it started - of getting on with it without God fiddling with everything.
 
Last edited:
siti

siti

Well-Known Member
omega2xx said:
Evidently you don't understand that when there is no evidence, non can be provided . :p
Click to expand...
Evidently you didn't read the evidence that was provided. Here's the challenge:

Part 1: Explain (the routinely observed fact of) red shift without the idea that distant galaxies are accelerating away from us and therefore must have once been much closer together and must have been propelled apart by a fairly large explosion.

Part 2: Then explain, without the idea of this large explosion, how come, after a few decades, one of the main predicted observations of "Big Bang" theory - that there should be some kind of energy signature pervading the universe as a remnant of this large explosion - was indeed observed (15 years after it was predicted when observation finally caught up with theory) and has been confirmed by hundreds of experiments since then. For this, you have to explain - without the aid of Big Bang theory why there is background radiation at all (in a steady state universe there would be none - even there once was it would have dispersed epochs before now) AND why it is now in the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum.

OK, that will do for the Big Bang. The evidence is before you - if you can explain these observations (which total in the thousands at least if you count all of the red-shift and microwave background measurements that have been made in the last 50 or so years) without recourse to Big Bang theory - I'll believe you.

If you can convince me on that - and trust me I'll believe you if you present evidence - then we can look at evolution too.
 
O

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
siti said:
Evidently you didn't read the evidence that was provided. Here's the challenge:

Part 1: Explain (the routinely observed fact of) red shift without the idea that distant galaxies are accelerating away from us and therefore must have once been much closer together and must have been propelled apart by a fairly large explosion.
Click to expand...

For all you k now God may have creatded it that way. However, think abut this. If there was a BB a gazillion years ago to still be pushing matter away. It would have been so strong, the universe would have no stars. They would have been reduced to dust. Also, even if what you say is true, it does not explain the origin of the sun or of life.

This is a perfect example of an opinion being presented a evidence. What you say may be true, but you can't prove it.

art 2: Then explain, without the idea of this large explosion, how come, after a few decades, one of the main predicted observations of "Big Bang" theory - that there should be some kind of energy signature pervading the universe as a remnant of this large explosion - was indeed observed (15 years after it was predicted when observation finally caught up with theory) and has been confirmed by hundreds of experiments since then. For this, you have to explain - without the aid of Big Bang theory why there is background radiation at all (in a steady state universe there would be none - even there once was it would have dispersed epochs before now) AND why it is now in the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Click to expand...

More speculation. There is no way you can say what happened 15 years after an event million of years ago. Are you seriously saying background radiation resulted from the BB? What expirements are you referring to.


OK, that will do for the Big Bang. The evidence is before you - if you can explain these observations (which total in the thousands at least if you count all of the red-shift and microwave background measurements that have been made in the last 50 or so years) without recourse to Big Bang theory - I'll believe you.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what expirements you ae referring to. Since there is background radiation in the atmosphere now, you certainly can't trace it back to an event that you say happened billion of years ago. That is absured.

If you can convince me on that - and trust me I'll believe you if you present evidence - then we can look at evolution too.
Click to expand...

I am not trying to convince you of anything expect what you have presented can't be proven. There is no way you can trace background radiation to a source you say happened billions of year ago. You also have another problem; what is the source of the matter than went bang and how it create the sun and life.

At least you tried, which more than any of the others have done.
 
O

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
Valjean said:
Evidently you don't understand that there is abundant, robust evidence for evolution and the Big Bang, and no real evidence at all for ID.
Click to expand...

What I don't understand is that if there is so much evidence why has no one presented any of it. Siti just tried but nothing he said can be proved as being evidence of the BB.

There is no way you can trace the presence of background radiation back to a source billion of yeas ago. That is absurd and anyone with an open mind would know it is.
 
O

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
Valjean said:
Omega, you'd do well to hold your opinions to yourself. Your comments reveal you have no knowledge either of Big Bang theory or of eighth grade physics.
Click to expand...

Right. agree with he evos you you just don't understand. How self serving. That is the response every time an evo, can't provide the evidence for what they believe. How sad. You don't even understand what real scientific evidence is.
 
siti

siti

Well-Known Member
OK Omega - I'll respond to the relevant parts of your post only:
omega2xx said:
For all you k now God may have creatded it that way.
Click to expand...
True - I never said I could prove otherwise (in fact I said exactly the same thing as you in post 21 - that's the one with all the non-existent evidence you keep talking about) and neither does science - science only offers explanations that do not necessitate recourse to supernatural causation. It does not set out to prove the God/no God argument at all.
omega2xx said:
even if what you say is true, it does not explain the origin of the sun or of life.
Click to expand...
Well spotted, BB theory does not explain these things - and neither does the Bible teach us how to service a Toyota Hilux engine - and that proves it must be wrong!?
omega2xx said:
This is a perfect example...
Click to expand...
Thanks, I'm glad you liked it.
omega2xx said:
Are you seriously saying background radiation resulted from the BB?
Click to expand...
Oh yes! Very seriously! Interesting isn't it?
omega2xx said:
What expirements are you referring to.
Click to expand...
First, 1964 Penzias and Wilson, then in no particular order, COBE, RELIKT1, WMAP, DASI, BOOMERanG, BICEP2, the Planck Telescope...look them up - you might even learn something...Oh yes - and you can even do one yourself - tune your tv between Hope Channel and TBN and look at the 'interference' on the screen - about 1% of it is your tv antenna picking up this background remnant of the Big Bang.
omega2xx said:
At least you tried, which more than any of the others have done.
Click to expand...
Why thank you - you are most absuredly kind! But I'm not really sure whether the attempt is all that credit-worthy - the others probably just knew better already! Anyway, the info might be useful if anyone is genuinely interested in evidence.
 
Last edited:
ronandcarol

ronandcarol

Member
Premium Member
jonathan180iq said:
Both The Big Bang and Evolutionary Theory have substantiating data and studies supporting them.
What data substantiates the God claim?
Click to expand...
His written word..........He created all things, (yes, you and me too), and He had the wisdom to have ALL THINGS replenish and reproduce from seed of itself. Wow! The thought of man evolving from ________ (whatever you want to put in there), is a perfect example of "fake News". Read the first couple chapters of Genesis and you will know where you came from.

ronandcarol
 
Jeremiahcp

Jeremiahcp

Well-Known Jerk
Ubon said:
If God exists perhaps the big bang was his way of creating the universe making scientist and Religion correct.

Maybe he is also responsible for evolution.
Click to expand...

Or maybe it was Fred the old redneck that lives down the street from me.

Or maybe it was Ted the purple dragon that lives under my bed.

Oh Oh I know, I bet it was Sarah the mouse that lives in my wall.

Wait I figured it out.. . . It was Chuck Norris that caused the Big Bang.


10r1zj.jpg
 
siti

siti

Well-Known Member
Actually, @ronandcarol the "knowing" bit is in Chapter 3 - if you know what it means by "knew" then you'll know that we came from knowing - but I am guessing those in the know knew enough to know that already anyway. Thanks all the same - its been nice knowing you!
 
Milton Platt

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Ubon said:
If God exists perhaps the big bang was his way of creating the universe making scientist and Religion correct.

Maybe he is also responsible for evolution.
Click to expand...
Have heard this line a million times. Why insert an unnecessary supernatural entity you have no hope of finding good evidence for as a placeholder for your lack of knowledge when we already have demonstrated that virtually everything we have investigated about the universe can be explained with natural causes???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top