The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[ratiocinator]

And why are so many people questioning the Big Bang?

Within science, they really aren't. Of course there is much that we don't know but hardly anybody who knows anything about the subject is questioning that the universe expanded from a hot dense state about 13.7 billion years ago.

None of the links you keep posting bring it into question. Either they're old and resolved, written by people who don't understand, or don't say what you think they do because you seem to be too lazy to read anything but the headline and too ignorant of science to understand.

 

[ratiocinator]

Do yiu think they will ever answer the origin of anything in all creation.

They already have. Your baseless myths offer nothing but vacuous 'just so' stories that don't fit the evidence.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Do yiu think they will ever answer the origin of anything in all creation.

They already have. Your baseless myths offer nothing but vacuous 'just so' stories that don't fit the evidence.

So what was the first living thing and what features did it have?
What caused the Big Bang and where did all the finely tuned orderly laws of nature come from?

 

[gnostic]

What evidence?
prove a single 1.
I have already refuted abiogenesis which refutes evolution.
I have already refuted the Big Bang.
Both refute billions of years.

You have only shown your dishonesty in every single points, is what you have done, as you haven’t got a single evidence. You don’t even know how to assess the evidence for each of these different studies.

Beside that, of the 3, abiogenesis is still a hypothesis…not yet “science”…however, it is a “working” “falsifiable” hypothesis.

Plus, your ignorance to science is showing too, because even if you do manage to refute (which you haven’t), it wouldn’t refute evolution, because the theory of evolution was never about the origin of first life.

But please keep entertaining us with your absurd fanciful claims, because there are nothing more silly than seeing you repeatedly shooting off your own feet.

 

[Polymath257]

And why are so many people questioning the Big Bang?
Because the evidence refutes it.

1. Scientists, as a part of their job, question ALL ideas. That doesn't mean the ideas are wrong.

2. Some people misunderstand what the scientists are saying and write articles based on that misunderstanding. This leads to a LOT of misinformation about science in the popular press.

3. Some people are trying to promote anti-scientific views because it leads to more 'clicks', more church donations, more political power, etc. Those who are scientifically illiterate don't do any real research into the matter and so continue to spread the resulting lies.

If you go to the scientific journals, you can get the real story, but you need to have enough background to actually read and understand what is being said. Usually, a good upper level undergraduate class will be enough to get the main ideas, but the details will be lost.

Basic lesson: do not trust popular articles about science, especially those written by someone with an ideological axe to grind. Go and read some actual textbooks first and then read skeptically.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

1. Scientists, as a part of their job, question ALL ideas. That doesn't mean the ideas are wrong.

2. Some people misunderstand what the scientists are saying and write articles based on that misunderstanding. This leads to a LOT of misinformation about science in the popular press.

3. Some people are trying to promote anti-scientific views because it leads to more 'clicks', more church donations, more political power, etc. Those who are scientifically illiterate don't do any real research into the matter and so continue to spread the resulting lies.

If you go to the scientific journals, you can get the real story, but you need to have enough background to actually read and understand what is being said. Usually, a good upper level undergraduate class will be enough to get the main ideas, but the details will be lost.

Basic lesson: do not trust popular articles about science, especially those written by someone with an ideological axe to grind. Go and read some actual textbooks first and then read skeptically.

So the scientists are questions that idea that God does not exist.

 

[Polymath257]

Do yiu think they will ever answer the origin of anything in all creation.

Sure. We understand a good deal about the origin of planets: we can see planets forming around other stars and so can test our ideas.

We understand the origin of stars: we can see stars being formed in 'stellar nurseries' and test our ideas using that data.

We understand the origin of many of the basic chemical elements (not all) that we see around us. We can see the results of supernova and use that data (along with accelerator data) to test our ideas.

One issue with the origin of life is that there is very little data left from that time on the one place in the universe that has life (the Earth). Even finding rocks of the appropriate age isn't easy: most have been 'recycled' due to geologic processes.

The origin of the universe as a whole has the big issue that we cannot see directly before the decoupling of light and matter. So we have very little data to go on to test our ideas.

You see, science is based on *data*. If there isn't a lot of data about a particular origin, we are limited in what we can say.

 

[Polymath257]

So the scientists are questions that idea that God does not exist.

When good evidence is given for the existence, scientists will consider it. As of now, no such evidence exists, so it isn't a hypothesis that is useful for explaining anything at all.

 

[Polymath257]

So what was the first living thing and what features did it have?

We do not know specifics because we have no relevant data from that time. We have some characteristics, though: the first life was single celled, had a lipid bilayer enclosing the cell, most likely used RNA for both genetics and as a catalyst, probably with some proteins incorporated as well.

What caused the Big Bang and where did all the finely tuned orderly laws of nature come from?

1. As has noted many times, we don't know that there *was* a 'cause' for the Big Bang. If time itself started at that point (which is quite possible based on the data we have), there would have been no 'cause'.

As for the laws of nature: they are descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, they *describe* how things work; they do not *dictate* how things work.

So the question is why things have properties and don't simply act randomly. But this is asking for a mechanism, which is simply another level of description. At the most fundamental level, the laws *cannot* be based on deeper reasons.

Finally, the 'God Hypothesis' doesn't manage to answer *any* of these questions. It gives a 'just so' account that is untestable and thereby immune from data. That makes is absolutely USELESS as an explanation.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

We do not know specifics because we have no relevant data from that time. We have some characteristics, though: the first life was single celled, had a lipid bilayer enclosing the cell, most likely used RNA for both genetics and as a catalyst, probably with some proteins incorporated as well.


1. As has noted many times, we don't know that there *was* a 'cause' for the Big Bang. If time itself started at that point (which is quite possible based on the data we have), there would have been no 'cause'.

As for the laws of nature: they are descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, they *describe* how things work; they do not *dictate* how things work.

So the question is why things have properties and don't simply act randomly. But this is asking for a mechanism, which is simply another level of description. At the most fundamental level, the laws *cannot* be based on deeper reasons.

Finally, the 'God Hypothesis' doesn't manage to answer *any* of these questions. It gives a 'just so' account that is untestable and thereby immune from data. That makes is absolutely USELESS as an explanation.

And the code for the first living creature was?
And how many proteins did it have?

 

[Polymath257]

And the code for the first living creature was?
And how many proteins did it have?

We do not know specifics because there is no data about such that has survived (that we have found).

Once again, science is based on data. Without data, nothing further can be said.

In the case of the first living things, the main data we have are the characteristics of the living things since that time. This doesn't allow the deduction of the answers to your questions above.

Here's a question: how does assuming the existence of a deity help to answer those questions in a testable way?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think so but then I'm sure you think you are scientifically literate and I am not. Lol. so as my brother in law says, have a good one.

I can demonstrate that I am far more scientifically literate than you are. It is not that hard. Would you like me to do so?

You should not make false accusations against others. You tried to imply that my knowledge was just a belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And the code for the first living creature was?

867-5309

 

[Polymath257]

You need to get away from the false teachers and just look for it on the Internet.
More and more data is refuting the Big Bang .

There is much, much more that refutes the Bible. And the data that 'refutes' the Big Bang is usually just data that shows we don't understand some specifics like the characteristics of early stars or the early development of galaxies. Neither of those refutes the BB model.

 

[Polymath257]

867-5309

Now you put that song in my head......

 

[Subduction Zone]

What evidence?
prove a single 1.
I have already refuted abiogenesis which refutes evolution.
I have already refuted the Big Bang.
Both refute billions of years.

Silly questions that only demonstrate your ignorance of the sciences are not refutations.

And no, in your "refutation" of the Big Bang you implied that the universe was infinitely old. You forgot your own arguments. And abiogenesis has nothing to do with the age of the Earth so you just refuted yourself in your own post.

Ironically, creationists often try to use "Look at the trees! Look at the animals!" as a refutation of evolution. If one is a YEC that argument refutes their beliefs. All that one has to do is to say:

"Look at the stars!!"

If YEC beliefs were true we could not even see out of our own galaxy.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Silly questions that only demonstrate your ignorance of the sciences are not refutations.

And no, in your "refutation" of the Big Bang you implied that the universe was infinitely old. You forgot your own arguments. And abiogenesis has nothing to do with the age of the Earth so you just refuted yourself in your own post.

Ironically, creationists often try to use "Look at the trees! Look at the animals!" as a refutation of evolution. If one is a YEC that argument refutes their beliefs. All that one has to do is to say:

"Look at the stars!!"

If YEC beliefs were true we could not even see out of our own galaxy.

Without abiogenesis, there is no evolution or life forms.
And of course then the fossil rock layers have no dating because evolution does nit happen without a first living creature

 

[YoursTrue]

Okay @SavedByTheLord, I know I'll regret asking, but please share with us your evidence based theory on the origin of the cosmos.

there IS not one iota of "evidence" scientifically that is for the "origin" of the universe. Have a good one. As someone said, scientific theories can be wrong and less wrong.

 

[SalixIncendium]

there IS not one iota of "evidence" scientifically that is for the "origin" of the universe.

Why is evidence in quotes?

Have a good one.

Is this your way of saying that you're preemptively going to shut down any response I make?

As someone said, scientific theories can be wrong and less wrong.

Who said that?

 

[YoursTrue]

Without abiogenesis, there is no evolution or life forms.
And of course then the fossil rock layers have no dating because evolution does nit happen without a first living creature

some people just either don't want to get that or they willfully misrepresent the TRUTH. The theory of evolution simply could not have emerged etc. without abiogenesis. As someone here said, science can be wrong and maybe less wrong when they revise a scientifically 'educated' opinion. Less wrong.