Bigbang/Evolution discussion 4,389

[neo of the mind]

Taken from PetriFB's "Ufos on consideration" thread. The author of the website has some interesting reading on this subject as well.

http://koti.phnet.fi/elohim/theory_of_evolution

[JoeR]

I stopped reading when it confused evolution and abiogenesis in the first paragraph.

[burntgorilla]

Must we argue about this again? The religious ones have built their entire belief system on the Bible being absolute fact, so they can never possibly accept that they might be wrong. The scientific people aren't going to suddenly convert and start looking to a millenia-old book for their scientific information, so is there really any point?

[neo of the mind]

I stopped reading when it confused evolution and abiogenesis in the first paragraph.


No confusion, the author starts off discussing abiogenesis and then discusses evolution. The author goes from a larger scope (Big Bang Theory) to a smaller scope (Evolution). Keep reading. LOL.

[neo of the mind]

Must we argue about this again? The religious ones have built their entire belief system on the Bible being absolute fact, so they can never possibly accept that they might be wrong. The scientific people aren't going to suddenly convert and start looking to a millenia-old book for their scientific information, so is there really any point?

I don't think the author uses the Bible in the discussion at all, he just refutes the logic of the other side of the debate. with details of their evidence.

You don't have to do anything.

[JoeR]

"Hence they believe that the theory of evolution, in which everything is thought to have been born by itself, is correct."

First paragrpah.


I also find it suspect that most of the scientific quotes they pull out come from old sources, mostly late 19th to early 20th century. These aren't my areas of expertise, am I just supposed to trust that there haven't been new advances since those days?

[burntgorilla]

I don't think the author uses the Bible in the discussion at all, he just refutes the logic of the other side of the debate. with details of their evidence.

You don't have to do anything.

Yes, but it's based on the Bible. It's creationism, for God's sake. He's not going to suddenly say "ye know, evolution is correct. Whoops, that's me without a faith system!".

[JoeR]

"Doesn't it, however, require quite a lot of faith to believe that from this small point, the size of a pin, all life, the diversity of nature and the whole current universe was born? Doesn't it require more faith than believing that God created everything?"

I'd say believing in supernatural causes for anything takes a lot more faith than to believe in any natural causes. I doubt our current theories are 100% correct, but that doesn't leave supernatural causes as the only explanation.

[neo of the mind]

Yes, but it's based on the Bible. It's creationism, for God's sake. He's not going to suddenly say "ye know, evolution is correct. Whoops, that's me without a faith system!".



Uh...again he doesn't discuss creationism in the articles.

[neo of the mind]

"Doesn't it, however, require quite a lot of faith to believe that from this small point, the size of a pin, all life, the diversity of nature and the whole current universe was born? Doesn't it require more faith than believing that God created everything?"

I'd say believing in supernatural causes for anything takes a lot more faith than to believe in any natural causes. I doubt our current theories are 100% correct, but that doesn't leave supernatural causes as the only explanation.

But it's "a" explanation.

I would agree with the author on this. The whole universe reduced to the size of a pin point. Sorry, but God is a more logical.

[burntgorilla]

Uh...again he doesn't discuss creationism in the articles.

*sigh* Think for a bit. He has to criticise the Big Bang theory, because otherwise his own beliefs would be invalidated. Therefore he has no choice. If he's against the scientific theories, the only alternative for him is the creationist theory.

I've been reading the first page, and I'd just like to point out a few things:

Without the sun the temperature would be almost 273 degrees celcius, it would be dark and the water would be frozen – the conditions would be impossible for life.

Yes, 273 degrees celcius is very cold. :rolleyes: If he can't work out degrees, I doubt his scientific mind is up to much.

For example the galaxy Andromeda (according to a claimed value it should approach us 300 kilometres a second!) and certain other galaxies would seem to approach us instead of moving away. This shouldn't be in any way possible if the cosmos really do expand. Exceptions of this kind indicate that the red and blue shift values aren't necessarily at all in connection with their motion.

It's quite possible. It's called gravity. Look at that picture of the galaxies taken by the Hubble telescope. They don't radiate outwards perfectly. They clump together. Because of gravity. I don't know where he got the idea that it would be impossible from.

Not detectable with the naked eye. Another evidence against the expansion is that we can't detect it with the naked eye or even with a telescope.

Why would we? Red shift occurs at wavelengths occurring outside the human range.

So he clearly knows sweet FA about what he is writing. Anyone wanting to learn about red shift would be wiser to go here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift).

Edit:

So, a good question is what caused the explosion and expansion? If the force of gravity has prevented all escaping (= in other words explosion), it would also mean that any explosion and expansion couldn't have even started. In vain we would be waiting for the impossible from this theory.

This has, of course, tried to be explained for instance by cosmic repulsion, but if all material had condensed together expressly because of the force of gravity so that no other power could win it, how then could the same force of gravity suddenly cease to function completely? The same physical laws, which have shrunk material into a small point, can't suddenly change and cease to function. If we don't take this matter into consideration, it would mean that there is no meaning in these physical laws, even though they affect our daily lives.



He could do with brushing up on E = mc^2.

[neo of the mind]

*sigh* Think for a bit. He has to criticise the Big Bang theory, because otherwise his own beliefs would be invalidated. Therefore he has no choice. If he's against the scientific theories, the only alternative for him is the creationist theory.
.

Ok, thanks for the quote...I will use this now on for any refutation on the subject. :rolleyes:

[burntgorilla]

Ok, thanks for the quote...I will use this now on for any refutation on the subject. :rolleyes:

On which subject? Creationism, or evolution?

[heel31ok]

you all need to brush up on some Billy Preston, and Yukon Cornelius.confirmed by Bob Dylan.

[Art of War]

This author lacks any comprehension of the issues he is discussing. Any person who has ever taken an astronomy class (I.E. me) can tell that stellar redshifts are not attributed to the standard doppler effect but rather it is atrributed cosmilogical redshift (AKA hubble redshift). That is to say the author assumes that the light wave shifts we see in space are a result of the motion of stellar objects. Simply put he is flat out wrong. Cosmological redshift is attributed to the actual expansion of space not the motion of the objects in space.

So already we can see this guy doesn't really understand what he is talking about.

He continues to make further errors in describing the early universe. He describes the singularity that is the universe as "static and stable". Let me be clear. The cingularity that spawned the big bang is the universe. Matter did not expand into the universe due to the big bang the big bang expanded the universe. This is a very important distinction because we know the universe isn't exactly stable and it is certainly not static.

So once again the author has made a massive mistake.

As for the gravity problem he proposes one needs not look further than the mechanics of a supernova. The only difference is that a supernova ultimately will cease its expansion while the universe is increasing in expansion.

There is actually far too much here to criticize just let it be know that pretty much each and every objection he has to the big bang is quite laughable and fairly easily explained.

[brainpan]

This author lacks any comprehension of the issues he is discussing...Cosmological redshift is attributed to the actual expansion of space not the motion of the objects in space.It gets better. He goes on to argue for the steady state universe.

The fact the Andromeda galaxy is moving towards us is evidence enough, apparently, that red shifts don't indicate an expanding universe. I guess he hasn't heard of the Local Group of galaxies, or has somehow failed to grasp the dynamics of it.

[Alvin T. Grey]

What a pooh pooh head.
So, a good question is what caused the explosion and expansion? If the force of gravity has prevented all escaping (= in other words explosion), it would also mean that any explosion and expansion couldn't have even started. In vain we would be waiting for the impossible from this theory.

This has, of course, tried to be explained for instance by cosmic repulsion, but if all material had condensed together expressly because of the force of gravity so that no other power could win it, how then could the same force of gravity suddenly cease to function completely? The same physical laws, which have shrunk material into a small point, can't suddenly change and cease to function. If we don't take this matter into consideration, it would mean that there is no meaning in these physical laws, even though they affect our daily lives.
I'm no cosmologist, just an interested reader of popular science with a fairly good (if basic) education. Even I understand the nature of gravity as being comparativly week, but immensly long ranged when compared to nuclear forces which are amazingly powerfull, but awefully short ranged.
Scrunch something up using it's own gravity, and it will eventually get to a point (if it's mass was sufficent in the first place) for these nuclear forces to come into play.

With very loud results.

Gravity didn't stop working. It got jumped all over by a 300lb Gorila. (sorry BG, I wasn't referring to you)

[Strel]

The linked essay is complete crap.

273 Celsius is "cold". Hah.


Until you Creationists learn some actual science, you will remain intellectual punching bags for those of us that understand it.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Actually, the whole series of essays on that web site seem to be rather poorly written - a lot of copy/pasting, with the extra commentary usually not adding anything or just muddling it up.

The "UFO as evil spirits" is a prime example - after a few paragraphs, it turns into a discussion of Reincarnation - which he explains by stating that UFOs know the teachings of Hinduism. Or maybe he means UFO believers know the teaching of Hinduism. Then he goes off on some ramble about the union of 10 countires being led by the Anti-Christ (gee, bummer that the EU expanded their membership past 10) - I guess because so many in the EU are Hinduist New Age UFO worshippers.

I'll give the author a break if he's originally writing this stuff in Finnish and then translating it to English, but frankly, this stuff is garbage. Poorly written and poorly thought out garbage.

So, question for those who keep posting this Jari Iivanainen drivel - is this the Biblical Christian's great thinker? You folks keep referring to him (I'm guessing it's a him). Personally, the nonsense at AiG is at least somewhat coherent - this guy is just hurting your cause. But if you think that salvation is found by hating Hindu-flown UFOs that prove that the world is flat and young, well, I'm not going to talk you out of it.