100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid (Part 1 of 11)

[temporalillusion]

Here is an example how misleading it is to use terms like straw man, word salad, true Scotsman, or any of the other terms atheists like to use in an argument.

It doesn't correct or educate the one making the claim, it simply dismisses them or feeds the fire.

Because that's what a logical fallacy means; that the argument is fallacious and invalid, so it's the responsibility of the person making the argument to go back and make a better argument.

You could just politely ask for more information too. If you had simply asked "Why is the question flawed" when it was first pointed out that it was flawed it would have gone a lot better for you.

If Dr. Hovind or I ask what exploded in the Big Bang theory and I get 327 responses calling us idiots, Creotards, straw men or tin men I'm just going to come back at you with more of the same.

Part of it is because you don't give any indication that you have read or understand or accept (or even reject for a specific reason) the reasonable explanations given to you.

And part of it is because people expect other people to educate themselves on a topic before strongly attacking the subject...

I gave you a direct answer, which you even quoted, and then after that you still said no one had given you an answer.

The responses you get are a direct result of your behaviour.

That it is my opinion that almost all atheists are just socially and or politically frustrated people in a "Christian" society I would imagine that an occasional scapegoat is exactly what you need, but the fact that you would stress the importance of education falls on deaf ears.

 

[David Henson]

If you want to discuss the Big Bang, rather than Evolution as your thread title claims, then I suggest you start a new thread asking to discuss the Big Bang. I suggest the science forum, rather than the religion forum.

I will explain this again. This thread is the first of 11 parts dealing with the subject of evolution as given in 6 definitions, the first being Cosmic evolution - the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.

If there are objections to that being what you would term as "evolution" please state why it isn't and then address the two points of contention I raised from the video.

1. What Exploded? Which has been addressed as space and time, which I don't think is a very good answer but it is the best I have from this forum.

2. Why the Big Bang Theory has changed so much in a relatively short period of time? Which has been addressed as being what science does.

My next post will be Part 2 of 11.

 

[iknownothing]

If Dr. Hovind or I ask what exploded in the Big Bang theory and I get 327 responses calling us idiots, Creotards, straw men or tin men I'm just going to come back at you with more of the same.

You got a number of solid answers to the questions, but kept ignoring them and claiming no one had answered. That is why people are dismissive of you.

Try going back to some of the serious answers you got and responding to them.

 

[SOdhner]

I will explain this again. This thread is the first of 11 parts dealing with the subject of evolution as given in 6 definitions, the first being Cosmic evolution - the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.

But nobody calls it "cosmic evolution". It was a really misleading title, and I'm not at all surprised we have focused on evolution.

It really might make more sense for you to start a thread on BBT if you want to discuss that, since this one hasn't really covered it. (Or actually it HAS, just not to your satisfaction and not as the main topic.)

Of course, as someone else just said it would probably be better on a different subforum. I'd also like to point out that the understanding of it that you summarized in the first post is way, WAY off-base and so arguing against it would be a straw man argument. (I'm hoping you won't mind me referring to it as such since I'm trying to go into more detail). I say that because nobody with knowledge fo the subject is proposing what you state in that first post, so any argument against it isn't really against the BBT but against some other thing that Hovind made up.

 

[Vorticity]

I will explain this again. This thread is the first of 11 parts dealing with the subject of evolution as given in 6 definitions, the first being Cosmic evolution - the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
...

Just to reiterate. The origin of this notion (the "6 definitions of evolution") is from a Chick tract:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

You have to understand that there is a difference between the common definition of "evolution" and the one used by biologists. The word "evolution" is universally understood on this board to refer to the theory of biological evolution via natural selection. This is why you are getting so much resistance on discussing the non-biological processes you've lumped under the label "evolution".

 

[Pup]

Here is an example how misleading it is to use terms like straw man, word salad, true Scotsman, or any of the other terms atheists like to use in an argument.

It doesn't correct or educate the one making the claim, it simply dismisses them or feeds the fire.

And yet you chose to start a thread titled "100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid."

You reap what you sow.

 

[Sledge]

Wait, so is this thread arguing that not only is the theory of evolution as it applies to biology stupid, but that anything that is described as evolution is stupid? Good grief, this is getting dumber all the time. My strategies for playing Fallout 3 have evolved, is that stupid?

 

[temporalillusion]

David, you've been offered a free book about the history and content of the Big Bang Theory, if you want to learn about it, why not accept the offer? If the many posts in this thread aren't to your satisfaction, a more structured and progressive learning of BBT from a book might be better for you.

 

[Belz...]

Stop.

So what's the point of the bible, then, if interpretation is the only thing giving it value ?

 

[John Jones]

The earth is a big rock, or a big speck of cosmic dust, upon which and from the marvelous complexity of life arose by random chance.

or, in other words,

you came from a rock by accident

or not.

Those are your choices, no matter how much you try to fluff it up.

False dichotomy fallacy.

 

[Cainkane1]

I will explain this again. This thread is the first of 11 parts dealing with the subject of evolution as given in 6 definitions, the first being Cosmic evolution - the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.

If there are objections to that being what you would term as "evolution" please state why it isn't and then address the two points of contention I raised from the video.

1. What Exploded? Which has been addressed as space and time, which I don't think is a very good answer but it is the best I have from this forum.

2. Why the Big Bang Theory has changed so much in a relatively short period of time? Which has been addressed as being what science does.

My next post will be Part 2 of 11.

1. Lacking a time machine scientists don't know what was there before the big bang.

2. The Big Bang theory has changed because science unlike theism obtains new knowledge and changes their theories likewise.

 

[Belz...]

I will explain this again. This thread is the first of 11 parts dealing with the subject of evolution as given in 6 definitions, the first being Cosmic evolution - the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.

And everyone here has been very clear to you that the Big Bang and evolution have nothing to do with one another.

1. What Exploded? Which has been addressed as space and time, which I don't think is a very good answer but it is the best I have from this forum.

It's the TRUE answer. Space and time (the dimensions) have expanded due to the Big Bang.

2. Why the Big Bang Theory has changed so much in a relatively short period of time? Which has been addressed as being what science does.

Yes, unlike religion.

 

[SOdhner]

So what's the point of the bible, then, if interpretation is the only thing giving it value ?

Well, if one table leg is shorter than the others...

I kid, I kid.

I go to a church were they don't think the bible is literally true, and question the motives and identities of the writers, and all that good stuff. We still read passages out of it though, because there's a lot of good lessons you can either take from it or base off of it. There's also a lot of stuff we don't use, of course.

ETA: Of course that doesn't explain why you would trust the bible over science, which is why we don't.

 

[X]

Here is an example how misleading it is to use terms like straw man, word salad, true Scotsman, or any of the other terms atheists like to use in an argument.

It doesn't correct or educate the one making the claim, it simply dismisses them or feeds the fire.

If Dr. Hovind or I ask what exploded in the Big Bang theory and I get 327 responses calling us idiots, Creotards, straw men or tin men I'm just going to come back at you with more of the same. That it is my opinion that almost all atheists are just socially and or politically frustrated people in a "Christian" society I would imagine that an occasional scapegoat is exactly what you need, but the fact that you would stress the importance of education falls on deaf ears.

I have learned from this myself in just the last couple of days, though my terminology tends to be far more vulgar and politically incorrect it amounts to the same thing.

You are, again, funadamentally wrong.


We are not calling you a "strawman". We are calling your arguments "strawman arguments".

We are not calling you a "true Scotsman". We are calling your arugments "No True Scotsman" arguments.

Both of the above are known as "Logical Fallacies". What this means is that the arguments are bad. They rest on fallacious reasoning. The terms are certainly not particular or exclusive to atheists. In fact, atheism and an understanding of logical fallacies have nothing to do with each other. Skepticism and Critical Thinking, however, have a lot to do with understanding logcial fallacies. And as this is a board devoted to skepticism, critical thinking and education, you will find that the terms are used frequently, to point out why certain arguments are invalid.

The terms are actually very well and broadly known. Their meaning is easy to find, and they've been explained to you already, so I'm not going to bother linking to descriptions for you. Before you go whining that "the atheists are caling me a strawman to avoid debate", try educating yourself in the basics of logic. Because there is no point to debating logical fallacies. They are fallacious! That means they are wrong in and of themselves, and do not provide one iota of support to any position. So why bother debating nonsense?

Further, your view that it does not correct or educate the one making the claim is absurd. We are educating you. We are telling you that your argument is invalid, and we are telling you the reason why. A reasonable person would read what we say, make the effort to understand it (and ask if they need clarification), and learn from it. Then they would use that feedback to improve their position by not relying on fallacious arguments. Or someone might realize there were wrong and change their views.

To continue to use fallacious arguments after being shown why they are fallacious speaks loudly of either an unwillingness to learn, a dogmatic position, or an utter ignorance of critical thinking.

Fortunately, with a little effort on your part, these are cureable.

 

[zooterkin]

I will explain this again. This thread is the first of 11 parts dealing with the subject of evolution as given in 6 definitions, the first being Cosmic evolution - the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.

If there are objections to that being what you would term as "evolution" please state why it isn't and then address the two points of contention I raised from the video.

"Evolution" generally refers to the Evolution of species. The creation of the earth/universe, and the beginning of life are two completely separate topics from evolution, though, as the video demonstrates, some people like to mix them up (if they believe that the universe and life were created directly by god, and there is no evolution, I suppose that is somewhat understandable).

1. What Exploded? Which has been addressed as space and time, which I don't think is a very good answer but it is the best I have from this forum.

Oh, come on, you're now forgetting a number of answers, some of which you've even acknowledged:

The Big Bang is an expansion of space-time, not an explosion.

So Big Bang only in name. Curious.

 

[SumDood]

Here is an example how misleading it is to use terms like straw man, word salad, true Scotsman, or any of the other terms atheists like to use in an argument.

It doesn't correct or educate the one making the claim, it simply dismisses them or feeds the fire.

If Dr. Hovind or I ask what exploded in the Big Bang theory and I get 327 responses calling us idiots, Creotards, straw men or tin men I'm just going to come back at you with more of the same. That it is my opinion that almost all atheists are just socially and or politically frustrated people in a "Christian" society I would imagine that an occasional scapegoat is exactly what you need, but the fact that you would stress the importance of education falls on deaf ears.

I have learned from this myself in just the last couple of days, though my terminology tends to be far more vulgar and politically incorrect it amounts to the same thing.

Yes, atheist like to point out logical fallacies, but they are in no way unique to atheists. They are used in all types of debate to point out flaws in one's argument.

Many common anti-evolution straw men arguments are:
"Why doesn't a monkey give birth to a human baby?"
"I don't have a tail, so I didn't come from a monkey."
"Everybody knows that a dog will produce a dog and not an ear of corn."
"At what point did the fish (that sprouted legs and grew lungs) give birth to a mammal?"

There is no other way to refute these claims other than saying "Evolution does not make these claims."

If i were to say, "why should i believe in god because the bible says god came from dog farts, and that's clearly ridiculous?" someone would likely say, "well, the bible doesn't say that". And if i actually wanted to learn something, i would reply "Really? It doesn't? I thought it did. I suppose i should do more research on the subject." I don't understand why you are so reluctant to have the same attitude.

 

[excaza]

DH,

In retrospect, I can see how the discussion of evolution (as Darwin advanced it) isn't completely relevant to the OP. However, the thread title is incredibly misleading, as is the course of your discussions where you engage in discussion on both BBT and evolution, hence why the thread is full of posts about both subjects. You may understand that BBT is completely unrelated to the theory of evolution (at least I hope you do by now). Unfortunately, Hovnid makes no such distinction, clearly shown in his 'dissertation' and his lectures. He starts off with misleading (deliberately or not, I lean towards the former) views on the fundamental concepts of the BBT, and just piles on more and more mistruths and logical fallices over the course of his discussions and uses it all as 'evidence' against evolution. His arguments on the different 'types' of evolution are purely semantic and completely inaccurate, his only motive for even bringing up the 'slippery' definitions of evolution is to mislead the audience. Nowhere is it stated that the universe or chemicals 'evolve,' Hovnid derived it out of his own ignorance.

Honestly, the remaining 10 videos in the series deal with the exact same mistruths and fallacies stemming from Hovnid's lack of understanding, so the discussions in any thread you make on their content are going to be exactly the same as the discussion going on now.

 

[temporalillusion]

If Dr. Hovind or I ask what exploded in the Big Bang theory and I get 327 responses calling us idiots, Creotards, straw men or tin men I'm just going to come back at you with more of the same.

1. What Exploded? Which has been addressed as space and time, which I don't think is a very good answer but it is the best I have from this forum.

2. Why the Big Bang Theory has changed so much in a relatively short period of time? Which has been addressed as being what science does.

My next post will be Part 2 of 11.

Now keep in mind this was how the thread started out:

Regarding cosmic evolution he uses the unscientific Big Bang.

So right off the bat David you've characterized BBT as unscientific, and unscientific based on the opinion of someone who's been demonstrated to misrepresent and misunderstand what science actually says.

You then go on to ask "What Exploded", which tells everyone that you don't know what BBT actually is and that you aren't in a position to evaluate if it's scientific or not.

And then you claim that no one has given you reasonable answers and only offered insults. But right from post 22 there were direct reasonable answers.

And then you say the answer has been "space and time".. let's look at what the answers actually were:

Yes, our understanding of the Big-Bang has improved. Basically, because light travels at given speed, looking further in space allows us to look back in time. As our technology improved, we were able to look further and further back.
In addition, our calculations and model were refined, partly based on these new observations.

By the way, our model only go back to a few fraction of a second after the BigBang. So, either the author was wrong, or Hovind misquoted him. Remember, the guy is a liar.

But, if you look at the video, his whole stuff is an argument by incredulity, it's not only a logical fallacy, it's also incredibly arrogant. Yes, the BigBang was found convincing for generations among the smartest, best educated scientist of the planet, but, me, Kent Hovind, decided it was stupid! So, shame on them!

The BBT (big band theory) is a theory that attempts to explain the apparent cosmological redshift, first demonstrated by Hubble and his primo grad student.

It is post facto, and totally trying to describe the data and observations that exist.

Some thoughts about the BBT, it can only listen to the echoes of the music that the band played.
IE The theory is based solely upon the observations as they exist. And it does a really good job of that, including the Cosmic Microwave Background, elementary abundance and others.

The BBt can not tell you what the hall or the musicians looked like or who wrote teh score.
IE: as a post facto description, it breaks down at the point of the merger of QM and relativity, as those theories are not unified.
Under the current models in fact one can not see 'out of the universe' or 'before the big bang'. these are not able to be gathered under the current models.

The Big Bang falls apart as we go back and get closer to the event and even under what we know of QM and relativity it gets really weird, but without the reconciliation of the two theories, it will remain unknown. The theory starts at about t>10^-36 seconds..

as it involves both QM and relativity the concepts are counter intuitive and non-classical, when they start to talk about how after the speculative there is a small but expanding infinite space, my mind reels

Plus that's a grade school level misunderstanding of the Big Bang Theory... BBT isn't an explosion, BBT is the history of the universe from when it was very dense and hot to now. There was no "explosion" in the sense most people use the word.

If you (or he) has such a basic misunderstanding of something, how can one expect the questions asked about it to be good questions?

There was no explosion. And as to how the universe was in a hot dense state that's still an open question with active research and lots of hypothesis.

"I don't know yet" is a perfectly good answer you know... when people didn't know why the rivers flooded or where lightning came from rather than just saying "I don't know yet" they attributed those things to god too.

You know the net energy of the universe is very close to if not exactly zero right?

The Big Bang is an expansion of space-time, not an explosion. As such, there doesn't have to be any matter to explode. This shows the inherent problem with trying to use words to describe advanced physical models rather than equations.

Secondly, the Big Bang is a model. As such, we know it doesn't reflect reality perfectly accurately. However, it does give us a tool to make phenomenally accurate predictions about portions of reality, and as such is incredibly useful. Other tools and models can (and hopefully, will) get us closer to an explanation of what happened at t=0.

In the big bang, what exploded? Nothing new here, but I just have to put my 2 cents in.

Of course everyone would love to know, but the bottom line is that no one knows...yet. Apparently, it was not so much an "explosion" as an expansion of spacetime. Some think there are many "universes" which are born out of some sort of quantum phenomenon that we just don't understand.

It is pretty clear from all the data that the universe is expanding in time and the inference that one can trace back to a "beginning" seems to me to be a reasonable one. The problem is that when you get to "zero" time, the science is no longer able to describe this condition. Of course, one can just reject all the data in favor of another hypothesis, but this does not mean that "big bang" is wrong, or that the alternate is right.

Science merely gathers information, and very devoted and intelligent people attempt to bring it all together in a hypothesis that accounts for all these data. If a hypothesis is accepted by the community of those in the field, this is added to the "theory".

Researchers are not by any means trying to "conform" to currently accepted ideas for the sake of keeping their jobs. I have heard this over and over, and it is really a laughable notion. The best scientists at universities have tenure which means they get to say anything they want without fear of censure.

Disproving the present "big bang" idea, and publishing its replacement would most likely lead to a Nobel Prize.

Now the Big Bang…

I’m sure you know that when people use the word evolution when it comes to anything other than biology they don’t mean Evolution by Natural Selection, right?

Here is what I know about the Big Bang… it was first used as a derogatory name for the theory by the steady state guys. It ended up being adopted and became the general name for the theory. It was Big, I would think, but it would not have been much of a bang as explosions go. It’s really just the name they gave to the rapid expansion of space-time.

Again a bit over simplified, but this is just my laymen interpretation.

I did, and will be finding my post soon!
ETA: here it is!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6010932&postcount=107


Common mis-statements about the BBt:
1. "The universe came from nothing."
When point of fact the universe as it exists came from "We don't know". It may have come from something, it may have come from nothing, we do not know. Current candidates are very wild but still speculative: "colliding branes", "recursive inflationary space" and "quantum fluctuations". But still we do not know.
2. "All the matter of the universe was ... very small space "
Well actually due to the lack of reconciliation between QM and GR we don't know what it was like when it was below the Plank scale. You will here some great words however:'singularity', 'space time foam' and the like. Most of which might or might not apply, the current theory can go back to about 10^{-36seconds after the BBE (big bang event). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang#Planck_epoch 10-36 [urk="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang#Electroweak_epoch]Electroweak [/url]epoch This is the point at which current theory (theories are approximate models) seem to match the data fairly well. We don't really have good theories for [I]t[/I]<10[sup]-36[sup]. However at the point right after the BBE (which is really a place holder), there was only 'energy' there was no 'matter' as we consider it. So there sure was a 'whole lot of energy' but not a whole lot of matter in a very small space. However the part that blows my mind is that that space while 'very small' compared to the current universe 'may have been infinite'.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE="temporalillusion, post: 6016988, member: 10732"]You do understand that cosmology has changed significantly in recent decades right? Once it was discovered that everything is receding from us at a rate proportional to the distance then all sorts of experiments were concocted to test things. Satellites went up. Telescopes were pointed. Old data was re-examined looking for new information. So when the first guess of an amount is given and then it gets refined over time that's because they keep doing experiments and making observations to refine the results. I'd like to know where you get this 2 trillion miles number too, when I search for it the 3rd result is this exact thread, so that's not very promising. Is it like the Swedish convention which only seems to exist in creationist websites too?}

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang (emphasis mine): "As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded [not exploded] from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past." "Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the Universe since that instant." Questions on the initial condition aside, there is plenty of evidence showing that the universe is expanding. There is no evidence to suggest the initial condition was God or was created by God. Without positive evidence, the only appropriate answer to the initial condition question is 'We don't yet know'.

Since you seem so obsessed with the Big Bank (and since the name is what seems to be giving you problems), there's a book I suggest you read: Big Bang by Simon Singh In fact, I feel that it would be so worth your time to read (given your mis-education on the matter at the hands of Hovind), that I will send you my copy, free of charge (I'll even pay shipping!) if you promise to read it. In regards to the OP, it clearly displays just how sorely misinformed you are. You've latched onto Hovind's moronic idea that the Theory of Evolution covers all the bases. It doesn't. T.O.E. refers to biological diversity. That is it and that is all. Plainly, you intended to talk about the Big Bang theory (remember: it's just a name). The confusion in this thread, and the reason people keep asking you to get back on topic, is due to your conflating the two theories. They are different. You might as well open a discussion on the Theory of Gravity, and demand that it explain inertia. This confusion could have been prevented if you had bothered to do even a modicum of research before creating this thread. Future reference: if Hovind is involved, assume he's wrong until proven otherwise. It's just safer.

I'm curious, David, if you don't believe the universe has expanded and continues to expand, how do you explain that the Doppler shift of all galaxies shows them travelling away from us? Also, do you believe that the prediction made by the Big Bang Theory that the cosmic microwave radiation background would be discovered was just a lucky guess? Would Intelligent Design have made that prediction and, if not, how would ID scientists explain the CMRB once it was discovered by accident (unlikely since ID scientists would have no reason to go looking for it).

First, what does the Big Bang have to do with evolution. Second, why don't you look up who came up with the name "Big Bang", you may learn something. Paul :) :) :)

The BBE did not come from nothing it came from "We don't know." There is a whole lot of data that matches the BBT: -elemental abundance in the universe (general proportion of H, He and Li) -cosmological red shift -cosmic microwave background

Nope, the BBt states that the theory breaks down at t<10^-36 seconds. So "started out at 2 trillion miles across and was reduced to nothing" is Dr. Hovind's mis-statement about the BBt. It started from very small compared to it's current size but it issuggested that one inifinity is smaller than the other.

Now that is a question for SMT, I can't give the exact answer, Zig or Sol I and many others would get much closer. the correct answer is that it did not explode. yes, it expanded and it was actually space that expanded. Now the boffos could tell you how they describe space/time in the tensors of the hamilton matrix space (or something like that), but it is part of GR. the universe was comparitively smaller than it is now, it appears to be expanding at this time, the cosmological redshift is the possible evidence of that. the BBt is the theory of what if that expansion is correct.

Um current theory is that the universe will expand forever until the end of whatever. Dr. Hovind is referring to cyclical theory which is out of vogue.

I have read the thread and I still have some questions about what David brought up in the OP. I understand that the topic of this thread is not 100 reasons why evolution is stupid, but rather “100 Reasons Why Evolution is Stupid”, a video series by Hovind, and specifically about Part 1 of 11 of that series in which Hovind argues against the evolution of the universe (and not the evolution of species) and specifically the Big Bang Theory. Here is the summary and comments about the video that David posted in the OP: I think some of these have been answered. I’ll take a shot at addressing these points, but I’m certainly not an astrophysicist (most of my knowledge about BBT is actually from Wikipedia), so please correct me where I am wrong. Nothing. It was just that everything inflated or expanded and everything continues to expand. If we ask, “What was in the everything that expanded?” it seems the answer is: very hot, highly pressurized, dense energy. It appears that the 80 to 100 billion years timeframe is what is claimed. However, is the cyclical oscillatory universe the currently preferred cosmology? I don’t know why anyone would depend on Asimov’s recollection of Lemaitre’s notion rather than what Lemaitre himself actually said. I have been unable to find a source for this quote or this figure, either from Asimov or Lemaitre. All of my searches turned up only creationist websites without any references. I can’t find any reliable information about exactly how big Lemaitre’s notion of the “primeval atom” was. I cannot find any references to a big bang starting at 275 million miles, 71 million miles, or 54 thousand miles other than creationist websites, most quoting Hovind. I have no idea where Hovind gets this information and I can find no references. The only reference to a specific measurement of the big bang is based on Planck where we cannot determine what happened at an earlier time/smaller universe. Perhaps Hovind is basing these measurements on something I can’t find, or perhaps he is just throwing out dates and numbers to make a point. Did the Big Bang Theory actually evolve such that scientists determined that the “primeval atom” (or whatever you wish to call it) became smaller and smaller? If so, why did this happen? If there is any truth to this, I would just make a wild guess that science did not say that the big bang started with any particular size, but only that the universe could be traced back with any degree of certainty to a particular time/size, which grew progressively earlier/smaller as science was able to trace back the origin of the universe with increasing accuracy. But I don’t know and would like to hear an answer from someone who does. I’m guessing this is based on the Planck epoch. Scientists never actually said anything exploded, or even that “nothing” exploded. What occurred prior to the Planck epoch is unknown, but possibilities have been speculated of a “singularity” or even something coming from nothing or from somewhere else (like another dimension or a black hole). Of course those speculations are just guesses and are not science and have no evidence. We don’t know what happened before the Planck epoch or how things (energy) came to be before that point. So if some knowledgeable people could correct my mistakes and answer my questions, I think we can wrap up Part 1 of 11. :)

Actually, that part isn't quite true. The observed fact is that things that appear to be further away from us tend to have a greater redshift. Cosmological expansion (note that it is not a simple Doppler shift as is commonly thought) is the best theory we have to explain that observation. But it's the redshift that is the observed fact, not the actual expansion, and there's no reason a better theory could not be found that could explain it without that expansion. In any case, I think the most important observation in this thread is that it's in the Religion and Philosophy section. Evolution is science, not religion or philosophy. If you want to argue with it, you can never get anywhere merely by complaining about how silly it sounds, you have to argue the actual science. The fact that the thread was started in this section is enough to dismiss it out of hand.

I'm sure I missed some, but that's a lot of responses.

 

[tsig]

Yes.

God created

or you came from a rock by accident.

Yes, I say God.

Your saying so don't make it so.

 

[tsig]

You forgot a few thousand other possibilities.

I say Chicken.

Yes, now take the chicken, cook it, add tomato sauce and pour over Pasta.

The FSM tastes better than all the other gods that's all the proof i need.