A question for Atheists regarding the Big Bang. - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-01-2005, 10:48 AM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Judah
The Big Bang theory and belief in God don't have to be exclusive. You can believe in a creator and still believe there was a "Big Bang" behind our current universe's beginning.
I'm not an atheist, but I agree with this. I think a few principles from evolution may be true or applicable, although I don't believe we "came from monkeys", I find that to be a rather pathetic explanation. I don't see how "changes in the environment" are enough to turn monkeys into humans. Why aren't monkeys still turning human? Is time a magic wand?

Charlie Darwin was a human being - not a god - from the 1800's and we interpret his theory as a fact.

"Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school.'"
-Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, leading cladistic taxonomist), Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, November 5, 1981.

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
-Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research. (Quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.)


SOURCE: GALLUP POLL NEWS SERVICE / AP:
Attached Thumbnails
p12a.gif  
__________________

__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 02-01-2005, 11:55 AM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
I don't see how "changes in the environment" are enough to turn monkeys into humans. Why aren't monkeys still turning human? Is time a magic wand?
First off, "isolation" (hence, inbreeding) is a necessary requirement for evolution. This is generally why isolated islands (like the Galapagos Islands) are fertile grounds for evidence of evolution.

Secondly, "monkeys" is a generic term. Humans would have come from specific species of "monkey" that is now extinct. Lumping chimpanzees, apes, and gorillas all into the same category is wrong; they are not seen as even being the same species.

Third, we see evidence of evolution every day. "Drug resistant" bacteria and viruses are examples of evolution.

Fourth, those quotes are complete crap. The "Colin Patterson" quote is creationist propaganda, and this site...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

...explains it further.

As for "Professor Louis Bounoure," the French National Center for Research had this to say:

"As far as we know, Louis Bounoure never served as "Director" (nor was even a member) of the CNRS. He was a professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg. Bounoure was a Christian but did not affirm that Genesis was to be taken to the letter. He expressed his ideas in his work. He is clearly "finalist" and against all contingent visions of evolution. ["Finalism" is a philosophical term related to a belief in ultimate purpose or design behind everything, including, in this case, the evolution of the cosmos and of life. - ED.] He bases his views, among other things, on the existence of elements that are pre-adapted for their future functions."

In other words, Bounoure is not a creationist, as much as a "finalist."

As for creationism vs. evolution, creationism is completely founded upon mythic speech and pseudoscience. But, because of its "mythic" nature, you can't disprove it. If I was convinced of an invisible leprechaun being under my bed and you told me it wasn't there, I could just say that only true believers can see it.

Calling evolution as "merely a theory, not a fact" exploits inherent scientific uncertainty to the point of ridiculousness. It's a theory with lots of evidence, while, meanwhile, there is little to no evidence for half the stuff involved in creationism. Creationism is not a fact; it's just "a theory." And a disproven one at that.

I think this National Geographic article, though, explains a lot of what I think about the issue...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n..._religion.html

...which essentially says what I said earlier: science and religion aren't necessarily incompatible.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-01-2005, 01:06 PM   #18
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 08:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
No, I dont think I believe in it.


~Agnostic/athiest/too unsure
Exactly the kind of response I was looking for LOL!!

Yes or no more or less. But hey some great respones all around!

I am chomping at the bit to weigh in with my views on this discussion but as I said, I have sworn off online debates! Lemme find a smiley for my sentiment ....
ok a few. Arrrrrrrrrrrgh LOL!

At any rate, thanks Angela and everyone else who is still responding to the thread. Will continue checking back. I will let you guys know why I asked in a week or so.

Take Care,

Carrie
__________________
thacraic is offline  
Old 02-01-2005, 03:45 PM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,410
Local Time: 08:28 AM
OK folks. Listen.

Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are completely unrelated. Absolutely 100% not the same in any way shape or form. The Big Bang did not cause life to form, and neither did evolution receive any effect from the Big Bang, no matter what you believe.

This thread is about the Big Bang Theory. Please go discuss evolution elsewhere if you want to.
__________________
DaveC is offline  
Old 02-10-2005, 06:38 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 02:28 PM
Re: A question for Atheists regarding the Big Bang.

Quote:
Originally posted by thacraic
Howdy everyone,

I am not here to debate. I have sworn off debating in online forums. I just have a quick question for the Atheists here. Those Christians here that wish to answer that is fine as well, but this is more directed towards our Atheist friends.

What are your feelings about the Big Bang? Do you agree that it is a sound theory which explains the origins of the Universe? Again I am not asking this to open up a debate. Whatever views I have on this will go unsaid. Just wanted to get um.. statistical information! So just a yes or no will do.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

Take care,

Carrie
Hmm...interesting thread. I am not really an atheist, probably more of an agnostic (whatever that means) but I'm going to go ahead and respond anyway.

Now certain atheist philosophers have come up with possible explanations for Big Bang which do not involve a Creator. My understanding is, the basis for their arguments is that quantum physics has proved that uncaused events - that is, events which simply have no cause - occur at the sub-atomic level. Therefore, they argue, it is not inconceivable that Big Bang was itself an uncaused event.

Though this argument is not without merit, I feel it's really asking to much to believe that an event as massive as the Big Bang could be uncaused. So my point of view, is at this point we really don't know. I view the claims of strong atheists as unsubstantiated. I also view the claims of theists as unsubstantiated. Personally, I think it more likely than not that Big Bang was caused by a Creator (God?) of some sort. However at this point in time I am an agnostic!
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 02-11-2005, 02:21 AM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
intedomine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 7,950
Local Time: 11:28 PM
Athiest here. (Or agnostic depending on what defenition of God is put forward.)

The Big Bang is as good as any other theory yet I like to be honest and ackowledge that we just don't know for sure.


On the day the universe began, something wierd and bizarre happened. We don't know the reason for it and probably never will. Yet it created something quite remarkable.

Blindly claiming God created the world is outta the question, cause no ones met the "bloke/sheila/thing"
__________________
intedomine is offline  
Old 02-11-2005, 03:35 AM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by intedomine
Athiest here. (Or agnostic depending on what defenition of God is put forward.)

The Big Bang is as good as any other theory yet I like to be honest and ackowledge that we just don't know for sure.


On the day the universe began, something wierd and bizarre happened. We don't know the reason for it and probably never will. Yet it created something quite remarkable.

Blindly claiming God created the world is outta the question, cause no ones met the "bloke/sheila/thing"
Actually the big bang is much better than any other theory because it can explain the hubble constant, a theory must explain the observations at hand so BB theory is much more valid than the steady state model.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-11-2005, 05:27 AM   #23
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 08:28 AM
Ok well just want to thank everyone that responded.

I asked this because the instructor of this course I am taking at church said that "Atheists hate the Big Bang". I guess because it calls for an actual beginning? At any rate, I really couldn't figure out why he was saying Atheists don't embrace the BB. We are going to actually go through that lesson this coming Sunday evening so I guess I will find out where he is coming from on this.

I will actually break down and comment on one thing. Evolution and the BB are two entirely different topics. I wanted to agree with the person that made that statement but I thought it would be entering into the debate - something I didn't want to do. But yeh, that was a true statement so whoever said it... right on and all that.
__________________
thacraic is offline  
Old 02-11-2005, 06:05 AM   #24
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 08:28 AM
Re: Re: A question for Atheists regarding the Big Bang.

Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


Hmm...interesting thread. I am not really an atheist, probably more of an agnostic (whatever that means) but I'm going to go ahead and respond anyway.

Now certain atheist philosophers have come up with possible explanations for Big Bang which do not involve a Creator. My understanding is, the basis for their arguments is that quantum physics has proved that uncaused events - that is, events which simply have no cause - occur at the sub-atomic level. Therefore, they argue, it is not inconceivable that Big Bang was itself an uncaused event.

Though this argument is not without merit, I feel it's really asking to much to believe that an event as massive as the Big Bang could be uncaused. So my point of view, is at this point we really don't know. I view the claims of strong atheists as unsubstantiated. I also view the claims of theists as unsubstantiated. Personally, I think it more likely than not that Big Bang was caused by a Creator (God?) of some sort. However at this point in time I am an agnostic!
I have to comment on this as well! LOL I can't help it. Know this though, I am in no way debating... Honest!!

Quantum theories do not really offer up any evidence that things at a sub-atomic level operate any differently than they do outside of that. If you mean that quantumist state that particles at a subatomic level do not operate in an orderly fashion then yeh but it can not be proven. Therefore, the rule of cause and effect at a sub-atomic level can not be tossed out the cosmological window.

In fact, String Theory or well the unified String Theory known as M-Theory (or the possible "Theory of Everything") suggest that gravity is a factor at a sub-atomic level. Before this, the Standard Model had us believing that only 3 forces are at work sub-atomically (electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force). Many scientist could not and would not come to terms with this because gravity was discounted as being even a remote factor.

With new methods of observation and with those who are embracing M-Theory as plausible, they are in fact finding that gravity may have a significant role sub-atomically which would bring order to the chaos that the quantumists theorize is so prevalent. One thing to know about M-Theory though is that it requires 11 deminsions! EEK! 3 or well 4 with space time, are the only deminsions we can actually prove. The fifth of course is the spiritual realm which I believe in 100%. But still that would leave 6 other deminsions out there that can not be seen nor proven therefore they can not be observed. Good science requires observation and if that isn't possible then the line between science and philosiphy is drawn.

It is all so very confusing! It is however amazing on the other hand no matter which side of discussion you are on. I love physics but my knowledge of it is so very elementary. My comprehension of it is even worse.

At any rate I am off to audition for a game show! LOL!!! Any of those here in Interference that actually tolerate me, wish me luck!

Take care,

Carrie
__________________
thacraic is offline  
Old 02-11-2005, 05:15 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:28 PM
Quote:
Quantum theories do not really offer up any evidence that things at a sub-atomic level operate any differently than they do outside of that. If you mean that quantumist state that particles at a subatomic level do not operate in an orderly fashion then yeh but it can not be proven. Therefore, the rule of cause and effect at a sub-atomic level can not be tossed out the cosmological window.
Ahem, refer to Young's double slit experiment showing wave behaviour in light. Also refer to photon tunnelling and a whole manner of other quantum effects that are used every day.

The other dimensions that you have trouble imagining (as all human brains do) can exist however they will be compactified. It may at some point be possible to test string theory through observation, a recent article in New Scientist wrote about the possible discovery of such an object in space.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-12-2005, 05:37 AM   #26
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 08:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Ahem, refer to Young's double slit experiment showing wave behaviour in light. Also refer to photon tunnelling and a whole manner of other quantum effects that are used every day.

The other dimensions that you have trouble imagining (as all human brains do) can exist however they will be compactified. It may at some point be possible to test string theory through observation, a recent article in New Scientist wrote about the possible discovery of such an object in space.
Yes but the things you pointed out would demonstrate cause and effect would they not? Essentially it still requires order and not chaos to arrive at a the end result, right? That is the point I was trying to make. I do not really see how things, even at a sub-atomic level operate in a random and chaotic manner. Again I do have a very limited understanding of this but what I have read and things that I have seen (NOVA when I am lucky enough to catch it) to me do not prove much other than the "possiblity" of chaos. Do you not see that as being somewhat vague and inconclusive?

That's the thing with String Theory. It does offer up a solution of sorts. It essentially states that things are not chaotic as quantum theorist would have us believe. Things do have an order even at the most minuscule level. Do you see how ST can demostrate this?

The reason I pointed out the problem of the extra deminsions is because at present they can not be proven to exist. It is not a matter of comprehending extra deminsions for me. I do. I know there are at least 5! So why not 11? But from a purely scientific stance, it ain't gonna fly. If they can not see it, it cannot be observed and therefore no conclusions can be drawn.

This possible discovery written about in New Scientist, does that mean they have discovered a new object that could possibly be observed or does it mean it is possible they will one day discover this object? I have to think it is the latter because I am not aware of such a thing having actually been discovered. Just let me know on that one because it would be incredibly exciting to read about it.

At any rate if you want to fill me in (and I really hope you do) I look forward to any response. I think you can tell that I have a really crude understanding of all of this? But I am so very interested in all of it. I have like 20 links to various Physics websites and I think I understand about a sentence on each of them! So I sincerely hope you do want to continue this discussion.

Take Care,

Carrie
__________________

__________________
thacraic is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com