Big Bang Theory: Science or Faith?

[seventil]

This was taken out of the "Explanation of the Universe" thread. Here is a short transcript:

As I said, the evidence points to expansion. Period. It is, indeed, interpretation that provides the theory of the big bang, just as interpretation of evidence provides the theory of the earth's orbit, which no one has observed. The question is, should we bother to interpret the evidence?

Believing in the big bang theory takes just as much faith as me believing in God; no scientific evidences here can support the theory because the theory breaks so many (thermodynamics, relativity).

It takes faith? I suppose one must have some degree of confidence in the ability of human thought to make sense of information. Beyond that, there's no "faith" required. You know, it might be helpful if you were to explain this last bit...how is this theory incompatible with thermodynamics and relativity? I bet the astrophysicists have thought about this, and wouldn't have bothered to suggest the idea if it were patently absurd.

[QED]

Oh, I keep meaning to mention my favourite example of evolution - much more interesting than the absurdly done-to-death example of the peppered moth:- the migrating eye of the Flounder.

This bottom dwelling fish has both eyes on the same side of its body thus allowing it to swim in the same plane as the seabed (rather than perpendicular to it) without one eye permanently staring down at the ground. The anatomy of the fish clearly shows the eye to have moved around from its previous position on the other side of the fish - rather than having been placed there from day one.

If this isn't an adaptation through natural selection - I suppose it could always be used to demonstrate that the almighty is not immune to "Friday syndrome".

[YEC]

Sounds like you're floundering onthis one....or do you actually have something more than speculation?

Currently all I see is a weird looking fish...that taste good.

[YEC]

Just for the record....there was no need of any new genes evolving to create the different colors of the moth.

In fact from what I read the moths don't even like to sit on the tree bark....seems as if the evo scientist placed them there. You know, to help out the theory just a little.

shhhhhhhh don't tell anyone.

[Jose]

Just for the record....there was no need of any new genes evolving to create the different colors of the moth.

In fact from what I read the moths don't even like to sit on the tree bark....seems as if the evo scientist placed them there. You know, to help out the theory just a little.

Indeed, no new genes were required. What was happening was simple natural selection, which chooses among the various genetic variations in the population.

As it turns out, the moths do sit on the tree bark (you need to read further). They mostly like to sit on the bark where branches join the trunk--and that's exactly where the birds look for them. It was nice of the photographer to put the moths where it was easy for us to see them in the photographs, though. It turns out that the trunk is pretty much the same color both in the wide spots and where the branches join the trunk, and the moths don't change color depending on where they sit.

There is a possible confounding issue with the moth experiment, though, as pointed out by the evolutionists. The original guys didn't control for migration, so we don't know how much of the change in gene frequencies was the result of true selection, and how much might have been due to moths flying away and getting lost.

[YEC]

The bottom line...the evos used deception.

[Jose]

The bottom line...the evos used deception.

Yes, that's the standard YEC and ID conclusion, as noted here:

Brief Challenging Sample Answer: English peppered moths show that environmental changes can produce microevolutionary changes within a population. They do not show that natural selection can produce major new features or forms of
life, or a new species for that matter—i.e., macroevolutionary changes. From the beginning of the industrial revolution, English peppered moths came in both light and dark varieties. After the pollution decreased, dark and light varieties still existed. All that changed during this time was the relative proportion of the two traits within the population. No new features and no new species emerged. In addition, recent scientific articles have questioned the factual basis of the study performed during the 1950s. Scientists have learned that peppered moths do not actually rest on tree trunks. This has raised questions about whether color changes in the moth population were actually caused by differences in exposure to predatory birds.

There was no deception by the scientists, who recorded exactly what they did for all to see, and tested their hypothesis by the best method they could think of at the time. However, there is clear deception in the anti-evolutionists' statements, to wit:

1. This shows only microevolution, and not "major new features" or "new forms of life." Huh? The deception is twofold--that "evolution" must involve, and can only involve, development of new features of life forms, and that "microevolution" is not evolution. Microevolution is evolution. That's how macroevolution comes about. It is deceptive and misleading to claim otherwise.

2. "All that changed during this time was the relative proportion of the two traits within the population." This is exactly what the experiment is designed to test. It is a deception to claim that success in demonstrating allele change fails to demonstrate part of the mechanism of evolution.

3. "Peppered moths do not actually rest on tree trunks." As noted earlier, that is precisely where they rest--but prefer to rest near to the places where branches join the trunks. It is a deception to imply that the entire experiment was faked.

4. "This has raised questions about whether color changes in the moth population were actually caused by differences in exposure to predatory birds." It is a deception to leave out the fact that it has raised questions only in the minds of young-earth creationists, and to claim that it is the resting place that has caused scientists to re-evaluate the study. What has caused scientists to re-evaluate the study is the original researchers' inability to control for migration. Inability is not deception. What is a deception is the claim that technological limitations (and, apparently, failure to think of the possibility) represent "deception." "Deception" requires knowing otherwise when making the statements.

The YEC's and IDists who use these arguments have heard the counter-evidence, and nonetheless continue to make the statement that scientists "used deception" in these studies. There are only a few possible interpretations: (1) they don't understand the data, and are thus unable to evaluate it; (2) they do understand the data, but don't understand the difference between right and wrong; (3) they understand the data, and the implications of the deception in which they engage, but are so Morally Certain that their long-term goals are Right that, in this context, it is good to bear false witness because they subscribe to Moral Relativity.

[bdbthinker]

There was no deception by the scientists, who recorded exactly what they did for all to see, and tested their hypothesis by the best method they could think of at the time. However, there is clear deception in the anti-evolutionists' statements, to wit:

1. This shows only microevolution, and not "major new features" or "new forms of life." Huh? The deception is twofold--that "evolution" must involve, and can only involve, development of new features of life forms, and that "microevolution" is not evolution. Microevolution is evolution. That's how macroevolution comes about. It is deceptive and misleading to claim otherwise.

2. "All that changed during this time was the relative proportion of the two traits within the population." This is exactly what the experiment is designed to test. It is a deception to claim that success in demonstrating allele change fails to demonstrate part of the mechanism of evolution.

3. "Peppered moths do not actually rest on tree trunks." As noted earlier, that is precisely where they rest--but prefer to rest near to the places where branches join the trunks. It is a deception to imply that the entire experiment was faked.

4. "This has raised questions about whether color changes in the moth population were actually caused by differences in exposure to predatory birds." It is a deception to leave out the fact that it has raised questions only in the minds of young-earth creationists, and to claim that it is the resting place that has caused scientists to re-evaluate the study. What has caused scientists to re-evaluate the study is the original researchers' inability to control for migration. Inability is not deception. What is a deception is the claim that technological limitations (and, apparently, failure to think of the possibility) represent "deception." "Deception" requires knowing otherwise when making the statements.

The YEC's and IDists who use these arguments have heard the counter-evidence, and nonetheless continue to make the statement that scientists "used deception" in these studies. There are only a few possible interpretations: (1) they don't understand the data, and are thus unable to evaluate it; (2) they do understand the data, but don't understand the difference between right and wrong; (3) they understand the data, and the implications of the deception in which they engage, but are so Morally Certain that their long-term goals are Right that, in this context, it is good to bear false witness because they subscribe to Moral Relativity.

I agree that many Intelligent Designers (euphemism for Creationists) use deception to get people to believe their boloney. I think it's also worth noting the differences in science vs. ID.

Science strive to find answers. IDers assume they already have the answers then spend a lot of effort trying to refute science (99% of the time failing). Seriously, you guys would do better to bolster your arguments with evidence instead of simply knocking down science. This just makes you look like you have an agenda against science.

Also, get your stuff peer reviewed in scientific journals. If you want to be taken seriously as scientists, follow the scientific method. And make a discovery or do something usefull to help out humankind instead of just trying to impose your belief of a creator.

[Jose]

Science strive to find answers. IDers assume they already have the answers then spend a lot of effort trying to refute science (99% of the time failing). Seriously, you guys would do better to bolster your arguments with evidence instead of simply knocking down science. This just makes you look like you have an agenda against science.

For many, it is an agenda against science. There's a bit of selection as to which parts of science to attack, but the list is growing:

• evolution
• life's origin
• cosmology
• environmental science (the first three are obvious, but this one is now showing up in GOP platforms alsongside evolution)
• social science (also in GOP platforms alongside evolution)
• any investigations involving sex (this has been a favorite for years--witness Congressmen trying to block funding for any research grant with "sex" in the title)
• at least for this administration, any previously-public science that contradicts their ideology, with the result that information has been removed from public websites, and scientists have been removed from advisory panels if they don't have the "right" views

So, there's some physics, some chemistry, some astronomy, some biology, some behavior, some history... Now, they'll claim they're not against science, just against "unfounded speculation." and in favor of "fair and balanced" examination of the facts. The trouble is, these claims work if you've previously eliminated a basic understanding of science from your audience.

[tbpckisa]

I ask my self does it require more faith to believe in the religion of the "Big Bang" or the Christian view point on special creation?
In order for you to make that faith decision, picture this...take the planet earth and compress it to the size of a golf ball (this alone is hard to conceive) then add the moon, all the other planets and their satellites plus the sun and squash them down to the size of a golf ball.
Now that you have all of the elements from our solar system compressed, add to it our "six billion miles across" galaxy. Don't forget to keep in mind there are about 250 billion stars and planets in our galaxy.

Next, to complete our unbelievable picture you must gather all the other galaxies. Say, about, 250 billion of them plus or minus a couple of billion.
These other galaxies have approx. 70 sextbillion (7 followed by 22 zeros) stars contained with in them. These galaxies must now be compressed and added to our golf ball size galaxy. The next step would be to take our golf ball size galaxy with everything in it and compress it again until its the size of a pea. Pretty un-realistic huh? This is what the religion of the "Big Bang" teaches. This is what they want us and our kids to believe (have faith) in.

I also have a question for the big bangers, where did the pea size mass of matter come from before it exploded? Did it just appear?

As you can plainly see it takes a lot more faith to believe in the big bang than it does to believe that God made it all in 6 days.

One thing i need to note is that a theory doesn't need for someone to conceive it to be true. There are many things in the universe that are hard to conceive. The size of the universe alone is hard to conceive. This is where science, math, and physics can help a great amount.

I would not consider it hard to conceive the big bang if you think black holes exist. The theory of the big bang is closely related to black holes. Black holes pack in matter just as densely as you said would be hard to conceive. In fact, if the earth were packed small enough to have an event horizon, it would have a maximum radius less than 9mm, that's smaller than a golf ball. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the milky way has a massive black hole in the center that is 2.6 million solar masses. A solar mass is equal to the mass of the sun, which is more than 99.8% of our solar system, so you could consider that black hole to be 2.6 million solar systems. They also think there is even bigger primordial black holes that may be billions of solar masses.

The same physics they used to come up with theories of what goes on in black holes is the same physics they used to come up with theories on the big bang. If they find out more about black holes, they will definitely be able to apply that to the big bang theory.

It takes a lot more faith to believe that god created it all in 6 days. First off there is no evidence to support it. Second, the creationist theory goes against all the evidence that shows that the universe is billions of years old, not to mention well accepted, extremely reliable physics. Now look at the big bang theory. It's supported by evidence, physics, and math. Examples of it are seen in black holes all over the universe.

Hmmmmm, let me see you duplicate the BIG BANG in a lab....or even evolution.

There is no need to duplicate the big bang because we have many examples that are close to it in black holes, which anyone can study. The only real difference is the mass of the big bang is much larger.

[seventil]

The big bang theory does not rest on relativity?

No, of course not.

The BB theory is supported by the simplest of evidence: the universe appears to be expanding. In other words, all the visible matter in the universe seems to moving away from all the other matter in the universe.

It's as if the matter in the universe were the particles in an explosion. Note the "as if". That's where theory comes in. People reasoned that if the universe appears to be the result of a gigantic explosion, then maybe the best explanation is that it was. Thus Big Bang.

Now, if Reletivity were conclusively shown to be wrong tomorrow, that does not necessarily mean the BB theory is wrong too. We would still reason that since the universe appears to be expanding that it appears to be the result of an initial explosion.

There's no "faith" involved in this at all. We atheists have the advantage of merely accepting what appears to be the simplest explanation for the observations of the universe.

juliod: I'll sum this up, real quick like.

You say the universe appears to be expanding. This simple statement came into existance because of relativity, and is still thought as fact today due to the same relativistic physics that brought it forth in the first place.

You say that if relativity was proved wrong tomorrow, the BB theory may still be correct. While I don't directly disagree with that, I think it is interesting that if the founding, supporting and quite necissary physics that make the BB theory plausible were thought to be wrong - that the "theory" would still credible, plausible, or reasonable.

With that being said, let me define 'faith' again:

Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

So, you are saying you would believe in a theory that's fundamental science has been disproved. How is that not faith?

Oh, and on a side note: Can you give me any evidence at an expanding universe without using relativistic physics?