There Are Some Really Big Misconceptions About Our Origins

» Home » Science

I think it's high time to explain some of the things that people don't seem to understand about 2 really big topics: The Big Bang and Evolution. I can't fit the explanation into 100 words, so I will post on this debate to provide the two explanations. Feel free to disagree and I will do my best to clear up confusion or answer questions. Please don't post until you have read my explanations and have a legitimate objection or question.

Moegreche

12 Mar 2008 20:51

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

Here are big lies about earlier times: Macroevolution and the big bang idea. That we came from other species is not proven by the fossil record but proven wrong by the record. The scientific law of entropy is contrary to macroevolution because one says that things can never get "advanced" over time in isolation while the other says the opposite. The big bang has no proof. The radiation thing does not have a point of origin that scientists can detect. It does not prove that there was any expansion of matter called the big bang. The big bang also contradicts entropy.

Stranger

12 Mar 2008 22:01

11 Comments

I made this article with you in mind and I'm extremely disappointed that you didn't read what I have written before you responded.
I have explained the law of entropy, the big bang, and evolution. It's infuriating to try to communicate with someone that simply won't take the time to educate themselves about scientific facts before trying to refute them.
If something doesn't make sense, then let me know, but it is extremely apparent by the objections that you raised that you either a) didn't read my post or b) didn't understand my post. Please read the thing before responding!

Moegreche

12 Mar 2008 22:07

Comment

This is the problem we face trying to educate the brainwashed.

I was brought up a Christian in England C of E, I went to church until i was 11. the fire and Brimstone bull was not 'shoved down my throat'.  But I was taught from an early age that God created everything.  Fortunately I have been allowed to discover my own path and as an inquisitive individual have always thought the idea of god a bit bizarre.  i was brave enough to say out loud that I did not believe in god aged about 11.  It just did not add up.  No one chastised me for it and threatened me with eternal hell fire or suchlike.  I read Douglas Adams, watched Bill Hicks amongst others and realized i was not alone.

My point being is that I changed my mind because it was open and although my mum and others introduced me to Christianity they let me chose my own path.  That and the fact that my dad could stay home on Sundays and watch the football, because he thought it was all a crock of sh1te, appealed.

i looked at the evidence and took it in.  i find it fascinating.  I am pleased if I can be proven wrong.  This is something I love about science and detest in religion, that science looks to disprove itself, only when it fails to be disproved is does it become fact.  It welcomes questions and objections and seeks to test them.   It is delighted to be proved wrong as it knows it is then closer to the truth. As are we, if these guys could present any tangible evidence then I would gladly admit that I am wrong, but there is nothing, NOTHING coming out but twisted logic and 'I just know in my heart' nonsense.

The problem we face here with stranger (who appears quite intellegent if a little stubborn) and other more dense individuals is that they are not interested in the truth unless it helps their interests, they have too much invested in their beliefs to welcome any thoughts that may contradict their thoughts.  I guess we are all a bit like that but Science for the best part isn't.

The question is how do we compete with this level of stubborn ignorance? They don't want to know the truth, it would mean a whole change to their lifestyle, maybe losing friends over it. Is it worth competing with?  In England we are lucky not to have this big problem although it is getting bigger with the equal nonsense that is Islam (an even more medieval religion) and I see some of my Asian friends get bullied into following a faith they know in their hearts is nonsense.  In the States religion is huge and a real problem what with these mutters trying to ban the teaching of evolution so keep up the good fight my man.  I welcome all your comments as they are honest and always thoughtful.  Stay strong.

Ah I feel better now.

Comment

Moegreche, are you referring to the post in the "God does not exist" debate in which you said that the universe did not have to have a cause? That one?
I did not know you responded when I put my vote here. My vote was at  "12 Mar 22:01" and your response in the other debate was at "12 Mar 20:45,"  earlier but not much earlier. I did not and do not check most of the time when someone has responded to me and did not check if you had when I voted here. I can't know what happens everywhere at the same time- I'm not "God." Wait. I just noticed you have some explaining here. Sorry. I thought you meant the other one. Go ahead, people. Laugh. I am fallible. See, I assumed. What can I say? But let me see what you say... you say in your post below that macroevolution does not necessarily lead to "better"/ more "advanced" species from others. Right. But it certainly says it is possible. They teach in many schools, indoctrinating the students, that we (people) came from other, less "advanced" species. That is definitely contrary to the scientific law of entropy. Do you deny that?
As for the balloon illustration, a balloon's surface covers the center of the balloon, so, if your analogy is consistent, there should be a void "under" the universe, which is like the surface of a balloon. That is not proven so why believe it is science? 
Where the 3K radiation comes from has not been detected,  so if there was a big expansion (big bang), there had to be a point in space (space which is not accounted for) from which it expanded, which can't be proved and is not proved by the 3K radiation.

StBalders, thank you for saying that, and yes- I am stubborn. So is anyone else who believes they have the truth. Instead of saying that the idea of the divine is nonsense, why don't you prove it?

sensai80, I was not clear about what I said the lies were. I skipped in explaining. The lies are macroevolution and the big bang for the reasons I gave. I edited it and made it clearer.

Cephus, just because there are many who don't support their claims of "God" and say ridiculous things like that doesn't mean there is no "God." I know you know that but I am trying to be clear. There are also many macroevolutionists who make claims without any support. They say there's evidence and bring nothing to the table. Nothing but claiming. That happens in any side.

Comment

Some good questions, and thanks for reading the post.
I was also doing some reading on entropy, and nothing about it is inconsistent with evolution, although I can see how someone could come to that conclusion.  Remember, that evolution doesn't mean a species "advances" or gets "better" it only changes.  But it turns out entropy only really deals with certain "dead" physical aspects, not biological aspects of the world.  Just google entropy and it will tell you all about the first two laws of thermodynamics and what entropy is all about.  Immanuel Kant ended up making the distinction between the law of entropy affecting the physics and affecting biology.
Your questions about the big bang are also quite valid.  It's really hard for me to describe using just words, but you're right, in the middle of the "balloon" would be a void.  And remember since the big bang encompassed every point in the universe at one time, it makes sense that you could see it in any direction.  Calling it a "bang" is kind of a misleading word, but there were plenty of nuclear fusion reactions going on, which is what produced the leftover energy we see.
You're right that the source of the 3K radiation hasn't been proven, but it was predicted before it was observed, and I think that's really significant.  Sometimes people accuse scientists of coming up with ad-hoc theories just so theories will be consistent.  I'm certainly not saying they don't, but 3K radiation is not one of those theories.  The temperature works out well, too when you calculate in the red shift we observe because of the universe's expansion.
The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.  The very fact that our universe behaves as it does points towards a Big Bang type of scenario.  Some scientist reject a singularity - I don't know enough about quantum physics to have an opinion.
The important thing is that both evolution and the big bang have lots and lots of scientific evidence.  I don't think either theory is perfect, as each one is still evolving (sorry, the only word I could think of there) and as we learn more about the universe and genetics, we will be able to give more certain explanations of things.

Comment

If species are made out of matter and have energy, then entropy applies to them. It is impossible for a species to become more highly organized (from an ape-like "ancestor" to us, who are more "advanced," for example) because entropy says that over time, natural things "break down" into a more unorganized state. Do you see the contradiction? Also, the fossil record should have more "in-between species" of supposedly related species than there are of living species and extinct species in the fossil record.
You said that radiation was predicted before being discovered. they show this quote: 
"The big bang theory includes a microwave background... but this success is tempered by the fact that it was expected to be between ten and a thousand times more powerful than is actually the case."-Fred Hoyle "The Intelligent Universe" (1983), p.181   He also said/wrote:
"The latest data [on background radiation] differ by so much from what theory would suggest as to kill the big bang cosmologies. But now, because the scientific world is emotionally attracted to big-bang cosmologies, the data is ignored." Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy" in "New Scientist" 92 (1981) p.522
It is funny that the Bible says "God" stretched out the heavens...similar to the idea of universe expansion. 
If you say "red shift" is proof, then you contradict yourself because you also said that there was no single point from which there was expansion while red shift is supposedly proof that stars and stuff are moving from the point of the alleged initial explosion point. If you have a different concept of red shift, then let me know. At the end of your comment above, you seemed to be saying that evidence will turn up eventually. That is faith. Besides, can we overlook the evidence we already have? The evidence presented here against the so-called science of macroevolution and the "truth" of the big bang. You also said they have "lots and lots of scientific evidence." Present the proofs if there are. The ones you gave don't prove the big bang or macroevolution, so what else is there? Also, how did it all begin? What was the ultimate cause? Why can't you people accept that there was a divine being who caused all of nature? Is it because you are deceived? yes. Again: it is not a scientific explanation but the only explanation that does not contradict science. And there had to be a beginning. Only deity could be the cause.

Comment

I think you should really read up on entropy.  You continue to use this argument, but it simply doesn't apply to evolution.
The evidence you cited about the Big Bang came from a book with the premise of trying to disprove the Big Bang, so obviously the information is a little biased.  I would like to know what "data" to which you are referring that is contradictory to the Big Bang.
And now on the red shift, and in the future, please don't accuse me of contradicting myself.  I make mistakes sometimes, but my arguments are not contradictory.   You should do some research on ideas like red shift before accusing me of contradiction.
Red shift is observed in all directions because each galaxy is moving away from near galaxies.  You've got to stick with the picture of the universe on the balloon.  If you draw a bunch of dots on the balloon and blow it up, all the points will spread out.
You also keep bringing up the "Ultimate Cause" argument, which I believe I have successfully refuted several times.  A deity simply does not have to be the only cause of the universe - end of story.
Also, I'm not going to present proofs of evolution, you can google it and learn about it.  The only thing I can think is you're working off of an inaccurate definition of macroevolution, because if you accept microevolution, I feel it implies macroevolution.
So to sum up,
The argument of entropy has been refuted since the 18th century.
Nothing about the Big Bang contradicts anything that we have observed or predicted (remember this is still a work in progress).
The argument you present for there having to be a creator is valid, but is unsound and fallacious.

Comment

It "...doesn't apply to [macro]evolution," you said. Of course it does. How doesn't it? If macroevolution is supposed to be a physical process, then it certainly applies. Back up your claim.
I cited from a biased book? Probably. But so are textbooks teaching macroevolution, written by biased macroevolutionists. Who is not biased? Are you biased? Am I? I guess I am since to be "bias" is to favor something and we all tend to do that, don't we? So who is not? And even if the book's author is biased, you have to refute him (Hoyle is the author, I think). To dismiss him as wrong because he is biased is not enough. You did not dismiss him as wrong for that, I suppose, but you have to prove the book's claims that I cited are wrong if you believe such claims are wrong. You asked me to tell you what data Hoyle was referring to. I don't know. I searched for the page of the website I got it from (which is evolution-facts.org) but could not find where it was. I don't have the book, so what can I do except to say that the quote won't apply to the argument anymore or I could keep looking. What do you want?
I said you contradicted yourself and explained why. You said that there was no point at which the universe expanded (for no ultimate reason) and then said that red shift proved the big bang. Red shifts alleged supportiveness of the big bang "theory",  It shows that the universe is expanding outward from the source of the Big Bang explosion." If you believe that about the red shift, then you contradicted yourself. I said: "If you have a different concept of red shift, then let me know." You have now, but not before I said that. I should have asked you to be precise before assuming you believed that idea. Sorry. I've been rushing lately. And in another debate, I said it is good not to rush. I said it was not good, not that I did not do it.
You agreed with me when you said that there would be a void "under" the universe if the balloon illustration is like reality, and now you are saying I've "got to stick with the picture of the universe on the balloon"? Does that mean you believe there is a void "under" the universe?
You said you believed you have successfully refuted the ultimate cause argument several times. What have you done to refute it at ANY time? You denied earlier that the universe had to have an ultimate cause, but that is denying science that most macroevolutionists believe, I think. That is not refuting. That is saying that a physical thing came about without a reason.      -An absurd claim without evidence.
You said: "A deity simply does not have to be the only cause of the universe- end of story." What do you propose, then? Only deity could be the ultimate cause because any physical cause would need a cause itself. I explained why deity does not need a cause: because only physical things have to have a cause as science tells us. Science can't tell us about "God" having a cause or not.
How can you say you are "...not going to present proofs of [macro]evolution"? That is failure to back up your belief. If it exists, why not present it yourself? If you believe it, you should.

You said: "...if you accept microevolution, I feel it implies macroevolution." That is not proof as I am sure you are aware. How are changes within species (which are proven) supportive of macroevolution? Why claim it is science when what you have is that you "feel" it "implies" macroevolution?
I want to know what your definition of macroevolution is. What is it to you?
The claim that "...entropy has been refuted since the 18th Century."- back it up, please. 
How is the argument for deity unsound and fallacious? If you have support, why not show it? Also, how could it be valid and unsound at the same time?

Comment

Okay, as far as I can tell entropy is the tendency (theromodynamically speaking) of two substances of different temperatures that have contact with each other to become the same temperature, also a measure of the inavailibity of useful energy in a closed system, the tendency of a single society/ culture to decay over time (which has historically been proven), a meassure of the loss of information in a transmitted message, (in cosmology, which I think is what you're arguing) a HYPOTHETICAL tendency for the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature (heat death) (which is basically what I mentioned above, the transfer of heat from hotter to colder).

I haven't found anything that suggests that entropy disproves evolution... If there is something, please point it out to me (preferably at a non-biased site. I noticed that evolution-facts.org, which you pointed to as the source for your source, is extremely biased and not entirely correct. Species don't tend to evolve within a human lifetime, so obviously no one's ever witnessed it, but we do know that the organisms that exist today mostly didn't exist 100 million years ago. So how did they get there? Did they just randomly appear on the surface of the earth? something doesn't come from nothing.

Evolution is the combination of thousands, millions, if not billions of years of teensy tiny changes that add up to something huge. Everytime a new organism is produced, it is different from both of its parents (except for in the case of organisms that don't produce sexually, in which case evolution takes longer because the only driving factor is mutation, no recombining of genes happens otherwise). Let's say, for instance, a fruit fly has a hundred children. Five of these children are born with some birth defect or another, like missing a leg, not able to see right, etc, and die off. Sixty of them get unlucky and die off (genetic drift). None of these sixty five ever reach reproduction age. Of the remaining thirty five, thirty four don't have much of an advantage over other fruit flies, breed maybe once or twice or even thrice before dying. Most of their offspring also don't have much of an advantage. But one of those one hundred fruit flies has a positive advantage over the others, and has twice as many offspring, or even thrice as many before dying. Most of that fruit fly's offspring have a natural advantage. One out of every hundred or even every thousand has an additional advantage (i.e. different color, slightly different senses, slightly different body composition, etc). Their offspring have yet another additional advantage. And so on, until the offspring of the fruit flies without that additional advantage are out competed and die off. Eventually, these changes accumulate and the offspring of the offspring of the....(many, many of those) of the fruit fly my explanation started with are so different that they're no longer the same species.

Ya, I know it isn't the best of analogies, but it's the best I can think of short term...

I'm not arguing against a creator spirit, I'm arguing against the notion that everything came out of nothing. Every thing that exists and happens has a cause.

I kinda sorta agree with moe's example of a ballon, but not exactly the way he explained it. The Big Bang (that's really a misnomer. It wasn't a bang and it wasn't big) did happen everywhere in the Universe. The Universe then expanded. It is still the Universe, just differently composed and less dense. If there was a video tape of the whole history of the Universe from the Big Bang to today (I mean in as an actual recording of what happened, not as in theory and science) and played it backwards then I'm fairly sure all the objects which are currently pulling away from each other would collide or come close to colliding at some point.

Sadly, we don't have such a video tape.

There isn't a void 'under' the Universe. The void surrounds it and is found within it.

Yes, the Big Bang had a cause. That cause doesn't necessarily have to be God though. The Big Bang was caused by whatever was happening with matter before the Big Bang, and whatever was happening before that, etc. (I have no clue where it all started, and really, neither do you, so don't point out that as a flaw please)

Microevolution does imply macroevolution. Any evolution is the tendency of things to change (evolve) over time. Logic follows that if something changes enough it won't be all that much like it's original self, if at all. So then we have macroevolution.

Can you submit non biased proof that something came from nothing?

I think perhaps an even bigger misconception is that evolution has something to do with the FORMATION of life. Evolution is only concerned with how life adapts and changes over time due to mutations etc. Whereas the explanation of where life originates is an entirely separate theory known as Abiogenesis. So stop saying that evolution thinks we suddenly changed from rocks or other such nonsense.

sensai80

12 Mar 2008 21:13

1 Comment

That's a great point that I hadn't considered. Thank you for your input!

Moegreche

12 Mar 2008 21:31

Comment

The Big Bang:

There is evidence for the Big Bang in the form of leftover heat generated by the massive explosion. It is called 3K radiation - the K stands for Kelvin. This wall of radiation is so bright that we can't see past it, but this wall was formed mere seconds after the Big Bang. We see it in all directions, which helps us understand the overall shape of the universe and gives further proof to the fact that the universe is expanding uniformly and that the Big Bang actually did occur.
There is a misconception that the universe has a "center," but this is not the case. Although it's much more complicated than this, if you picture the universe as being drawn on the surface of a balloon, it will help you visualize the shape of the universe. If you're on the surface of the balloon, there is no center, and it wouldn't make sense to talk about one. When the Big Bang occurred, everything in the universe was more or less drawn onto the surface of the balloon. As the balloon (universe) expands, there is no center point which you can reference. And since the Big Bang involved everything in the universe, you can see it in all directions. I hope this makes sense.

Evolution:
There are many misconceptions about evolution. First, I would like to point out that we did not evolve from monkeys - we had a common ancestor. Some people bring up the natural law of thermodynamics, which implies decaying. The argument goes that over time, things decay, therefore evolution can't be true because evolution assumes forward progress. This is flawed - evolution does not assume forward progress. Evolution is a very chaotic process of mutation and natural selection. Evolution doesn't make a species "better" it only makes them different - and sometimes branches into new species. This does not conflict with any other theory, and I think that denying evolution at this point is like denying any other established scientific fact. Some people argue that evolution is a theory, so that means it's not a fact. Go look up the definition of what a theory is to find out how many facts must support any idea before it can be considered a theory. Heck, gravity is still a theory - that is Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. We haven't proven gravity and we don't really pretend to understand how it works, but we certainly know it does, in fact, work. Our scientific advances are finally catching up to our intellectual curiosity. I think it won't be long before the idea of a god goes the way of the gods of Ancient Greece or Rome.
If you've read all that, I greatly thank you and I welcome any comments or questions.

Moegreche

12 Mar 2008 21:05

2 Comments

thank you for posting the information on the Big Bang Theory because I watched a tv show on the history channel explaining it, but I had some misconceptions.I appreciate you putting in a definition I thoroughly understand.
Thanks!

l_boogie

12 Mar 2008 22:43

Comment

Sign In

Sign Up?

Login and Debate!
Username:
Password:
Forgot your Password?

For and Against Recent Activity

Latest Responses

Latest Comments

2 minutes ago

The human body is SEXY, face it, folks. We rock ;-) read more...

8 minutes ago

So you have been rejected by a female. So what! Sleep it off. Then, be like Thomas Edison and his lightbulb: Live another... read more...

9 minutes ago

More than likely your opposite. Although facial features are usually similar.:-)) read more...

11 minutes ago

I give up.:-/) read more...

13 minutes ago

If their blood is going to stay within their bodies , yes. read more...

Related Debates

	Consensus Has Nothing To Do With Science
	Carbon Dating Is A Useful And Accurate Tool
	Embryonic Stem Cell Research: It Is Ok To Be Used To Explore Cures For Diseases
	Morality Came Before Religion
	If Evolution Is True Then Life Has No Value.
	Genomic Research Has Been Conducted To Help All People.
	Nuclear Power Is Safe Under United States Rules.
	The Complex Of Social Opinions Can Be Ignored As A Factor In Evolution
	In The Future There Will Be Hover Cars And Other Technology They Say They May Have
	In Science, The Term “theory” Does Not Translate To “opinion” Or “speculation”.

New Debates

	Nuclear Energy Is No Longer Harmful
	We Should Just Say 'Merry Non-Religious Winter Solstice Event'.
	CHESS: It Is Not The Game You Are Playing:
	All's Fair In Love And War Is True:
	Women Prefer Cyrano De Bergerac To Mr.Perfect:
	Everyone, Has A "Type" They Are Attracted To Most:
	Stalin Did It For The Lulz
	Receive My Exports, Girls, U Know You Want To
	They Walk Among Us
	It's Over 9000!!!!111 It Is!!!11111@