Poll: Americans skeptical of "Big Bang"

[Guest shiloh357]

If someone wants to search something on the internet, wikipedia is the most safest possible source. I'm sure i can find americans here on this forum who also think wikipedia is to trust.

and for the tirth time: if you think the article on wikipedia is not correct or neutral, please point it out!! Just find something incorrect, just something!

See, I don't know the science well enough to know if every scientific point made on that site is correct.   I DO know that Wikipedia is not a trusted recourse for academic research and there are plenty of peer-reviewed journals out there written by real scientists who have credentials.

 

There is no way to know if the people who write the articles in Wikipedia are qualified to write such articles.  And just because you can find someone on WBs who also uses that site doesn't make it a safe site to use for research.  There is peer review process for science articles on Wikipedia. 

 

So I don't have to know there are actual errors to know that there is no reason to trust it. 

[Schouwenaars]

Well i know enough science to see the correctness of the page.

And i know many many people who do trust wikipedia.

So i think that's a stalemate.

However big bang theory has enough evidence to be take as very credible.

If you don't agree, please give me an error.

If you cannot then 1) it is correct so you cannot see a fault. or 2) you don't know the science behind it so your opinion that it's fault is just a thought based on nothing.

The bible can now not be used to prove an error, because we are looking or an error inside this theory itself.

[Guest shiloh357]

Well i know enough science to see the correctness of the page.

And i know many many people who do trust wikipedia.

So i think that's a stalemate.

However big bang theory has enough evidence to be take as very credible.

If you don't agree, please give me an error.

If you cannot then 1) it is correct so you cannot see a fault. or 2) you don't know the science behind it so your opinion that it's fault is just a thought based on nothing.

The bible can now not be used to prove an error, because we are looking or an error inside this theory itself.

 

1. Bottom line is that Wikipedia is not a trustworthy site for research.   If you trust it, that is up to you.

 

2.  I don't believe in the Big Big hypothesis because it contradicts the Bible and the Bible isn't wrong.  The Bible is the inerrant Word of God and I trust God more than I trust fallible little men.

 

3.  My biggest issue with the Big Bang is the insistence by people who want to argue that it is "proven" and should be accepted as proven fact.  The truth is that it is a long way from being proven.  It takes a certain amount of honesty to admit that it is not proven and evidently the scientific community cannot muster up enough integrity to admit that fact.

 

4.  There is evidence that to you is credible, to me it is not credible and is asking me to accept theory that is on the level of believing that the tornado could hit a junk yard and build a 747 airplane. 

[Schouwenaars]

 

Well i know enough science to see the correctness of the page.

And i know many many people who do trust wikipedia.

So i think that's a stalemate.

However big bang theory has enough evidence to be take as very credible.

If you don't agree, please give me an error.

If you cannot then 1) it is correct so you cannot see a fault. or 2) you don't know the science behind it so your opinion that it's fault is just a thought based on nothing.

The bible can now not be used to prove an error, because we are looking or an error inside this theory itself.

 

1. Bottom line is that Wikipedia is not a trustworthy site for research.   If you trust it, that is up to you.

 

2.  I don't believe in the Big Big hypothesis because it contradicts the Bible and the Bible isn't wrong.  The Bible is the inerrant Word of God and I trust God more than I trust fallible little men.

 

3.  My biggest issue with the Big Bang is the insistence by people who want to argue that it is "proven" and should be accepted as proven fact.  The truth is that it is a long way from being proven.  It takes a certain amount of honesty to admit that it is not proven and evidently the scientific community cannot muster up enough integrity to admit that fact.

 

4.  There is evidence that to you is credible, to me it is not credible and is asking me to accept theory that is on the level of believing that the tornado could hit a junk yard and build a 747 airplane. 

 

Your believe on itself is fallible because you're a human. And because you're a human, you cannot be certain that it's totally right what you believe.

Believing doesn't give facts or prove, my dear friend.

 

I agree it's not proven yet, but at the other side it is not proven that the bible or creationism is right. Those are supported by even less evidence, almost none. Your only 'evidence' is some believe.

 

i'll give a more appropriate exemple for evolution:

imagine you're playing a bordgame, like chess for exemple, but you don't know the rules. You're playing against a masterplayer who is very good. But, you can play on thousands of bords. 

Now, when it's your turn and you do something random (because you don't know the rules), the master will immediatly defeat you on that bord. But on some bords, you do something good, without knowing. On those bords you can continue playing, and you get other bords for more possiblitys. This goes on many and many turns, and eventually you will have played some good games on some bords, by pure random chance. People will ask: 'how did you do that?' and you just say: 'i don't know, just some luck i guess.'

this is what evolution looks like.

[Guest shiloh357]

Your believe on itself is fallible because you're a human. And because you're a human, you cannot be certain that it's totally right what you believe.

Believing doesn't give facts or prove, my dear friend.

 

Yes, I am fallible which is why I trust an infallible source of information.

 

I agree it's not proven yet, but at the other side it is not proven that the bible or creationism is right.

 

But I am not claiming it is proven.   That's the difference between me and many supporters of the BB.

 

Those are supported by even less evidence, almost none. Your only 'evidence' is some believe.

 

My evidence is creation itself.  To create a universe and to keep the entire universe running requires a being who is all-knowing, who is everywhere at once and who is all powerful.  The creator has to  be greater than what He creates.  The God of the Bible is the best explanation for the universe.

 

A book is testimony of its author.  A song is testimony to its composer.  A poem is testimony to its poet.  A painting is testimony of its artist.  Therefore creation is testimony to its Creator.

 

i'll give a more appropriate exemple for evolution:

imagine you're playing a bordgame, like chess for exemple, but you don't know the rules. You're playing against a masterplayer who is very good. But, you can play on thousands of bords. 

Now, when it's your turn and you do something random (because you don't know the rules), the master will immediatly defeat you on that bord. But on some bords, you do something good, without knowing. On those bords you can continue playing, and you get other bords for more possiblitys. This goes on many and many turns, and eventually you will have played some good games on some bords, by pure random chance. People will ask: 'how did you do that?' and you just say: 'i don't know, just some luck i guess.'

this is what evolution looks like.

 

The problem is that creation doesn't act like anyone is getting lucky.   The universe reveals order, structure, overall uniformity and a design, especially mathematical design.  That's not luck or randomness.  That is evidence of plan and a purpose and design and design screams for a designer. 

[Schouwenaars]

No, it has everything to do with chance.

With yet another exemple:

There was a large population of white owls in scandinavia. because of all the snow, they could hardly be seen. but, every generation owls had some gray owl. but because they were seen very quickly, they were berely albe to reproduce. but when some time ago the snow was mostly gone because of some temperature raise, the white owl were suddenly very uncovered. but the grey owl, who would normally die quickly because he couldn't hunt properly, survived because now they were lucky they would not be seen. so now the most large population are the gray ones. yet it was all a matter of chance.

 

and you still are fallible in your decision of wich is infallible. that makes your believe fallible.

 

creation is an evidence for both sides.

 

and i just said i agree none of both theories have been proven yet.

Edited June 15, 2014 by Schouwenaars

[Guest shiloh357]

No, it has everything to do with chance.

 

Sorry but the universe doesn't work that way.  It operates by laws and mathematical design.   There is no evidence for "chance."  the universe acts intelligent, and not randomly.  There is evidence of structure and order.  The conditions need for life to exist make the notion that life happened by chance impossible to maintain as an intelligent argument.  Chance cannot produce order or design.

 

With yet another exemple:

There was a large population of white owls in scandinavia. because of all the snow, they could hardly be seen. but, every generation owls had some gray owl. but because they were seen very quickly, they were berely albe to reproduce. but when some time ago the snow was mostly gone because of some temperature raise, the white owl were suddenly very uncovered. but the grey owl, who would normally die quickly because he couldn't hunt properly, survived because now they were lucky they would not be seen. so now the most large population are the gray ones. yet it was all a matter of chance.

 

No, it is not a matter of chance.   That the owls responded to the changing conditions in the environment means that an external condition made the change necessary.   Had the change in owls occurred without a change in external conditions whatsoever, then your argument of chance might be able to see daylight.   Cause and affect deny chance.

 

creation is an evidence for both sides.

 

No, its not.  There is no evidence for "chance."   Chance deals with probability and there is no evidence that creation just appeared out of nowhere by chance.  The conditions for life, and the complexity of those conditions rule out chance as a viable argument.  In fact, most scientists even secular ones have abandoned the argument of "chance" because the natural world and biological life is to complex for their to be any odds of life appearing for no reason by random chance.

[Schouwenaars]

 

 

the natural world and biological life is to complex for their to be any odds of life appearing for no reason by random chance.

Please look back at my previous exemple of the bordplayer. With this, it doesn't matter how complex it is.

 

 

 

 That the owls responded to the changing conditions in the environment means that an external condition made the change necessary. 

The changing of conditions was a chance on itself. That is the whole point.

 

 

 

There is no evidence for "chance."

I can give countless exemple when and why this is wrong.

Like Shrödingers cat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat

The decay of an radioactive core is a pure matter of chance. 

If you go at the size of an atoms, you enter the quantumphycisal world.

And in quantumphysics, everything has to do with chance: ( i don't expect you to read it fully, just get an impression)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

this formula for exemple, describes that we cannot be certain of the place AND momentum (speed and mass) of a particle. the more we are certain about one, the less we can be certain about the other: 

This is the physics you thought had nothing to do with chance. Actually, it has everything to do with it.

A particle is (on quantum level) a wavefunction of the chance of being on that place. Where the wavefunction is the highest, so the most chance, we suppose the particle is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction ->   "the modulus squared of the wavefunction, |ψ|², is a real number interpreted as the probability density of finding a particle in a given place at a given time, if the particle's position is to be measured."

 

 

Please do not read all those articles fully. That's not my purpose.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Schouwenaars

[Guest shiloh357]

Please look back at my previous exemple of the bordplayer. With this, it doesn't matter how complex it is.

 

Your example doesn't even come close to being an example of how complex creation is.  A single strand of DNA is infinitely more complex than our most advanced computers.   There is simply no way an honest person can look at the complexity of the universe and believe it came about by chance.

 

Take a clock off of the wall and beat that clock into 1,000 pieces.  Take all 1,000 pieces and place them in a brown paper bag and start shaking that bag.  You would have better odds that all 1,000 pieces of that clock would suddenly reassemble into a working clock while you are shaking the bag than you do of all of the forces, chemicals and molecules in the universe assembling themselves by chance.

 

Furthermore, life cannot come from nonliving things.  Science has proven that.  No one believes in abiogenesis anymore, but your ridiculous suggestion that everything comes about by chance requires life to spring from nonliving substances

 

The changing of conditions was a chance on itself. That is the whole point.

 

I realize that it was your point.  I am saying that your point is wrong.  It can't be chances because conditions don't change on chance.  "Chance" means probability.  Chance is not a force that anything operates by.  "Chance" refers to the probability that an event occurs.  Nothing occurs "by" chance as if chance affects change.  There are laws and forces at work in the universe and everything occurs according to those law, meaning that chance is a misnomer. 

 

I can give countless exemple when and why this is wrong.

 

No, you can't.  You cannot point to one thing that happens by pure chance.

 

Again, I will ignore anything from wikipedia.  If you are unwilling to do real research, don't bother wasting your time with wikipedia.

[Schouwenaars]

 

 

You cannot point to one thing that happens by pure chance.

The decaying of an radioactive atom happens by pure chance. No force or nature can let it decay more quickly.

And by saying this you totally negated my the essence of my last post. That was all about showing many things have to do with chance.

I can give you many more sources, but it's finally up to you to ignore them or not. 

 

and well then, if you insist on other sources than wikipedia and some 'real' research:

http://sunsetridgemsbiology.wikispaces.com/file/view/0132542498Chance.pdf

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Random_chance

a theist article, so you cant blame it on atheism: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2314

                                                                            http://college.holycross.edu/faculty/kprestwi/intro/intro_notes/intro_25_evolution&Chance.pdf

 

 

Furthermore, life cannot come from nonliving things.  Science has proven that. 

Totally not true. I would like to see this 'proof' of yours. 

And a single piece of DNA is NOT more complex than our fastest computers. By far not. If some supercomputers can simulate other universes, i think we can deal with some DNA.

http://www.space.com/13151-universe-evolution-nasa-supercomputer-simulation.html