Big Bang? - Now Scientists Must Evolve

[Johnny B]

^^ In that case why don´t you make it more spicy and take a stand , affirm a claim or tow, reason and conclude the correctness of the template(even a filled one ).

 

As it stands , i don´t feel motvitaed enough to react to an unfilled template except the way i already did.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by ThePoint:

Big Bang states that the 'Bang' occurred at random - thus the author's statment - 'something coming out of nothing'.

Again, that is not what the Big Bang (BB) theory says at all. The author of the article was simply wrong. Nothing comes from nothing, there is no science theory that says that.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by J B:

^^ In that case why don´t you make it more spicy and take a stand , affirm a claim or tow, reason and conclude the correctness of the template(even a filled one ).

 

As it stands , i don´t feel motvitaed enough to react to an unfilled template except the way i already did.

React? - you mean empty and trivial denounciations of said template??? Yes, that was somewhat below the belt.

 

My belief is one I think you are familiar with. It is the called the Watchmaker Theory or some derivation thereof. If one sees a perfectly functioning and useful timepiece in the middle of the desert, one doesn't assume it magically evolved form the sands beneath it. This perfect timepiece would be an analogy of the Sun. This process of analogy is continued with many aspects of the various natural phenemona that occur in our world. The conclusion thus becomes: There is an intelligent designer, there is a God. And since the natural phenemona work in harmony - the supreme being is one - there is no pantheon of contradictory dieties. From that, I derive my view of scientific theories. So theories that have random, spontaneous etc automatically make me doubtful. With regard to the Big Bang - nothing in the theory makes disbelieve unless the theory states the Big Bang which started off the chain reaction occured spontaneously/randomly - then it would seek to deny a supreme being - and becomes a falsehood. This is my understanding of Big Bang, it says spontaneous particles started banging into each other. My understanding of that particular point may well be mistaken since science is not my forte.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

quote:Originally posted by ThePoint:

Big Bang states that the 'Bang' occurred at random - thus the author's statment - 'something coming out of nothing'.

Again, that is

not

what the Big Bang (BB) theory says at all. The author of the article was simply wrong. Nothing comes from nothing, there is no science theory that says that.

What began the Big Bang? Does the theory have no explanation as to how it got its start? If the answer is spontaneous - that is, indeed, out of nothing. If there is no answer - I have no problems. The outlines of the theory make sense to me but I believe it is incomplete as it is. What started the Big Bang was God - he is the supreme creator.

[Johnny B]

^^ For the sake of healthy debating i´ll accept your subject matter though totaly diffrent from the unfilled template.

 

For those of you who are not familiar with Thepoint´s formulations, it is nothing less than the famous William Paley's formulation of the teleological argument in the field of Natural Theology, published in 1800.

 

Please, don´t put a forced smile in my face and tell me that you´re here to defend Paley´s position.

 

before i disappoint you , i´d like to tell you ever since Darwin constructed the evoloution theory,Paley´s theroy was used and reused by the church and each and everytime it was defeated.

here i´m assuming that you´re kicking it from a Muslim´s point of view, i could be wrong though.

 

that is why it ended up in the arguments creationists shoulden´t use list.

 

just take a good look again at your conclision,

doesen´t it say that since this thing ( the watch, the universe) is so complex for me(human beeings) to understand how it was made or came into beeing therefore it must have been constructed by a beeing that it intellectually smarter?

Now bear with me , becouse this is where it usually gets hot to most theists, If what you can´t know how they came into the state they are is the comclusion of the existance of GOD.

 

what you´re saying is i can´t know GOD becouse you coulden´t know or understand the watch or the universe

 

Now this is a foreplay of the real refutation of Paley´s, but lemme stop there for the moment.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by ThePoint:

What began the Big Bang? Does the theory have no explanation as to how it got its start?

We don't know what began the Big Bang. If we go back in time, say rewind the creation of this universe, we'll end up hitting a brick wall which we can't see or know what's the other side of it. That is called point of singularity and all mathematics breaks down since the beginnning of this universe -- commencing at the point of singularity -- was coupled with the creation of time and space.

 

If there is no answer - I have no problems.

Then, you're happy I guess.

[Johnny B]

Delayed gratifications are nothing for me dear ThePoint, so let me go ahead n collide with myself.

before i lay my eggs i´d like ask u some sincere questions.

 

ThePoint can you find out the contradiction in the WatchMaker anology? will you accept it if i demostrate it and abandon your beleif?

Is this your very last resort regarding the existance of an Intelligent designer?

 

If one of your answers to these questions is YES, here comes the contradiction, the ex nihilo and lastly the falsehood of the analogy:

 

First: The argument is contraditory becouse it gives the universe two incompitable definations.

You can´t assume that the watch is not as complex and complicated as nature in one hand( heey look what i found! a complicated complex thing, very unlike humble simplne nature ) and at the same time assume that the universe is so complicated complex but ordered just like the watch in the other hand , thus you can´t come to bedrock that way.

 

Second: You can´t make the watchs out of nothing, the things that the watchmaker used are available naturally, but you claim your Creator created things including you and the universe ex nihilo from nothing.

SB´s refutation of your BB theory assumption might have given u a " wake up " dos by now.

 

And lastly the argument is false becouse it is based on WRONG assumptions,

I need you to hang on here becouse it is here where it usually takes few more brain cells to burn.

 

If two objects share the same quality they must not have another one in common.

Your basic assumption dictates the contrary.

 

Take a great look at this deductive reasoning.

 

1: A watch is a complex thing to construct.

2: A watch has a clever WatchMaker.

3: The Universe is also a complex thing to construct.

4: Therefore the Universe also has a clever WatchMaker.

 

You see dear ThePoint, the last statement is WRONG. why? you might wonder , becouse what it concludes is not supported by the creteria.

 

There is another funnier( dummier ) deductive reasoning i´d like to share with you , not that i´m implying it´ll be easier to grasb or something in that direction, but just becouse it is funnier.

 

1: flowers are beautifully designed beauty.

2: flowers grow on trees.

3: Dollar bills are also beautifully designed beauty.

4: therefore Dollar bills grow on trees.

 

And that is FALSE according to the idiom.

 

On a serious note, you don´t need to abandon your beleif, i don´t frankly care, but atleast try to rethink and make a better Wathcmaker argument.

 

P.s happy holidays !!

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by J B:

Delayed gratifications are nothing for me dear ThePoint, so let me go ahead n collide with myself.

before i lay my eggs i´d like ask u some sincere questions.

 

ThePoint can you find out the contradiction in the WatchMaker anology? will you accept it if i demostrate it and abandon your beleif?

Is this your very last resort regarding the existance of an Intelligent designer?

Hardly a last resort, saxiib. Part and parcel of the many signs that point to an intelligent designer.

 

If one of your answers to these questions is YES, here comes the contradiction, the ex nihilo and lastly the falsehood of the analogy:

 

First: The argument is contraditory becouse it gives the universe two incompitable definations.

You can´t assume that the watch is not as complex and complicated as nature in one hand( heey look what i found! a complicated complex thing, very unlike humble simplne nature ) and at the same time assume that the universe is so complicated complex but ordered just like the watch in the other hand , thus you can´t come to bedrock that way.

Contradictory - how? Watch/Universe = ordered. Watch/Universe = complex. The universe is simply of a grade higher - more ordered and more complex.

Hint - lose the sarcasm and arrogance and maybe your argument can be more intelligible to others.

 

Second: You can´t make the watchs out of nothing, the things that the watchmaker used are available naturally, but you claim your Creator created things including you and the universe ex nihilo from nothing.

SB´s refutation of your BB theory assumption might have given u a " wake up " dos by now.

Sure the watch was made out of materials found on Earth, so the universe was made out something too - the Will of God. In our physical world there is no equivalent - as such nothing. God is the original creator. Can you grasp that? Can you grasp something that metaphysical or is your realm only the physical?

 

 

And lastly the argument is false becouse it is based on WRONG assumptions,

I need you to hang on here becouse it is here where it usually takes few more brain cells to burn.

 

If two objects share the same quality they must not have another one in common.

Your basic assumption dictates the contrary.

 

Take a great look at this deductive reasoning.

 

1: A watch is a complex thing to construct.

2: A watch has a clever WatchMaker.

3: The Universe is also a complex thing to construct.

4: Therefore the Universe also has a clever

WatchMaker.

 

You see dear ThePoint, the last statement is WRONG. why? you might wonder , becouse

what it concludes is not supported by the creteria.

Your deductive reasoning quoted is a misrepresentation. Both the watch and the universe share a complexity and orderliness not explained by randomness and spontaneity. Thus one is an analogy of the other. The watch is also a direct reference to the sun so your quote above is lacking in depth.

 

 

There is another funnier( dummier ) deductive reasoning i´d like to share with you , not that i´m implying it´ll be easier to grasb or something in that direction, but just becouse it is funnier.

 

1: flowers are beautifully designed beauty.

2: flowers grow on trees.

3: Dollar bills are also beautifully designed beauty.

4: therefore Dollar bills grow on trees.

 

And that is FALSE according to the idiom.

You haven't proven anything false to me at this point.

 

On a serious note, you don´t need to abandon your beleif, i don´t frankly care.......

P.s happy holidays !!

About the only thing I agree with you about - I like your words so much I'll give you the same advice. Substitute in your own misguided beliefs about God/Universe/Big Bang/Evolution etc.

 

On a serious note, you don´t need to abandon your beleif, i don´t frankly care.......

 

 

PS - I have a feeling this debate is likely going nowhere fast so I will make this my last post on this issue. Happy Holidays to you too.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

quote:Originally posted by ThePoint:

What began the Big Bang? Does the theory have no explanation as to how it got its start?

We don't know what began the Big Bang. If we go back in time, say rewind the creation of this universe, we'll end up hitting a brick wall which we can't see or know what's the other side of it. That is called point of

singularity

and all mathematics breaks down since the beginnning of this universe -- commencing at the point of singularity -- was coupled with the creation of time and space.

 

If there is no answer - I have no problems.

Then, you're happy I guess.

Just Dandy!!! An incomplete theory as I have noted above. And you can see above what I believe it needs for completion.

[Castro]

Originally posted by J B:

I need you to hang on here becouse it is here where it usually takes few more brain cells to burn.

You've burnt all of mine for the day, saaxib. Let me sleep on this, and regenerate a few more ex nihilo, and I'll engage you in this. It seems like you've also burnt all of The Point's cells but he'd rather use his new ones elsewhere.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Castro:

quote:Originally posted by J B:

I need you to hang on here becouse it is here where it usually takes few more brain cells to burn.

You've burnt all of mine for the day, saaxib. Let me sleep on this, and regenerate a few more

ex nihilo

, and I'll engage you in this. It seems like you've also burnt all of The Point's cells but he'd rather use his new ones elsewhere.

In contradiction to what I said before(we can't be Somalis if we don't contradict ourselves many times over ) I want to say Castro, he has not 'burnt' out my brain cells. It just seems to be this will likely be a tit for tat for debate with both sides not moving so... I'd rather not waste my time. My brain is amply supplied, thank you.

[ElPunto]

By PM demand - sorry about the bold probs!

 

Originally posted by J B:

Delayed gratifications are nothing for me dear ThePoint, so let me go ahead n collide with myself.

before i lay my eggs i´d like ask u some sincere questions.

 

ThePoint can you find out the contradiction in the WatchMaker anology? will you accept it if i demostrate it and abandon your beleif?

Is this your very last resort regarding the existance of an Intelligent designer?

Hardly a last resort, saxiib. Part and parcel of the many signs that point to an intelligent designer.

 

If one of your answers to these questions is YES, here comes the contradiction, the ex nihilo and lastly the falsehood of the analogy:

 

First: The argument is contraditory becouse it gives the universe two incompitable definations.

You can´t assume that the watch is not as complex and complicated as nature in one hand( heey look what i found! a complicated complex thing, very unlike humble simplne nature ) and at the same time assume that the universe is so complicated complex but ordered just like the watch in the other hand , thus you can´t come to bedrock that way.

Contradictory - how? Watch/Universe = ordered. Watch/Universe = complex. The universe is simply of a grade higher - more ordered and more complex.

Hint - lose the sarcasm and arrogance and maybe your argument can be more intelligible to others.

 

Second: You can´t make the watchs out of nothing, the things that the watchmaker used are available naturally, but you claim your Creator created things including you and the universe ex nihilo from nothing.

SB´s refutation of your BB theory assumption might have given u a " wake up " dos by now.

Sure the watch was made out of materials found on Earth, so the universe was made out something too - the Will of God. In our physical world there is no equivalent - as such nothing. God is the original creator. Can you grasp that? Can you grasp something that metaphysical or is your realm only the physical?

 

 

And lastly the argument is false becouse it is based on WRONG assumptions,

I need you to hang on here becouse it is here where it usually takes few more brain cells to burn.

 

If two objects share the same quality they must not have another one in common.

Your basic assumption dictates the contrary.

 

Take a great look at this deductive reasoning.

 

1: A watch is a complex thing to construct.

2: A watch has a clever WatchMaker.

3: The Universe is also a complex thing to construct.

4: Therefore the Universe also has a clever

WatchMaker.

 

You see dear ThePoint, the last statement is WRONG. why? you might wonder , becouse

what it concludes is not supported by the creteria.

Your deductive reasoning quoted is a misrepresentation. Both the watch and the universe share a complexity and orderliness not explained by randomness and spontaneity. Thus one is an analogy of the other. The watch is also a direct reference to the sun so your quote above is lacking in depth.

 

 

There is another funnier( dummier ) deductive reasoning i´d like to share with you , not that i´m implying it´ll be easier to grasb or something in that direction, but just becouse it is funnier.

 

1: flowers are beautifully designed beauty.

2: flowers grow on trees.

3: Dollar bills are also beautifully designed beauty.

4: therefore Dollar bills grow on trees.

 

And that is FALSE according to the idiom.

You haven't proven anything false to me at this point.

 

On a serious note, you don´t need to abandon your beleif, i don´t frankly care.......

P.s happy holidays !!

About the only thing I agree with you about - I like your words so much I'll give you the same advice. Substitute in your own misguided beliefs about God/Universe/Big Bang/Evolution etc.

 

On a serious note, you don´t need to abandon your beleif, i don´t frankly care.......

 

 

PS - I have a feeling this debate is likely going nowhere fast so I will make this my last post on this issue. Happy Holidays to you too.

[ATLAS]

The point dont sulk off thank you for participating my two cents:

 

OK, so if you found a watch lying in the desert, would you assume that it "spontaneously assembled" itself from the desert sand and rocks? Of course not! You would assume that it was made, or created, by a skilled watchmaker, and dropped there by him or someone else. The watch was clearly designed for a very specific purpose, by someone with great expertise, who knew exactly what he wanted ahead of time. Therefore, when we find something as perfectly designed as a living animal, it is utterly foolish to assume that it "spontaneously assembled itself" either. It had to be designed, in all its perfection, by some Great Designer. The mere existence of well-designed watches and animals is all the proof we should need that both were created by someone with infinitely more wisdom than the creations. Both, by their existence alone, imply the existence of a great designer or creator. Watches don't "just evolve," and neither do animals (or people); ergo, evolution is logically absurd (and, by extension, anyone who believes in it is an illogical ***** ).

 

Anyway, that's sort of how the analogy usually goes. And it looks pretty good at first glance. I imagine a few evolution-minded folks have been taken aback by this one, the first time they heard it, not knowing quite how to answer it at the time. I'll also bet that some creationists see this as an irrefutable gem of logic that utterly destroys evolution and all its works.

 

Hold on a minute, though. Since this argument is presented in the form of an analogy, let's hold the creationist to his own logic, and see if the analogy holds up. For an analogy to make any logical sense at all, the two things being compared have to have a LOT in common, not just one salient feature. For instance, when we're considering the functioning of a living thing (like a person), an analogy is often drawn with a complex machine of some sort (like a watch, but a car works even better). Both need fuel, both produce heat and waste products, both wear out eventually, both turn chemical energy into mechanical energy, both have many small but critical parts, etc. But the watch-in-the-desert analogy is not about how the things work.It's about where they came from --or really, how they came to be. And when you think about that, you come to some interesting conclusions. Remember, it's supposed to work this way: because a watch doesn't spontaneously assemble and has to have a maker who made it just the way it is, therefore an animal can't spontaneously assemble either, and it, too, must have a maker who made it just the way it presently is.

 

Let's start with this: watches DIDN'T just appear in the world as they presently are! As a matter of very obvious fact, they evolved . The first timepieces were very primitive, clumsy, and inaccurate. They improved over the years. If we can refer to really old time-keeping devices as "fossils," then we can show a fossil sequence of the evolution of watches from some dim time in the past up to our present electronic wonders. Nowadays they evolve visibly from one year to the next. The watchmakers went through a whole, evolving series of clocks and watches before someone carelessly dropped one in that desert. So is this supposed to prove that the animal we find in the desert was made in its present form, with no significant changes over many generations? Am I missing something here?

 

Remember, the debate is really about whether evolution occurs , not about whether there's a creator behind it. A watchmaker (mankind) slowly developed (evolved) the sequence of timepieces. Maybe a Watchmaker slowly developed (evolved) the sequence of living things--you'll get no argument about that here. But the evolution happened in both cases. The message of that lost watch is NOT "I sprang up in my present perfection, with no primitive ancestors before me." It's more like "I'm at the end of a long chain of slowly evolving ancestors, and my descendants will continue to change."

 

Is finding a man-made watch in the desert supposed to somehow show that animals were created in their present forms by magic (or miracle) some few thousand years ago? What on Earth would lead us to that conclusion? The watch wasn't created by magic. In fact it was created by purely natural processes (as opposed to supernatural). If the creation of the watch really is analogous to the creation of living things, then what the analogy shows us is that the origin of both can be explained by natural processes.

 

Supernatural intervention could have been responsible for either or both, but that explanation certainly isn't necessary for the watch. If we hold the creationist to the logic of his own analogy, then what the analogy "proves," if it proves anything, is that well-designed "creations" can be produced naturally, in small, incremental steps: no magic required, thank you very much.

 

"But, but, but..." the creationist insists, "the point of the analogy is that things like watches and animals don't spontaneously assemble!" Well, that's half right, and here's where the analogy breaks down. Any analogy can only be stretched so far. The car stops being analogous to the human body when you start talking about thought or emotions. And watches stop being analogous to animals when you start talking about how the individual item is assembled. Watches, after all, never have little baby watches! An individual watch is, of course, always assembled by something outside itself (a human watchmaker, although nowadays it's more likely to be industrial robots). All the animals I've ever seen have assembled themselves , quite literally! They take in (usually) nonliving material from their environments, chemically process it, and turn it into parts of the living animal. In the case of mammals like us, the only parts of us that are directly made by someone else are the sperm and egg cells that unite and subdivide into our first few cells. After that, for the rest of our lives, we take in material from the outside, and assemble it ourselves into parts of us. Early on, that material is supplied by our mother, but she doesn't make us: she just supplies the raw material. We absorb it, manipulate it, build ourselves , and get rid of what we don't need.

 

OK, I know, the point is the first animal. How could it get started? All presently living animals are started off with bits of already-living matter created by their parents. Nonliving chemicals don't spontaneously assemble, don't create orderly, complex molecules out of simple elements... Don't they? If the creationist gets to this point, he has revealed his basic ignorance of the simplest chemistry. Elements and simple molecules combine spontaneously all the time to form more complex molecules. When was the last time you found any loose hydrogen on the Earth, or fluorine? All of it has spontaneously combined with other elements to form more complex molecules. If you turn some loose, it won't stay uncombined for long. Carbon atoms, especially, have a tendency to form spontaneously into all kinds of complex molecules, which in turn often combine to form very complicated polymers and mega-molecules. Some of those combinations are even self-replicating , if the raw materials are available. We don't commonly see molecules assembling themselves into living systems, but then it only had to happen once--from then on the natural tendency of life has been to keep itself going, spread out, and evolve. When you get down to the level of molecules, or small collections of them, the dividing line between living and nonliving gets pretty fuzzy. As a matter of fact, one of the basic criteria used in modern biology to distinguish living from nonliving complex systems, is that truly living systems are capable of evolving as they reproduce.

 

And, if we are committed to the idea of a Creator, He certainly could have been the one to arrange that first unlikely combination. He could have even directed all the evolution since then. Again, the point of the tired, old watch-in-the-desert analogy was supposed to be that evolution does not and could not occur. But watches have evolved; they aren't created miraculously, ex nihilo ; and their inability to self-assemble has nothing to do with the obvious ability of chemical compounds and living things to assemble themselves out of available materials.

[Caano Geel]

When i see such arguments starting i cant help but have the phrase 'the god of the unkown' come to mind. The point is that by trying rule out the result of investigation, you are effectively saying god covers the bits in between what we know.

 

SO the shock horror thing is that saying the big bang happened does not rule out that a god exists. The event f the big bang just tell you about a mechanism that could e used to explain phenomena that we see, it may be right or wrong but its can be proved. And surprisingly, thats the point of science, nothing more and nothing less.

 

Now my point is that you wanna discuss the inn's and outs of cosmological theory then thats all good, if you wnna discuss the role of god then thats good. But when you start saying that one disproves the other you are in trouble by denigrating the role of a deity to the things in between what you know and elevating the role of hypothesis testing to cause and realisation

--

[Baluug]

I have noticed when it comes to Socod Badne and Johnny B, they seem to like to argue over nonsense when it comes to the Qur'an. Whether scientists argue the universe was nothing at one time or if some little piece of crap was there, is irrevelant. The author is simply making the point that the theory of the big bang cannot be trusted or relied upon, because of the simple fact he stated that things do not come together by themselves. They are assembled by human beings, or in the case of the universe and everything in it, by Allah SWT. Actually, the big bang theory may be true, but it was Allah SWT who started it and controls it along with everything else in this universe. So while you two are arguing over bullsh*t like it's unoriginal or what scientists say, our sister is giving us da'wa on a topic of extreme importance.

Masha Allah sister, and keep em coming!!