Is evolution linked to the Big Bang?

Many here claim evolution is not linked to to the big bang, and that they dont go together. How can you explain the midle of a story without telling the beginning?





Is hard to convince an atheist of creationism. As some one say "How to convince a blind that the colors exist?"





I dont believe a scientist just because they say evolution is true does not mean I gonna believe. On TV everything looks real. When creationists' scientist talk, they are called bad scientist, even if they come from the best Universities.





I don't say that your are wrong, to be wrong you need to know the difference between right and wrong.





You ask me to prove if God exist. I ask you to prove that he does not exist. Better yet, prove evolution is right. Is there something that looked to be designed but was not designed?





The distance between sun and earth, stars, other planets, the way oxygen works, look too good to be coincidence. Don't you think?

Is evolution linked to the Big Bang?
Michael Denton, as well as earlier science detractors, distinguished two theories of evolution in Darwin's work - the so called Special Theory of Evolution (speciation through natural selection) and the General Theory (the common descent of all organisms); these distinctions are merely academic to the vast majority of biologists.


Most creationists usually call these points, microevolution and macroevolution but some have broadened Denton's operational definition of general evolution to include any scientific fact, hypothesis or theory that disagrees with a literal translation of Genesis. http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=...





To this set of creationists, microevolution means variations within kinds; macroevolution includes the origin of major kinds but general evolution involves cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, stellar and planetary evolution, and organic evolution - every scientific issue that argues against 6 days of creation. Everyone believing in these forms of "evolution" is known as "evolutionists." Using these fraudulent terms, a creationist may claim "evolutionists" believe in an empty theory because nobody knows the details of the big bang and abiogenesis remains unexplained - that this has absolutely nothing to do with Darwin's theory of biological evolution does not seem to bother them. Most people would say it's because creationists are just not smart enough to understand, but it looks to me like they're just lying to support their agenda - every creationist website contains this sort of scientific hoax.
Reply:No, and to answer your next question it has nothing to do with gods either.





If there were no oxygen we would not be here and there would be completely different life forms breathing whatever took it's place.
Reply:Watch The Expanding Universe it was one of the best documentaries i have ever seen on this subject. It will explain most of the questions you have. Then maybe even raise new ones.You can order it on Netflix if you have it.
Reply:No, the Big Bang is cosmology, which is largely a branch of physics. Evolution deals with biology. Science has different branches to deal with different types of questions, with scientists specially skilled in a given field.





This has proven to be a much better way at understanding the world than reverting back to the same dogma from the same book of the same religion for an explanation. The latter is what you're doing, which is why you're confused over the two subjects being "linked".





%26gt;%26gt;I dont [sic] believe a scientist just because they say


%26gt;%26gt;evolution is true does not mean I [sic] gonna believe.





Nor should you. That's the difference between science and religious dogma. You can actually look up the material that backs up the scientists' claims. No credible scientist is going to lie about having discovered something he or she didn't, because they know there's always another scientist who can check his or her work, and call them on their claim. And a bad reputation only hurts a scientist, as it means it's much harder to get funding for experiements, get other things published, etc.





%26gt;%26gt;When creationists' scientist talk, they are called bad


%26gt;%26gt;scientist, even if they come from the best Universities.





That's because creationists do not do science. Instead of following the scientific method, they make ill attempts at trying to find holes in evolution, to try and give people the impression that creation is correct by default. Science doesn't work like that. The same applies for ones that "come from the best universities" (which obviously rules out people like Kent Hovind). On top of that, having a PhD on one subject doesn't automatically make you an expert in another.





%26gt;%26gt;You ask me to prove if God exist. I ask you to prove


%26gt;%26gt;that he does not exist.





I don't care about proof, so long as you're not bothering me or insisting that I "have to" believe in God. Even then, the burden of proof is on YOU, because you are making the claims about something's existence. Just as I can't ask you to "prove unicorns do not exist".





%26gt;%26gt;Better yet, prove evolution is right.





You obviously haven't read any of the millions of biology books and scientific journals published over the last 200 years:


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolutio...


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil...





%26gt;%26gt;Is there something that looked to be designed but


%26gt;%26gt;was not designed?





Actually, NOTHING looks like it's "designed" when you take the time to examine it:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcv...


(Oh, and Ken Miller, the biologist in this clip, is a Christian by the way)





%26gt;%26gt;The distance between sun and earth, stars, other


%26gt;%26gt;planets, the way oxygen works, look too good to be


%26gt;%26gt;coincidence. Don't you think?





Congratulations for falling for the fallacious assumption that the only two possibilities are "big invisible guy" or "coincidence". It's neither. Go look up the laws of chemistry and physics. No invisible man is needed to explain these things.
Reply:"Is there something that looked to be designed but was not designed?"





Yes the platypus.
Reply:One is cosmology.





The other is biology.





Read up on 'em sometime.





You may learn something.
Reply:"How can you explain the midle of a story without telling the beginning? "


You see, you people are just so used to stories you have to analogize things that way to understand them.


Evolution is not a 'story'. It is a scientific theory. It does not need the big bang to be true for it to be true. Evolutionary theory presupposes life.





"Is hard to convince an atheist of creationism."


Atheists are not alone in this! 95% of the scientific community accepts evolutionary theory; not NEARLY that many are atheists.





"When creationists' scientist talk, they are called bad scientist, even if they come from the best Universities."


They are called bad scientists by ACTUAL scientists.





"I don't say that your are wrong, to be wrong you need to know the difference between right and wrong."


So...you're saying we're wrong...





"You ask me to prove if God exist. I ask you to prove that he does not exist. "


Therein lies the problem. You don't understand that the mechanisms of logic dictate that the one making the positive assertion is the one who must prove it. Otherwise people could claim all manor of absurd things without having to prove them (not that logic actually stops this kind of thing; case in point).





"Better yet, prove evolution is right."


READ A BOOK OR TWO! Evolution is supported by EVERY branch of science relevant to the theory. Cosmology, geology, linguistics (oh, yes!), physics, chemistry, etc., etc.


At least go visit the wiki!








"The distance between sun and earth, stars, other planets, the way oxygen works, look too good to be coincidence. Don't you think?"


Indeed. And we can explain every one of those without invoking a god.
Reply:Go ask this question in the Science Section.





And, being a longtime member of the National Center for Science Education, I would like to know just who are these creation scientists from the "best universities"?





William Dembski? He's in a quonset hut Bible College.





Gonsalvo Gonzales? Denied tenure for not producing research or raising grant money (and YES, that is part of achieving tenure).
Reply:You've been reading the wrong books and watching the wrong shows, boy....





Get some real information before you discuss anything...





Evolution is a proved fact, but people like you would not believe it, even though the proof hit you in the face...you guys prefer to believe in what cannot be proved...
Reply:So, when I explain gravity, you'll be sure to say "So what, it still dosen't explain the origins of the universe."








Single one theory out based on another theory, single them all out.
Reply:To understand evolution fully takes considerable study . Much easier to just imagine some big yo-yo with a magic wand doing it all in one big preformance .


Hokus-pokus-dominokus - - - - WHAM ! there it all is .
Reply:Actually, there is a fascinating theory the life began when meteors started to pummel the earth. Wherever these meteors hit the earth there are rich supplies of gold, silver, uranium, and countless other natural resources.





It is these cosmic intruders into our earth's crust that originally laid the ground work for all life (says this theory).





So to answer your question, the earth's beginnings are just a prerequisite for the life that happened afterwards. Life depended on the existence of the planet but did not necessarily begin there.
Reply:It's just like the coincidence that the holes in a cat's fur are exactly where its eyes are.





CD
Reply:It is in the sense that they both have happened. So it's really no more linked than how my yawn just now is linked to your waking up this morning. Despite the fact that your waking up was the beginning of the story and my yawning was the middle, I still knew when I yawned that I yawned without first contemplating your waking up.





As to proving that evolution is right, I don't really know what to say that the rest of the world hasn't already said. It confuses me that you're capable of rejecting the mountains of evidence that exist for evolution, but except the story of creation.
Reply:"I don't say that your are wrong, to be wrong you need to know the difference between right and wrong."





What a ridiculously arrogant, self-righteous statement.





All of your "questions" that you don't really want answered have already been answered a billion times in this section, even though this isn't the science section, to no avail.
Reply:Darwin's theory of evolution, already assumed that life existed.





It never attempted to explain how the planets became, or the universe became.





Read "On the Origins of Life" by Darwin, and you will then understand what the "Theory of Evolution" actually is trying to explain. You won't be so confused then.
Reply:The idea of the big collision I just came up with is probably more practical.





Evolution on the other hand is quite apparent, and my theory leaves room for that.
Reply:They are both evidence-based naturalistic explanations of existence. That's the link.
Reply:I'm really not sure there is a true question here but I'll touch on the topic.





This issue here the term evolution has been used to mean many many different extremes of the same ( or more accurately a series of scientific theories). In it's most extreme sense it can refer to the entire Atheist theory that existence came from random chance and the first step in this process was the big bang theory.





In it's least extreme sense it refers to the easily observable and verifiable theory that species change over time because genetic lines die out when those genetic traits reproductive capability of the members of the species. This usually referred to as Micro Evolution.





The point is, whether is a link between the big bang theory and evolution depends on what you mean by the term evolution.
Reply:No, evolution is not related to the big bang. One deals with biology, the other with astronomy.
Reply:Evolution is not linked to the Big Bang. This does not make either one of them false.





Because the rational people (ie not you) don't have all the answers, we obviously can't just tell you all of our history. However not knowing an intermediate step between two periods of time does not make us less credible.





Are you actually suggesting that it's more likely your god zapped the universe into existence, then focused on this dingy little planet and zapped two people? Honestly? You really shouldn't believe your mythology to be absolutely historically accurate.
Reply:the funny thing is that even if they could prove evolution to be true that still would not get rid of God
Reply:yes, but the sun can burn out also.
Reply:yeah and the universe is expanding every day
Reply:As for the big bang being related to evolution : the big bang is related to everything because it was when every piece of matter was created, so if you ask how is it related to this apple, well that apple is made of particles that were created in the big bang (or so we are told)





As far as the God question goes, I dont see such a big conflict between religion and science as what a lot of people see. Its kind of Science explains HOW and religion explains WHY. I know the bible makes out everything was made in just 7 days and science sugests that everything was made in billions of years, but what you have to remember is when it says god made this in day 1 and that in day 2, etc. this was before the Earth existed. And we only call 1 day = 24 hours because it is how long our planet takes to rotate on its axis. Before the Earth existed 1 day could be any length of time.





I have found most conflicts between science and religion can be resolved in a sensible way. Like scientests believe animals evolve over many thousands of years, but of course the procedure to allow this evolution had to be created somehow, maybe God made this procedure and put it into animals and allowed them to carry on and change.
Reply:they have nothing to do with one another... evolution has to do with life, and Gig Bang doesn't
Reply:Nope. The one has nothing to do with the other at all. They aren't even from the same branch of science.





And evolution has 150 years of testing and literally millions of fulfilled predictions. What the heck else do you want?
Reply:Only in the sense that they both are mostly based on coincidence. Praise the LORD.

polish