If you dispute using the big bang model to extrapolate the formation of life itself, as you say, then why do you extrapolate that ? Science doesn't. Why would you even imagine life on earth starting as pure happenstance? Science doesn't. Inevitable perhaps, but not happenstance. When there are enough natural chemical reactions between inanimate substances, hospitable conditions and 8 billion years of time to mutate essential building blocks of life itself, why would you think that is pure happenstance? How come you need to suggest things that science doesn't suggest, to wrongly name those things as science, to infer science wrong? Is it because you think where there are any gaps in knowledge or understanding, or some unfounded controversy can be made, ID can slot in there and somehow that makes ID valid ? ID can never be valid nor scientific because it starts out on its own embedded fundamentally self-defeating argument. If such complicated things as the universe or life needs to be intelligently designed, the thing designing them would need to be (even more) complicated . If that is not the case, then complicated things don't need intelligent design, then neither does the universe nor life itself. If it is the case that complicated things need to be intelligently designed which is what ID says, then complicated things need an intelligent designer. The intelligent designer who designed the universe and life on earth would be complex. As according to ID, complex things need an intelligent designer, now the intelligent designer needs an even more complex intelligent designer too...and so on and so on. Infinite regress. Fatter and fatter Turtles, all the way down. Intelligent design ID starts life ok sure it does, but its own life only, as a question begging, non-scientific game of jiggery-pokery. You know, similar to the same hanky-panky which tries to say non belief is belief
1. If you read anything about what is going on in science today - you would know that many scientists state life on earth was far from inevitable. To many of top physicists, string theorists and nobel prize winners life existing on earth is so improbable given the compostion of the universe it is truly amazing. 2. Many scientists understand that the big bang theory is entirely consistent with the idea of a Creator. If you spent any time watch PBS or discovery channel when they do documentaries on great scientists. Some very committed atheists were doing all they could to reject the big bang theory. They much prefer the eternal or steady state kind of universe theories. 3. You can believe in God and still understand that the burden of proof is on the believer. Most of us know the difference between belief, conjecture and fact. Even scientific fact. 4. This argument starts when Vhehn and Stu claim that they have proof there is not God. Then STU starts with his typical misdirection by using a unorthodox definition of atheism. So then we all tell him what a loser he is - it is really just semantics and a silly argument. The bottom line is this... STU and Vhehn are so emotional and despise believers so much - they can not admit they have no proof that God does not exist. Which makes them the Jim and Tammy Fe Baker of atheism. By the way - I hope they prove me wrong and admit it they have no proof. (I sort of respect vhehn and perhaps STU is decent guy in real life. )
jem, You have no capacity for discussion or argument without making wrong statements, being self-contradictory, not listening to what is being said in opposition to your view, and stating things that are only in your imagination. No one is more emotional here than yourself. You swear and curse ,call names, make ad hominem , jump to conclusions and you don't listen to a thing. Scientists can say or think what they like but it is Science which will support their theories or reject them, prove them right or wrong. Big Bang theory is scientific but there are different models of Big Bang events. It is clear you understand little about the Science of Big Bang but just want to make silly controversies , misinformation and disconnects. And did I say , you don't listen. As far as I am aware neither vhehn nor I have ever stated no "God" exists. I cannot say nor would I ever state categorically that no Fairies or Leprechauns exist. So why not stop saying things that are not true about what I do say? Although vhehn can speak for himself, I have said over and over there are no reasons why there should or would be a Creator or God whatever as far as I am concerned. The ideas put forward in support of such a thing are often childish, superstitious and quite honestly bizarre, especially in your case. That is a world of difference to saying categorically there is or is not a God. It requires no belief and no other information than to understand the argument for a Creator sounds totally preposterous and nonsensical. Did I say you donât listen?
No more preposterous and nonsensical than an uncaused singularity event or creation of the universe(s).
A substantial knowledge of fact based theory supporting a natural event of point of zero volume, with very high mass and infinite density OR A supernatural magical uncaused invisible imaginary myth fairy sky friend cloud daddy. . yeah... no more preposterous to anyone who can no longer think past religion
Lot's of "ifs" there. The chemical evolution theory is certainly interesting, but it's only a study of how life "could" have arisen from inanimate matter to quote from the first sentence of your wiki link. Could it have happened that way? Sure! Did it happen that way? Yet to be determined. Chemical evolution requires as many assumptions of the unkowns as does the Big Bang itself. First someone needs to explain how some sort of spontaneous combustion occurs in a vaccum which has no matter in it to begin with. When you get that, then you can explain how the nothing matter vaccum explosion just happened to have the right chemical elements for life to develop. Then you can explain how those basic elements of life just happened to go through the perfect sequence of events for intelligent life to evolve. Then you can explain how that remotley intelligent life just happened to go through all the perfect sequence of events to become intelligent life which has self awareness. I know, you'll say you've already done that with the natural selection process that occurs during evolution. Nice and neat, yet you accuse the ID'ers of being too simplisitc. I'm not saying any of your hypothesis is wrong, but you damn sure seem to being saying ID just can't be, yet you offer no proof that your theory is right. Proof would be the ability to recreate everything that's happened from the moment of the Big Bang. We're a long ways from that my friend.
And for those that subscribe to Occam's razor, pehaps you should ponder this...The vacuum is not a vacuum contradiction Most of the universe is empty space: a vacuum which is defined as a volume containing no particles, force fields, nor waves. By definition a vacuum has no energy. However, the Big Bang theory requires both in its early phases and in its later phases that the vacuum must have some energy (an obvious contradiction). This "vacuum energy density" is an obvious flaw with the theory because it has never been observed in laboratory experiments, and even theorists who believe in its existence cannot decide what its particular characteristics are. When theorists do try to calculate how much of the hypothetical energy should be in the vacuum, they derive a number that is at least one googol (10100) times too large. The other problem is that the two different phases of the Big Bang where energy of the vacuum is not zero have fundamentally completely different sizes of hypothetical energy, so there isn't just one vacuum energy that the naturalists need to account for, there are two. These artificial creations of naturalist astronomers are clung to in spite of Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is that the energy of the vacuum is zero and that the Big Bang is incorrect. And if that's not enough, chew on this for awhile. Evidence Against Age Proponents of the Big Bang measure an age of 13.7 Gyrs by tracing back the expansion of the universe to an initial point. However, unless the universe has gravitational attraction exactly balanced against this expansion it will either collapse in a Big Crunch or expand too quickly for us to survive in it. The evidence shows that only with a young universe can this problem be resolved which flatly contradicts the Big Bang. Alternative redshift mechanisms Dr. Halton Arp and other astronomers have discovered evidence that the universe isn't expanding at all. Instead, their observations indicate that redshifts are likely due to other mechanisms such as atoms having variable mass. If the universe is not expanding then the Big Bang is completely falsified. The variation of mass also disproves radiometric dating since decay rates would change as the mass of protons and electrons changed. These exciting discoveries lead us to conclude that the naturalist assumptions about the age of the universe and its dynamical state are incorrect. In an effort to suppress this inevitability, the astronomical community has denied Dr. Arp telescope time. Not enough antimatter According to the Big Bang cosmology most evolutionists assume that there should be an exact counterpart to matter known as antimatter right down to the same mass. Each particle of antimatter is an exact copy of of its identical matter particle except that each antimatter particle has the opposite charge.[2] These assumed predictions of the Big Bang have lost a lot of credibility because we have not found nearly the amount of antimatter in the universe that could be accepted under such a model.[3] No plausible inflationary mechanism The Big Bang hinges on a brief period of time called "inflation" during which the universe expanded exponentially. The only way that this can happen is if a hypothetical particle called the "inflaton" by theorists exists. This particle must have the properties of certain particles observed in physics laboratories called "zero spin". However, unlike particles observed with this characteristic, the inflaton must have a property that has never been observed: it must experience a very peculiar potential energy character that slowly decays. Such a feature has never been observed in any laboratory. Ad hoc reliance on "quantum fluctuations" In order to account for the differences in the density field of the universe, atheistic cosmologists utilize the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) to provide "variations" in their conception of an inflationary universe. Aside from this assumption relying on theories of quantum gravity which have not been developed, there is no way in which an "uncertainty" which is a statistical measure can account for a real physical overdensity or underdensity. These overdensities and underdensities are fundamentally required in order to explain the filaments, walls, and voids in the universe we see today, but the best that the Big Bang proponents can do is claim that there were "quantum fluctuations" without explaining the mechanism for their formation beyond a simple hand-waving appeal to "randomness". Quantum gravity and the paradoxical singularity For nearly 100 years, scientists and mathematicians have been trying without success to combine the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics together into a coherent theory of quantum gravity. This is a requirement for explaining how a Big Bang could have occurred. They have been unable to do so, despite the supposedly smartest minds in the world working on the problem. Instead, proponents of the Big Bang believe that a physically impossible "singularity" with infinite density, pressure, and temperature was the primal state of the universe: an impossibility that defies modeling. Instead of acknowledging this limitation of their theories, atheistic cosmologists prefer to use the paradox as the fundamental feature of the Big Bang: a universe in a single point that has no size or temporality. Rather than admit their inability to create a model that has any kind of physical meaning whatsoever, the atheistic cosmologists insist that their ideas that are not based on any coherent or consistent theory are correct. The vacuum is not a vacuum contradiction Most of the universe is empty space: a vacuum which is defined as a volume containing no particles, force fields, nor waves. By definition a vacuum has no energy. However, the Big Bang theory requires both in its early phases and in its later phases that the vacuum must have some energy (an obvious contradiction). This "vacuum energy density" is an obvious flaw with the theory because it has never been observed in laboratory experiments, and even theorists who believe in its existence cannot decide what its particular characteristics are. When theorists do try to calculate how much of the hypothetical energy should be in the vacuum, they derive a number that is at least one googol (10100) times too large. The other problem is that the two different phases of the Big Bang where energy of the vacuum is not zero have fundamentally completely different sizes of hypothetical energy, so there isn't just one vacuum energy that the naturalists need to account for, there are two. These artificial creations of naturalist astronomers are clung to in spite of Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is that the energy of the vacuum is zero and that the Big Bang is incorrect. Electromagnetic forces unaccounted for Naturalist astronomers assume that gravity is the dominant force in the universe driving the dynamics of the cosmos. However, the universe is mostly plasma which reacts strongly with electromagnetism. The Big Bang does not take this additional force into consideration. Too complex, too early The universe has too many large structures such as interspersed walls and voids, to be created in 10-20 billion years. We know the rate of expansion, thus we can get a rough estimate on how long it would take for them to form. Some have proposed that the speeds of galaxies were much faster in the past by means of some sort of viscosity of space, but this is nothing more then wishful thinking. Also, in order for these to form, it would take about 100 billion years. Not enough helium or lithium Newer observations have found that there is only 10 per cent of the deuterium present than was previously believed. This would mean that there should be much more helium and lithium around than we actually see. But many Big Bang enthusiasts claim that the amount of helium is a proof. Too many heavy elements The Big bang only allows for the production of the lightest elements on the periodic table. However, our very existence is predicated on a concentration of heavier elements such as carbon and oxygen. The oldest stars observed in the cosmos contain these heavier elements as well meaning that they had to be around since the very beginning of our universe. The Big Bang provides no explanation for where these elements originate. The universe isnât homogeneous enough In the year 2000, a survey of the red-shift found that it has an inhomogeneous distribution to a scale of at least 200 Mpc. This shows that there are no trends toward homogeneity even on scales up to 1000 Mpc. The Big Bang requires large-scale homogeneity. Too much energy The conservation of energy demands that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. In a naturalistic universe there would therefore be no source for the energy seen in our universe. The Big Bang is just a placeholder for an extreme violation of this fundamental physical principle. Too much angular momentum Everything in the universe is spinning with angular momentum. However, the conservation of angular momentum demands that angular momentum cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore, similar to the energy problem above there must be a source for the angular momentum in our universe that cannot be accounted for by naturalistic theories.
well well well you certainly know how to make a great cut'n'paste argument CO LOL the problem is you don't OWN any of it! hahaha