• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!

Status
Not open for further replies.
No it's not. The question about what happened before Big Bang is a question of origin, your question is about location.

I'm getting really tired of these "Exactly. It's like 'some completely different question I use to strenghten my statement'" one liners.

;)
In some theories there is no time untill the big bang, so "before the big bang" becomes an impossibility. North of the northpole is an accurate analogy, since it's the 'beginning' of the surface of the earth top-down. Just like the Big Bang could be the beginning of time.
 
I dunno, I kinda like the expanding/shrinking universe. No beginning of time, infinite history, no troublesome Big Bang with a beginning of time.

I'm not saying this is any more plausible than the Big Bang ... just appeals to me :)
 
I dunno, I kinda like the expanding/shrinking universe. No beginning of time, infinite history, no troublesome Big Bang with a beginning of time.

I'm not saying this is any more plausible than the Big Bang ... just appeals to me :)
Big Crunch appeals a bit to me too, but the problem is that evidence is against that. The universe is accelerating its expansion, not decelerating. Entropy poses a huge problem to a cyclic model of the expansion of the universe. There's also the fact that we don't know what the heck would happen to the universe after a certain critical range of temperature/density/length scale/et cetera.

While the fate of the universe is clearly not a closed debate, it's rather unlikely that a completely cyclic model would work.
 
Or like how much snow its in sahara...
Incorrect, that's just a zero. What we are talking about is not a zero value but a meaningless value. How much snow in the Sahara is definitely a meaningful question, but what is at 91 degrees north is not. Asking what happened before the big bang in the most basic interpretation is meaningless.

I go with this interpretation because it explains what is true and doesn't have additional speculative claims with minimal evidence.
 
I go with this interpretation because it explains what is true and doesn't have additional speculative claims with minimal evidence.

Or more bluntly, because you don't understand Inflation. :p

Neither do I, for that matter... Then again, Inflation still takes place after the actual Big Bang.
 
Or more bluntly, because you don't understand Inflation. :p

Neither do I, for that matter...
AFAIK inflation cosmology fits in with my view.
 
Doesn't change the fact that you refused to explain it! :p
Inflation cosmology = baby universe got big fast through crazy quantum stuff. There, happy?
 
Yes Darwin does present a hypothesis, but it is a hypothesis that has been supported by the scientific view of the world. I assume that by using the same logic used by the people in that article that teaching the theory of gravity is against freedom of choice as there is no teaching of 'intelligent falling' or the devil and his apple magnets.

No other theory or hypothesis fits the evidence we have as neatly as the theory of evolution. It would only take one piece of anti-evolutionary evidence to destroy it, and that evidence is conspicuous by its absence.
 
Here's something probably no one is interested in. More evolution demonstrated.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1539281.ece

A tiny creature that has not had sex for 100 million years has overturned the theory that animals need to mate to create variety.

Analysis of the jaw shapes of bdelloid rotifers, combined with genetic data, revealed that the animals have diversified under pressure of natural selection.

Researchers say that their study “refutes the idea that sex is necessary for diversification into evolutionary species”.

The microscopic animals, less than four times the length of a human sperm, are all female, yet have evolved into different species that fill different ecological niches. Two sister species were found to be living together on the body of a water louse. One of them specialised in living around the louse’s legs and the other stayed close to the chest.

Genetic analysis showed that the two creatures were distinct, a fact backed up by observations that each type had differently shaped jaws.

Asexual animals and plants usually die out quickly in evolutionary terms but the ability of bdelloid rotifers to diversify may explain why they have survived so long.

A specimen trapped in amber has shown that the animals were living at least 40 million years ago and DNA studies have suggested they have been around for 100 million years. Modern Man has notched up about 160,000 years.

It had previously been recognised that asexual animals and plants can evolve through mutations into another species, but only into one species and at the cost of its original form. Bdelloid rotifers have displayed the ability to evolve into many different forms.

The study of several bdelloid rotifers, published in the journal PLoS Biology, was carried out by an international team including researchers from Imperial College London, the University of Cambridge and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. “These really are amazing creatures, whose very existence calls into question scientific understanding,” said Tim Barraclough, of Imperial College.

He added that the two species of bdelloid rotifer almost certainly arrived on the louse as one species and later evolved to take better advantage of the environment.

There are many examples of asexual species of animals and plants, including some dande- lions. Asexuality is most common in invertebrates, such as aphids, but it is also found in a number of fish and frogs.

Pretty micrograph:
 
Researchers say that their study “refutes the idea that sex is necessary for diversification into evolutionary species”.
Huh?
Doesn't bacteria refute that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom