Jump to content


Photo

Evolution & The Big Bang - Proven or Not?


  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#33 Darkademic

Darkademic
  • – Enigmatic Overlord –

  • 4,971 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Short Name:Dark

Posted 07 August 2013 - 01:50 pm

I support adaptation, the species stays the same species even though it changes appearence. I would like to see some examples of what you are talking about when you say theres documented proof of a species naturally or by selection becoming a seperate species which can go on to reproduce.

 

In the case of a horse and donkey, a mule is infertile. even though horse and donkey are  very similar species. Even in that case it does not support evolution. So im keen to see or hear what species ( which can reproduce) have been produced by men by selectively breeding another species. (Tampering with DNA not included.)

 

  • Of course I don't. I simply asked whether you have a non-religious reason for doubting evolution. What could cause doubts strong enough for you to disagree with 99% of scientists?

Well the fact that they don't even agree among themselves as to how evolution occured would be a big one for me. I also have problems like i said with the theory of the big bang( send law of thermodynamics etc) Looking around at the complexity of earth to think it came from atoms exploding, creating an atmosphere to sustain life on a rock the right distance from the sun to support life.... theres alot more but theres a few

 

What do you mean by "the species stays the same"? How are you defining species? All biological characteristics are a result of genetics, not just those which affect appearance. If the genes responsible for appearance can change from one generation to the next, why can't the genes responsible for reproduction (or anything else)?

 

Selective breeding isn't (normally) what causes speciation, as in your mule example, though species have been created in this way (dogs breeds will likely eventually no longer be able to reproduce with one another). Speciation generally takes the form of a single species splitting into two (or more) after sub-groups become isolated from each other and adapt differently. If they're isolated for long enough, their genomes and phenotypes will become sufficiently different as to prevent the two groups reproducing together, and then they will continue to adapt independently and become more and more different over time.

 

Here's an article which covers some of the examples: http://www.talkorigi...speciation.html with more information here: http://www.talkorigi...tml#speciations

 

Here are two specific examples: http://www.jstor.org...=21102534168463 & http://www.jstor.org...=21102534168463

 

An example of selective breeding creating separate species would be domesticated sheep. http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1690972/

 

Scientists might disagree on certain details, but not on the general principle of evolution. The same is true for almost all scientific theories. Disagreement on specifics doesn't invalidate the parts of the theory which are agreed upon - in the same way that two people can prefer different foods but it doesn't negate the fact they both enjoy some foods and need food to survive.


  • 0

darkademic_thin_sig.png
Рациональный разум. Военачальник Загадочных Призраков.


#34 omphin

omphin
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 489 posts
  • Short Name:Bobby

Posted 08 August 2013 - 11:12 am

when i say species, i mean if you breed 2 dogs together regardless of thier "adaptation or breed" they reproduce dogs. They do not reproduce foxes or anything else which closely resembles a dog but which isn't a dog.

 

And when you say scientists might disagree on certain details, but not on the general principle of evolution. The gap between Darwins natural selection and punctuated equilibrium theories is massive. Yet you calmly write the differences off an having little importance. There is a massive difference in the two theories because on one hand, you have no proof for 99.99% of the so called evolution life on earth, the 1% i credit to the bandwagoning fossil finds of apemen such as piltdown man which were proven to be hoaxs.On the other hand you have faith leaps where all around the world species birthed abnormalities at precisely the same time to bring about sudden jumps in evolution know as the Punctuated equilibrium theory. For that to happen you would have to have millions of species going through the same birthing abnormalities at precisely the same time.

 

Therefore you would asking us to believe that out of a big bang, ( i don't know where you think the matter comes from ) and it threw together a stable universe with biological organisms which evolved over time to prefectly keep balance on planet earth, which is now nicely rounded due to its own evolution as a planet after 1 trillion years exacly the right distance from the sun to support life. So organisms evolved for no good reason only to become more beautiful, bigger and majestic so that they could eat one another. With mankind as the conquerer of all.

 

I ask for proof of part of your theory which would come in the form of fossil evidence and you say scientists disagree on how it happens but it happened cause they say so. And I'm the only one that has a faith based belief system?

 

 

*** btw look out for the next big theory being that we were genetically evolved from lower life forms when Aliens mixed their DNA with us


Edited by omphin, 08 August 2013 - 11:33 am.

  • 0

#35 Darkademic

Darkademic
  • – Enigmatic Overlord –

  • 4,971 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Short Name:Dark

Posted 08 August 2013 - 09:33 pm

when i say species, i mean if you breed 2 dogs together regardless of thier "adaptation or breed" they reproduce dogs. They do not reproduce foxes or anything else which closely resembles a dog but which isn't a dog.

 

And when you say scientists might disagree on certain details, but not on the general principle of evolution. The gap between Darwins natural selection and punctuated equilibrium theories is massive. Yet you calmly write the differences off an having little importance. There is a massive difference in the two theories because on one hand, you have no proof for 99.99% of the so called evolution life on earth, the 1% i credit to the bandwagoning fossil finds of apemen such as piltdown man which were proven to be hoaxs.On the other hand you have faith leaps where all around the world species birthed abnormalities at precisely the same time to bring about sudden jumps in evolution know as the Punctuated equilibrium theory. For that to happen you would have to have millions of species going through the same birthing abnormalities at precisely the same time.

 

Therefore you would asking us to believe that out of a big bang, ( i don't know where you think the matter comes from ) and it threw together a stable universe with biological organisms which evolved over time to prefectly keep balance on planet earth, which is now nicely rounded due to its own evolution as a planet after 1 trillion years exacly the right distance from the sun to support life. So organisms evolved for no good reason only to become more beautiful, bigger and majestic so that they could eat one another. With mankind as the conquerer of all.

 

I ask for proof of part of your theory which would come in the form of fossil evidence and you say scientists disagree on how it happens but it happened cause they say so. And I'm the only one that has a faith based belief system?

 

The big bang as it's an entirely separate topic so that should really be saved for another day, however the fact is nobody knows what caused it, but we do know that all matter has been expanding evenly. You certainly can't suggest that gradually increasing complexity is easier to believe than instant complexity in the form of an infinitely powerful creator being.

 

Yea, the offspring of a dog will resemble a dog, that's entirely consistent with evolution. Evolution involves very, very small differences accumulating over very, very long periods of time. We can clearly see how small changes have accumulated in dogs, so I still don't understand why you think the changes can't eventually lead to reproductive incompatibility, given that genetic changes are genome-wide and are not limited to certain sections of DNA. I also gave you several links to experiments where reproductive isolation (speciation) has been observed, can you comment on those?

 

Even if you reject evolution, you can't deny the existence of documented species, so I'd be interested to know how you'd explain the the gradual introduction of progressively more complex creatures on Earth which happen to be very similar to earlier creatures. If a creator was at work, it would imply that he's been experimenting for billions of years, but keeps "getting it wrong" or is unsatisfied with his creations, and keeps tinkering and making small adjustments over time.

 

You misunderstand punctuated equilibrium. It doesn't suggest sudden changes from one species into another occur; the "punctuations" are predicted to take between 50,000 and 100,000 years (that's as long as the human species has existed).

 

Natural selection and punctuated equilibrium are not contradictory theories; natural selection applies to all evolution. Punctuated equilibrium is simply one view of how evenly spread out the important genetic changes are, suggesting that those changes happen extremely slowly until a punctuation event (usually coinciding with some real-world event such as a change in climate). Punctuated equilibrium contradicts some of Darwin's ideas about the mechanisms of evolution, but there is still universal agreement on natural selection and the overall principle of evolution amongst those who support evolution. You can't just assert that scientists disagree with one another, and that "massive differences" of opinion exist - you have to provide examples. Give an example of a scientist who believes in evolution but not natural selection.

 

Saying there is no proof for 99.99% of evolution is the same as saying there is no "proof" for 99.9999999% of gravity (since we haven't observed the entire universe and all instances of gravity at work, from now stretching back until the dawn of time). So you shouldn't believe in gravity either (or any other scientific principle). Proof does not require that every instance of something be observed first hand, only that facts be observed and reproduced to eliminate reasonable doubt. Without deductive and inductive reasoning we would never get anywhere.

 

Lastly, I assume you know the Catholic Church officially supports evolution? "Theistic evolutionism is the official position of the Catholic church. In 1996, Pope John Paul II reiterated the Catholic TE position, according to which God created, evolution occurred, human beings may indeed have been descended from more primitive forms, and the Hand of God was required for the production of the human soul."


  • 0

darkademic_thin_sig.png
Рациональный разум. Военачальник Загадочных Призраков.


#36 omphin

omphin
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 489 posts
  • Short Name:Bobby

Posted 08 August 2013 - 10:17 pm

I'm not a catholic so the catholic stance on evolution is irrelevant to me. Do not assume because I'm southern irish that I'm catholic. The Roman catholic church has been for centuries diluting the teachings of Christ to the point that its pope made traditions are now held in more esteem than the Scriptures.

 

I'm curious where you stand on evolution cause there no point in me debating on multiple fronts. The gravity comparison to evolution just does not work, you can test gravity and see it in action.

 

If the punctuations take between 50,000 and 100,000 years to take place, like you said the same amount of time that humankind as walked the earth. Do you not think there would be considerable evidence for those missing links ( fossils ). If mankind were to evolve to machines or a superior type being within the next 10,000 years, there would be plenty of evidence left behind. That is why evolutionists invented the theory of punctuated equilibrium, so they could explain away the need for physical proof

 

 

* I wouldnt agree with the henry morris method however it shows that given a static rate of population growth, counting backwards from the earth population that it would take 2 people only 4,000 years to reach the current population of earth. that's just with a static population growth. I agree that it does not include depopulation by famine and wars etc. but even say it took 8,000 years to reach the current world population from 2 people including wars and famine. It kinda quashes on what the population of mankind would be if man was around since "apemen" times.

 

Tracing back civilisations you will see that the celts came from the direction of eastern europe. The native Americans from asia. Eventually we all stem from the middle east / north africa. Humans have not been around for that long or there would be more than the current population alive on the planet.


Edited by omphin, 08 August 2013 - 10:43 pm.

  • 0

#37 Darkademic

Darkademic
  • – Enigmatic Overlord –

  • 4,971 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Short Name:Dark

Posted 08 August 2013 - 10:47 pm

I'm not a catholic so the catholic stance on evolution is irrelevant to me. Do not assume because I'm southern irish that I'm catholic. The Roman catholic church has been for centuries diluting the teachings of Christ to the point that its pope made traditions are now held in more esteem than the Scriptures.

 

Didn't mean to imply you were a Catholic, I was just using it as an example since the Vatican is one of the very few examples of centralised Christianity - i.e. where there's an "official" Church position. 70% of European Christians believe in evolution as well (source).

 

I'm curious where you stand on evolution cause there no point in me debating on multiple fronts.

 

I accept evolution as a fact and will do so until evidence is found to contradict it. Gaps don't count as counter-evidence. A contradiction would be something like human remains being found to coexist with dinosaurs, or an example of evolutionary descendants which predate their ancestors, or an example of contradictory DNA evidence which doesn't match up with evolution. This site actually goes through all the evidence and provides an example of how the evidence could be falsified.

 

The gravity comparison to evolution just does not work, you can test gravity and see it in action.

 

Maybe gravity isn't the best example. What about the historical facts like the existence of Jesus, or the holocaust? The evidence for those is far weaker than that of evolution. You can't "see them in action", and the evidence is based entirely on human records, which are extremely sketchy in the case of Jesus. Edit: Actually it might be better to leave Jesus out of it as that is another religious debate - but the same applies to all important historical figures.

 

If the punctuations take between 50,000 and 100,000 years to take place, like you said the same amount of time that humankind as walked the earth. Do you not think there would be considerable evidence for those missing links ( fossils ). If mankind were to evolve to machines or a superior type being within the next 10,000 years, there would be plenty of evidence left behind. That is why evolutionists invented the theory of punctuated equilibrium, so they could explain away the need for physical proof

 

There's masses of evidence, including thousands of fossils and incontrovertible DNA evidence. I'd like to know where you've heard otherwise.

 

http://www.talkorigi...g/faqs/comdesc/

 

http://media.hhmi.org/hl/05Lect3.html (answers the "where are the fossils?" question)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AS6rQtiEh8

 

Another quick question/point: Do you accept that DNA can be used to find out who your parents are? If you do, then you must accept that DNA can be used to show the relatedness we have to all other species, because the exact same methodology is used.


  • 0

darkademic_thin_sig.png
Рациональный разум. Военачальник Загадочных Призраков.


#38 omphin

omphin
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 489 posts
  • Short Name:Bobby

Posted 08 August 2013 - 11:00 pm

So Dawkins found someone more stupid than himself i see :P

 

In case you missed it i edited my last post


  • 0

#39 Darkademic

Darkademic
  • – Enigmatic Overlord –

  • 4,971 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Short Name:Dark

Posted 08 August 2013 - 11:41 pm

Not sure how the population thing is relevant? Humans migrated out of Africa between 60,000 and 125,000 years according to most anthropologists, and this is corroborated by both genetic and archeological evidence (so you'd have to disbelieve in things like carbon dating/radioactive decay and even simple weathering/erosion to think humans have only been around for a few thousand years), but my only reason for bringing up the age of the human species was to indicate how long 100,000 years is, as that's how long punctuation events are thought to last (i.e. 100,000 years of relatively rapid genetic change).

 

I think the part I'm most interested in hearing a response to is the idea that you can use DNA to identify your parents/ancestors. If you believe in that, I don't see how you can doubt evolution, as DNA shows all life to be one huge family tree.

 

Another point to make about genetics (I'm far more interested in the genetic arguments than fossil records) - not believing in evolution requires that you believe at least one portion of human DNA is indestructible (i.e. the part that keeps humans human). We know that genes change from generation to generation, but the "human defining" part of the genome would've had to have remained constant, and will have to remain constant forever. This is demonstrably not the case. No part of the human genome is immune to mutation, including the parts that separate humans from other species. Do you think part of the genome is indestructible?


  • 0

darkademic_thin_sig.png
Рациональный разум. Военачальник Загадочных Призраков.


#40 Khally

Khally
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 485 posts
  • Location:Portugal

Posted 09 August 2013 - 12:17 am

Not sure how the population thing is relevant?

 

It's a popular creationist claim actually. They take the recent insanely huge increase in human population growth and simply extrapolate backwards. I've seen it used as an argument and quoted dozens of times, but I can't seem to find a source at the moment. Nonetheless, those claims are absurd in its very nature, not taking almost any factors into account, except for the rate of growth and deceit by natural aging. Again, I'd very much like to provide you with sources, but I don't have Dark's huge resource pool :P

 

I just thought I should mention that.


  • 0

medals_zpsc909537a.png      SIGNATURE5_zpsf26a90df.png   


#41 Darkademic

Darkademic
  • – Enigmatic Overlord –

  • 4,971 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Short Name:Dark

Posted 09 August 2013 - 12:51 am

but I don't have Dark's huge resource pool :P

 

Hehe, kinda makes me want to just give an indication as to how far my research into genetics has gone over the years.

 

http://www.mootsf.co...ience-resources

 

I've probably read three to four times as many sources as are on that list, those are just the ones that have been relevant to my debates about racism. I'd go so far as to call human genetics one of my main interests.


  • 0

darkademic_thin_sig.png
Рациональный разум. Военачальник Загадочных Призраков.


#42 omphin

omphin
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 489 posts
  • Short Name:Bobby

Posted 09 August 2013 - 04:33 am

if we are throwing some links about, might as well link this.. http://www.ldolphin....wmwilliams.html worth a look

 

let us suppose that man, the dominant species, originated from a single pair, only 100,000 years ago, the shortest period suggested by any evolutionist (and much too short for evolution) and that the population doubled in 1612.51 years, one-tenth the Jewish rate of net increase, a most generous estimate. The present population of the globe should be 4,660,210,253,138,204,300 or 2,527,570,733 for every man, woman and child! In these calculations, we have made greater allowances than any self-respecting evolutionist could ask without blushing. And yet withal, it is as clear as the light of day that the ancestors of man could not possibly have lived 2,000,000 or 1,000,000 or 100,000 years ago, or even 10,000 years ago; for if the population had increased at the Jewish rate for 10,000 years, it would be more than two billion times as great as it is. No guess that ever was made, or ever can be made, much in excess of 5177 years, can possibly stand as the age of man. The evolutionist cannot sidestep this argument by a new guess. Q. E. D.

All these computations have been made upon the supposition that the human race sprang from one pair. If from many in the distant past, as the evolutionists assert, these bewildering figures must be enormously increased.

Yet we are gravely told that evolution is "science". It is the wildest guess ever made to support an impossible theory.


  • 0

#43 Darkademic

Darkademic
  • – Enigmatic Overlord –

  • 4,971 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Short Name:Dark

Posted 09 August 2013 - 10:51 am

if we are throwing some links about, might as well link this.. http://www.ldolphin....wmwilliams.html worth a look

 

let us suppose that man, the dominant species, originated from a single pair, only 100,000 years ago, the shortest period suggested by any evolutionist (and much too short for evolution) and that the population doubled in 1612.51 years, one-tenth the Jewish rate of net increase, a most generous estimate. The present population of the globe should be 4,660,210,253,138,204,300 or 2,527,570,733 for every man, woman and child! In these calculations, we have made greater allowances than any self-respecting evolutionist could ask without blushing. And yet withal, it is as clear as the light of day that the ancestors of man could not possibly have lived 2,000,000 or 1,000,000 or 100,000 years ago, or even 10,000 years ago; for if the population had increased at the Jewish rate for 10,000 years, it would be more than two billion times as great as it is. No guess that ever was made, or ever can be made, much in excess of 5177 years, can possibly stand as the age of man. The evolutionist cannot sidestep this argument by a new guess. Q. E. D.

All these computations have been made upon the supposition that the human race sprang from one pair. If from many in the distant past, as the evolutionists assert, these bewildering figures must be enormously increased.

Yet we are gravely told that evolution is "science". It is the wildest guess ever made to support an impossible theory.

 

Correct mathematics, flawed reasoning. The human population has been kept down by scarcity of resources and a lack of advanced technology. The population has not constantly increased over time; the history of the human population before the Industrial Revolution is one of prosperity and growth, followed by famine and decline. As humans struggled for thousands of years to fend off extinction, the population curve was one of peaks and valleys as it climbed steadily, though uncertainly upward. It is only since the 19th century that the rate of increase has been accelerating. Even today some countries are experiencing negative population growth (e.g. Japan).

 

I could respond to the arguments in that article, I've already spotted numerous errors (as one would expect from something nearly 100 years old - it doesn't even mention DNA) , but respond to this first:

 

I think the part I'm most interested in hearing a response to is the idea that you can use DNA to identify your parents/ancestors. If you believe in that, I don't see how you can doubt evolution, as DNA shows all life to be one huge family tree.

 

Another point to make about genetics (I'm far more interested in the genetic arguments than fossil records) - not believing in evolution requires that you believe at least one portion of human DNA is indestructible (i.e. the part that keeps humans human). We know that genes change from generation to generation, but the "human defining" part of the genome would've had to have remained constant, and will have to remain constant forever. This is demonstrably not the case. No part of the human genome is immune to mutation, including the parts that separate humans from other species. Do you think part of the genome is indestructible?


  • 0

darkademic_thin_sig.png
Рациональный разум. Военачальник Загадочных Призраков.


#44 Khally

Khally
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 485 posts
  • Location:Portugal

Posted 09 August 2013 - 11:13 am

if we are throwing some links about, might as well link this.. http://www.ldolphin....wmwilliams.html worth a look

 

let us suppose that man, the dominant species, originated from a single pair, only 100,000 years ago, the shortest period suggested by any evolutionist (and much too short for evolution) and that the population doubled in 1612.51 years, one-tenth the Jewish rate of net increase, a most generous estimate. The present population of the globe should be 4,660,210,253,138,204,300 or 2,527,570,733 for every man, woman and child! In these calculations, we have made greater allowances than any self-respecting evolutionist could ask without blushing. And yet withal, it is as clear as the light of day that the ancestors of man could not possibly have lived 2,000,000 or 1,000,000 or 100,000 years ago, or even 10,000 years ago; for if the population had increased at the Jewish rate for 10,000 years, it would be more than two billion times as great as it is. No guess that ever was made, or ever can be made, much in excess of 5177 years, can possibly stand as the age of man. The evolutionist cannot sidestep this argument by a new guess. Q. E. D.

All these computations have been made upon the supposition that the human race sprang from one pair. If from many in the distant past, as the evolutionists assert, these bewildering figures must be enormously increased.

Yet we are gravely told that evolution is "scieunce". It is the wildest guess ever made to support an impossible theory.

 

That's just absurd mate. The human population can't be calculated using simple arithmetic.

 

The rate of growth has changed massively in several occasions, usually with technological breakthroughs, such as the agricultural and industrial revolutions, in modern times, or even just the beginning of agriculture, around thirteen thousand years ago (I'd say radiometric/carbon dating is indisputable). Those calculations don't take any factors into account and aren't based on events in human history. For example, the population was stable during the Early Middle ages (400-1000 AD), and entered a very steep decline during the Late Middle ages, 1315-1420, with the Great Famine and the Black Plague, followed by a very slow and contained growth until the 16th century, when it started to increase a bit, only to be followed by a big increase in the 18th century.

 

It's also assuming conditions have always been as good as they are today. It wasn't uncommon for women to only see two of their seven children to live to puberty. It wasn't easy struggling with disease. You see tribes which have been living isolated (or had been, until we interacted with them) which never got their population to grow, dispite being around for very long periods of time. By this I mean, nothing is linear and almost never as simple as it may seem.

 

(I wish I was a bit more inspired to write something better, but I just woke up :P)


  • 0

medals_zpsc909537a.png      SIGNATURE5_zpsf26a90df.png   


#45 Tally

Tally
  • [DkR] Clan Member (Inactive)
  • 735 posts
  • Location:Sheffield
  • Short Name:In game account name = Fella Feller

Posted 12 August 2013 - 12:07 pm

Looks like I missed an interesting chat here.

Getting back to the OP, I'd say that by and large I agree with what I think is his meaning. It's hard to be sure though, as I think his choice of language is poor and without being able to chat to him myself and ascertain exactly what he means by it I cannot be sure, as Prophet said on page 1;

...I don't think that tolerance [a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.] was the right word to use to convey what he actually meant, and as such it seems like continuing to use it in this discussion would lead only to confusion and misunderstanding on both sides. I would suggest that a more appropriate word would be dismissal. [to put off or away, especially from consideration; put aside; reject: She dismissed the story as mere rumor.]
As to evolution and the bag bang - there seems to be a huge amount of evidence to support both.

As someone who has studied in Biology and Ecology I have seen huge evidence with my own eyes, and read about much more. Evolution is happening as we speak and can be observed in a relatively short time frame in a lab in organisms with short reproductive cycles. Now, how the 1st organic molecules were formed is still not fully understood, perhaps lightning strikes in a nutrient rich 'soup' which once covered much of the planets surface (the most popular theory last i checked, with some evidence to at least support it as a possible method) or perhaps something else (aliens? God? Something so far outside our experience we cannot even conceive of it?). The process that have carried forward from those 1st simple molecules millions of years ago are however well demonstrated and understood. Exactly what environmental and social factors have had the biggest influence on shaping life may be up for debate, but that such factors have had some influence, and that most if not all life on this planet shares a simple comman ancestor is pretty conclusively demonstrated.

I know less about physics and astronomy, though I try to stay abreast to an extent. That our(currently observable) universe is expanding, in a seemingly quite uniform speed appears to be supported by a large (and rapidly growing) body of evidence. The 'big bang' is currently one of the best explanations for that. Now what came before, the exact mechanisms of it, whether or not it was a single event in that single point or perhaps repeated at other points in time and / or space is not yet something we can really be certain about it, but that at least A big bang took place seems almost certain.

Edited by Tally, 12 August 2013 - 12:10 pm.

  • 2
Why boasteth thyself, oh, evil men. Playing smart, and not being clever? I said, you're working iniquity to achieve vanity...
So if you are the big tree, we are the small axe. Ready to cut you down (well sharp), to cut you down.
(Bob Marley - Small Axe)

#46 mixe

mixe
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 1,123 posts
  • Location:javia
  • Short Name:Mike

Posted 12 August 2013 - 06:40 pm

agree tally in that evidence leads to them conclusions but does not give conclusive evidence to be 100 % sure and that other questions are then opened as to its occurrence/method of execution


  • 1

#47 omphin

omphin
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 489 posts
  • Short Name:Bobby

Posted 12 August 2013 - 09:55 pm


I know less about physics and astronomy, though I try to stay abreast to an extent. That our(currently observable) universe is expanding, in a seemingly quite uniform speed appears to be supported by a large (and rapidly growing) body of evidence. The 'big bang' is currently one of the best explanations for that.

 

I don't know if you read much about the arguement for global warming but recent evidence would suggest that solar flares are the cause for the rise or fall in global temperatures. Who is to say that the universe doesnt go through cycles where it expands and contracts.


  • 0

#48 Darkademic

Darkademic
  • – Enigmatic Overlord –

  • 4,971 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Short Name:Dark

Posted 12 August 2013 - 10:13 pm

I don't know if you read much about the arguement for global warming but recent evidence would suggest that solar flares are the cause for the rise or fall in global temperatures. Who is to say that the universe doesnt go through cycles where it expands and contracts.

 

Yea, that'd be the "big crunch" hypothesis, which is still consistent with big bang theory.


  • 0

darkademic_thin_sig.png
Рациональный разум. Военачальник Загадочных Призраков.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users