I'm not going to respond in this post to the people claiming there's little evidence for evolution and the big bang theory, other than saying this: Science's main principle is discovering factual information based on HARD, concrete, empirical evidence. There is simply too much evidence for any proven scientific theory for it to be seriously doubtful.

As to the origins of the universe, I have absolutely no idea as to what happened pre-big-bang. Nobody does. There are hypotheses, but that's all they are at best (for the moment anyway). I like to believe there is some grand purpose to all of this, but I admit that that belief is based purely only my own gut feeling, and has no rational basis.

Quote from Cruel

Anyway, in my opinion, evolution is far fetched because the creator of the theory denied it himself.

He didn't deny it, and he didn't create the entire theory of evolution on his own. Natural selection isn't the only factor that drives evolution.

Quote from Cruel

Like i said, nature is much too complex to have happened by chance of a few particles randomly exploding making everything into existence.

That's not what the big bang theory is. It has absolutely nothing to do with an "explosion" in the typical sense, the fact that you assume it does means you know absolutely nothing about it.

Why do you even have an opinion about these extraordinarily complex topics if you don't know the most fundamental aspects of them?

Quote from Cruel

Well if wikipedia's your source for information...theres problem one :3 lol u should use dictionary.com or something more credible next time to proove someone wrong. Not hating on wikipedia, just that some articles in there are invalid.

Quote from Dictionary.com]
systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.
[/QUOTE]
Dictionary.com has exactly the same definition of a scientific theory, and don't assume that Wikipedia is my only source of information. I just used is as an example, because even every idiot knows it.
I don't see a problem here.
[QUOTE=Cruel

Anyway, in my opinion, evolution is far fetched because the creator of the theory denied it himself. Why would we believe in darwinism if darwin doubted his own theory? I dont have direct evidence for that claim but it was in a discovery channel documentary iv seen recently. Like i said, nature is much too complex to have happened by chance of a few particles randomly exploding making everything into existence. Wouldnt an explosion obliterate? Not create? Again, my opinion of it.

What the creator of the theory thinks about his own theory is irrelevant when it comes to telling whether or not it's true. Many people would have denied evolution, even if it were true simply because it didn't feel like a nice thing to believe for them. Opinions of people don't change objective reality and facts. Also what you said is a blatant lie. Creationists have spread false rumors about Darwin denying his theory on his death bed in petty attempts to make evolution seem less credible. There is absolutely no evidence of that ever happening.

As for life and nature being too complex to occur randomly.... Evolution is not a random process. Only the genetic mutation part of it is random, natural selection is a systematic process.
Nobody claims to know for certain where the big bang came from or what caused it to happen. The big bang theory doesn't have anything to do with explaining what made it happen. What are you arguing here exactly?

We can combine both a religious and scientific point of view in this stiuation.
From a scientific point of view, I say the big bang is what made our universe.
Yet I can still stick to my religious point of view by saying that god is who caused the big bang.

Quote from Ahmad9383

We can combine both a religious and scientific point of view in this stiuation.
From a scientific point of view, I say the big bang is what made our universe.
Yet I can still stick to my religious point of view by saying that god is who caused the big bang.

Well yeah, that's precisely what all the religious scientists do.

Lol, how did i manage to seemingly piss off like 4 people with my opinion. I stated it like that to avoid a conflict, not start one. And i know alot about the big bang theory and the one i heard/read of happened in the form of an explosion between a mixture of gasses in space. I shouldnt have to explain EVERY aspect of the theory for you to understand my point. In the end this arguement doesnt even matter. Who cares how we originated when in the end, we exist. Figuring out the past wont solve any current day problems...like obesity. XD

You know, when the Big Bang theory was first proposed it was deemed to support the existence of God. Atheists had previously maintained that the universe had always existed whereas religions said that there was a beginning. The atheists gave up arguing against it when two physicists found background radiation from the Big Bang, a discovery for which they won Nobel prizes, because it was concrete evidence and that's the kind of thing atheists pay attention to. I have no idea why religious people today are arguing against the Big Bang theory. All that the theory states is that the universe originated from a single point at a single time. It doesn't make any claims about why or how.

Of course, today there are theories about how it happened which don't require God, but my point is that you shouldn't be discussing evidence for or against the Big Bang. You should be talking about the theories which try to explain it.

Quote from Cruel

Lol, how did i manage to seemingly piss off like 4 people with my opinion.

I don't think you pissed anyone off, you are in the debate section. Then again, I just believe the world's population
should be only at 500,000 people, so I think a genocide should occur over the earth's population. But that is just my opinion.

Quote from Cruel

this arguement doesnt even matter

1.) Then why post here.

2.) Because it can lead to new advances in technology if we can figure out different mysteries in our universe. For example, if a big bang did occur, then that
would explain a good bit about the way particles react and planets can potentially be formed. But this isn't on topic so I'll stop there.

Quote from Quantum

1.) Then why post here.

to hear what others think of the matter and see different perspectives.

And yes, I suppose your second claim could also be true as well :3. I'm bored with this thread anyway, it was entertaining though.

Quote from Cruel

And i know alot about the big bang theory and the one i heard/read of happened in the form of an explosion between a mixture of gasses in space.

No, you don't know a lot about the big bang theory. You're full of shit and you're making that extremely obvious to everyone who knows better. That's why you're pissing people off.

Either way, zed's right, the theory has nothing to do with cosmogenesis. It's just a detailed timeline of the universe's history starting after it already came to exist.

Quote from Exilement

No, you don't know a lot about the big bang theory. You're full of shit and you're making that extremely obvious to everyone who knows better. That's why you're pissing people off.

Either way, zed's right, the theory has nothing to do with cosmogenesis. It's just a detailed timeline of the universe's history starting after it already came to exist.

Jesus. Quit shittin your pantys. Calm down. It was just an OPINION. God damn.

This is what you said:

Quote from Cruel

And evolution and the big bang theory have little to no evidence and are way too far fetched to even be considered theories

Both of those underlined parts are completely wrong:

"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory)

The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.


Calling two of the most widely accepted theories in modern science as "far fetched" because they have "little to no evidence" is not acceptable just because it's your opinion. It means you're here talking about something you don't know a single fucking thing about, and when people point that out to you, you can't even admit fault. You did nothing wrong, no, it's everyone else who's being unreasonable by overreacting to your "opinion".

Your opinion is fucking retarded, and so are you for acting like you know what you're talking about.

but that's just, like, my opinion, man.

I believe our existence was a simple mistake, from a god. Don't judge me on believing in a god. I believe that this god unwillingly created "the big bang". He then decided to blast out the excess anti-matter so he could use his creation without exploding it, filling a hole in the theory. Next, he waited for stars and planets too form, and then put some simple single celled organisms on some planets. He then died by colliding with a little bit of anti-matter, and then evolution started.




Don't judge me on what I believe.

Quote from Exilement

This is what you said:



Both of those underlined parts are completely wrong:

"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory)

The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.


Calling two of the most widely accepted theories in modern science as "far fetched" because they have "little to no evidence" is not acceptable just because it's your opinion. It means you're here talking about something you don't know a single fucking thing about, and when people point that out to you, you can't even admit fault. You did nothing wrong, no, it's everyone else who's being unreasonable by overreacting to your "opinion".

Your opinion is fucking retarded, and so are you for acting like you know what you're talking about.

but that's just, like, my opinion, man.

Then just prove that I'm wrong. No need to be an ass about it. Unless I came straight up and said something like "Hey you ignorant fuck. You're wrong I'm right. DEAL WITH IT." Then you have no grounds and absolutely no reason to insult me, not that I really care. I have not once insulted you at all and you believing that you are superior to me because you have your badass moderator powers and happen to know more information on this particular topic than I do think you have the right of way to do whatever the hell you want. I don't mind being proven wrong, I actually enjoy it. But really? I state my perspective of the way I have been raised and taught and you say I'm full of shit for being taught a certain way? Calm the fuck down. Its stickpage for gods sake, not a presidential debate.