National Academy of Sciences says about creation of the universe by Go

?Impact · June 3, 2016

The "Big Bang" is still just a theory...not proven fact....yet it has many "believers".

Scientific theories are not based on faith, they are always subject to revision if new evidence is found. A theory is based on a rational thought process that explains the evidence we have. Scientists are open to accepting new evidence that contradicts theories, or to new theories that better explain the current evidence. Often new theories provide direction for searching out new evidence.

cybercoma · June 3, 2016

The "Big Bang" is still just a theory...not proven fact....yet it has many "believers".

Gravity is still "just a theory" too, but scientific theories are proven by being the best explanation for the observations that we have. So to say they're "not proven fact" shows that you either don't know what a scientific theory is or you're intentionally being misleading.

betsy · June 3, 2016

But you have made claims and they've been thoroughly refuted.

In your dreams, maybe.

betsy · June 3, 2016

What NASA believes is that the theory known as the Big Bang is the most solid explanation for what it sees when it looks out into space.

Is believing the explanation for something the same thing as believing IN it or is there no distinction? To me believing in something appears to carry a connotation that is more political in nature than anything else. Why is it necessary?

NASA does not claim to merely "believe."

It claims that...

"The Big Bang theory is one of the most strongly supported theories in all of science. It explains the observed facts; it has made successful predictions; it has stood the test of time; and there is no alternate theory that the professional scientific community deems valid."

Edited June 3, 2016 by betsy

betsy · June 3, 2016

Yes, and a human is a more complicated system than a watch.

I'm saying that you can look at the universe and say it was designed to support life, as the fine-tuning theory you cited suggests, or you can look at the universe and say life adapted in order to live within it. In one theory, the universe adapts to support life; in the other, life adapts to support itself.

You're making adaptation as a theory separate from fine-tuning, and I'm telling you, it can't be.

If this universe is so finely-tuned - adaptation, of all things, would surely be part of that design! Adaptation is claimed by evolutionists to lead to evolution (even macroevoltuion).

Furthermore, life has to be able to live from the get go! The conditions suited for life are already there!

Edited June 3, 2016 by betsy

?Impact · June 3, 2016

NASA does nott claim to merely "believe."

No, NASA doesn't claim to believe at all. There is no merely about it.

Read what you quoted: Big bang theory is supported, based on observations, and made successful predictions. There is no belief involved, merely or otherwise. Do you have a better theory that explains the observations, or do you have new observations that are in conflict with the theory?

Science is always open to new observations and ideas. Science has no problem accepting Nicolaus Copernicus (De revolutionibus orbium coelestium) over Claudius Ptolemy (planetary hypothesis) because it better explains the observations, it was only the church authorities of the time that did not agree with its heliocentric model. While the tables that Ptolemy created still work within certain bounds, they offer no practical advantage and are based on an incorrect assumption that requires countless special cases to explain. In the same manner, Albert Einstein (general theory of relativity) offers a far more comprehensive explanation of the observations than Isaac Newton (Philosophiæ Naturalis Principe Mathematica). Newton also made an incorrect assumption, that gravity is a force where Einstein saw it as a property of the geometry of space-time. The complexity of the math involved in calculating the geometry of space-time however was too great for the computers of the Apollo era, so NASA still fell back on Newtonian math because it was good enough to successfully put man on the moon. While Apollo didn't upset Newton's apple cart, today's consumer technology does because Newton didn't account for the changes in space-time that become apparent with the precision required for GPS calculations.

betsy · June 4, 2016

Sounds like philosophy and untested hypothesis to me.

Jastrow, the NAS and other scientists that cited fine-tuning and/or the order of complexity....corroborate each other.

The all claim it to have been observed, and they cited evidence for it.

Therefore, it's more than just a hypothesis.

Edited June 6, 2016 by betsy

Moonlight Graham · June 4, 2016

Jastrow, the NAS and other scientists that cited fine-tuning and/or the order of complexity....corroborate each other.

The all claim it to have been observed, and they cited evidence for it.

Therefore, it's more than just a hypothesis.

Sounds more than just a hypothesis to me.

What evidence? Even if there were evidence of something intelligent that "created" the universe, they would have zero idea what it is. It could be 1 "god", 3 gods, 10 gods, an extra-dimensional omnipotent alien species etc.

There's still no evidence for purposeful design, and no evidence of what caused the big bang or how the elements of the universe involved in the big bang came to be in the first place before it happened.

?Impact · June 4, 2016

I think the conclusions (page 25 of the source document betsy has referenced from the National Academy of Sciences) are worth reading:

Scientific investigators seek to understand natural phenomena by observation and experimentation. Scientific interpretations of facts and the explanations that account for them therefore must be testable by observation and experimentation.

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.

eyeball · June 4, 2016

NASA does not claim to merely "believe."

And yet NASA still does not go so far as to claim to believe IN it.

betsy · June 6, 2016

What evidence? Even if there were evidence of something intelligent that "created" the universe, they would have zero idea what it is. It could be 1 "god", 3 gods, 10 gods, an extra-dimensional omnipotent alien species etc.

There's still no evidence for purposeful design, and no evidence of what caused the big bang or how the elements of the universe involved in the big bang came to be in the first place before it happened.

Sorry Moonlight....but if scientists (and the NAS) says there's evidence, that means there's evidence.

You're ignoring the order of complexity and the fine-tune factor.

betsy · June 6, 2016

I think the conclusions (page 25 of the source document betsy has referenced from the National Academy of Sciences) are worth reading:

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.

That's irrelevant.

I'm referring to the NAS statement regarding Theistic evolution, and other statements of prominent scientists like Jastrow (which corroborates the NAS statement). That's the issue.

Edited June 6, 2016 by betsy

Moonlight Graham · June 6, 2016

Sorry Moonlight....but if scientists (and the NAS) says there's evidence, that means there's evidence.

No it doesn't. They have to show the evidence. Where is it? What is it? Wishful thinking doesn't make it so.

You're ignoring the order of complexity and the fine-tune factor.

What do you mean by that?

betsy · June 6, 2016

No it doesn't. They have to show the evidence. Where is it? What is it? Wishful thinking doesn't make it so.

What do you mean by that?

Order of complexity and fine- tuned universe, are the most cited.

You want details? Why don't you contact them?

Edited June 6, 2016 by betsy

Chrissy1979 · June 7, 2016

I can't believe I read all of this thread. It just went around in circles. It makes good proof, though, that religious people deliberately tune out what they don't want to hear.

Moonlight Graham · June 7, 2016

Order of complexity and fine- tuned universe, are the most cited.

You want details? Why don't you contact them?

But I don't even know what you're referring to. What context? These phrases "Order of complexity" and "fine- tuned" don't mean anything to me if I don't even know what these words are referring to.

betsy · June 7, 2016

No, NASA doesn't claim to believe at all. There is no merely about it.

Read what you quoted: Big bang theory is supported, based on observations, and made successful predictions. There is no belief involved, merely or otherwise. Do you have a better theory that explains the observations, or do you have new observations that are in conflict with the theory?

Science is always open to new observations and ideas. Science has no problem accepting Nicolaus Copernicus (De revolutionibus orbium coelestium) over Claudius Ptolemy (planetary hypothesis) because it better explains the observations, it was only the church authorities of the time that did not agree with its heliocentric model. While the tables that Ptolemy created still work within certain bounds, they offer no practical advantage and are based on an incorrect assumption that requires countless special cases to explain. In the same manner, Albert Einstein (general theory of relativity) offers a far more comprehensive explanation of the observations than Isaac Newton (Philosophiæ Naturalis Principe Mathematica). Newton also made an incorrect assumption, that gravity is a force where Einstein saw it as a property of the geometry of space-time. The complexity of the math involved in calculating the geometry of space-time however was too great for the computers of the Apollo era, so NASA still fell back on Newtonian math because it was good enough to successfully put man on the moon. While Apollo didn't upset Newton's apple cart, today's consumer technology does because Newton didn't account for the changes in space-time that become apparent with the precision required for GPS calculations.

If NASA doesn't believe in it, why would they also say this?

The Big Bang theory is just a theory. Couldn't it be wrong?

Yes, it could be wrong. In science, no theory is ever absolutely proved true. Some theories, however, are stronger and better supported than others.

This depends on many factors, including how well the theory explains observed facts, whether the theory has made successful predictions later borne out by observation, how long the theory has been around, and whether there are alternate theories that do almost as well.

The Big Bang theory is one of the most strongly supported theories in all of science. It explains the observed facts; it has made successful predictions; it has stood the test of time; and there is no alternate theory that the professional scientific community deems valid.

New observations could always cause the Big Bang theory to be abandoned,

but that is not likely.

Scientists have a theory of why the sky is blue. One day you could wake up to find the sky is green and the "blue-sky theory" was wrong, but that's not likely to happen either.

http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

All the factors has been met.

See that large-fonted statement? And the analogy with the green sky? That's a statement of belief.

That's quite a bold statement to make public.

NASA feels quite confident about it....that it concludes the Big Bang is not likely to be abandoned.

That's how much NASA believes in it.

Edited June 7, 2016 by betsy

betsy · June 7, 2016

Scientific theories are not based on faith, they are always subject to revision if new evidence is found. A theory is based on a rational thought process that explains the evidence we have. Scientists are open to accepting new evidence that contradicts theories, or to new theories that better explain the current evidence. Often new theories provide direction for searching out new evidence.

The Big Bang based on faith? What you say is irrelevant!

I don't think anyone is saying the Big Bang is based on faith! READ!

Read my response to you above, including the excerpt from the NASA faq. It explains why NASA believes the Big Bang is not likely to be abandoned......it's based on scientific methodology!

Edited June 7, 2016 by betsy

betsy · June 7, 2016

But I don't even know what you're referring to. What context? These phrases "Order of complexity" and "fine- tuned" don't mean anything to me if I don't even know what these words are referring to.

There is a list of fine-tuning....but I want to have it on a separate topic to be discussed. It's 80 plus on the list I found.

If I'm going to go through so much trouble as to list them all (and naturally, there'll be refutations for each and everyone of them), I don't want that topic to be lumped together and buried somewhere in this topic. It's an off-shoot topic.

In my view, it deserves a thread of its own. Some of the folks may disagree with me on that, but hey....that's my view.

I can't start that topic here though, since it also deals with science......and of course, I'll have to be using some of the same science links to support my claim!

If we're discussing something that would rely heavily on science....how can I not?

Surely I can't just spout off scientific claims, and leave it at that.

However, according to CA, if I do that I'd be breaking the rules on spamming.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25819-a-question-on-cross-posting/page-3

Edited June 7, 2016 by betsy

Moonlight Graham · June 7, 2016

Ok no problem. But if you don't (or can't) post the new thread, can you provide the link?

The_Squid · June 8, 2016

If you have to use the same links over and over and over in thread after thread after thread, you probably don't need a new thread.

betsy · June 19, 2016

Richard Deem is an atheist scientist who became a deist due to how science pathetically tries to explain the origin of life.

From deist, he became a theist, and eventually a Christian.

he came to a belief in the God of deism as the Creator of the universe and life on earth.

Many years later, he was miraculously cured of Crohn’s Disease and was subsequently challenged to determine who Jesus was. Upon reading the Sermon on the Mount, he came to believe that Jesus was God and that He was the only way to obtain salvation. In the 25 years since then, he has been involved in science/Bible apologetics ministries as a way to lead others to faith in Jesus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcLgDk3mpQc

Edited June 19, 2016 by betsy

BubberMiley · June 19, 2016

Richard Deem is an atheist scientist who became a deist due to how science pathetically tries to explain th color=#ff0000]origin of life.[/color]

From deist, he became a theist, and eventually a Christian.

I'm still waiting for your explanation for the origin of God. Edited June 19, 2016 by BubberMiley