flamingoflie

Observed what happens in nature? Huh? Nobody observed what happened in nature but in laboratories yes.(since it is in the laboratory conditions ) 1920 A.I . Oparm + J.B.Shaldane suggested the primordial soup model' date=' where ocean contains all the organic molecules and by solar, volcanic or lightning these chemicals happen to form life. Now we have to question where did those organic molecules come from? So scientist tried all sorts of experiments to prove this. For instance let’s take a look at one of the best known experiment that occurred in 1953. Stanley Miller of the University of Chicago had said that he accomplished the first step in creating life form by creating amino acids in a glass tube. Miller mixed simple chemicals and gases in a glass tube, then zapped them with an electrical charge to induce chemical reactions to produce so called amino acids. Basically Miller’s success seems to support evolution greatly. Besides Miller other scientist used similar experiments some using heat as an energy source and other using ultraviolet light to simulate light from the sun. Most experiments have succeeded in producing amino acids. So does this really prove evolution? No. Amino acid comes in two forms, what scientist call left-handed and right-handed. But life can only be formed from the left-handed form. Scientist like Miller got both kinds about 50:50. (This makes it harder for all this to happen by chance.) The next step is “creating life” is to get amino acid to link up as proteins. In 1958 Sidney Fox, a chemist at the University of Miami, started with already existing amino acids and boiled them in water to make them react into protein like chain. And the result was a success or so thought success and he was inducted into the Modern Hall of Scientific Heroes. But once again there are problems hidden in this experiment. Life is very picky and living things are comprised of amino acids hooked together in a very particular bond called a peptide bond. Also amino acids are capable of hooking into all sorts of different forms forming several different chemical bonds and that’s what they do in the test tube. They hook up in various ways but not in the genuine protein that is capable of functioning in a living cell. In addition, for a protein to be functional, the amino acid must link up in a certain sequence. For example: Let say we have the words = Bob, loves, to, go , skating , with Marian, but , he, hates, doing, it , with, Nancy, If this were the sequence: Bob loves to go skating with Marian but he hates doing it with Nancy. The ones that appear in the test tube will be like: Bob Marian go doing with to loves but Nancy he hates skating it. So in other words the ones in the test tube are useless for life. And there is more. If scientist really wanted to duplicate what might have happened billions of years ago, they would have to simply mix up some chemicals in a vat and expose them to energy source like heat or light then wait for results. However scientists do not do that. Why? Because it is impossible to produce amino acids by using this method. So researchers have to control the experiment. For example in nature you can not find pure chemicals. Substance A and B might react in the laboratory when is isolated and purified forms are used. But in nature? No. Since there are always other chemicals to interfere. In nature A might react with C instead creating very different results. So how does scientist cover this major problem? They uncap their bottles and pour out only pure isolated ingredients in the right order. Obviously Nature doesn’t have flasks of pure ingredients to pour in the right order though. Let’s take a look at another experiment that was done by ultraviolet light. Their idea was that sunlight beaming down would stimulate they early earth and produce life. However the longer wavelengths of ultraviolet light are very destructive and would destroy the very amino acid that scientist are looking for. So what do they do? They simply screen out the longer wavelengths and use only short wavelengths. And Nature doesn’t have those nice screens that would cast out long wavelengths. Another is they use trap to protect products after they have formed. Amino acids are very delicate and could be easily broken. So when electric or whatever energy you use to produce amino acids that same energy can break the precious amino acids as well. To prevent this scientist built a trap that removes amino acid as soon as they form to protect the delicate compounds. Then again in Nature the trap doors do not exist! Scientist began to notice this problem in Miller’s experiment. The early earth did not have ozone layer to protect the atmosphere. So in 1986 Louis Lerman suggested that the chemicals reacted in the ocean instead of the atmosphere. But this didn’t prove anything either. To start out with where did the chemicals come from? Also Louis suggested that from the bubbles the gases were emitted into the air. Then basically it is the same thing as combining in the atmosphere. Once you’re vulnerable to the strong ultraviolet light whatever reaction took place in the bubble would be useless. As a result these experiment don’t tell what happened on the early earth, they tell us what happens when scientist control their experiments. Next, you stated that Nature shows evolution everyday. Yes bacteria adapt to their surroundings and keep getting stronger and stronger. Adaptation had nothing to do with evolution. Do we see bacteria evolve into different kind of species say fish? No we don’t. They stay content with their area and develop among them but not into a whole new species. I’ll give you an example of Darwin’s finches. Finches had different beak due to what kind of food they ate. And he proposed that this was evolution in species. But what really is a simple adaptation. In our body our immune systems gets stronger every time we get a shot. Darwin would call this evolution but in reality it is just plain adaptation. We don’t suddenly sprout wings or something, do we? We are still humans. Kailbab and Abert squirrels were separated fro 10,000 years and they turned out to be different squirrels. But you have to concentrate on the word squirrel. They still are squirrels. Now you might say that it was over a millions of years that organism starts evolving. Mutation is what you are saying. Through mutations and mutations and mutations you suddenly have different species! However what mutation really is genetic defect which could be very harmful and often lethal to the organism. So if mutations were to accumulate, the result would be devolution not evolution. In order for evolution to work you have to hope some mutations would be beneficial. Let say it is but this may require many thousands of mutations and you must hope that these rare beneficial mutated organisms survive and reproduce. The improbabilities are staggering. Even with the simplest fruit flies scientist were unable to mutate it into a beneficial way. All they got to was changing to eye color or wing size. You can tell that change in living things are strictly limited. We do not see the emergence of new and more complex structure. Okay, let say somehow with very little chance, a fish evolves lungs. What happens to the fish? The fish drowns! Living things cannot simply change piece by piece, organs by organs. An organism is an integrated system, and any isolated changed in the system is more likely to be harmful than helpful. The only way the fish to be land dwelling animal is to transform all at once, which would be impossible in evolution. Now about fossil records. Fossils do not give evidence to the evolution anymore. It was believed to have given proof to evolution however it discredits it instead. Darwin himself was so worried about the fossil record that he devoted an entire chapter in The Origin of the Species to "Imperfection of the Geological Record" as relating to his theory, commenting in that chapter, "One [difficulty with the theory of evolution'], namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty." There are so many missing pieces to start out with. There is no fossil to prove the in-between organism. For instance if a fish turned into a land creature let say a cow, there is no fossil that has both similarities of a fish and a cow. So is the fossil just lost? Or was it impossible for them to fossilize? Evolutionists claim that they just have not found the correct fossils yet. However, they have been looking for the "correct fossils" for over one hundred and thirty (130) years, only producing a few potential transitional forms. Although these do indeed appear to be transitional forms, there are many things that could have gone wrong that evolutionists must assume didn't happen. 1. Evolutionists and creationists both have the same data. Their views effect how they interpret data a lot. Many supposed transitional forms can be explained as a misinterpretation by evolutionists (see article on how a scientist's beliefs affect their interpretation of the evidence). 2. The fossils may not even be the correct age to be a transitional form. For example, evolutionists cannot prove that archaeopteryx existed before birds. In order to even be considered as a transitional form, it must have existed before birds - if they existed at the same time as birds, logically, they couldn't be intermediate between dinosaurs and birds. 3. It is very uncommon to find fossils completely intact and undamaged. 4. The fossils of two species are often strikingly similar and easy for even a well-trained professional paleontologist to confuse. 5. Even if the supposed transitional forms were really transitional forms, there are so few that only a few steps are shown. For example, "transitional forms" only "show" one "step" in-between dinosaurs and birds. (Doesn’t show the whole process.) But it does not make any sense since there are so much fish fossils. Fish! What do you think of fish, decay right? Fish is an animal that decays really quickly and like you know in order an organism to fossilize it takes a very long time. So how is it that fish actually become hard as rock when they decay so fast and don’t forget that in the sea the other fish clean them up. There is a fossil of a fish that is in the process of eating another fish. The fish is halfway in the bigger fish and it has become fossilized. How do you explain that? Also the fish which was supposed to be the ancestor of the fishes were discovered off the African coast how could that possibly happen? Is it that one ancestor of the fish forgot to evolve? There is another picture of a tree fossil. The tree fossil goes through billions of layers of rock and other fossils. How is that possible? Did the tree live up to billions and billions of years while slowly the bottom of the tree got fossilized with different organisms in it? Oh! I forgot to add one little detail. Darwin’s theory of how evolution happened is called natural selection. I remember that in my text book forgot which one(since been a long time) there was a picture of peppered moth. It was about natural selection happening before our very eyes. In England the tree trunks were darkened by soot, a light-colored variety of the moth became easier for birds to see and were eaten up, while the darker moth flourished. Evolutionist gave this example as natural selection. However the light moths against the dark tree trunks were faked. Peppered moths fly about in the upper branches of trees and don’t perch on the trunks at all. Also the biologist Theodore Sargent of the University of Massachusetts admitted that he glued dead samples of the moths onto the tree trunks for a NOVA documentary. (Jarry A. Coyne, “Not Black and White” Nature396(November 5, 1998):35-36; Jonathan Wells, “Second Thoughts about Peppered Moths,” http://www.trueorigin.org/pepmoth1.htm) What laws the big bang defies? I already stated in my answer before but I’ll tell you again.(For details look at my other answers.) Big bang was rejected for a while since it declared an ultimate beginning which is impossible in evolution. Having a beginning was basically saying that at some point from nothing something came. Do you not think that it goes against physics’ law as well as many other? (Think for yourself, “What came before big bang?) ((http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/bigbangrebuttal.html go into this site! It gives evidence of the big bang’s major problems.)) So scientist tried to explain what happened before the big bang which they were unable to. Carl Sagon came up with the idea that the universe oscillates. This goes against the law of thermodynamics. Now, since I answered your questions, I would appreciate if you answered mine. Why do you believe in evolution? What evidence do you have? Why do you think that Creationism is not science? Do you have evidence? ((Creationism is science there are scientist out there with ph.D. and master degree also in some college or university they are taught by professors. These scientists also research and experiment just like any other scientist would. The world is beginning to see Creationism as a part of science. Although many scientists have bias, they consider them as scientist with different view. That is why many debates occur among them.))

Why is Creationism not science? You're avoiding the main point. Yes it did come out from a book but that's not why it makes it a theory. You need evidence and proof am I not right? They do have proof just like evolutionist would say they have proof. "Something no one ever witnessed" you stated. Than did someone witness couple of monkeys turning into humans? No, not that I know of. No one ever witnessed anything.

There are no fatal flaws? Are you sure you read my answer carefully? All the people I’ve mentioned noticed the fatal flaw the big bang theory offers. ((I think I’ve said that they(scientist) rejected the big bang theory all because it indicates a ultimate beginning.)) The big bang states that there is a start to all this. A start! How can there be start? Are you agreeing with Quentin Smith? (That from nothing something came?) Sorry' date=' (since I have an education of a 10 year old I seem to not understand your statement here.) what is the difference between believing and accepting? (Again I’m asking you this question not because I don’t have a dictionary around here. I want your definition.) So if I said I accepted Creationism would it be the same as saying that I believe in Creationism? I have stated that the limits are very large in my answer. So what you’re saying doesn’t make a difference.

What makes you think that way? Creationism is also called a theory in science. And didn’t you state that science was all theory? Then why is Creationism not science?? Why is it nonsense? You can’t state that it’s nonsense. How can you when you have already stated that science is a theory? Theory is something that you can’t prove isn’t it? (That’s what you would say' date=' right?) If you can explain why it is nonsense ? Explain to me. I have stated my belief or you would call it an opinion and have given some evidence why I think that way. All you say that it’s “nonsense” and didn’t give enough information to back your belief. So how can you just out right say you’re right and I’m wrong? Okay, now I’m beginning to get confused here. “Creationist is the science hating one” you have stated, what makes you think so? Do you know a Creationist that said “I hate science, I’m totally sick of it!” ? If you do I would like to know who it was. Also you have also said you don’t have anything to say about religion. Did you know that most religion start out with some god creating the world? So how can you say you’re not talking about religion since almost all religion believe in some god that created the universe, so basically you’re saying religion hate science.

I'm sorry that I didn't give you the information that you asked for. But your Title states the question "Did the big bang actually happen?" so I was trying to give an answer to your question. I apologize that I didn't grasp what you were really looking for. I know that you have said "besides Creationism" but you can't leave creationism out when you are talking about the big bang theory. If you look through what I wrote to Tycho you would probably get what I am talking about. And I want to inform that I do not hate science. I'm thinking that you are beginning to say that religion hate science and have nothing to do with it. However everything has to do with religion (Christianity). They don't try to disprove or deny science; we are not that stupid as some people would say. We question about what we believe in and use scientific ways to prove it.(If you want to know more about scientific ways of proving Creationism feel free to ask me. I can give you the facts.) Just because I disagree with the big bang theory does not mean I hate science. It would be the same as saying just because I hate basketball it doesn't mean I hate sports. Big bang is not everything in science, it is theory which could not be proved. Thank you for making your point to me. I appreciate it.

The big bang theory gives naturalism a fatal blow. The big bang theory suggests that there was an ultimate start in the world in the first place. And how could there be a beginning when everything just evolved from each other? In order to avoid that scientist think of stuff like infinite a number of oscillations, basically saying that the earth explodes itself once a while. According to this we are living in one dangerous world! But as some of you have posted this whole thing goes against the law of physics. Energy is not eternal, nobody can argue with that. We see that everyday in our very lives. By using up the energy to explode and come together and explode again, sometime the energy would run out right? Also it goes against the law of decay like "Xyph" have stated. Wondering why there are so many faults in evolution and the big bang theory? Because it is not true, it's basically having the conclusion that we evolved and trying to fit the other stuff with the conclusion. The answer to your question is that I don't believe in the big bang theory. And therefore I deny that it ACTUALLY happened. All this information was based on Colson’s book “How Now Shall We Live?” You should read this book the section about creation because it gives way better explanation on this subject than me.