The Other Side of the COin: Truths About Creationism | TeenInk

The Other Side of the COin: Truths About Creationism

January 20, 2010
By clumsy_one123 SILVER, Brentwood, Tennessee
clumsy_one123 SILVER, Brentwood, Tennessee
8 articles 1 photo 170 comments

Favorite Quote:
"All daring starts from within." -Eudora Welty


Try to imagine that, millions of years ago, small particles hit together and collided, spinning out of control, till BANG- they created multiple solar systems, stars, and planets. Does that sound reasonable? I think not. What kind of person would believe that? There are many scientists who devote their lives to trying to prove this so-called “fact”, but, of course, have not been able to. Even though there is no real proof, the Big Bang Theory has been taught in schools for quite along with evolution, which also has no solid proof. However, they are only telling one side of the story. In many schools today, evolution and the Big Bang Theory are taught to students, while Creationism is left for "church only". That is not fair. Creationism should be taught in public schools as well.

To begin with, if evolution and the Big Bang Theory can be taught, why not creationism? First, consider evolution. Scientifically speaking, simple life-forms cannot evolve into “more complex life-forms” (Problems), therefore, man could not have possibly come from apes. Also, if man came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? Some evolutionists answer this question by saying “Survival of the fittest”. However, that does not account for the weaker apes that are still living on earth. If they were to follow this “survival of the fittest” theory, then they should have died long ago, when man first appeared. In Mark 10:6, the Bible says, “But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female,” thus proving without a doubt that God created man.

Then, of course, there is the Big Bang Theory. There is not a single scientific law or demonstration that can be preformed that supports the “something from nothing” theory. How could two small particles hit together to create the universe and all the life in it, when, technically speaking, those two particles had not even been created yet? “Design demands a designer” (Wood), and it is as simple as that. Take for example the position of the earth. If it was just a little closer to the sun, everything on it would burn up. If it was just a little farther away, we would all freeze (Wood). Also, Earth is the only planet with free oxygen and water in its liquid form (Wood). In other words, our planet is the only one in our solar system capable of sustaining life. How could that have happened by chance? In Genesis 1:1, the Bible says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” so, only God could have done so.

Also, creationism should be taught in public schools because, according to the Bible, God created the earth (Gen. 1:1). So, why would anyone teach anything else? Of course, there are those out there who question the fact that the Bible is God’s written word. They say that it is nothing but a book written by a bunch of different men. The Bible is made up of sixty six books- thirty nine in the Old Testament and twenty seven in the New- written over a time span of 2,000 years, on three different continents (Asia, Europe, and Africa), in three different languages (Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic), however, there are no contradictions. This could only be the work of an all-powerful being. And so it was. II Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God…”. So, basically, God told the writers what to say. He inspired them.

What proof is there that the Bible was inspired by God? To begin with, in Leviticus 17:11a, Moses said that, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood…”, yet this fact was unknown even in George Washington’s day (Thompson). People would use leeches to bleed out supposed ‘bad blood’ to help the sick get well. So, how did Moses know? Secondly, in Ecclesiastes 11:3a and Amos 9:6b, the writers both refer to rain falling from the clouds, but the water cycle was not completely accepted or understood until the 16th century. Pierre Perrault, Edme Marriot, and Edmund Halley all made discoveries on and added data to the idea of a complete water cycle. However, the Bible indicated a water cycle 2,000 years before their discoveries (Thompson). Next, in Job26:7, Job says that the Lord “hangs the earth on nothing.” Back in Job’s day, people had different beliefs on what kept the earth suspended in space, such as four elephants on a giant turtle, or the shoulders of an abnormally strong man. Job was way ahead of his time by suggesting that the earth “hung on nothing” (Thompson) (Job 26:7). How could he have known when everyone else was wrong? And finally, in I Corinthians 15:39, the apostle Paul says, “All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds.” Paul is right! All four of these fleshes have a different biochemical makeup (Thompson). But how did he know? All of these situations point to one solution: God told the men what to write. Therefore, there is no possible way that the Bible could be made up by men because of the advanced sciences used in it. Given the sufficient evidence, Creationism should be presented alongside other theories of creation.

There are those in this world who say that allowing creationism to be taught in schools is a breech on their First Amendment rights. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”, however, this does not mean that it is against the law to say “One nation, under God,” in the Pledge of Allegiance, print, “In God we trust,” on money, or teach creationism to students in school. It merely is saying that the Government will not make an established religion. One can believe in and worship anything or anyone they want. But, men can preach and teach about their religion to others. It is only fair.

In addition, the First Amendment was added by the founding fathers to keep the church from controlling the government, and they had good reason to be fearful of this. “Early settlers” in America wanted religious liberty; however, they refused to grant it to others (Gay). They set up the Anglican Church as the main religion (Gay). Others set up their own churches, but, they still had to pay taxes for the maintenance of the Anglican Church, even though they did not attend there (Gay). Laws demanded people to attend church (Gay), and if they did not, they could be fined, and even imprisoned. Other rules covered clothing, business conduct, education, and recreation (Gay). “Only members of the… established religion were allowed to vote (Gay)”. It is no wonder James Madison was careful about how much control the church would receive. All in all, separation of church and state was established to keep government control in the proper hands, not to forbid the teaching of creationism.

In conclusion, creationism should be taught in public schools because, even though some say it cannot be proven, it is the most reasonable solution to the creation of the world, and, if evolution and the Big Bang Theory can be taught, why not creationism? It has not been proved either. If schools are going to teach unproven theories, then why not add creationism to the list? One might as well tell both sides of the story if they are going to tell it at all. Besides, if Evolutionists are so sure that man came from monkeys, then what are they afraid of?



















Bibliography
“Evolution.” The American Colledge Dictionary. 1964.
Gay, Kathlyn. CHurch and State. Brookfield: The Millbrook Press, 1992.
The History of Man. Sanford: Riebers.
The Holy Bible, New King James Version. Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1982.
Isaak, Mark. “Five major misconceptions about Evolution.” Talkorigins.org. 1 Oct. 2003. 18 Jan. 2009 <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html>.
McIntosh, Kenneth, and Marsha McIntosh. Issues of Church, State, and Religious Liberties. Broomal: Mason Crest Publishers, Inc., 2006.
“Problems for atheistic evolutionists.” Creationtips.com. 10 Nov. 2008. 18 Jan. 2009 <http://www.creationtips.com/evoluwrong.html>.
The Reality of God. Sanford: Riebers.
Roberts, Hill. The Second Law of Thermodynamics. 1986.
Suggs, Bill. “When did the U.S. Government pass a law dictating the separation of church and state? Where can this law be found?” Christiananswers.net. 18 Jan. 2009 <http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g004.html>.
Thompson, Bert. Scientific Evidences of the Bible’s Inspiration. Montgomery: Apologetics Press, Inc., 1981.
Wood, James. We Believe. 2005.





Works Cited
Gay, Kathlyn. CHurch and State. Brookfield: The Millbrook Press, 1992.
The Holy Bible, New King James Version. Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1982.
“Problems for atheistic evolutionists.” Creationtips.com. 10 Nov. 2008. 18 Jan. 2009 <http://www.creationtips.com/evoluwrong.html>.
Thompson, Bert. Scientific Evidences of the Bible’s Inspiration. Montgomery: Apologetics Press, Inc., 1981.
Wood, James. We Believe. 2005.



Similar Articles

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

This article has 347 comments.


on Jun. 8 2013 at 7:02 am
LittleDreamer BRONZE, New Delhi, Other
2 articles 6 photos 42 comments
So tell me some reasons why you think Creationisim should be taught in schools. Science is self-correcting, moreover - Evolution is considered a theory because as the definition says, it is well-tested and an evidence-based explanation. We can experiment with Evolution by studying genes, it is also observable in the surroundings - for example, flu shots change every year because the bacteria causing flu changes over time. Good scientific theories are open for correction, changing and improving. Evolution has survived over 100 years tests and challegens- which has improved the theory. It is not a hypothesis, as it is well-tested and didn't originate from out of the blue. Creationism is carved into stone and unchanging over time, it is static and unfruitful, also it is more philosophical than scientific. I can see why they don't teach it in schools worldwide.

on Jun. 7 2013 at 1:56 pm
monochromatic BRONZE, Alexandria, Virginia
3 articles 0 photos 84 comments

Favorite Quote:
Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art... It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival.
C. S. Lewis

actually Creationism says a whole lot more then that and it has always matched up with the observable world, unlike the theory of evolution which continues to change after each new discovery. Speaking of teaching a hypothesis to a future generation, why is the theory of evolution so widely taught instead of science and history?

on Jun. 7 2013 at 1:51 pm
monochromatic BRONZE, Alexandria, Virginia
3 articles 0 photos 84 comments

Favorite Quote:
Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art... It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival.
C. S. Lewis

in your comment you say that the Big Bang occured billions of years ago(that would be a time) and resulted in the cosmos (made of matter) bursting into existence, but then you contradict yourself by also saying that it occured before time and space existed. How could it occur billions of years ago without occuring in a particular point in time, and if there was no space, where was the matter?   

on Jun. 5 2013 at 6:56 am
LittleDreamer BRONZE, New Delhi, Other
2 articles 6 photos 42 comments
(c) Who knows that probably multiuniverses exist? or if life is common throughout the universe? but on comparing the vast size of the cosmos with that of our existence, we might seem to be insignificant. 

on Jun. 5 2013 at 6:40 am
LittleDreamer BRONZE, New Delhi, Other
2 articles 6 photos 42 comments
(c) Secondly. We didn't evolve directly from apes, that's a common misconception. We evovled from a common ancestor of apes. Darwin's theories which took form on his trip to the Galapagos Islands are remarkable. Darwin noted that there were two different types of iguanas who appeared to evovle from the same species. On the other islands, he noted that several different types of iguanas were present with their own innate ability to survive in the respective conditions. Thus Darwin came up with the process of "natural selection", which meant that occassionally all creatures mutate on almost random basis. But when mutation leads a species to be really advanced than their peers, it is more likely to survive in whatever conditions it is forced to live. Creationism says "God made man" or whatever and that is it. IMO, Why would anyone teach the future generation a hypothesis rather than a well-tested theory? Moreover. If there is a God - then is he definite or indefinite? Both the answers may raise the question, "why?"  Religion may assert that the universe is governed by a god and it can offer whatsoever evidence but still is unable to explain that why it shoud be this way. Science on the other hand may be unable to explain why the laws of nature are this way and why they aren't completely different, but it can still say that why isn't it slightly different. When you mix quantum mechanics with other theories, you get nonsense. Religion on the other hand is infinitely flexible, with nothing to prevent the invention of gods. That doesn't sound rational. (c)

on Jun. 5 2013 at 6:19 am
LittleDreamer BRONZE, New Delhi, Other
2 articles 6 photos 42 comments
Your article is not up to the point because the science put in it is limited. To begin with, The Big Bang occurred billions of years ago, before time and space existed, probably in a quantum vaccum which is the ground state energy of the universe. The cosmos did really burst into existence, this may contradict with the first law of thermodynamics that "Something cannot come out of nothing" but from quantum field theory, we know that something DOES  indeed come from nothing: to witness, "vacuum fluctuations". In the simplest case, an electron, a positron and a photon can appear effectively out of nowhere, exist for a brief time and then annihilate, leaving no net creation of mass or energy. Experimental support for this sort of effect has been found from a number of different experiments. The Big Bang is a "THEORY", a set of principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena which is WELL-TESTED and accepted  all around the globe. It didn't just come out of thin air, but on close observation - we can see that distant galaxies are moving away from us and appear slightly redder. This is the Doppler Shift. This means that before time existed, everything was simply clustered into a hot, tiny dot of energy where standard physics didn't apply. While the singularity inflated to begin space and time, the energy then cooled to create matter in the form of subatomic particles, then matter and anti-matter annihilated each other. In our case, matter was in greater amount than anti-matter, so the residue helped in creating everything we see around us. The first elements were formed and giant clouds of these primordial elements collpased under their own gravity to shape galaxies, planets etc. When you describe in brief, the picture becomes clear. Science is based on reason, experiments, observations and calculations. Religion is based more on authority and doesn't give us a clear picture. (c)

on Apr. 27 2013 at 2:24 pm
CrazyWriter GOLD, Lorton Station, Virginia
16 articles 2 photos 102 comments

Favorite Quote:
"Once you have given up on the most important thing in your life, you begin to die, because then, you gradually lose your true self"~Hana Kimi
"Someone who can lie to themself. . . is lonely, and in pain"~Hana Kimi

this is a very good topic to think about. While other issues are being debated, like "Gay Marriage" and "Reproductive Rights" that may seem to have a gray-no-mans-land- area, this particular topic should have none.  I thought you did an excellant job of responding to the Scienitific Education issue. True, some things you could have worked on to better communicate, but over all it was a good article. thank you for bring this issue up for onversation; these topics must be talked about, and understood. if they aren't and thhese topics are simply ignored, then chaos may occur... ~CrAzYwRiTER~

on Apr. 22 2013 at 5:05 pm
monochromatic BRONZE, Alexandria, Virginia
3 articles 0 photos 84 comments

Favorite Quote:
Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art... It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival.
C. S. Lewis

What would you do/think/believe if evolution were proven wrong and the Bible, in it's original form, not all the other religions that have changed it to their liking, was proven to be completely logical and match up with science and history?

on Apr. 22 2013 at 5:00 pm
monochromatic BRONZE, Alexandria, Virginia
3 articles 0 photos 84 comments

Favorite Quote:
Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art... It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival.
C. S. Lewis

um, about not knowing the truth until one dies - if evolution is true, no one will know anything when they die because their mind will cease to exist. if the Bible(as it was originally written) is true, then by the time we die it'll be too late too make any decision because we'll either be in heaven or hell for eternity. soo . . . I thik it's a pretty big deal which is right.

on Apr. 20 2013 at 2:30 pm
monochromatic BRONZE, Alexandria, Virginia
3 articles 0 photos 84 comments

Favorite Quote:
Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art... It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival.
C. S. Lewis

How could the Big Bang theory not include how the Big Bang occured? Here you say that the Big Bang theory and evolution are well defined with plenty of proof, but previously you said that evolutionists still aren't sure exactly how either occured, so how can they be well-defined? I googled and asked about the radiation and phase sifts and I have come to the conclusion that without any proof that they prove the Big Bang, there is no reason to believe they do. Where is the apple example? Did I miss it scanning through the previous comments? I would love to see evidence pointing toward the Big Bang. Preferably scientific or logical evidence, not theoretical. Let me get this straight: you believe that life was able to evolve on earth because earth is conducive to life, and you believe that earth is conducive to life because life evolved on earth. That would be circular reasoning, and you are leaving out the possibility of creation. Believing that life was created makes a lot more sense then believing that life evolved because earth is conducive to life because life evolved. You say that we live in an environment that is conducive (defined as making a certain situation or outcome likely or possible) yet it isn't easy for life to form. It must have been somewhat easy in order for enough one-celled living organisms to randomly form and reproduce until we have highly intelleigent humans today. So assuming that life randomly and against all improbabilities evolved pretty well, why shouldn't scientists be able to make life with intelligence and a conttrolled environment that makes the production of life probable? The multiverse theory may be provenin a few years - shouldn't that mean that scientists are actively studying or performing experiments that are sure to prove the theory? I stil don't get why the prescence of the background radiation could only mean the Big Bang to you. Are scientists able to tell how old the radiation is or when it is from? How do you know that the universe is expanding. Could it not simply be being rearranged? Even if the universe is expanding, that is no proof for the Big Bang any more then seeing somebody running at seven miles per hour means that they started running several years ago all of a sudden. you have said that the evolution of life and other things about the Big Bang and evolution theory are improbable, as well as contradicted yourself in trying to explain them. It doesn't sound ike you have evidence for it, whereas you admit the possibility of a Deity creating the universe and everything in it, the biblical account of which cannot be logically proven wrong, and the parts that do not deal with the supernatural cannot be scientifically proven wrong. Considering the lack of proof for evolution and the sheer improbability of it, creation is the more reasonable choice of belief. I am still curious - you defined the Big Bang as the theory that the early universe expanded rapidly outward from a very small beginning. Where did the small beginning come from, and do you have scientific proof of what it was composed of and how much of it there was? I have never before heard a solid proof for evolution that could not be scientifically or logically crushed. It's an interesting theory though with plenty of flexibility that makes it great for science fiction. books. However, it changes far too often to be believable, especially since there is a better theory out there. A scientist would be obliged to move on to the more accurate theory. 

on Apr. 19 2013 at 7:25 pm
Quantum1.0 BRONZE, Davidson, North Carolina
4 articles 0 photos 19 comments

Favorite Quote:
"We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special." - Stephen Hawking

Ok. I'm only going to say this one more time. Both the Big Bang theory and evolution are well defined theories with lots of proof to back them up. Please google cosmic background radiation and phase shifts of light - i don't want to cite those reasons again and again. We do not know how the Big Bang occured, but the Big Bang theory itself does not include that part of things. All evidence points towards the Big Bang occuring. Read my apple example again. It s the same thing.   I'll look up Pasteur's experiment and get back to you on that one.   What makes me think the universe is conducive to life? Life is all around me. So it must be.   Wouldn't it be easy for scientists to make life in the lab? Life is extremely unlikely so it would very difficult. But since we happen to be alive we live in an environment conducive to life with all the improbabilities adding up perfectly. That doesn't mean its easy. But if it didn't happen we wouldn't eb here to think about it.   The multiverse theory: It may actually be able to be proved in a few years upon better detection of cosmic background radiation as another universe "bumping" into ours should have left a distinct pattern in this background radiation.   Stars getting farther away from earth: You are correct it wouldn't mean much alone, but the thing is wherever you are in space everything is receding from eachother. The earth's not special where everything in the whole universe is moving away from us and us alone. The same thing happens everywhere - the universe itself is expanding.   And lastly, 1.Are you familiar with the Bible? I admit, not particularly. I did however read the first little bit this summer, so I am quite familiar with Genesis. I apologize if I made any incorrect statements based on this. 2. Could the universe have been created by a diety outside of science? Yes. It is possible. I cannot prove it wrong and it very well might be true. However, I have no good evidence for it either, so I am more inclined to trust scientific theories which give tangible, observable proof. I may be wrong, but at least I have, what I feel, are solid reasons for my ideas.

on Apr. 19 2013 at 5:53 pm
monochromatic BRONZE, Alexandria, Virginia
3 articles 0 photos 84 comments

Favorite Quote:
Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art... It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival.
C. S. Lewis

Yet how could you have proof a theory if you aren't completely sure what the theory is? And there is a difference between a law of nature - a fact - that can be regularly observed and a theory about something that happened in the past and cannot be observed. Since the Big Bang would have had to take place billions of years, any light we see from way back then must be coming from an extremely long distance away. Do evolutionists have the technology to be able to study stars so far away? Otherwise, how would they know anything about the stars except that they are far away? How does seeing the light from the past teach us anything about hte past? Also, the stars that seem to appear could merely be moving behind or out from some sort of obstruction in space. Why does the second law of thermodynamics apply to everything else on Earth except evolution? And how would outer space influence affect the evolution of life on earth? What does whether or not the Earth is a closed system have anything to do whether or not life could evolve anywhere? There actually have been mutations like a person with an extra finger or a cow with an extra useless leg. What you seem to e referring to as mutations can be better explained from a creation viewpoint. You mention incest and diseases caused by it. According to the Bible, God did not create animals and people like we know them today. They were perfectly created, working just like they were suposed to. It was practically impossible for their kids to have genetic diseases since the entire genetic map for each kind of animal was contained in the originals, and it wasn't until much later that genetic problems started occuring between siblings and then relatives because the genetic pool within each individual animal and person began to get smaller and more specialized. Adam and Eve's kids could intermarry without any problems, and that continued for many generations. Now, about six thousand years later, incense is frowned upon because back when it started causing problems, God outlawed it for the Israelites. It has long since ceased to be associated with God, though, because after that it has been proven by experience and science. Also, the original association with God's word would probably be why it's frowned upon as ammoral. I presented Pasteur's experiment wrong, sorry - I was just writing what I remembered then, not actually looking at something about it. More accurately, he proved what people believed about abiogenesis back then wrong. I'm positive there was something else, but I can't find it. Considering that the Bible also does not contradict science or history, I believe that makes it more then just a story that doesn't contradict itself. It's the only complete theory of how the universe came to be that makes sense. Evolution is only a relatively new theory that is improbable. What makes you think out universe is conducive to life? If it were, wouldn't it be very easy for scientists to make life in the lab? And I think the multiverses theory is getting too much into fantasy. Theory's like that should be in a science fiction or fantasy book instead of being promoted as science because they have no basis in observational science or scientific findings. Again, I'm not sure how cosmic background radiation could prove the Big Bang. Nor do I think the phase shifting proves it. Stars getting farther away from earth means nothing more then stars moving away from earth. It has nothing to do with an unproven sort-of-a-theory. I would still like to know where the stuff that expanded into the present universe came from. And I have a question or two: 1. Are you familiar with the Bible? 2. Do you believe that the universe could have been created by a Deity that is scientifically unidentifiable? And if not, what scientific proof is there against creation?

on Apr. 18 2013 at 7:39 pm
Quantum1.0 BRONZE, Davidson, North Carolina
4 articles 0 photos 19 comments

Favorite Quote:
"We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special." - Stephen Hawking

So. First - and this has been a point I've been trying to make about the Big Bang too - not knowing how something happened doesn''t mean you don't have proof that it happened. As a simple example long before Newton created his theory of gravity it was known that objects fall towards the Earth - that is fact. Just because they didn't know why doesn't mean that objects didn't fall.   How about the second law of thermodynamics? Life evolved on Earth and Earth is not a closed system so the second law doesn't apply.    We can know about the past unvierse because light travels at a finite speed. When you look into space you look into the past. We have light reaching us today that is billions of years old. In fact many of the stars we see may have long since been destroyed.   First, to be clear, mutations don't lead to big things like a random leg sticking out of a cows side. Evolution works slowly building on what has come before.   Mutations don't die with the animal. Many of them are passed on, and if they are effective they are passed on very rapidly through a population. And while most mutations have no effect (most babies have about 200) and some are bad, just as many are good. The bad ones get out of a population very quickly whereas the good ones get spread very quickly.   Speaking of harmful mutations if there really were only two of each animal at the beginning we probably wouldn't be around today - with that much inbreeding harmful mutations wouldn't die off and you'd have some anumals with some serious issues. As a side note this may be why preety much every culture frowns on incest - its literally evolutionarily hardwired into our brains that its "ammoral".   Next, how doe sproving that flies come from rotting meet prove the whole idea of abiogenesis wrong. To be 100% honest that's kind of a ridiculous exageration of a very specific experiment.   Just because the Bible doesn't contradict itself doesn't mean its correct. I could write a story right now that doens't contradict itself. I know the Bible was written by multiple people, but still, that's not good proof.   Regarding Stanley and Urey, yes life is improbable, but not impossible. Given enough chances by pure probability a universe conducive to life will form (look up multiverses - its an idea where there are literarily millions and millions of unvierses each with their own laws of physics - its a prediciton of string theory)   Cosmic background radiation - it was predicted by the theory and then discovered afterwords - pretty good proof. There's also the fact that light from distant galaxies is phase-shifted, meaning that the universe is expanding as expected based on big bang theory. In regard to the not exactly knowing how see my first paragraph - not knwoing how something works doesn't mean its not true.

on Apr. 18 2013 at 7:21 pm
Quantum1.0 BRONZE, Davidson, North Carolina
4 articles 0 photos 19 comments

Favorite Quote:
"We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special." - Stephen Hawking

Sorry there is no link - I wrote this post a week ago and it got stuck in the filters. Then I tried again and that one got stuck (it'll probably come through eventually). Anyway, that's why its taken so long as I was to lazy to rewrite this post a third time. If you search "why was entropy so low at the big bang" in google and click on the first link you should find what I'm talking about though.

on Apr. 18 2013 at 5:46 pm
monochromatic BRONZE, Alexandria, Virginia
3 articles 0 photos 84 comments

Favorite Quote:
Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art... It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival.
C. S. Lewis

first of all, I would like to point out something you wrote in an earlier comment: "if a theory is not empirically provable it has no place as a theory." thus since you are still not sure exactly how evolution occured, what makes you so sure it did? also, yes, evolution has many scientific proofs against it. I already brought up the second law of thermodynamics: evolution contradicts it because the universe could never have formed itself to the complex level it presently is at without intelligent design (a Creator) because of the level of entropy. energy from the sun or other sources would have made no difference: energy without intelligence, like a bomb, only destroys or disorders - it doesn't order anything. where did the very early universe come from, what was it composed of, and how could you possibly know besides unscientific speculation? mutations can be harmful, like the curly wings that flys got after being experimented on - they couldn't fly - or annoying, like an extra useless leg sticking out of a cows side, or neutral, like a difference in the color of a moth. neutral mutations could be helpful depending on the environment - back to the moths: if a white moth and black moth of the same species lived on a black tree, the white one would probably get eaten first by whatever eats moths. The black one, however, is disguised, thus it is helpful for it to be black. For the viruses, it is helpful to them, I guess, when they mutate, because antibodies are no longer recognizing them immediately and they can live longer. however, they are still viruses. The moths are still moths and their kids will be moths. The cow is going to have a baby cow without an extra leg. Mutations do not change an organism for something better that can be passed down and built upon to eventually form a new type of organism. they harm or do nothing to the mutated organism, and then the organism dies and it's mutation dies with it. Based on the animals that can be observed today, the Genesis story makes perfect sense: Two of each kind of animal were created. Back then, there was a canopy of water surrounding the earth, and with that protection from harmful sunrays and richer climate, animals lived a lot longer and were a lot healthier. As centuries passed, the descendants of the original animals started becoming more specialized, as in they didn't have all the genetic information that the first two of their ancestors did. That pooling of genetic characteristics was aided by isolation - the elephants here have a different mix of inherited genetic makeup than the elephants over there, and due to environment, diseases, and other things, eventually there are two separate species of elephants. In the same way, bacteria and viruses change, and that is defined as evolution, but there are six definitions of evolution, and this type of evolution does not support the theory that everything evolved by natural processes. Loius Pasteur was the one who performed experiments proving abiogenesis wrong. More specifically, he proved wrong the then common belief that flies came from rotting meat. Spontaneous generation has never been observed and there is no scientific reason to believe it occured in the past. You could argue then that since God and creation cannot be observed, there is no reason to believe that God exists or that creation occured, yet the Bible does not contradict itself or science or history, leaving every reason for it to be believed. Two evolutionists, Stanley and Urey, tried to create life in a lab by mimicking what they believed earth to have been like. What they really proved was the improbability, even in a controlled setting, which Earth would not have been according to evolution. About the cosmic microwave radiation, why would it's existence prove the Big Bang? Is the Big Bang the only thing that could have caused it to be there? And how would evolutionists know if they aren't even sure how exactly the Big Bang occured? I can see no reason for the radiation to be proof of the Big Bang. By the way, you mention a link referring to entropy, but I don't see any link. Whats the site called?

on Apr. 7 2013 at 2:05 pm
Quantum1.0 BRONZE, Davidson, North Carolina
4 articles 0 photos 19 comments

Favorite Quote:
"We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special." - Stephen Hawking

Ok, so evolution. How has it been proven wrong by science? Give me a legitamate source with some legitamate data, as I have never met a single biologist who disagrees with evolution. Also, I tend to believe the opinions of signigicant numbers of "intelligent people" as you put it. Yes, mutations are often harmful, but not all of them will be, as they are random. Most of the time you'll get something bad, given the delicate balance of life, but there is no reason that all mutations are bad. For an obvious example, that takes place on human timescales, think about bacterial infections. You never get the same cold twice, as your body becomes immune once it gets one, but you still get lots of colds. There is a simple explanation - the cold bacteria or viruses are evolving.   Next, I define the Big Bang theory as the theory that the very early universe expanded rapidly outward from a very small beginning. This theory has been proven by, for example, the detection of cosmic microwave background radiation, which is predicted by Big Bang theory.    Entropy: Yes, entropy must have started off very low.   Its a little counterintuitive though. Here is a link that helps explain it better. The last answer is probably the best for our purposes.    I don't really get what you're saying at the end. Could you clarify? Also, can you reference the experiment that proved that life could ever come from a nonliving substance. I'm fairly certain I would have come across this in my biology classes/reading as it sounds like the sort of thing that would revolutionize the field. Sorry for being skeptical, but I doubt the accuracy of the results you're bringing up.

on Apr. 6 2013 at 7:21 pm
monochromatic BRONZE, Alexandria, Virginia
3 articles 0 photos 84 comments

Favorite Quote:
Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art... It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival.
C. S. Lewis

evolution is a theory that has not been proven, but has been proven wrong by science. Speculation about future discoveries and invalid science fiction ideas like mutations causeing changes for the better are what keep it alive in schools and the minds of intelligent people. evolution is the theory that life developed from earlier simpler organisms in a universe that occured by chance. Science is defined as the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. A theory and and activity, the latter being represented by the information gathered as a result of experimentation and observation.    how has the Big Bang been proven? and how exactly would you define the Big Bang - just what you believe for sure? if things disordered into the universe, then it logically had to be more orderly to begin with. how did it get that way? and does this mean that the universe is not organized, or that it was way more organized before? if the universe has been disorganizing for billions of years, regardless of how low the entropy was, it must have been really mindbogglingly amazingly structured and complex back then. Even if there was very low entropy however many bilions of years ago the universe bagan, how could the energy manage to make anything? especially life. low entropy only means more available energy, and energy is only good when there's something to harness the energy. what harnessed the energy in order for the low entropy existence back then to form the universe we see today? You say that entropy doesn't always go up. that doesn't mean it ever goes down below the level of productive energy. and in order for life to evolve, there would have to be more productive energy then entropy, assuming that life could ever come from a nonliving substance, the theory of which was proven wrong in the 1600s.   about the cosmic radiation - how do they know, if they detect any, that it's from the big bang? or other universes? could it not come from anything else? if they do detect cosmic radiation, wil they present it as proof of the Big Bang without any further evidence besides speculation?

on Apr. 5 2013 at 10:56 pm
Quantum1.0 BRONZE, Davidson, North Carolina
4 articles 0 photos 19 comments

Favorite Quote:
"We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special." - Stephen Hawking

To keep going on the Big Bang - the theory has been proven as much as an event we are unable to directly observe can. However, this theory does not include the origin of the Big Bang - until we find some more proof for the various ideas regarding the origin of the Big Bang, the Big Bang just is. Finding the final solution will involve uniting quantum mechanics and relativity, something which has been sought after for over fifty years (string theory is one possibility, loop quantum gravity is another). In regard to your point about coming with an idea and then trying to prove it versus experimenting and then trying to come up with a theory, both have been done, and each method has proven useful in the history of scientific exploration (for example relativity fits mainly into the first category and Keplar's laws of planetary motion fit into the latter). Finally, within the universe a bunch of disorganized matter did not order itself into galaxies, solar systems, etc. Rather the initial state of the universe was extremely low entropy. Actually, things disordered into these structures (I'll look up the exact mechanics of this in more detail and get back to you). Also, it is important to remember that entropy and the second law of thermodynamics is statistical - entropy doesn't always go up - it just tends to. You are right that currently the landscape theory is pretty out there, but unlike the existence of God, it can be considered scientific (at least for now) as there are actually a couple of experiments that could possibly detect whether our universe is part of a landscape of multiverses. For example, next year a instrument will be launched into space to detect cosmic background radiation (remanents of the Big Bang) to greater detail than ever before. If another universe has ever contacted ours it mey show up in the background radiation. We'll have to see how it turns out. One final question - what do you mean by science vs. evolution? Evolution is science. Also, I won't deny that if there is a God He could very well be outside of science. Personally, however, I am uncomfortable putting much faith in something I can't detect or prove - that doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all, however. It just means it doesn't meld well with the way my brain works.

on Apr. 5 2013 at 5:43 pm
monochromatic BRONZE, Alexandria, Virginia
3 articles 0 photos 84 comments

Favorite Quote:
Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art... It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival.
C. S. Lewis

whether or not the Big Bang actually counts as a theory is debatable if it is not clear how the Big Bang could have occured. doesn't hta make it a vague idea that some scientists are hoping to prove? your phrasing suggests that you have something in mind of how the big bang should have occured, but now you have to find a way to prove that it could have happened. Shoeldn't scientists observe what things are like right now and try to find the theory or come up with a theory that matches the status quo and past historical events instead of coming up with an idea and trying to find a way to prove it? I don't necessarily endorse the proofs for Creation in this article. circular reasoning is used and it's not very thorough, but that doesn't mean that the majority of the Bible hasn't been proven.  ok - so the Earth isn't a closed system. the universe is - or rather, there's nothing else for it to be closed from. within the universe, you're saying that a bunch of disorganized matter organized itself into solar systems which even managed to grow life in spite of scientific laws whereas it should all still be random, even more unorganized matter. you yourself admit that it is very improbable. I believe it's undoubtedly impossible.  the landscape theory is very interesting, but not any more scientific then the existence of God. why would there be a 'landscape'? how would it have come into existence - and with an organized purpose too.  as for science vs. evolution, science wins by a landslide. I looked up religion and got "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power." considering the scientific impossibilities of the universe and life especially getting to how it is now by chance, it makes sense for a supernatural being to have created everything, including the scientific laws themselves. It also makes sense that God cannot be scientifically proven - He created science and thus is outside it's boundaries. 

on Apr. 4 2013 at 12:44 pm
Quantum1.0 BRONZE, Davidson, North Carolina
4 articles 0 photos 19 comments

Favorite Quote:
"We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special." - Stephen Hawking

In regard to your first point I realize I may have misspoke before. I don't believe that a theory with holes in it is "correct". Rather those holes hint at new science or new theories. However, in regard to the Big Bang theory, the fact that we don't know the why or how of it does not discount the theory. The theory deals only with the expansion of the universe from something very small, which all scientific evidence points to be correct. However, the exact mechanism for that expansion is unknown. Thus I am willing to "believe" the Big Bang theory, but I am not willing to believe any theory of the origin of the Big Bang theory until we discover the correct physics for such a situation (very large mass and very small size). In other words those are two different theories or subtheories of some sort. I also disagree that everything in the Bible can be proven scientifically and historically - all of the scientific evidence I've seen presented in the article and in the comments seems to be flawed. The final point about entropy is a very interesting topic. Essentially, the Earth is not a closed system. So while life becomes more ordered the Earth is constantly recieving energy from the sun, which corresponds to increasing entropy outside of the system. The mention about planets and their formation is even more intriguing and touches on one of the biggest questions in physics today - for planets and galaxies and other structures to form, the universe must have started in an extremely improbable low entropy configuration. Clearly, the extreme improbablility of this state might lead one to believe in a divine creation of sorts. However, some theories, like string theory, describe a cosmic "landscape" where there a multiple universes all with different random starting conditions. Given enough samples it is inevitable that one such universe would have the conditions necessary for life and structure to form, even in the presence of increasing entropy. Of course all this is mainly conjecture right now. It seems pretty neat though and only time will tell if this idea is correct. Anyway as a final point about the whole religion vs. science thing I feel that my main issue with "proving" the Bible/God using a scientific method is that as a theory the religious thing is not sound scientifically - a sound scientific theory must be able to be disproven. I can't think of anyway to disprove God. It doesn't mean He doesn't necessarily exist, but I don't think one can justify scientifically in any way that he does.