This is a copy of a post I made in a Facebook Forum regarding ID as science. The Big Bang Theory is not considered as an "alternate theory" to ID, but just as an example of what is considered science and why. It is a testimate to how painstaking it is for a mainstream theory to stay in the mainstream.

Reasons why ID is not science compared to the Big Bang and Inflationary Theory.

To be science, a theory must explain all that has been experimentally found or observed, contain methods at which to test hypotheses, and predict new things to be searched for.

An example:

The Big Bang Theory and Inflationary model explained the redshifts of all distant galaxies (ie those outside our galaxy cluser) which could not be explained in the static model of the universe which was prevalent around 1910 around the time when Einstein discovered General Relativity.

With the inflationary model, it also predicted radiation from the remnants of the big bang to be everywhere in space and uniform and isotropic in nature (looking the same and the same in all directions). This was PREDICTED, and THEN discovered. Also it predicts from a high density, high temperature early universe, what the abundances of the elements would be. Scientists separately calculated these abundances and they match up almost entirely 1:1 with the periodic table (observed abundances).

The theory not only explained things we knew, but gave predictions which were later confirmed, which is great evidence for a theory.

The reason why ID is not a theory:

It does not explain anything. It takes evolution, and tacks on a creator.

1) A creator or supernatural being is not probeable by science (as in we can not study it or observe it).
2) The idea does not predict anything, giving it less credit and less to further the experimental process and scientific method (the basis of all discoveries by science).
3) It offers no method to test, nor any postulations to form experiments around.

It is a statement, and not a theory. THEREFORE ID is not science.

Go and read darwin's book and other leading books by scientists studying evolution. There is a lot of proof.

Proof of evolution:
1) Large Lineages of changing species over millions of years from fossil records.
2) experimental data using fruit flies that show change when exposed to different stimuli
3) changes in bacterial diseases from our antibodies (ie Influenza)
4) Large genetic similarities in families (such as primates)


No creationist or fundamentalist touched on what I said, so I bring it to this forum to be discussed, as there are far more creationists here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The other part of the title implies that there is an issue with Creation Science documents. They have an inherent bias. Before any creationist goes and says that normal science work is biased, very little of it is. And by very little I mean that practically none of it is.

Creation Science has a purpose to use science to prove an existence of a god (and no I will not capitilize god as I am not referring to only the christian god) and his/her/their kingdom. They have an aim to hit, and differ greatly from the Science Community.

The Science Community wishes to take what is observed and understand it on the most fundamental level. Creation Science just wants to bring science to a point where there is enough abiguity or "complexity" that (to them) is sufficient to say that there must be a creator.

That is the bias. The Astrophysics teacher at my college does not care (along with most scientists) what the true reality turns out to be down the road. There might be a point where science and religion meet up and are perfectly in harmony. I myself and almost every scientist I know (true researchers that is) do not care if this happens. As long as the world is understood on a quantitative level, predictable, manipulatable, and understandable, then they are happy. No true researching scientist spends time trying to disprove religion (christian or other). They only wish to better understand the nature of reality for either the sake of science or to better humanity.

I have had posts deleted without warning before so I am saving this for my records incase there are extremist moderators on this forum.

Post away

One quick side note.

I hear a lot of people talking about Quantized Redshifts and how that is a big loophole.

It isn't. If everything is expanding away from each other at an observable rate (about 72 km/s/mpc) then yes there would be "concentric circles" because space expands in all directions.

Take a transparency and put a bunch of dots on it, then copy this but expand the scale factor to be a bit larger. And line up dots from one to the other, and then switch the dots which it is lined up. The same effect can be seen on each one showing concentric circles.

If things expand away from you and you from them, it appears that you are the center, when infact you aren't

1) Can you scientifically explain how you compress all solids and liquids to the size of a dot upon this page? For even gas has a phase point, when compressed, where it will become a solid or liquid. So can you explain how you compress something further than that point? And could you show this to be repeatable type test in a lab? In fact can you show us a solid or liquid that can be compressed to 1/2 it's volume. In fact I make it easy. Take a gallon of water, and compress it to 1/2 it's volume. Or, take a solid steel object that measures 1 foot squared. Compress it to 1/2 foot squared.

2) Should not a theory also obey all known physical laws? Or should the stuff we cannot explain, be allowed to break these laws just so we can have a explanation? For if creation breaks a known law, what's the first thing said by a non-believer? So should you not be held to the same rules you pose upon us? Or are the explanations here the non-believers type of "God did it excuse" (it just happens)? If not, then please give us the scientific explanation that goes along the same guidelines you would pose upon creation, that would explain Big Bang.

3) How do you get objects, from the same source, that do not come close in matter make up or age. But it still be said that where it all came from? Example: If I take a big rock that dates 18 billion years old, blow it up into several thousand smaller pieces. Can you scientifically explain how those smaller rocks will be no longer related to the big on, on their matter make up? And how would each smaller rock now date differently from it's source?

[attachmentid=87]

For even DNA has to be close to even imply a relation. So what makes matter in space defy this, but still be related?

4) In an explosion in space, where there is basically no friction from an atmosphere. How long does it take for gas to become so separated that it no longer makes the formations we now see? For even solar wind escapes the sun's gravity in space. And it does not have the force of an explosion expelling it into space, now does it?

[attachmentid=88]

How long would it take for the gases above to expand out into space, that the gas pattern you now see would no longer exist?

a) An explosion expands. What is there available in space to hold such gasses together for billions of years?
B) If gravity has something to do with it, then the gas would be drawn back into itself, and become one object. Or would you like to tell us about a new type of gravity that holds particles suspended, and in place for billions of years?



Show me a method of the Big Bang that can be tested, observed, and repeated?

Side note: I don't believe in the ID theory because it does not point at any specific creator. Which means any creator will do. In fact, Islam has tapes out on ID, claiming Allah as the creator. They are just waiting for ID to get in schools, so they can have their say.



The regular promotion that science is right no matter what, correct? And that if religion was to merge, they would have to agree with all of sciences theories and explanations, correct? Even giving the notion that evolution can merge with a religion, you have just admitted to it being a religion. For if you don't, then you just made a oxymoron statement.




Keep up the attitude, and this one will get deleted as well. We run the forum, you don't. So don't come here thinking you are going to take it over. But then again, this is the attitude we expect from evolutionist-fundies. :)

I like how even the explanations of science contradict themselves. Maybe next you would like to explain how a tree can fall in a forest, and make no noise because no one is around to hear it fall?

When you are made to question reality, then reality becomes no more because you will find your own. One way or another. But this does not change what true reality is.

Example: If I say the sky is blue, and you are color blind and cannot see it. Does that change the real reality that the sky is blue?

So your explanation of expanding objects, does not explain why those objects are expanding the way there are. Unless you would like to show us an observable, repeatable lab test on big bang.

~Easy enough. matter (disregarding it starting as energy) does have specific points where it can collapse to. In stars the pressure from electrons keep the star in equilibrium with the force of gravity. Usually in binary star systems a white dwarf (burnt out very dense star) collects mass from its partner star (this is one of the most well understood examples) http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/su...ovae/type1.html which increases the core mass until it hits what is known as the Chandrasekhar (sp) limit which is about 1.5 solar masses. At this point the star's electron degeneracy pressure can not balance gravity and it collapse causing a supernova. Huge amount of energy (greater than the luminosity of an entire galaxy) is released and what is left in the star is a bunch of neutrons that form a neutron star. This star is usually about 10 miles in diameter yet has the mass of our sun, spins incredibly fast (see pulsars) and is held by Neutron degeneracy pressure. If this star accretes more mass beyond another limit (I forget how much) then it collapse again into a black hole. A Black Hole is theorized to have all of its mass at a point source. It is not testable as nothing can get by the event horizon (the "radius" of a black hole). So it can not be studied.



I don't understand your question...the Big Bang Theory does not break any physical laws (otherwise it wouldn't be a theory!).



~If I understand your question correctly, you are asking how we know that the universe came from this point and yet it doesn't resemble what it was? I answered this in the post. The Big Bang Theory does not say that the universe began as a point source (there is debate over what people think was happening at T=0) but the Big Bang only says that in the extremely young times of the universe (around T=10^-43 seconds) that it was very dense and very hot. But the Big Bang did not expand into space. The Big Bang happened everywhere! It happened where I am, where you are, etc because space is expanding, not matter expanding into space, and the matter is mostly embedded in space (General Relativity). The universe did not begin as a rock, and didn't break into small pieces. It was a huge amount of energy that was spread for all practical purposes evenly (that is why you see the Cosmic Microwave Background and an Isotropic Homogeneous universe!). You can not date energy because there is no method for energy to have a marker! If I am not answering the question, please rephrase it.



~What you have displayed is a planetary nebula (the Cats Eye Nebula I believe) which is caused by a supernova explosing. That gas is still travelling at very fast speeds, but the whole disk there is extremely large (thats not the explanation just a side shoot). I addressed this as the Big Bang did not start as gas, but as energy which later formed into gas as the universe cooled.



~I think my answer to (a) is that gravity keeps them together? I am not quite sure of your question. Believe it or not the book is not closed on gravity as there is no Quantum Field Theory to explain it (which would help physicists make a Grand Unified Theory!) And to B there are different theories. We are either in an open, closed, or critical universe which depends on how much matter is in the universe. There is some critical density that would collapse the universe as we know it. So we take the density we observe and divide it by that number giving us a critical ratio of 1 which means that the universe will expand forever but at T= infinity it would be stopped and it would not recollapse, if the critical ratio is greater than 1, then it will eventually collapse, and if it is less than 1 then it will keep expanding for an infinite amount of time and still be expanding! There is a postulation of a new type of gravity that acts at large distances known as the Cosmological Constant first hypothesized by Einstein, but for a different reason. In Einsteins time it was thought that the universe was in a Static or Steady State. Einstein ran his General Relativity equations with what we know now, and it immediately collapsed. He realized this isn't possible and added in a constant that was supposed to "repel" gravity at large distances. No physical law is broken and mathematically it works. But he realized after Hubble discovered the redshifts in all distant Galaxies that his equations predicted an expanding universe and that he didn't need the Cosmological Constant. We think about it now because we see that the redshifts in the past due to the expansion were LESS than what we observe now. This either means our data is wrong (but many people have observed this independently) or that there is something making it expand which is extremely new and exciting physics!



~Tests are not just what can be done in a lab. If a theory postulates something that has not been discovered yet, then a test for the theory is whether the postulation can be discovered. This has happened in two cases. The first is the Cosmic Microwave Background, and the second is the relative abundances of the elements due to Nucleosynthesis. That is very solid evidence.


~My point about Creation Science is that it does not expand on science and it does not make any new discoveries, but only works to either try to thwart science (which it has failed to do so) or it tries to find a loophole or "complexity issue" to say that there is a creator. This happens very often when there is a new set of data or discovery that is not understood. This is true with the redshifts (though they were a bit late for that one!) and continues with evolution and the like.

People of faith have a very hard time believing science for a few reasons. One, very few actually understand what the theories state. I have had enough christians not know what the Big Bang Theory is to verify this (the comments on this post have also agreed with it).

~And on the last comment. Its funny how this website is a "place for honest, civil dialogue on origins" and yet the moderators are all fundamentalists? And there is a vast majority of people (as I have noticed) that are christian on this thread. To be a fair area of discussion there would have to be a larger amount of scientists than creationists because science is extremely broad and mostly dealt with by specialists in the field. A person who studies particle Physics is not a master in any sense with Cosmology and vice versa, nor do biologists have an understanding of quantum field theories etc. While we could just have the pope be the fundamentalist side or a few high theologins since I am sure a theologin is supposed to understand all of the Bible (but please correct me here if I am false, this is only an assumption).



I have heard of this noise that sounds in a forest argument, but thats not science, thats philosophy as far as I know. No scientist studies that. The redshift argument does not contradict itself, nor has anything I said. Please point out this contradictions so I may put forth a better argument.

You figure out how to expand space in a bottle and observe it and that could happen! But...its not necessary to have a lab test, there are other ways to test things than in a lab. We know the weight of Jupiter by its moons. Do we put a scale under jupiter? No. But using our calculations that have been proven again and again to work, then its safe to say that we know the mass of jupiter.

It didn’t PREDICT anything, it was proposed AFTER THE FACT to explain the evolutionists own starlight problem (the “horizon problem”). Even the secular Wikipedia can be used to confirm this. I’m curious who fed you this propaganda, and wonder if it bothers you that you were misled. I guess I’m a little combative right now because it’s just remarkable to me the amount of brainwashing that is going on in our public schools.



Nice try, but aside from what I think is a phony experiment, common sense says you will not see objects aligning on concentric circles as they expand away from any point on the “balloon” of space (as the big-bangists like to portray it). If your idea has merit, why aren’t scientists who try to explain away the problem jumping all over it? Their explanation has been that galaxies are simply not lining up on concentric circles, that the data is being misinterpreted. If only they had your simple solution.

One last thing on the big bang. If it is so convincing to you, why is there a growing litany of big-name secular astronomers and physicists who are calling for its demise? See www.cosmologystatement.org.



There is already a thread on #1 in CvE section, #2 and #3 are based on an equivocation (see my article The Evolution Definition Shell Game), #4 has also been discussed but you are more than welcome to open a new thread on it in the CvE section.

Fred

~The black hole. Must be another "God did it" excuse. Can't observe it, but it just happened. Not impressed with your answer.~



~We can play dumb game all day. It does not compute because it puts Big Bang on a level playing ground for evidence, and repeatable tests, that you would place upon creation. I guess that must seem unfair .~



~O yes, the multible bang theory. Where everything just blows up. Kind of like fire works on the 4th of July. Bang bang bang. I like the tactic of when one question is not answerable, switch to another theory, nice.~



~Nice dodge. You dodged that question like a politician. But I expected that. Time frames and odds science now ignores because it shows how unfeasible certain theories are.~



Yes, and I very seriously doubt they will ever figure it out. The smartest minds in the world .

Another nice dodge.



The reason science is not willing to commit to an open or closed system is because that would also make them commit to an answer. Being able to switch theories to always make things look explainable, and to make them always look right in every answer. Is more desirable. And is also the same reason a theory will never become an absolute. Never having to admit to being wrong requires this.

The theory of cognitive dissonance states that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or "invent" new thoughts (theories) or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions. The person who is caught up in this also gets caught in the need of always being right. Which actually feeds the other.




O yes, the: We are stupid because we won't accept your theory.

Unlike you, and people like Hitler. We don't need to force our views down the throats of all who would listen. And we don't make up names (childish) to call those who don't believe as we do, come up with websites to mock individuals (childish), to make our forced reality seem more true (A Hitler tactic).

Is there a class for this? Name calling and mocking 101? Or is it a part of science?



Because of your attitude, I would call you a evolutionist fundie. If you don't like that word. maybe you should consider not using it yourself to call others that name who disagree with you.



I was asked this in science class. Because this is part of the brain washing needed to question reality so that science can place it's own reality in your mind. Then get you to do the rest. The reason I posted that question is to show how actual reality is always questioned to a point to where no one seems to know what real reality is anymore.

Answer to question: Sound does not require someone there to hear it to happen. That's real reality.



And unless you have an actual absolute to compare that to, how do you really know you are correct in Jupiter's weight? In other words, what would be the sure way to check your figures?

So by saying you are right, but really having no sure way to check in a actual "proven method". Shows you just have created your own reality. Jupiter weights so much because a method says so. So what if another method comes up and proves it wrong? Your answer and reality changes. But if that method cannot be tested by an actual proven method. Then it is also up for being proven wrong as well.

But each method creates a personal created reality of truth that is controlled by the individual that decides to believe it (this is what makes it a religion). And if that individual can convince others to believe the same thing, then that reality becomes their own self made reality of truth as well. But do these self made realities change the actual truth? Nope.

Of course. There is no reality that the sky is blue. It's merely that your receiving apparatus interprets it as blue. To a dog, the sky is always grey. It's just a question of light wavelengths. If I see it as green, it IS green in any meaningful sense. The only reality is that the wavelength of the light is x frequency.

So to a blind man who can see no sky, our reality is that there is none, correct? So now we live in space? Because the blind man changes real reality?

You can try and use what ever reality you want. And what ever means to try and justify it. But unless it is "real reality", your just playing with fantasy.

Real reality is: The person who can see correctly, sees what is really there.

Just like the tree that falls and no one hears it. It makes a noise whether I'm there to hear it or not. That's real reality. Me being able to hear it, has no bearing on the noise it produces.

But if you want to play with fantasy, go ahead. But don't try and pass it off here as reality.

Also, no scientist can actually prove that certain animals can't see color. The problem may be that they cannot comprehend what color is. For the only absolute way to know, is to become a dog and see what he sees. Other wise, it just a guess that only fits certain tests, that can only test so far.

Excuse me?! If you want to be technical, then you don't actually see the sky at all. The sky refers to the area between us and space, so, no, it doesn't really refer to a "thing" per se.

But the blind man doesn't change reality, he just backs up my position. The colour of the sky is not a feature of reality, it's a subjective interpretation of the data. Bees can see infra-red. We can't. Does that mean that the infra-red that bees see, doesn't exist? Does reality change?

before I answer the other retorts...Greyhound is right about color. Visible light is only a small portion of the Electromagnetic spectrum. What we see is an interpretation of the changing frequencies of a small waveband of light.

"the cosmic microwave background was predicted in 1948 by George Gamow and Ralph Alpher, and by Alpher and Robert Herman."
"In cosmology, the cosmic microwave background radiation (most often abbreviated CMB but occasionally CMBR, CBR or MBR, also referred as relic radiation) is a form of electromagnetic radiation discovered in 1965 that fills the entire universe."

~Wikipedia.

WAY TO CHECK YOUR SOURCES.

I am not even going to bother answering the rest I think. You people really need to stop reading the www.christisright.org or whatever websites you are reading for your "science facts."

-- REMAINING PROFANITIES, AS WELL AS BROAN13, DELETED ---

I quickly banned Broan for his profane-laced post. He is a good example of a person whose mind is made up despite the evidence, who knows he's wrong, and instead of arguing evidence resorts to ad homenim attack.

Regarding his claim above, the only one he attempted to answer, he like so many evolutionists tried to move the goal posts. His original claim:



My reply:



Broan was not man enough to admit he was lying, so insead he went on a temper tantrum and acted like he was talking about big bang predicting CMB. No, it's clear as a bell that he claimed inflationary theory predicted a uniform, isotropic universe. I know he's lying because of his ploy to move the goal posts to CMB, since inflationary theory is indeed related to "uniform, isotropic universe"; but it didn't predict it, it was used to explain it. Here is Wikipedia, his own secular source, refuting his claim:

"The horizon problem is a problem with the standard cosmological model of the Big Bang which was identified in the 1970s, but may have been answered by inflationary theory." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem

"Inflation was first proposed by American physicist and cosmologist Alan Guth in 1981 ... Inflation resolves several problems in the Big Bang cosmology that were pointed out in the 1970s."

Now for our public school students out there, 1981 comes AFTER the 1970s. Good. You all get a cookie!

Fred

I've got to disagree with you Greyhound. There is a reality that the sky is blue.

I see the sky, and that light gets interpreted by my eyes. For all you know, that could stimulate part of my brain that in your head would produce an entirely different quantitive sensation. We both, however connect that sensation to the same symbol, blue.

Even if myself and for example Ikster could only see in black and white, if we had the technological know-how we could each build a machine to measure the light from the sky and compare notes.

Assuming that the sky isn't cloudy and ignoring experimental error we could look at our own measurements and then check them against each others and say we both got around 4000 Angstroms for the colour of the sky.

Now did god make it so it was blue, or is it just light from the sun exciting the electrons of nitrogen atoms?

You just got a dose of how the goal post is always moved, by evolutionists, to make the truth seem unattainable. And is why evolutionists change it to look right all the time.

Not having to commit to a truth, means you can always change it to suit your needs.

Example: The big bang subject came up. I referred questions regarding the Big Bang. They could not be answered. So a fall back theory was brought up. The multible bang theory. Why switch theories? If they have a real need to be right on every issue, why not?

This is what happened to creation as well. Instead of sticking to what God inspired to be written. Many creationists think they have to compete with science on every level. And like science, they seem to have a need for an answer for everything. But even God's word says that this is impossible, and that all will be revealed when we get to heaven.

Blue isn't a property of 4000 Angstroms though, it's a property of 4000 Angstroms + the rods in our eyes. A different receiving apparatus would get a different experience. I maintain that blue is not a property of the real world.

Incidentally, for Ikester, this has nothing to do with evolution or evolutionists, it's philosophy if anything.

It doesn't matter what kind of receiving equiment we use though, we always get the same quantitive answer! When it is daytime, the sky holds the property of blue, regardless of wether I'm looking at it with my eyes, your eyes, or video camera.

If I was colour blind and I couldn't see the roses in a rose bush from a distance, it doesn't mean that the bush suddenly bursts into flower when I get within six feet of it.

All of those examples use the human eye as the recevier though. We know that a normal human eye interprets that wavelength as being blue in the same way as a computer interprets 10010101001110 as a particular expression. I still don't think that makes it an inherent property of the "real" world.



No...and that's not the point I was making. It's the reverse. My perception has no effect on reality whatsoever (quantum discoveries notwithstanding), it exists independently.

Then I guess red shifts are not real either. So we really don't know if our universe is expanding because it's all philosophy. And red is not a real property of the real universe, correct?

The "real" universe is the named and categorized universe. There's also "another" universe that is just....THERE - regardless.

You can rest assured its' still there when we're not looking - we're swimming in it, so to speak!!

These phenomena are undoubtably REAL, and have been observed and measured.

To put it simply, members of the human race who speak English, have verbally categorized them as the color "BLUE", and a phenomena which is measured in the color spectrum as "RED". They also exist theoretically, as nameless, unobserved "THINGS", not yet observed or categorised.

Does one expect to find the letters "R-E-D", or "B-L-U-E" floating around in space, easily identifying whatever object or phenomenon?? Nonsense.

Absolutely! These phenomena and color properties did indeed exist BEFORE there were any humans present to observe, name & categorize them. One needs to see the WHOLE picture.

One can find pretty much the same mechanism at work in the creation story:

Genesis Ch2 : v. 19: And out of the ground, the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them, and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Prior to their being named, they were in a state of being "unperceived, un-named beast-things, and fowl-things"


It's known as Existence preceeding Essence or the dichotomy of subjective and objective - and is pretty much Philosophy 101 basics.

That doesn't make sense. It isn't the "redness" of a redshift that matters, it's the change in the wavelength of the light (which can be detected by instruments other than the human eye.

In reality, redshifts rather prove my point. If you viewed the light from a stationary position, it wouldn't be red.

I guess when I use the same words from one post from another member, to show how what was said, should apply to all of the universe. It must have revealed how ridiculous it sounded. For Nominal just made my point for me.

For what I posted was not what I believed.

This might be moot...but IS(?) there truly, really (?) a "stationary point" or position anywhere in the universe? Red shift is the relative difference in velocity between two moving bodies. Similar to Doppler effect, except with light rather than sound waves.

Considering just about everything is moving away from us. That we would basically be the center in the creation. Things can change direction as forces of gravity pull upon objects in space. Such as the objects that are now in our solar system.

Which means there should be more objects moving towards us than what we observe. Directions changing by gravity does not catch every object into a orbit, or make them collide. But through the estimated 18 billion years. There is a lot of time there for things to change direction.

Even NASA uses the gravity of the moon to redirect space craft back to earth. They even use planets gravity to change the course of satellites sent into space. Seeing that this can be done, means we should have more objects just going in all different directions. But that's not what we see, is it?

Added: Which also means there was really not a center point in which everything came from. It looks more like a placement of things far away, that are moving away. Do you really think 18 billion years is enough time create all that we see? Do you think 18 billion years explains why the objects in our universe are not all related in matter make up? Do you think 18 billion years explains how our sun is a stable star, just perfect for life to exist on one planet?

There is no scientific law that can explain how each planet in our solar system is not only made differently, but have different ages. And not one planet even comes close to the age of the universe itself. Name any matter known to man that dates even close to the supposed age of the universe. Then ask yourself why it does not.

Different make up, different times, defying physical laws, etc.... Points to a Creator with eternal powers to do these things. Other wise, science would have explainations, instead of excuses as to why even the existance of our universe defies all known scientific laws.

Nope. Everything is relative. Even if you did find a "stationary point" and calculated everything from that, you could still use the laws of physics to show that the stationary point was moving relative to something else.