I am just curious, but how do YEC's explain the microwave background? It seems to me to be one of the most compelling pieces of evidence for the big bang theory.

btw, saying that god put it there and made it appear that way is not a valid answer

i dont see what microwaves have to do with creation. the big bang is a damp squib nothing can come from an explosion in space

The Big Bang is an interesting story but it assumes nothing existed and boom. The reason for the microwave radiation is speculative also. There are objects in the universe that are giving off radiation in all bands of the electromagnetic spectrum (microwaves are at 1 - 100 GHz). Pulsars, Quasars, Dark Matter or Dark Energy - a lot is not fully understood.





God bless,
Al

No, The Big Bang Theory assumes that the universe as it is was smaller at some point in the past. This stems from the fact that every distant body from the earth is travelling away from us, and therefore must have been closer together in the past.

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation was a prediction of the Big Bang, and was discovered after the theory had been published.

Help me out a little.... Why is it so compelling? I don't know why anyone would believe in a theory that had to make up 75% of the mass of the universe by something that is not measurable. Tlak about fantasy...



What if he did put it there?

Terry

it is very compelling because it is exactly what we would expect to see according to the Big Bang theory.
as for dark matter, we can detect it because we can see the effects of its gravity through things like gravitational lensing.
what if he did put it there? well, then you descend to Last Thursdayism, the theory that states that the universe was created last Thursday, but doesnt appear that way. They have the same basis in logic.
btw, I believe more in Next Tuesdayism, which is when I will pay you for my hamburger.

So are things that contradict the Big Bang theory equally uncompelling?



Well, I'm not expert on the subject, but I don't think anyone has detected it. They are assuming its there because they need an explanation to make the math work. That's far from detecting it....



Appearance is in the eye of the beholder... If the universe was created, then its logical that it came in some initial state, and did not progress from a quantum fluctuation, whatever that is, to what we see today. Whether you approve of the initial state or not is besides the point. Its possible God did create things the way we see them, I don't believe so myself, but its still a possibility. To simply rule it out because it doesn't suit your taste is a philosophical mistake.

Terry

my point with lst thursdayism was not that it is necessarily false, but it is in clear violation of Ockhams rasor, and you cant logically say that without any evidence. Therefore, you can entirely discount if it is brought up as explanation for observations.

It is and has been measured


Then how did he put it there.

He spoke it into existance.

Terry

any evidence for that hypothesis?

Alright. That's enough. How about reading up on the "Evolution of Angels" thread and the "Evidence for Evolutionism" thread to see how far you are going to get demanding evidence (your euphemism for proof) of supernatural creation -- unless, that is, you really want to start going around in circles with me like Faunswater and Epp did.

The evidence of God's creation is all around us. It's the same evidence that you have for believing in your evolutionism. The truth of our interpretation of that evidence is in the rock-solid foundation of God's word in the Bible, which is light-years more solid than the fairytale of evolution.

Furthermore, do a study on the difference between operational science and historical science. Or ask Faunswater or Epp. That will save everybody a whole lot of time and effort.

If you are planning to come back with a rejoinder about how "Creationists can't do science" because we can't provide "evidence" (proof) for supernatural creation, then you can preface it by providing "evidence" (proof) for evolution that is based on more than guesses, suppositions, and subjunctive qualifiers -- in other words, more than just your faith that it is true.

Sound like a deal?

Dave

The danger with the word "proof" is that it implies that that some piece of evidence is absolutely and without question conclusive. I don't know of a single theory in all of science that relies on a single piece of evidence. Any theory to be accepted by the scientific community requires many lines of convergent evidence. One should think of science as a huge jigsaw puzzle. The 'theory' is the best attempt to put all the pieces (evidence) together into a single whole. You can't look at how just two or three of the pieces fit together and conclude what the whole picture looks like. But after several thousand pieces you might get pretty confident.

Most all of those that have spent their lives studying biology see how the thousands upon thousands of pieces fit together if evolution is accepted. You may not feel that way, but most all biologists - and most other scientists that see the evidence daily do feel that way.

Suppose after putting together a 10,000 piece puzzle and getting 9,000 pieces into place, someone leaned over your shoulder and told you it was all wrong. You would probably scoff and say .. "Ok, you put it together then. " Even if they pointed out that one or two pieces of evidence were put together incorrectly, you would probably not seriously consider that there was a completely different way to put the pieces together. But still the challenge is there. If creationists feel there is another way to put all the known lines of evidence together, then go for it. Demonstrate that flood theory or whatever theory really does predict the known data.

I gave three lines of evidence in the "evidence for evolution", but no one even attempted to show how a creation theory might explain the facts I gave (e.g., no evidence of complex life below the Cambrian layers - not even pollen). Evolution theory states that complex life had not evolved yet, and how does creation theory explain this? I really do want to hear. If you say for example God created life after laying down the Cambrian layers, then this will result in a number of new questions whose answers must continue to fit the evidence for the argument to 'hold water'

James.

p.s. The "Big Bang" phrase was coined by Hoyle to mock the theory proposed by the priest and mathematician Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966). Hoyle thought the theory smelled religious and refused to accept it (believing in the Steady State Theory). But faced with mounting evidence Einstein and the scientific establishment eventually accepted it despite its religious overtones. I see this as science working.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/...nce/sc0022.html

It´s not true, there are many scientists that dont believe in evolution.The thousands upon thousands of pieces dont fit together, But evos keep believing it only for two reasons.Ones because of their commitment with Atheism, others because they are afraid of not being accepted by the scientific community.For example, Haldene´s dillema is already 40 years old, Nobody has a solution for it.Tell me why evos keep believing that Humans and Chimps share a common ancestor ?

Haldane's dilemma has 242 mentions on Google Scholar - many in high profile journals. So it appears that many scientists have confidence that they have a solution - although you are always welcome to argue with their solutions (I am sure there is a thread on this site somewhere).


But even if you are correct, and Haldane's dilemma is a problem for current evolutionary theory, your options are
A. Modify evolutionary theory to allow the theory to explain the data - and show that the new theory still fits with the other evidence already published.
B. Come up with a completely new theory (creation theory, aliens, whatever) that can explain Haldane's dilemma and can also account for all the other lines of evidence.

There are probably 50 different lines of evidence supporting the argument that chimps and humans are related (gene similarities, non-coding genetic material, brain structures, locations of fossils, similarities in early human fossils, similarity in immune response, etc). If you want to argue that humans and chimps are not related, then you need to explain all these different lines of evidence (i.e., show how your theory accounts for these other converent findings). Do you want to start a thread on that?

Even if you were to find a weakness in evolutionary theory (find a piece of the puzzle that doesn't fit), you can not effectively argue for any alternative theory until you can show that the alternative theory does a better job at predicting the available evidence (can put the puzzle together in a completely different way with the available pieces).

Hope that helps,
James

p.s. I am confident that the majority of Christian biologists accept evolutionary theory - but I think can find a link, if you would like to see the survey data.

yes, whatever the numbers may be among phds for supporting evolution, the number among people in the relevant fields (biology, genetics, etc) is much larger. something interesting that i thought was amusing when some major creationist group made a list of 500 or so PhD's who did no0t accept evolution, the NCSE began project steve, which made a list of PhD's named Steve, Stephen, Steven, or Stephanie who accepted evolution. as of 9/5/07, theree were 827 steves on the list.

An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "If many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."

If you think they have a solution then post it.



Gene similarities can be explained by common design.
Non-coding genetic material is already proved to have many functions so it can be explained by common design.
Brain structures also.
Location of fossils ???????? I dont know what you are talking about
What early human fossils ?
Similarity in immune response - Common Design.

Your 50 different lines of evidence are one indeed: Homology. Your reasoning is that all that are similar have a common ancestor.It´s not true, if it was true then it would not exist convergent evolution.




It makes no sense, I dont need to create another theory to say that evolution is false.So, in your opinion it´s better to have a false theory than no theory.

pwnagepanda,
How did they measure the temperatures?

(if you can't answer that question, then you must admitt your belief in it is based upon faith)

by using Planck's Law of Black Body Radiation. look it up. and yes, I do have faith in the laws of physics.

I wonder..... The laws of physics say that matter cannot be created or destroyed by natural processes, but if you don't believe in a supernatural creation, then you must not believe that the laws of physics have always applied to the universe since its inception.

Terry

Specificly, matter and energy Terry. Energy can be used to create matter and vice versa. The laws of physics don't need to be suspended in order for the Big Bang theory to work and a supernatural agent does not need to be invoked.

And on a side note, it doesn't matter if pwnagepanda has faith in the laws of physics or not. Repeated experiments will always show the same results.

Actually the laws of physics that says matter cannot be created or destroyed by natural processes actually says that the universe always existed.

If something that can't be created...is...then it has always been.

or

has been created by a supernatural being which is unexceptable in the evo camp.

Something I have always found interesting about the Big bang theory is that a crerator would actually fit in with the theory. there fore, I dont really understand why Creationists constantly attack it. the fact is, we dont really know how the Big Bang happened (we are pretty sure that it did though...), but there are numerous hypotheses in theoretical physics, as well as a creator hypothesis. However, Until new evidence comes to light (don't hold your breath), they will remain just that: hypostheses.

I believe the creationist have a hard time fitting it into a six day period.

The interesting thing is that the bible tells us that the heavens were spread out by God....so it looks like you can almost believe the bible.

ISA 51:13 that you forget the LORD your Maker, who stretched out the heavens and laid the foundations of the earth, that you live in constant terror every day because of the wrath of the oppressor, who is bent on destruction? For where is the wrath of the oppressor?

JER 10:12 But God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding.

JER 51:15 "He made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding.

ZEC 12:1 This is the word of the LORD concerning Israel. The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the spirit of man within him, declares:

I am new to the debate forum so I am sorry that this is out of sequence since it took a little time to formulate my response. First I would like to respond to:

Quote from pwnagepanda posted Sept, 10, 2007:

I am curious, but how do YEC’s explain the microwave background? It seems to me to be one of the most compelling pieces of evidence for the big bang theory.

The microwave background or cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) is not necessarily evidence of the Big Bang Theory it can and has been used as evidence for other Theories as well even creationism. Also remember not all evolutionists believe in the Big Bang. The thought behind that CMB being a residue of the Big Bang would be that as the explosion passed through space it would leave small clumps of gas that would eventually form stars, planets, etc. The clumps would leave pockets of temperature change (hot to cold - the temperature is measured in wavelengths) and the pockets would be seen like hills and valleys. At first there were no pockets detected then the COBE team found very small hills and valleys in fact the temperature difference was only one hundred thousandth of a degree. This was finally detected by the COBE team.

The CMB has a number of problems and explanations that do not make it very compelling evidence. Even the COBE team leader George Smoot had doubts about the findings but backers of the Big Bang ran with it. First there is the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich theory developed by two Soviet astrophysicists. The theory claims that as the CMB passes through intergalactic gas clouds with the radiation colliding with the electrons in the clouds making a small change in the temperature. This change could very well be the change the COBE team detected.

Then there is the explanation of the CMB by Sir Author Eddington. Eddington suggests that CMB is simply radiation that comes from the heat sources that reside in the universe. His calculations gave a value of 2.8 K and this is what the known CMB recorded to date. It should be noted that CMB should be at 50K by R.A. Alpher, R. Herman, and G. Gamow just a few years before CMB was discovered.

Tom Van Flandern believes the pockets of CMB stem from materials between galaxies or intergalactic medium absorbing radiation of distant galaxies not from the Big Bang. He also states that the temperature distance from 50 K to 2.8 K eliminates CMB as compelling evidence of the Big Bang. Tim Folger claims the CMB is to uniform or to smooth the temperature should be more seriously effected than it displays. There should be more of a disruption with such an immense explosion.

Lastly these are evolutionists that are having problems with the CMB because they do not agree with the Big Bang Theory. As much as they believe CMB supports the Big Bang evolutionists have had to admit it is not as compelling evidence as they would like. Sir Fred Holye and others area little more forthright about it they believe that CMB has nothing to do with the Big Bang at all.

My next post will be on the flaws of the theory of common ancestry between humans and chimps.

Bob Barclay

I will explain these different lines of evidence from my YEC point of view. You only list 6 so I will start with the 6 you listed.

Gene similarities & non-coding genetic material – The project Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) has recently published their findings of their analysis of 1% or 30 million bases of the human genome. They found that what they considered “junk” DNA is not “junk” after all it is transcribed into RNA and it is functional. It can no longer be considered non-coding as it was before. So with only 1% of the human genome for comparison the gene similarity went from 98.5% to 95% and estimations from researchers say it could reach as much as 80%. At 95% common ancestry is waning fast and should the percentage increase you can kiss common ancestry good-bye. In 2002 a study compared 77,461 chimp bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) end sequences to that of the human sequences and found that only 48.6% of the human sequences matched the chimp sequences. In 1998 a study of structural differences between cell surfaces of chimps and humans it was discovered that a form of sialic acid (a kind of sugar) was not present in humans but was present on the chimps.


Brain structures – When comparing human and chimp expression of proteins of the brain and liver cells there was 31% difference in the levels of expression. When comparing human and chimp protein expressions there was above a 10-fold difference. Similarities seem to be diminishing.

Location of fossils & similarities in early human fossils – This is a good point if you map out where so called fossils are you will find that they are in locations were primates have and are living in abundance. As of now of the 12 so called hominid fossils 9 have been ruled as extinct primates. So they are just proving that there are a number of primate fossils found in an area that had and still does have primates living in that area. I have not heard about the other three as of yet I believe they are still investigating them. I would like to add a little more about Australopithecus Afarensis known as Lucy. This fossil received wide publicity as early hominid. Yet they never talked about the fact that Lucy was found in two separate digs over a mile apart and at different depths. However, that did not stop Johanson from putting the two together and saying they are from the same individual. There is somthing wrong when this kind of practise is done.

Similarity in the immune response – Medical News Today claims there is a significant difference between chimp and human immune cells yet they believe this difference will help in some way; however, I am not sure of that idea because of the following article. In a PCRM Research article Wendy Thacher, DVM, writes “There are many physiologic and anatomical differences between chimpanzees and humans. These differences make them a poor “model” for humans. Data obtained on chimpanzees cannot be extrapolated safely to the human situation.” The article goes on to explain the difference specifically. Aids is the first on the list stating that the antibodies T8 lymphocytes in a chimp respond more powerfully in chimps than humans. Next on the list is hepatitis B stating chimps become good hepatitis B carriers and do not display the suffering of the illness. There are several areas of difference listed and at the end of the article Thacher writes that chimps have too much difference to be used in human medical research.

The above information can be found at:
http://answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2...junk-dna-part-1
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2718
http://www.icr.org/article/110/
http://www.icr.org/articles/2324/
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i5f.htm
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid5.htm
http://www.pcrm.org/anexp/chimps.html.

I would like you to understand that I am just explaining this evidence not to win you over to creationism. Also I am not trying to disprove your evolutionistic views. I am explaining why I hold to my YEC beliefs. As far as the similarities that are there evolutionists look at the evidence and say common ancestor and YECers look at the evidence and say common design from the creator. It is your right and purgative to believe and preach without retaliation what ever you chose if it is evolution so be it and I will not tell you can not do this. I and my fellow YECists are asking for the same privilege from evolutionists. This is one of the reasons I like this form of debate those who want to talk about their differences in a peaceful manner can.

Bob Barclay

You do have an interesting form of logic which I am trying to understand. My original comments were that I have yet to see any kind of creationist theory that really tries to account for the array of data out there. Mostly, creationists appear to point at a few pieces of the evolutionary puzzle and say what they don't like about it. But the real job of science is to create a theory that has better explanatory power than the current theory. I would be happy to take any topic you would like and discusss how the creationist theory accounts for the available evidence. My favorite is geology and the fossil record, but if you would like to go with genetics and hominid evolution, I would be happy to go that way too.

In this thread, the original discussion was on cosmic background radiation. To keep on subject, we could discuss the data that need to be explained to compete with a current theory of the universe, galaxy formation, or other astronomical observations.


However, if you want to go to onto hominid evolution that is fine. We should do that on a seperate thread. However, you will see that I will argue with some of your facts.



Here is a pretty good list of homind fossils organized by age and location.
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/

Not sure what you mean by the phrase "9 have been ruled as extinct primates". All of these are extinct primates. No one in the scientific community is claiming that any primates before homo sapiens is alive today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate

New fossils are found all the time. Here is today's news from the BBC from this week's Nature.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7003502.stm

A team of scientists working in Georgia has unearthed the remains of four human-like creatures dating to 1.8 million years ago.

In the journal Nature, the researchers outline details of the partial skeletons uncovered in a Medieval town.

The bones reveal a mixture of primitive and advanced features, team leader David Lordkipanidze explained.

These early hominids may have been among the first to leave Africa to colonise the rest of the world.