Why evolution must be taught in school

The Soviet Union is often used as an example of an "evolutionist regime". It is however clear that those making the claim have never done any research or know even the basics of the development of biology within the USSR.

Under Stalin, similar to the Bush regime today science was prodded and pulled around to suit an ideology; 'in one country' for Stalin and the 'new American century' for Bush. And yes this is to an extent happening in the USA today, especially when it comes to global warming or stem cell research.

In the USSR the key science that was messed around with was biology. The "official" biology between 1948 and 1965 wasn't our evolution; it was Lamarckism, this particular brand being spearheaded by Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, often referred to as Lysenkoism. Scientists who refused to accept this hypothesis were removed from their positions.

Lamarckism was an evolutionary hypothesis put forward by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck a French naturalist, in fact one of the first to pin down the origin of life was due to natural reasons (even if not entirely material), he lived between 1744 and 1829.

There were two basic laws Lamarck put forward:

In every animal which has not passed the limit of its development, a more frequent and continuous use of any organ gradually strengthens, develops and enlarges that organ, and gives it a power proportional to the length of time it has been so used; while the permanent disuse of any organ imperceptibly weakens and deteriorates it, and progressively diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally disappears.

All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on individuals, through the influence of the environment in which their race has long been placed, and hence through the influence of the predominant use or permanent disuse of any organ; all these are preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise, provided that the acquired modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to the individuals which produce the young.

Essentially his driving force for evolution wasn't natural selection as our present evolutionary theory put more of an idealist process; in that by thought and actions from those thoughts characteristics could change.

Using giraffes for example, Lamarckism would argue that because of the giraffe (or the ancestor of the giraffe) was trying to reach leaves high up in trees, the action and thought of them stretching their necks is actually what gave their offspring longer necks.

Natural selection however argues that giraffes with shorter necks simply died and were less likely to pass on their genes.

So in some ways it's a pretty solid idea for a pre-Darwin time. He was one of the key naturalists who came up with a natural solution to what had previously been solely the realm of a god.

What is however strange is why so called materialists 150 years later would accept this theory and make it "official". Marx, Engels, Lenin virtually every socialist accepted Darwinism as the most likely reason for the origin of species which as 98% of scientists in the world today and for the last hundred years or so agreed was rock solid. The bureaucracy’s break with their roots and the scientific community showed the lack of socialism and real cancer at the heart of the USSR.

Stalin was duped into an idea comparable to Intelligent Design today, the idealism; idealism being the universe is controlled by thought and not material processes at the heart of Lamarckism, it's the same sort of idealism in Intelligent Design. Natural selection can't do that - so it must of been thought about and made by actions of either the creature itself or a greater power.

It wasn't until 1965 that scientists were able to get Lamarckism thrown out. The Soviet genetics program never fully recovered because an entire generation had their ideas of biology flipped around and all wrong.

We see something similar in America today, in fact its worse because America has had to endure many generations falling victim to creationist nonsense. In America, evolution was actually quite rarely mentioned until the early 1960s - when the US government suddenly realised they were scientifically and technological behind the USSR, and the only way to catch up was to teach the kids some actual science.

In the USSR creationism, or non-scientific theories were never mentioned in school. So even though in biology the official science was a scientific theory which had been proven wrong - it was still science; and the scientific method they were being educated with and really only impacted the field of genetics.

In the US even going on Kent Hovinds' graphs, the word evolution in American textbooks increased 10 fold from 1955 to 1965. It's been in steady decline since however.

Creationism has been organised in attacking evolution and science in the US for a hundred years or so now. They were really squashed against the side when the USSR began racing ahead, but now they're creeping back. And this is the real problem.

We see a clear pattern here. When science is not taught, the whole country falls behind. When science and the method of science is being taught things race ahead.

When you put non-science in science class in schools you will damage that society. Evolution is scientific fact and it should be the sole theory put forward to explain the origin of species on Earth in schools and updated if and when scientists have decided it needs updating.

Bush coming out and saying you should teach both creationism and evolution is garbage, creationism in any of its forms is garbage, it doesn't get you anything. It'll just confuse everyone and hold back the society. It's like saying you should teach astrology to engineers who have to design spacecraft to go to Mars. It's like saying you should teach alchemy instead of chemistry, or phrenology instead of neurology. You teach kids non-science and you'll doom your society to backwardness.

Intelligent Design is NOT science and it does not belong in school, there's only one scientific theory that explains the origin of species and that's Darwinism and that should be the sole theory taught.


Comment from: ibbeep [Visitor]

So we should teach science that is false or unproven. It should be introduced as theory. The way I see it if they are going to throw theories out and act like they are true why not just add creationism as a possible theory.

29th June 2006 @ 19:55
Comment from: [Member]

How is evolution unproven?

Creationism isn't a theory, or a hypothesis, it's not scientific.

29th June 2006 @ 20:02
Comment from: Robert Lippens [Visitor]
Robert Lippens

You don't prove anything in science. You only evidence to very high degrees of certainty. You see, the problem with saying something is proven, is that you withdraw the possibility of being falsified, which is necessary for something to be science and not dogma. Creationism is unfalsifiable because it is arbitrary and subjective. It is backed off of belief of a 2,000 year old piece of literature written by men who knew nothing of science. Evolution is based off of over a century of naturalistic and genetic studies, and is a highly testable, and therefore falsifiable, idea. So far, in 150 years, it had stood up to every single test we have given it.

Evolution is deserved of the title "Theory" (though it is also a fact). Creationism is dogma; and to call it science is to misunderstand what science is.

30th June 2006 @ 00:42
Comment from: Ibbeep [Visitor]

The "Piltdown Man" was "discovered" among other bones in Piltdown, near Sussex England, in 1912, and immediately proclaimed as the "missing link" between men and animals. Accredited scientists the world over dogmatically declared the bones to be half a million years old and dogmatic proof that man descended from animals. The bones were placed in the prestigious London Museum of Natural History and thousands came to see the unquestioned proof that evolution was a scientific fact.
An analysis was made to date the bones more precisely and it was discovered that the skull was human and the jaw was that of a monkey with the teeth filed to make them look human. Both creatures had recently died but the bones had been chemically treated to make them look old!
In 1891 a Dutch army doctor, Eugene Dubois, stationed in Java, reported finding the "missing link" between man and animals! He discovered the top of a skull, three jaw teeth, and part of a thighbone. But he found them 70 feet apart, among many bones along a creek, over the period of a year! After completing his military service Dubois kept the bones in a trunk at home and sent pencil drawings to various evolutionary leaders and museums of the world who eagerly welcomed his "scientific" proof. Calling his find the Java Ape-Man or "Pithecanthropus erectus" (the ape-man that walks upright), evolutionists swallowed his "proof" without question and arrogantly declared to the world that the Ape-Man was 750,000 years old! Many leading scientists eagerly went to his Holland home to see for themselves those amazing bones, only for Dubois to turn them away at his door.
Finally, after about 35 years, the scientific world demanded to see and evaluate the bones for themselves. Twenty-four European scientists met and studied the bones. Ten said they were the bones of an ape; seven said they came from a man; and seven said they were not the bones of a "missing link!" No less an authority than H.G. Wells, the agnostic historian known for his two-volume Outline of History, said they were the bones of an ape. Even Dubois himself finally admitted that the bones were probably from an ape. But the Java Ape-Man has been paraded in museums and high school and college text books the world over as the "missing link" between man and animals, proving evolution!
When evidence of the "Nebraska Man" was demanded, the "great scientific experts" reluctantly admitted that their evidence consisted of ONE (1) tooth! But that's not all!with their "scientific proof" the rest of that skeleton was found, and guess what? It was the skeleton of an extinct pig.

What scientific evedience are you pulling from?

30th June 2006 @ 17:55
Comment from: Robert Lippens [Visitor]
Robert Lippens

It is a common (and very dishonest) tactic of Creationists to omit information and scientific findings that do not back their ideas, as well as to skew the ones that have been replaced.

In this case, as is always seen, the Creationist brings up two or three outdated examples of fossil finds that were once thought to be hominid but were not. Do you see one of the dates you listed, 1891? You do realize it has been over 100 years since that find. You also mentioned 1912, it's been nearly 100 years since that.

The common Creationist fossils they bring up are Nebraska, Java, and Piltdown Man — all old findings that were later discovered to be either incorrect or fraudulent in the case of Piltdown Man). What you did neglect to mention were fossils like Lucy, Turkana Boy, Toumai, the Kanapoi Hominid, The Taung Child… I could go on and on.

Prominent paleontologist Richard Leakey (son of the famous Lewis Leakey) states in his book on the origin of mankind, that there are literally [i]thousands[/i] of different fossil specimen all the way up to about 3 million years. Only then does the fossil record get a bit sparser.

That is the evidence I am talking about. You have three outdated examples and want the tens of thousands of other specimen to be denied out of hand because of these three frauds. Techniques nowadays for classifying fossils are a lot more advanced than they were a hundred years ago. It's this kind of Creationist dishonesty in attacking evolution that I do not like.

30th June 2006 @ 22:55
Comment from: ibbeep [Visitor]

you said:
So far, in 150 years, it had stood up to every single test we have given it.
Thats not true.
And the nebraska man is a recent "discovery"

Now on Leakey. No duh there are fossils 3 million years old. That does not mean that they magically turned into humans did it?

Allow me to quote from someone. (Harun Yahya) hes muslim so your christain tirade will not work.

According to the unscientific and irrational claim of the theory of evolution, the nothingness in the infinite universe gradually gave rise to mankind as a result of chance developments. According to this utterly unbelievable theory, first dust, then soil, stones, waters, mountains and oceans came spontaneously into being in this nothingness devoid of anything of the sort. Later, certain atoms in the mixtures of these came together by chance and brought into being such elements as calcium, phosphorus and carbon. Over millions of years these lifeless elements, completely lacking in intellect, memory, knowledge and consciousness, turned into human beings able to breathe, speak, think, rejoice and mourn, possessed of a soul and memory, with the intelligence, knowledge and consciousness necessary to invent things, and capable of writing libraries full of books. In other words, under the effects of coincidence over billions of years, accumulations of dust, soil and mud turned into human beings of flesh, blood and soul, capable of building extraordinary factories and producing the latest model of cars in them, of establishing space stations, of constructing palaces, and making marvels of art. To believe that stone and soil could one day turn into human beings as the result of chance is even more irrational and illogical than believing in fairy tales. Not even children would believe such a tale.

If evolutionists are sincere in these claims of theirs, then according to those claims there should be no reason why this so-called evolution should not happen again. They could go, for instance, to the largest swamp in the world and expect to see a palace built there billions of years later. Let them sit by that swamp and see whether a human being to build palaces will emerge from the rocks, stones and mud there. Will even a single living cell come into being, let alone a human being? In order to help coincidences along, let them even fill the swamp up with as much carbon, phosphorus, nitrogen, iron, magnesium and oxygen necessary for a living cell.

It will be absolutely out of the question for a single living cell to emerge spontaneously from there. Even a single living cell is extraordinarily complex, containing; power stations to produce energy; factories that produce the enzymes and hormones essential for life; a data bank containing information regarding all the products to be produced; complex transportation systems to carry raw materials and products from one region to another; pipelines; advanced laboratories and refineries to break down the raw materials brought in from outside into useful components; and specialized cell membrane proteins that control the entry into and departure from the cell of various substances. This is the most simple and superficial description of a cell. Just one single feature of the cell is sufficiently complex and magnificent to fill many volumes.

1st July 2006 @ 00:03
Comment from: ibbeep [Visitor]

The person who put forward the theory of evolution the way it is defended today, was an amateur English naturalist, Charles Robert Darwin.

Darwin had never undergone a formal education in biology. He took only an amateur interest in the subject of nature and living things. His interest spurred him to voluntarily join an expedition on board a ship named H.M.S. Beagle that set out from England in 1832 and travelled around different regions of the world for five years. Young Darwin was greatly impressed by various living species, especially by certain finches that he saw in the Galapagos Islands. He thought that the variations in their beaks were caused by their adaptation to their habitat. With this idea in mind, he supposed that the origin of life and species lay in the concept of "adaptation to the environment". Darwin opposed the fact that God created different living species separately, suggesting that they rather came from a common ancestor and became differentiated from each other as a result of natural conditions.

Charles Darwin
Darwin's hypothesis was not based on any scientific discovery or experiment; in time however he turned it into a pretentious theory with the support and encouragement he received from the famous materialist biologists of his time. The idea was that the individuals that adapted to the habitat in the best way transferred their qualities to subsequent generations; these advantageous qualities accumulated in time and transformed the individual into a species totally different from its ancestors. (The origin of these "advantageous qualities" was unknown at the time.) According to Darwin, man was the most developed outcome of this imaginary mechanism.

Darwin called this process "evolution by natural selection". He thought he had found the "origin of species": the origin of one species was another species. He published these views in his book titled The Origin of Species, By Means of Natural Selection in 1859.

Darwin was well aware that his theory faced lots of problems. He confessed these in his book in the chapter "Difficulties of the Theory". These difficulties primarily consisted of the fossil record, complex organs of living things that could not possibly be explained by coincidence (e.g. the eye), and the instincts of living beings. Darwin hoped that these difficulties would be overcome by new discoveries; yet this did not stop him from coming up with a number of very inadequate explanations for some.

1st July 2006 @ 00:08
Comment from: ibbeep [Visitor]

Not to mention he was rascist

1st July 2006 @ 00:09
Comment from: [Member]

Copying and pasting from websites written by people who either 1) don't understand evolution or 2) have an ideological opposition to evolution will not help your "claims".

1st July 2006 @ 00:23
Comment from: Robert Lippens [Visitor]
Robert Lippens

Charles Darwin was not a racist. Have you read any of his works? I sincerely doubt it. Just read the first few chapters of Voyage of the Beagle and you will realize you are making an erroneous claim. Darwin despised both slavery and racism.

You have made it obvious that you do not understand abiogenesis, seeing as you think it still involves a century-outdated idea like spontaneous generation. Flies do not magically appear in rotting meat, and similarly the first cell did not magically appear either. I would actually look at the theories before you criticize them, and that means you need to understand some chemistry.

Harun Yahya is just as big of a joke as Kent Hovind. You can see his trash on google.video. The whole passage of his you quoted is not even an argument, and it sums up to: "Over billions of years you think THAT happened? Why sir, you must be stupid!" There is no attack of the mechanism behind evolution and again the misnomer of 'random'. Certainly mutations are random — but natural selection is NOT.

Darwin did NOT say the eye could not be explained by natural selection, only that imagining it is "insuperable to our imagination" (but no problem for his theory.) This is a common instance of Creationist quote mining a book they've never read. The mechanism of natural selection is very far from "imaginary". I challenge you to find one species that does not undergo natural selection.

1st July 2006 @ 02:55
Comment from: [Member]

Exactly, creationists assume; or at least put forward the idea that cells as we have them today just popped into existance. The modern cell evolved over 3 billion years!

The first life was far more simple and could just about make crude copies of itself.

As for Hovind, I'm waiting for him to identify his magical force that stops "micro-evolution" (which he believes) gradually making so many changes to make a new "kind" (his word) of animal.

1st July 2006 @ 13:36
Comment from: ibbeep [Visitor]

Lets just take a practcal look at this.
He supplied a plausible mechanism for descent with modification. He correctly observed: There is a certain amount of variation in offspring. There are more offspring produced than can survive. In the fight for survival, the best variants live and the worst variants die. He correctly concluded that this gradually causes small, but noticeable, changes in species.

Darwin then extrapolated this truth into non-truth. He believed that these gradual changes could continue without limit, resulting in changes so large that entirely new species would evolve. He believed that when more fossils were found, the fossil record would show evidence of these gradual changes. But after more than 130 years of searching, those fossils have not been found.
Darwin believed in pangenesis.
According to pangenesis, a trait acquired by a parent during his or her lifetime could be passed on to children (Lamarkian or "soft" inheritance). If a man worked to develop large muscles, for instance, the repeated habit of weight-lifting would somehow leave a lasting record in the cells of his body. Particles carrying this information were called "gemmules." They would migrate from all parts of the body to the sex cells, whereby they could be inherited by the offspring.
Suppose I tried to tell you that if you studied hard and spent a lot of time thinking, then you would have children who would be smarter and have bigger brains. You would have good justification for laughing at me. If I told you that we should eliminate IQ tests and simply measure the size of a child's head to determine how intelligent he is, you could legitimately say that is a stupid idea. It is well-known that you can't tell how smart a man is by measuring the size of his brain. You also know that knowledge can't be inherited.
Gimme a break.
What evidence do you have that evolutio is real. and i'll blast the crap out of your theories

3rd July 2006 @ 02:10
Comment from: Robert Lippens [Visitor]
Robert Lippens

Let me use an analogy to show you how poor your line of thought is.

"Euclid said 2+2=4. Then, Euclid extrapolated this truth into non-truth. He believed that the continued addition of two on to itself could produce larger numbers without limit, resulting in numbers so large that they were entirely different than the originals."

That is essentially what you are saying. Two and two make four, but add two sixteen times, and you won't get thirty-two. Micromutations add up and produce larger mutations. It's really simple science.

If you said "Suppose I tried to tell you that if you studied hard and spent a lot of time thinking, then you would have children who would be smarter and have bigger brains. You would have good justification for laughing at me." I would laugh at you, but not because of why you think so. This is not how evolution works. That is outdated Lamarckism. It's like a giraffe trying real hard to reach the tops of trees and therefore getting a longer neck. That isn't how evolution works. Creatures don't try to get mutations — your hopes and wishes don't affect your genetic structure (unless, of course, you are a human undergoing gene therapy.)

You are attacking a strawman. Darwin did not accept Lamarckism and you are wrong to think it is current evolutionary thought. Knowledge cannot be inherited, but biological features like brain size can. In order to "blast the crap out of my theories" you need to understand them.

As for your racism comment, give me a break. Think about the time period in which Darwin lived. Practically everyone had that same thought process. I'm sure the good Christians who ruled the world for centuries never did anything racist (slavery? pogroms? Manifest Destiny?) To blame racism on evolution is to ignore the rest of history, and the fact that racism has been around since the dawn of man. In fact, by the time Origin of Species cacme out, slavery had been banned in most places.

But I digress; you can live in a fantasy world and blame a valid scientific theory for all your problems. Or single out Darwin as the lone racist in a world that was at the time full of people who might have been called racist by today's society, but the terminology used by Darwin in his book was standard for the times.

4th July 2006 @ 02:51
Comment from: Ibbeep [Visitor]

Give some shred of evidence. Just one. Anything? Its funny that most evolutionist say this is a proven science yadda yadda yadda. Proven for 130 years. And yet you question the science behind the theory and all a sudden it goes from a 130 years to last 20 years. And in those last 20 years where is the evidence? If it is proven then why cant we recreate it in some elementary form. You figure if someone started an experiment today which gave all the "nessecary" needs for life to come from nothing then it would happen. I mean your own dice model would say that eventually it would happen right. Well if this is true why havnt people just started and keep trying till something happens. The answer is simple they have tried and failed tried and failed tried and failed.

5th July 2006 @ 15:53
Comment from: Robert Lippens [Visitor]
Robert Lippens

Evidence for evolution? Hmm, where can I start? How about in genetics: let's look at the common ancestry of humans and modern apes.

Every ape species has 48 chromosomes, and we have 46. Where did the missing two go, you ask? They fused together, and we can verify this by looking at the placement of parts of the chromosome called "telomeres". They should not be at the center of any non-fused chromosome, but they appear, right smack dab in the middle of one of the human chromosomes.

The only excuse one can say for this is that "God made it that way", and he very well could have. The only problem is now, that it is not the simplest, nor the most logical explanation. This is rather obvious evidence for evolution.

Next, there are great skeletal transitions of hominids, ,whales, and horses. I suggest you take a look at all three.

Those are just two of the many evidences for evolution.

5th July 2006 @ 22:44
Comment from: Ibbeep [Visitor]

Telomeres are the physical ends of linear eukaryotic chromosomes. They are specialized nucleoprotein complexes that have important functions, primarily in the protection, replication, and stabilization of the chromosome ends. In most organisms studied, telomeres contain lengthy stretches of tandemly repeated simple DNA sequences composed of a G- rich strand and a C-rich strand (called terminal repeats). These terminal repeats are highly conserved; in fact all vertebrates appear to have the same simple sequence repeat in telomeres: (TTAGGG)n. Often sequences adjacent to the telomeric repeats are highly polymorphic, are rich in DNA repetitive elements (termed subtelomeric repeats), and in some cases, genes have been found in the proterminal regions of chromosomes.

As for your little chromosome thing.
A hare has 46 chromosomes too. So I guess we could say in theory a hare has just the same chance as being from an ape as we do.

Hell wild tabacco has 24 chromosomes and cultivated tabacco has 48 chromosomes.

But I believe all life must have come from the Fern with 1200 chromosomes. It has plent to pass onto us all.

The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicted is nowhere to be found. Even Charles Darwin recognized the problem in his day. He wrote in his book The Origin of Species: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

As for your skeletal transitions.
They have been debunked. If you can specify which model you accept then I blast it.

6th July 2006 @ 17:58
Comment from: Earendil [Visitor]

im not american... ive never been to america, and its one of the last places on earth i'd like to visit... and that is because of the people... you americans are one of the most stupid nations... this is because you are arogant and autosufficient; and because you are doing better then the rest of the world you think you don't need any improvement such as learning science or stop poluting the enviroment...
you fight against you scientist as if they are trying to take something away from you... you make laws that forbid scientific research...

if you like so much creationism, you must consider yourselfs cristians... so how then you start wars all over the world an go voluntarily to kill people in other countrys?

i belive in God, and even if we find life on other planets or if evolution is proved by creting life out of nothing in an experiment, i would still believe in God... because creation is not the center of my belif nor it is its goal... those who need creationism in order to believe in God are not real believers and they will never be able to see and understand the world around them...

those who suport creationism are not realy defending christianity but merely their own inability to change... it is a defence mechanism so they might feel they are better than animals because they don't originate in animals but in a higher power... they don't realy care what or who is that higher power (God, Allah or inteligent design) as long they are declared superior to other living creatures... and if they are declared as being superior, then they can even act like animals and still feel arogant and justified in destroying the enviroment or the people around them... this is the thing your president is realy fighting for - the right to play God...

but like evolution states, the one who manages to adapt to the changes in the enviroment, survives... in the end the innevitable will happend...

please excuse my english

7th July 2006 @ 02:58
Comment from: Ibbeep [Visitor]

Lets see where should I start. First I am not a creationist. I do however believe and can reasonably prove evolution is not true.
Evolution violates two laws of science. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized, unless there is already a mechanism in place to build things up. But this very same Law prevents such a mechanism from assembling by itself. The Law of Biogenesis was established by Louis Pasteur three years after Darwin's book was published, and simply says that life only comes from life. Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but raw chemicals never fall together and life appears. Evolutionists often call certain chemicals "the building blocks of life", giving people the false impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life. No one has ever done that. Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard). If one were to succeed, you would know about it. He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter. For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials. No exceptions. A theory that violates two laws of science is in big trouble.
I do appreciate the kind words about America. Are we doing better than the rest of the world thats arguable. It really depends on where you live and what you consider to be good. We do only have a 4.3 unemployment rate. (this includes 16+ and people with disabilites) And we are a wealthy nation. That being said many european countries are just as wealthy (Capital per Population %)

7th July 2006 @ 15:40
Comment from: [Member]

"Evolution violates two laws of science."

The trouble with your argument though is it doesn't violate any natural laws.

7th July 2006 @ 16:47
Comment from: ibbeep [Visitor]

Thats Arguable.
Besides to create something from nothing is the basis for evolutionist creation.

7th July 2006 @ 22:30
Comment from: Robert Lippens [Visitor]
Robert Lippens

You want to come on my podcast and debate the Big Bang Theory with me? I'd be more than happy to let you…

8th July 2006 @ 17:25
Comment from: Ibbeep [Visitor]

Ok Robert hers a question for you.

from: W. Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.

Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."

So my question is simple which form of the Big Bang Theory do you uphold?

I would presume you would hold with Steven Hawkings becuase his is the best model. But I'm not sure. Help me out here

10th July 2006 @ 15:58
Comment from: Ibbeep [Visitor]

Without going into too much detail here is an overview of the problems:

Horizon Problem- Possible explanation is Inflationary theroy
Baryon asymmetry
Flatness Problem- Possible explanation is Inflationary theroy
Globular cluster age
Magnetic monopoles
Dark matter

10th July 2006 @ 16:08
Comment from: Robert Lippens [Visitor]
Robert Lippens

Gibbs is half-right. You can make a universe model with the Earth in the center. Hell, you can make a model of the Solar System that makes the Sun orbit the Earth. The world accepted and used this model for a long time. The problem is, it's not the simplest explanation. This is simple Occam's Razor, a valid philosophical assumption in science, one that has worked every time. It has been tried and true, and applying it to cosmology means the Earth-centered Big Bang model is out, and the centerless model is in.

I uphold to Standard Big Bang cosmology, with the explanatory power of what Inflationary Theory has given it.

In regards to your second post: the horizon, flatness, AND monopole problem are ALL solved by Inflationary Theory. Dark Matter isn't a problem for the Big Bang, it's an astrophysics issue, and isn't really a problem, seeing as Dark Matter candidates have been discovered via gravitational lensing.

The ages of globular clusters are not a problem because we don't really have a method to accurately date them. Take a look at this NASA website to see how globular clusters are dated and why the problem is based on inaccuracies in our dating methods:


Baryon asymmetry isn't a problem either. We already know that forces exist in our universe that do not adhere to perfect symmetry. For instance, the Weak Nuclear Force violates P symmetry (it only acts on left-handed neutrinos). CP symmetry violation was observed in 1964, and it is more than likely that we will observe CPT symmetry violation in the near future. This would essentially solve the so-called "baryon asymmetry problem". In the mean time, NONE of these problems directly contradict the Big Bang; they are just minor details to be worked out in the theory.

All pieces of evidence so far still back the Big Bang Theory in it's current formulation. The universe is definitely NOT 6000 years old.

11th July 2006 @ 00:41
Comment from: ibbeep [Visitor]

The major problem with big bang is there are also different models which are just as likely.
In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory. Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta."
For baryogenesis to occur, the Sakharov conditions, which were laid out by Andrei Sakharov, must be satisfied. They require that baryon number be not conserved, that C-symmetry and CP-symmetry be violated, and that the universe depart from thermodynamic equilibrium. All these conditions occur in the Standard Model, but the effect is not strong enough to explain the present baryon asymmetry. Experiments taking place at CERN near Geneva seek to trap enough anti-hydrogen to compare its spectrum with hydrogen. Any difference would be evidence of a CPT symmetry violation and therefore a Lorentz violation.
Where did you get the universe is 6000 years old :I according to most models its 13.7 billion years old
As for dark energy:
In the 1990s, detailed measurements of the mass density of the universe revealed a value that was 30% that of the critical density. Since the universe is very nearly spatially flat, as is indicated by measurements of the cosmic microwave background, about 70% of the energy density of the universe was left unaccounted for. This mystery now appears to be connected to another one: Independent measurements of Type Ia supernovae have revealed that the expansion of the universe is undergoing a non-linear acceleration rather than following strictly Hubble's law.
Big bang at best is imperfect. We are Decades away from knowing anything. Hell the current model is changed very very often. We still know to little to grasp onto it as truth. As theory I can buy it. But then again I am open to many creation theories.
After All everyone has to agree there was some beging to the universe.

11th July 2006 @ 02:59
Comment from: Robert Lippens [Visitor]
Robert Lippens

Gentry is a joke of a scientist. He's the same guy who does the whole 'polonium halos' spiel that's demonstrably wrong. The Friedmann spacetime model is without a doubt correct. Static spacetime requires the cosmological fudge factor in order to work, it's observationally true that the universe expands. A static spacetime model will NOT work.

It seems, in regards to baryogenesis, that you've been visiting Wikipedia. First of all, the Big Bang is STILL an accurate explanatory model; it's just missing this detail. Secondly, if CPT symmetry can be broken (which we will test) this will allow for baryon asymmetry, because particles will have different lifetimes than their anti-particle partners. CPT symmetry assumes that quantum laws are correct; however we know that quantum laws are incomplete because they do not incorporate a fundamental force: gravity. So, CPT symmetry may very well be broken, explaining baryogenesis. In the mean time, this does not negate the fact that all observational evidence has verified the Big Bang Theory.

Next, you bring up the concept of Dark Energy. Yes, it is behind the accelerated expansion of the universe, and allows the universe to be flat.

I agree the Big Bang model is incomplete, but ALL evidence verifies it. Plasma Cosmology and Steady State cosmology are both horribly incorrect as has been demonstrated time and time again. There are no "different models just as likely".

I don't know why you are using theoretical concepts that can only ADD to the veracity of the Big Bang as supposed pitfalls of the theory.

11th July 2006 @ 20:10
Comment from: Ibbeep [Visitor]

You know I was checking on the horizon problem and I found some interesting things out.
The horizon problem basically says Look across space from one edge of the visible universe to the other and you'll see that the microwave background radiation filling the cosmos is at the same temperature everywhere. That may not seem surprising until you consider that the two edges are nearly 28 billion light years apart and our universe is only 14 billion years old. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light so there is no way heat radiation could have travelled between the two horizons to even out the hot and cold spots created in the big bang and leave the thermal equilibrium we see now.
So introduced was the Inflation theory. But if you check into the logic behind the theory it seems very far fetched. Just after the big bang the universe expanded ultra fast blowing up by a factor of 10^50 in 10^-33 seconds. The problem is noone really knows what could have caused this. So its a theory to fix a problem with no grounding.
Dark matter is astonishing. No one knows what is made of but it must be out there right. Unless we dont quite understand the laws of physics or chemistry. Maybe we can't work out what dark matter is because it doesn't actually exist. Speaking of the unknown have you heard of tetraneutrons. Quite amazing actually a few years back a bunch of french scientists managed (on accident) to bond 4 neutrons. These bonds defied our current laws of physics and defy pauli exclusion principle. How little we know of true physics... This in itself debunks big bang in its current form. It would mean that the mix of elements formed after the big bang was inconsistent with what we now observe and, even worse, the elements formed would have quickly become far too heavy for the cosmos to cope. I tend to think this is where I should end my blog. But I have soo much more to point out. The Pioneer anomaly for one.

12th July 2006 @ 17:37
Comment from: [Member]

You used the word 'anomaly' which is what you are an anomaly hunter, when you have something worth while to add to the table let us know.

You lack even the most basic understanding of science. Yet try to point out flaws which may or may not be there to bolster a point of view which you cannot support with evidence so you have to try and trash everything else, I don't know why exactly, but maybe to attack the founderations of knowledge so people will more easily believe the set of faith you're attempting to push.

You will not succeed, we've had one dark age, the masses will not buy into another.

12th July 2006 @ 19:18
Comment from: Robert Lippens [Visitor]
Robert Lippens

ibeep, as someone who has studied inflationary theory, I hate to inform you that people DO know what caused inflation.

The nature of spacetime around Tplanck is, due to initial conditions, in a false vacuum state. Quantum fluctuations within spacetime constantly cause dips and jumps in the energy of the Inflaton Field, which is going to eventually be behind this large expansion. Now, a large enough jump, due to random quantum jitters, is going to cause the energy in the Inflaton field to be released, thus causing the universe to expand at the enormous rate that we calculated.

Now, in regards to dark matter, you really have no argument. You can't handwave our observations of dark matter candidates away. Gravitational lensing has been observed in various parts of the sky, the most likely cause due to the passing of a dark matter object between our line of sight and a distant star (we see the distant stars luminosity increase).

Next, the Marques experiment did not create a tetraneutron. When they took another look at the experiment, they found flaws in their analysis. No other experiments were able to reproduce what Marques found. Also, current theory DOES allow tetraneutrons to exist, just for a very short time. A stable tetraneutron is what shouldn't occur.

13th July 2006 @ 00:48
Comment from: Ibbeep [Visitor]


13th July 2006 @ 17:24
Comment from: Robert Lippens [Visitor]
Robert Lippens

Nice, but that isn't actually an accredited scientific journal. It's a popular science journal.

I would suggest MY source, the book "The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a theory of cosmic origins", by Alan Guth, the man who discovered Inflationary Theory itself.

I'll trust the book written by the discoverer of the theory, and you can trust the popular science magazine.

14th July 2006 @ 06:00
Comment from: Myth Buster [Visitor]  
Myth Buster

Actually 2,000 years ago and even 10 thousand years before this ancients knew that we had 12 planets that scientists have only just rediscovered in the last 70 year period. How dumb does this make modern civilisation look! So how is that not science but back then because astromony and science were as one with religion because they had no calendar as we do now and used stars for dates, etc.

Ancients had all science we have now and more. Do some research and sift through several million ancient manuscripts for facts. By the way the Bible is flawed and incomplete and edited (out of our lingual contextaul understanding - many things not factual but can be verified as being different and reinforce the fact that Jesus etc was alive and was born into a rich family, etc) and was compiled by a selected elite few. We are limited by the information we have and need to learn that the laws of physics are flawed and are being broken now with new breakthroughs that hev been supresses for over 150 years.

If any one nterested in history wants to learn things we have no understanding of then we must research history - ancient history that is very relivent to our times. Ancient technologies - even tech within ourselves and DNA. Don't stand by flawed science dogma that brainwash your structured brain - break the mould.

Evolution has and cannot ever be proven as fact or even evidenctial of itself since the more we learn the more we find everything is not random and cannot possibly be so abundent in biodiverse life if it was all random and void.

Humans are not capable of creating life or anything from void or out of nothing and probably never will be - but possibly energy force fields which surrouns us all in in us all and has been documented since the early scientific days for several hundred years - also known as quantum hologram.

Evolutionists still believe in funny unfounded theories that are laughable.

How can science prove or even document where monkeys came from when they are relatively new to this planet. Science cannot tell us where such species came from nor can science say or even suggest were bats came from or other species - all is a mystery when it comes to many species so why jump to saying we must have come from them!

Darwin even said his theories were flawed and not for the public because he knew they were fictional and just a theory. Even strong supporters of Darwin say this.

There will alway sbe die hard believers with the evolutionary belief system! Very sad when it will never be proven.

The Universe is finite - remember.

Do we really have alternative Universes as we have alternative futures, pasts and dimensions? there are higher and lower dimensions. Time travel is possible and has been done by UK and Russian scientists for several seconds, we need to bend light and compress gravity and time as well - same for space travel and how about creating artifcial fields of gravity for rapid tansport.

Anything is still possible and industry is slowly shifting away from fossil fuels to free energy systems that need no fuel to generate energy or to operate. With fusion alone we will have broken the law of physics and even fusion is not needed when we have free energy. Adbundent energy that can be tapped into.

Break those fixed beleive systems, that are so flawed and wrong soiled with dogma that won't allow us to progress.

Genetic engineering is not science even - they use shot gun methods to splice alien/foreign genes into plants and get unpredictable results until they finally get the desired traits and even then it remains unpredictable and unnatural.

Quantum vacuum can and is now being tapped into and being used in developing new science energy applications for hand held devices, to cars, to power plants and in the future to power aerospace industry - such as aircraft.

Some companies think fusion will be developed by the end of 2007 - 2010.

BTW: our dates are wrong and we are actually living 7 years ahead than what our calendars (have us believe) we go by so 2006 = 2013 and 2013 = 2020 Not many even care about that though these days.

21st August 2006 @ 16:56
Comment from: EaZiE [Visitor]

This is a very heated area where evolutionists are glad to provoke. Some people don't believe in God, not because of lack of evidence, but because of the cost. Them that have rejected have free time to promote anything that excuses them.
Now, I'm not against examining life and researching, but there are very few evolutionists actually doing this. Most are just the voice w/ the extra time. Like gay people do.
But your not off the hook yet. If evolution were true, believe me here, there would not be any doubts and our world would look much different.
Creationism (God created this world) is not supposed to be proved. It is what it is.
Its not just Christians that reject evolution. I thought it was pretty corny before believing in God. But now we've got people barking that its truth beyond doubt--it IS science. Yea, and they've recently found a fossil thats a fish looking thing with legs, so there you have it. They finally found the transitional species. (Some far out scientists.)
I admit I get a little concerned for our children and what there being taught. For some reason our schools have decided on evolution. Before evolution, creation was assumed.
Typical of our day-- assuage any pain, or conviction.

29th November 2007 @ 20:53
Comment from: unknown person [Visitor]
unknown person
1 stars

Evolution is nonsense,people who believe in creation like me are RIGHT.People like you are just CRAZY!!!like you.I really feel bad for you, because you are just wrong.And just to let you know you're facing a 12 year old GIRL,who actually knows' what she's talking about.And who is correct.That's all I had to say to you about evolution.Bye CRAZY man.

29th January 2008 @ 22:26
Comment from: [Member]

Can you prove your position or not?

29th January 2008 @ 22:36
Comment from: laurie [Visitor]

Read From Darwin to Design. At the end of his life, Darwin admits he did not even believe in his own theory. He just never wanted to believe in creation, because then he would be accountable to The Creator.

13th February 2008 @ 01:34
Comment from: [Member]

Hello Laurie. Two points:

1) Charles Darwin did believe in evolution, the deathbed story is a myth.

2) Even if it were true how does it disprove evolution?

13th February 2008 @ 12:17
Comment from: laurie [Visitor]

How do you know for certain that the deathbed story is a myth? Please don't take this wrong, but were you there?
I cannot "prove" creation anymore than evolution can be "proved". But it seems to take a lot more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in creation. The way the whole planet works together is way too complicated to just happen. There had to be a planner (creator) to come up with everything. Evolution just doesn't make sense.

17th February 2008 @ 14:56
Comment from: [Member]

Because it was made up by some guy a hundred years after Darwin died. Evolution has been proven, nothing has falsified it. Do you have any evidence to support creation?

17th February 2008 @ 19:15
Comment from: MrBooyah [Visitor]
3 stars

Creations proof? How about life itself. Name one scientist who has been able to reproduce it. I'll even give them a head start and let them drain away the life from the living, but they can't put it back can they? Another of my favorite arguments is the bombadeer (spelled wrong most likely) beetle, it could not have evolved. Also, who says the carbon dating is right? Didn't a new group of scientists say that things could be carbon-dated to support the creation view?
I just wanted to share my opinion. Thanks for reading!

28th February 2008 @ 02:35
Comment from: Wilberstone [Visitor]  

MrBooyah - I'm glad to see someone else is thinking about all the 'carbon dating' issues. These people are so full of garbage pail- mathematical malarkey, if anyone honest enough, would simply bother themselves to investigate their necessary novel math-theories they've been FORCED to invent, just to keep pushing the carbon-dated-materials-clock back, as far as they possibly can . . . then we'd all finally see, they haven't got a single leg to stand on, much less, a mudfish, a monkey, or anything else they insist we've "Evolved' from?
The bottom line is, when ever "science" is backed into a corner via one of their outlandish schemes, whether it be "global warming" - conveniently REPACKAGED as climate change, DUH, climate has ALWAYS changed, however, the necessity for stupidity remains where it's always been. . . thrown on the backs of anyone who loves the Creator or, anyone who sees the fallacies within science. e.g. Scientists have always relied on an EXTREMELY ARROGANT proclamation that, "they're smarter than everyone else, and insisting that, anyone who doesn't agree with them, is inherently stupid. What irony and arrogance, considering, we'd have never made it, "scientifically" to the 20th century, had it not been for all those "stupid Christians" who kept pushing the limits of their own and others' intelligence. . . . and the same exact arrogance is still the necessary, unexplained monkey on the backs of scientists today.
Of course, whenever they're backed into said corner, and whenever they lie with yet another novel theory, it always pushes back whatever timetable is attached to the inquiry at hand. WHY? For the sole purpose of being able to arrogantly rely on time? Time tables that they've now pushed into extremely absurd and impossible for ANYONE TO PROVE (including themselves) and then say: oh, this and thus is simply too complex and so long ago, we'll probably never be able to explain it. Wow, what insightful confessions in this arena we have on record? SCIENCE is the one who jumped us from a "roughly" 10,000 year old time table, then to a million, ten million, 25 million, 50, 150, 300 million, etc., and each one, trapping themselves with certifiable insanity in their proclamations. In the time I was being brainwashed by our yet to be fully communized NEA, we jumped from millions, to BILLIONS of years in the proverbial timetables of life. And aren't they now into TRILLIONS - on "some" things?
They claim what I and millions of others say on these matters is ignorance, they insist they've got the wiz-dumb, the technology, the ability to make such claims, yet, the very same people who make the mathematical models for these unprovable claims, also "invent" the math to make forecasting models, earthquake models, hurricane models, etc., etc., etc...
They've not gotten our forecast correct YET, in the decades I've been tracking their claims and comparing it to actualities, what kind of empowered arrogance is it that makes them (or us) think their calculations on historic records can work any better?
Again, the same as ALGORY'S "global-warming" having to be turned into climate change because climate changes and no one can rebuke that, henceforth, when ALGORY stands up and confesses ALL the lies related to that communist driven panacea, I might start listening to some other rhetoric they've invented. You can remove every single person from this planet, and it's not going to "change" the climate any more or less than if we stayed.
Beyond tree ring data proven to be linked to onsite artifacts, bones etc., these freaks have NO CLUE whatsoever, if their carbon dating scandal is 0% or 100% accurate - AND THEY KNOW IT! They have no way of KNOWING, NO WAY OF BEING CERTAIN, when, where, why, etc., cataclysmic events, or especially long term trickling effects or instantaneous event(s), depreciated or increased their levels of literally hundreds, if not thousands of variables used to calculate and refine their data on carbon dating. A "well placed" lightening bolt in one of their digs, would physically alter EVERY CALCULATION they use, and they have no way of knowing whether or not it, or something else occurred at any or all digs. The only thing that takes imagination to believe, is their arrogant lies!

31st March 2016 @ 12:12

Form is loading...