I would like to address a few of the statements made by eridan-grundy. I came across their post on the evolution tag. I just screen captured the parts I was concerned about. The rest was religious stuff that I have no interest in addressing. I am however very concerned with the misinformation concerning evolution and a few other things.
1) First: NO ONE said there was “nothingness” before the big bang, they said that was the creation (or rather, expansion) of matter/energy as we know. Quantum fields and other dimensional plans could easily have existed before then.
Second: We have never had “nothingness” to study. We don’t know if something can come from nothing or not because we have never studied “nothing” to see what it’s property is. It is actually very possible that something can arise from nothing!
Third: Mathematically you can actually get something from nothing. For example, you can turn 0 into 1+(-1). If the amount of positive and negative energy is the same, then the net balance is 0. Likewise, if you have the same amount of matter and antimatter the net product is 0, or nothing.
In string theory, we have a multiverse of universes. Think of our universe as the surface of a soap bubble, which is expanding. We live on the skin of this bubble. But string theory predicts that there should be other bubbles out there, which can collide with other bubbles or even sprout or bud baby bubbles, as in a bubble bath.
But how can an entire universe come out of nothing? This apparently violates the conservation of matter and energy. But there is a simple answer.
Matter, of course, has positive energy. But gravity has negative energy. (For example, you have to add energy to the earth in order to tear it away from the sun. One separated far from the solar system, the earth then has zero gravitational energy. But this means that the original solar system had negative energy.)
If you do the math, you find out that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy, yielding a universe with zero (or close to zero) net matter/energy. So, in some sense, universes are for free. It does not take net matter and energy to create entire universes. In this way, in the bubble bath, bubbles can collide, create baby bubbles, or simple pop into existence from nothing.
This gives us a startling picture of the big bang, that our universe was born perhaps from the collision of two universes (the big splat theory), or sprouted from a parent universe, or simply popped into existence out of nothing. So universes are being created all the time.
2) The standard geological model of deposition and uplift explains exactly how marine fossils ended up at the top of many mountain ranges. This is a scientific fact.
There is not one shred of evidence in the geological record to support the claim of a single, worldwide flood. Geological formations such as mountain ranges and the Grand Canyon require millions of years to form, and the fossil record extends over several billion years. The time required for continents to have drifted into their present positions is immense. These things cannot be accounted for by a single flood lasting a few days or years.
Now let’s address the “It’s just a theory” statement.
- This is a favorite and often used ploy by creationists, and relies upon the fact that in everyday usage, English words are loaded with a multiplicity of meanings. This is NOT the case in science, where terms used are precisely defined. The precise definition apposite here is the definition of theory. In science, a theory is an integrated explanation for a class of real world observational phenomena of interest, that has been subjected to direct empirical test with respect to its correspondence with observational reality, and which has been found, via such testing, to be in accord with observational reality. It is precisely because scientific theories have been subject to direct empirical test, and have passed said empirical test, that they ARE theories, and consequently enjoy a high status in the world of scientific discourse. Or as I like to call them FACTS.
3,5) This Fred Flintstone version of pre-history is one of the most preposterous and devious claims the fundamentalists make, and they have made it in books and films. The “man-tracks” seen by creationists stem from two sources. One is wishful imagination, whereby water-worn scour marks and eroded dinosaur tracks are perceived as human footprints. The other is deliberate fraud. Creationist hoaxers obscure the foot pads of the dinosaur tracks with sand and photograph what remains, the dinosaur’s toe impressions. When reversed, the tip of the dinosaur toe or claw becomes the heel of a “human” print. These prints are shown in poor-quality photographs in creationist literature and films. Because the stride length (7 feet) and foot length (3 feet) exceeded any possible human scale, the fundamentalists call these the giants mentioned in Genesis. In addition to the doctored tracks, there are other hoaxed prints circulating in this area of Texas. In fact, carved footprints were offered for sale to tourists in curio shops during the Great Depression. These caught the eye of the paleontologist Ronald T. Bird, who recognized them as fakes, but they eventually led him to the legitimate dinosaur footprints at Glen Rose. This area has since been extensively studied by paleontologists, and numerous species of reptiles and amphibians have been catalogued. No genuine human tracks exist there or anywhere else along with dinosaur prints.
The alleged bees’ nests from the Triassic period are actually carvings from wood boring beetles. You can view all the scientific peer reviewed documents at the link below.
Re-evaluation of alleged bees’ nests from the Upper Triassic of Arizona
About 1: There is overwhelming evidence for the big bang. Models of what should result from the big bang are well-observed in nature, such as the cosmic microwave background and its temperature, the fact that everything is still expanding apart from one another in proportion to the distances at which they’re viewed, the relative amounts of hydrogen and helium in the universe, and much more. There are literally mountains of “smoking gun” evidence for the big bang - it’s just that most are scientific illiterate about it and/or have dismissed the possibility outright due to their religious views and interpretations.
Also, the big bang wasn’t an explosion. Explosions as we think of them are matter being violently thrust away from a source in space. The big bang though was an “explosion of space and time” - it wasn’t stuff being thrown about, it was space and time itself, the very dimensions that stuff exists in, stretching rapidly apart.
It is also mistaken to label the big bang theory as being atheistic. There is nothing about it that implies a godless reality - it is simply a scientific explanation of what we’ve observed in the universe, and it’s quite possible to believe in a God as well as believe in the big bang.