makarov97 wrote:If they were really promoting science then they wouldn't care if someone questioned their theory.
I'm pretty sure that's the entire point of the last hundred years of the peer-reviewed research done since Darwin published his original theory. Scientists love for their theories to be questioned and tested. That's what makes for good science. Last I checked it was considered good form to question any science and form any alternative hypothesis you'd like, as long as it's falsifiable.
makarov97 wrote:They figure that if they heap enough ridicule on their opponents, they won't have to defend their "science."
Are you claiming that evolutionary biologists are not practicing science? I'm afraid I will need more than quotation marks around the word to understand your point.
makarov97 wrote:Yet, if we explore their theory they have to come up with some kind of supernatural explanation.
No, they don't. You simply chose to believe that they do. This is an argument from personal incredulity and is therefore invalid.
makarov97 wrote:According to darwinist theory, the "big bang" was responsible for creating the universe. Yet something cannot come from nothing. Where did the original energy necessary to cause the "big bang" come from?
Now you're talking about physics and not biology. Don't get your sciences confused. But as I understand how the two could relate to you, you should probably understand that science does not view the Big Bang theory as being about the origin of the universe, but rather it is a theory about how the universe developed over time. That bit of confusion aside, there are a few theories as to what came before the Big Bang all of which are speculative and will take much work to develop. Nevertheless, they're all falsifiable given enough work and time.
Finally, I would point out that just because there does not currently exist a proven scientific explanation for what was before the Big Bang, it does not automatically mean it must have been created. That is confusing the currently unexplained with the unexplainable, which is also a logically invalid argument.
makarov97 wrote:At some point you inevitably come to one of two conclusions. Either the energy that caused the "big bang" always existed or something/someone created the components necessary for the "big bang." Both conclusions require that one accept a supernatural explanation as something cannot come from nothing.
In this argument you have created a false dichotomy, which is also logically invalid. Just because you've only been able to arrive at these two conclusions does not mean that these are the only valid conclusions. For example, Linde's chaotic inflation theory proposes that the energy and matter that came together in the Big Bang was caused by both "leaking" off from other inflating and expanding universes, which is not unlikely given what we currently know about our own universe. Even if the Big Bang theory postulated that "something came from nothing" (which it does not), quantum mechanics have begun to show that matter sometimes appears and disappears during "fluctuations in the void". I don't claim to fully understand quantum mechanics by any means, but I have read enough to know that what you are claiming is simply not a part of the modern Big Bang theory.
- By ECC29
- By Purple Haize
- By LU Armchair coach