I'm new to the forums

[megenoita]

Hello everyone,

I am new to the forums, and hope to get involved with some thoughtful conversations with those who are seeking the truth.

I am a proponent of ID, and adhere to the Biblical account of creation as true. In order to be on the same page with everyone, my first question is what the consensus explanation for the very beginning of the universe is. I assume evolution, I am not sure concerning the specifics.

[Renegnicat]

Welcome. And the consensus explanation is we don't know yet.  

[Squid]

Welcome to the board Megenoita.  And to answer the question you asked:

...my first question is what the consensus explanation for the very beginning of the universe is. I assume evolution, I am not sure concerning the specifics.

Evolutionary theory actually has nothing to do with the begining of the universe or even the origin of life for that matter.  Evolutionary theory ONLY deals with life and how populations of organisms change over time.  The question about the origin of the universe is a cosmological question and has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.  Now the use of the term cosmological evolution may confuse some people.  This instance uses the term "evolution" to simply mean just change in the colloquial sense.  Evolutionary theory refers to a theory of biology as formulated by Darwin and Wallace and then later expanded and added to by many other scientists such as Huxley, Mayr, Dobzhansky, Gould, Eldredge et cetera.  Hope that helps clear up at least one aspect for you.

[G-Roll]

welcome to the forum. i look forward to future conversations.

[Whitney]

Welcome to HAF

my first question is what the consensus explanation for the very beginning of the universe is. I assume evolution,

Then you would be assuming incorrectly, evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the universe nor with the origins of life itself.

There is no consensus on how everything started because, frankly, no one knows.

[megenoita]

Ok, I understand my mistake. After this initial beginning, evolution is the means by which life has formed throughout the years using gene mutations and natural selection. My mistake.

Why can nobody agree on something across the board? Are there really too many problems with the Big Bang?

[Whitney]

evolution is the means by which life has formed

Still not exactly, it's an explanation of how life changed after life formed/started.

Why can nobody agree on something across the board? Are there really too many problems with the Big Bang?

Huh?  The big bang doesn't really have anything to do with the beginning of all that exists...it's simply an explanation of how the universe came to be what it is today based on observable evidence and data collected from space. Scientists arbitrarily set time at zero at the big bang because that's as far as we can go back given our current knowledge.

So, no problems and scientists are in general agreement over the big bang and evolution.  It seems the only people who disagree are the young earth creationists. So, I don't know what you are talking about on not agreeing.

[LoneMateria]

Ok, I understand my mistake. After this initial beginning, evolution is the means by which life has formed throughout the years using gene mutations and natural selection. My mistake.

Why can nobody agree on something across the board? Are there really too many problems with the Big Bang?

First off welcome to the forum.  I'm glad you took my advice to start a thread.

Let me address your questions.  First off no one in any large group can agree on anything across the board.  If you grab people from all denominations of Christianity (i'm assuming you are a Christian) you will find that there is no consensus on any subject of doctrine.

Atheists (much like the Christian community) are a wide range of people and if you grab two atheists at random the only thing they may have in common is their lack of belief.  There are atheist Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Conservatives, evolutionists, non-evolutionists (Raelians), etc. etc.

Now I want to talk about the big bang.  First off it's a scientific theory meaning it has a ton of evidence to support it ... thats why its a theory and not a hypothesis.  Other theories include the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution, the theory of quantum mechanics, etc.  Now yes scientists debate and argue over different aspects of the Big Bang theory just like they do with all the rest of the theories I list.  This is a good thing.  We can fix any mistakes we made and we aren't stuck with them forever.  These theories are accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community.  The holes you are saying are in it aren't enough to discredit the theory or else it would not be accepted.

Also, since you seem to be implying this, even if the Big Bang theory is proven wrong how does that lend credit to an Intelligent Designer?

[DSkinski]

Hi megenoita,

I presume that you are someone who believes that if science does not yet have an explanation for the origin of the universe (if there is an origin, which is another unproven assumption), then whatever science's theory of origin for living things is, is falsified.  That is, of course, faulty logic.  In your worldview, you hold to the bible being God's word, yes?  Do you remember the Scopes trial?  At that time, the proponents for the bible as science represented by William Jennings Bryan could not sufficiently answer the question, "Who was Cain's wife?" (among other questions about the bible).  Cain either had to take his sister incestuously, or the story has a gaping hole (which one is worse?).  Nowadays, Christian apologists explain that it WAS his sister that he took into marriage, but because it was the beginning of the earth, it was okay because disease hadn't spread to make deformaties et al and they had to populate the earth, etc.   Was Creationism wrong in your eyes when it did not yet have an explanation for part of its theory?  If not, how much less should Darwinism be held accountable for something it does not even claim to address (the origin of the universe)?  Shouldn't you extend to it the courtesy that you extend to your own view?  Or more simply, does logic dictate that if an explanation does not address every possible question, it is wrong?  (This brings up the question another poster asked, if the Big Bang were disproved, how does that lend credence to your view?  Because you have an explanation for the origin of the universe?  Maybe, but what if I said the flying pig-cow created everything...is my argument more viable than one who professes ignorance?  Or is there a place for ignorance where we don't know?  The onus is on you to prove why your theory of the origin of the universe has credence, and it has to be more than, "because we have an explanation".  Can you PROVE your explanation?)

Just some questions for you to think about .  That it is a popular theory in science (not a "scientific theory" btw) does not necessitate that it has "a ton of evidence to support it".  I don't even want to imagine what your definition of "evidence" may be, if you make such a statement as I quoted.  (As you can see, I'm not a big fan of the BBT, but I don't want to get into it here, if that's okay.)

It's important for both sides of this kind of issue to be precise, and careful, lest you misrepresent what your view, best understood, believes.

Best,
D

[Ellainix]

Christians almost never understand what evolution is...