Atheists and non creationists Is Darwins theory of the primordial ooze and thermodynamics still correct?



thermodynamics is how the amino acids and other building blocks began the propagation in Darwins theory.


Update 2:


yes there are studies and study polls called the bias factor.

A lot of scientific bench and lab tests are financially biased.


12 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric J Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.

    An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

    Cosmology (Published in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20)

    The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

    In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.

    But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

    Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

    What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

    Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

    Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences.

    Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt," in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

    Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific enquiry.

    Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

    Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists f

  • 5 years ago

    I agree. The "Darwin's doubts" argument is the most baffling of Creationist arguments. 1. It does not impact the validity of the theory of evolution in any way whatsoever. 2. If anything it removes Darwin as a bogeyman. 3. It is FALSE. So it is baffling that so-called "religious" people would betray the principles of faith and use falshoods. 4. It is EASILY shown to be false. So it undermines any credibility for anything else they may say. In other words, even if true it would not help their cause ... but its very FALSITY makes it a liability. It is the most tactically inept argument I can imagine. I don't know why they repeat it.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    No, thermodynamics explains how heat transfer works...

    Darwin's theories never touched on the origin of life, only how it transitioned from one form to another through subtle mutations and natural selections.

    "A lot of scientific bench and lab tests are financially biased."

    Oh please. You do realise that you've become a conspiracy theorist now, don't you?

  • 1 decade ago

    Oh my God, you're a "thermodinamics creationist".

    Most of them have evolved farther than that.

    I mean, seriously, didn't you get the memo? Using the 2-nd law of thermodinamics as an objection to evolution is SOOO last year. Nowadays, it's all about claiming that similar genes prove a common designer rather than common ancestor (which makes little sense either, but hey...).

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    judging by the sarcasm and unwillingness to study natural selection, ide say you already have your mind made up.

    if your really that curious, step out of your comfort zone and learn it for yourself. not only is evolution still correct, its observable with our own eyes, unlike sky gods.

  • 1 decade ago

    I'm guessing it's as correct as it ever was. The only thing to change would be whether people believe in it.

    Source(s): Myself. I don't actually know anything about the topic.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    "Darwin's theory of the primordial ooze and thermodynamics"?

    Haven't heard of that one, sparky.

  • 1 decade ago

    It's the best theory anyone has ever come up with so far.

  • 1 decade ago

    You sad, pathetic, ignorant little troll.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Your questions are degenerating into primordial ignorance.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.