# For DAVID: How do evolutionists explain the Big Bang.... **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [October 3, 2000, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-david-how-do-evolutionists-explain-the-big-bang/35473 "2000-10-03T12:51:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2000, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-david-how-do-evolutionists-explain-the-big-bang/35473/21 "2000-10-05T02:33:29Z")
> [@](#): > > First, for all you with your feathers ruffled: there ARE other theories out there besides the theory of Evolution. Sure, like the Theory of Gravity, and Number Theory, and the Heliocentric Theory. There are not, however, any other theories (in the scientific sense of the word) of the diversity of living organisms. Creation “science” is not a theory, in the scientific sense of the word. Yes, the Theory of Evolution is falsifiable, and Creationism is not. In fact, falsifiability is one of the _requirements_ for an idea to be a scientific theory. Evolution could be falsified, if it were wrong. The fact that it has not been falsified, despite a couple of centuries of attempts to do just that, is a pretty good indicator of its truth. Creationism, however, cannot be falsified or tested. Since it cannot be tested, we cannot produce evidence for it, either, so it is not a theory. ---
**Author:** ![JimOfAllTrades](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@JimOfAllTrades](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JimOfAllTrades)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2000, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-david-how-do-evolutionists-explain-the-big-bang/35473/22 "2000-10-05T03:01:50Z")
> [@](#): > > There are many things about the theory of Evolution that are factual. However, there are many unanswered (unanswerable?) questions that still remain. For example, here are some: > > [http://www.creationscience.com/](http://www.creationscience.com/) The same tired old stuff from the creationist side. This stuff has so little scientific credibility it strains the imagination to think of the sheer amount of denial that went into it’s making. Although there are many places to debunk this stuff (start with any number of good science texts), you may want to check out the FAQ at talk origins: [http://www.talkorigins.org/](http://www.talkorigins.org/) It answers many of the points raised by the creation “scientists”. Good reading. Ugly ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2000, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-david-how-do-evolutionists-explain-the-big-bang/35473/23 "2000-10-05T11:21:27Z")
> [@](#): > > Maybe some of you so-called experts can diversify your studies and learn about them too. We have. We’ll be glad to discuss any specific examples that you want to bring up. It is, however, apparent that you have not diversified _your_ studies. You are obtaining your infoprmation from bogus sources, paroting what they say without understanding. ---
**Author:** ![Tina33549](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b5ac83/32.png) [@Tina33549](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tina33549)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2000, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-david-how-do-evolutionists-explain-the-big-bang/35473/24 "2000-10-05T12:05:46Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by JonF \* \*\* > [@](#): > > We have. We’ll be glad to discuss any specific examples that you want to bring up. It is, however, apparent that you have not diversified _your_ studies. You are obtaining your infoprmation from bogus sources, paroting what they say without understanding. \*\* What are you, some kind of teamster? Perhaps you can diversify YOUR studies to a dictionary, johF. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2000, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-david-how-do-evolutionists-explain-the-big-bang/35473/25 "2000-10-05T12:14:18Z")
Tina said: > [@](#): > > The fact that I don’t want to debate is besides the point. No, actually, it _is_ the point. You come in here and complain and say things without backing them up – but you won’t debate them. Why not? Afraid you’re going to have your poor ol’ beliefs challenged? Life’s rough, babe. > [@](#): > > I don’t want to debate because there is NOTHING to debate about! Well, on that you’re right. There is nothing to debate about. Evolution is backed by evidence; creationism isn’t. You lose. Too bad, so sad. Now run along home. > [@](#): > > I never really posted much in the past and now I can see why… Because people here have the audacity to expect you to back up your claims. Man, you must hate that! > [@](#): > > Ooh, David the STAFFman must’ve gotten his feelings hurt, 2 responses in a row. So if I hadn’t responded, you probably would have whined to high heaven that I was ignoring you. But since I did respond, that means my feelings were hurt. Hmmm. It seems you know as much about psychology as biology. > [@](#): > > But shouldn’t you be researching some scientific theories so you can beat down another poster? Nah, I have enough information already to deal with the likes of you, hon. > [@](#): > > Actually, David the STAFFman, my concern was not with his post, it was with yours. I guess in your allegedly vast knowledge you KNEW that wasn’t a child or someone who REALLY did want an answer, not insults. But it seems as if you beat on all posts, including mine. First of all, that wasn’t a “post” – it was a “question” sent in to Cecil and passed down to the Mailbag staff. Secondly, I deal with facts. If you don’t want to, that’s your problem. If you feel that dealing with facts is a “beating on you” issue, that is, again, your problem. Get over it and just deal with facts, and you’ll be much better off. > [@](#): > > Don’t fret, David the STAFFman, I believe in the Theory of Evolution (as well as the Theory of Creation for that matter). Scientific theories are not “believed in.” They are not religion. As I said before, get thee to a science book. > [@](#): > > There are masses of evidence out there to support it. On the other hand, there is also plenty of questions out there to question it as well. And if you can come up with them, perhaps you’ll win yourself a Nobel Prize. I’m not holding my breath, though. > [@](#): > > First, for all you with your feathers ruffled: there ARE other theories out there besides the theory of Evolution. And there are people out there debating about it right this very second. Maybe some of you so-called experts can diversify your studies and learn about them too. It never seems to have occurred to you that this is not news to us. Yes, there are people out there “debating” these issues. However, these are not altnerate “theories.” There are creationists with their religious beliefs – those are not theories. Who else is out there, Tina? > [@](#): > > Ok, I will say, maybe I went a little far as to say the theory of Evolution holds no water. That is not true. There are many things about the theory of Evolution that are factual. Well, gosh, thanks for the admission. > [@](#): > > However, there are many unanswered (unanswerable?) questions that still remain. For example, here are some: > [http://www.creationscience.com/](http://www.creationscience.com/) As somebody else has already noted, this is not new – it’s old crap that’s already been dealt with time and time again. The fact that you don’t seem to know that doesn’t make it new. It just makes you uninformed. > [@](#): > > In addition, the theory of Evolution is tentative. What I mean is, if new evidence were to come out tomorrow, the theory would be false (falsified)! Yes, it could! But it hasn’t. And, like I said, if it ever did, the person who found it and created a new theory would likely get a Nobel Prize. If it happens, then great. But until then, we have loads of evidence supporting evolution and nothing against it. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2000, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-david-how-do-evolutionists-explain-the-big-bang/35473/26 "2000-10-05T12:28:35Z")
[whistle blowing] ::: TWEEEEET!!! :::: OK, this has now become another debate, with insults thrown in just the fun of it. It no longer is appropriate for this forum. I’m not sure it ever was, but I am hesitant to move topics once they’ve started. At this point, however, I am closing this topic here. If you’d like to take it to GREAT DEBATES forum, please do so. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-david-how-do-evolutionists-explain-the-big-bang/35473.md?page=1)