Forums → WEPR → Darwin's Theory Of Evolution/Big Bang Theory

Darwin's theory sounds credable, but I believe the big bang needs to be reasearched some more, but it is still the most logical theory I can think of for creaton of the universe.

The two mentioned THEORIES above are not FACTS. There are 3 stages in which an idea goes through:

Hypothisis: "Hey guys, look at my cool idea!"
Theory: "Woah, it has some repetitiveness this just might be true"
Law: "Wow, this happends every day, and everywhere I turn its there. This is has to be a fact.

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They donât really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hookâs law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

And note. Darwin's theory of evolution, is based on skeletal remaisn of animals, and comparing them with modern species. He also did this as sort of a timeline. Evolution deosn't work this way, but think of evolution like a thread. You may have a knot tied in it, to represent a change, or you can splice the thread, and create a entirely diffrent path. And as far as we can see, Darwin's theory has been proven, as many animals beforehand, and over time, have changed their chararistic's to match modern species today. A good example is when the first reptiles were around, they ran on four legs. But some, standing on their hinds to look around, over time developed because of the freqeuncy, and then they staretd to moveo n two hind legs, which was faster then walking with 4 legs at your side, and now, comprimising stability, for speed and agility, you have created a new species. And over time, we get furry little rodents from both lines, developing fur, a sort of tubicle found on a body, to adapt to warmer climates. Then we come to the fact, that over time these little rodent's resembled mice, and then over time, as they atem ore, got bigger, fatter, and what not, when the dinosaurs died, they had to give birth to larger babies to accomodate all the weight, muscles, and so on.

And then the thread spltis off even more with diffrent sorts of animals size's and shapes.

Dawrin's theory is justified, it's now a law, but the theory has laws of it's own.

So, the theory is proven to be correct, but until we have a better answer, this is what we are accepting. Even though it may not be correct, it is the best answer we have so far.

That being said, who knows. We might have a better theory. For the big bang, I think that might be qeustionable. The only really hardcore evidence they have, is that there is huge amounts of radition from a unknown source in space (besides the sun, it's a diffrent form of radiation) That supports the theory of the big bang.

But you never know. The way our universe started, may have been a far greater, far more mysterious origin. Something we may not be able to imagine. But that's my opinion of it.

Gravity is a Law, thus a fact.

And another note. Darwin did not compose the Big bang theory. In fact he has nothing to do with it.
That is Steven Hawkings theory, of the origins of the universe, or rather, the origins of everything.

But as said before, it is a theory with not too much reliable proof, but we got no other answer besides Religous ferventism. But in a way, we can just wonder. And mabye we might find a answer.

Evolution Thread
Big Bang Thread

The OP has misrepresented theories and laws, so we're not off to a great start. I think we can continue this discussion on these already existent threads.