Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

Yasha Hartberg (
10 May 1995 15:01:09 GMT

In article <>,
Patti Rebecca King <> wrote:

> On 8 May 1995, Yasha Hartberg wrote:
[Daniel Voels' analogy of the Rolex watch deleted]
> >
> > Well, first I would ask you to explain what the evolution of humans has to
> > do at all with the Big Bang. Second I feel I have to point out the
> > inherent weaknesses with your argument against evolution. Namely, your
> > analogy is only appropriate if Rolex watches reproduce themselves. Since
> > they don't, you haven't made a useful comparison. Additionally, evolution
> > depends on intervention from a little something called natural selection.
> The Big Bang supposedly was the key to the formation of the
>, since i assume humans werent here before the universe, it
> must have led to the formation of all life, including humans, and all
> processes, including evolution. As far as reproduction goes, the Big
> Bang is also the supposed origin of lots of things that cant reproduce
> themselves, systems of planets and stars and other matter, that are
> actually similar to the workings of the aforementioned watch...

I'm afraid you are almost hoplessly mixed up here, specifically with
regards to the Big Bang and evolution and, more generally, with regards to
scientific theory. You are correct in assuming that the universe was in
existence before humans. However, the theory of evolution doesn't rely on
the Big Bang for its support. The universe could have been spun by Great
Mother Spider for all evolutionary theory cares. Similarly, the Big Bang
theory doesn't rely on evolutionary processes (other than of course that
humans were eventually around to ponder such things). The beginning of
time doesn't rely on human evolution. We could have been created from
lumps of clay thrown over the shoulder of a demi-god as far as Big Bang
theory is concerned. Indeed, if we had never come into being, the
universe would have presumably still been created in the same way (well,
nearly), we just wouldn't be around to bother it so. Furthermore, Big
Bang theory is only remotely related to theories of star and planet
formation. Big Bang theory is merely a model which creates a universe in
which these other theories can operate.

It is true that science has developed theories which deal with an apparant
continuum back to the beginning of time. However, this continuum is a
collection of a vast number of theories, not just one. While these
theories mesh rather well together, each individual theory stands on its
own merits. This is extremely fortunate for if it were not so, the whole
of scientific thought would have to be revised each and every time any one
model was refined.

[Daniel Voels' Theory of the Equivalency of Raining Fast Food and
Evolution deleted]

> > Well, no. But do feel free to spend your time as you wish. The Great
> > Pumpkin should arrive in October so perhaps you'd better mark it on your
> > calendar.
> *pauses to wonder if you think the great pumpkin put the universe together*

Again, no. However, as far as evolutionary theory is concerned, the Great
Pumpkin would serve almost as well as the Big Bang. My point, of course,
was that if you subscribe to creationism, ...

[Daniel Voels' plea for univeral intolerance deleted]

> > And thank you for your insightful addition to this thread. It is at least
> > clear that YOU don't care enough what others think to spend even the least
> > amount of time to understand what they are talking about.
> Nobody else in this arguement seems to be doing it either..that was the
> point.

Actually, quite a few interesting points have emerged from this argument.
It has, however, taken quite a while for those points to reach some sort
of coherence.

Yasha Hartberg
Texas A&M University
"The most beautiful thing in Tokyo is McDonald's." Andy Warhol