Big Bang or Evolution have more direct evidence

[idav]

Which has more direct evidence to support the notions. Big bang theory or theory of evolution?

I almost want to say they are on equal grounds as observable fact.

At least with the big bang we are able to look into the past, due to the fact that when we look at the stars we are seeing a snapshot of them back in time.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/lightspeed.html

We have also have observed speciation of plants and insects which have quicker generation turnarounds.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

So which has more direct evidence or is observing not enough, are they faith based?

 

[McBell]

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Which has more direct evidence to support the notions. Big bang theory or theory of evolution?

That depends heavily on when the question is being posed. In the morning, you are closer to the Big Bang; in the evening you have 12 more hours of evolution at your disposal.

 

[Sapiens]

Cleary there is "more" (quantity and quality) for the TOE, but it is and apples and oranges comparison.

 

[First Baseman]

Which has more direct evidence to support the notions. Big bang theory or theory of evolution?

I almost want to say they are on equal grounds as observable fact.

At least with the big bang we are able to look into the past, due to the fact that when we look at the stars we are seeing a snapshot of them back in time.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/lightspeed.html

We have also have observed speciation of plants and insects which have quicker generation turnarounds.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

So which has more direct evidence or is observing not enough, are they faith based?

Your premises are very shaky, to say the least. To assume you can see into the past and determine past events by looking at stars is a stretch. It isn't direct evidence, it is a guess made on assumption only.

Speciation of plants and insects doesn't prove that different organisms slowly changed into completely different, higher organisms over millions of years. Again, your premises is an assumption that is based on a present event. You are assuming events in the past occurred in the same logic people use to pick football games in the present, using assumed probabilities based on present facts.

Hitler and Stalin both made the same mistakes and look where it got them.

 

[idav]

Cleary there is "more" (quantity and quality) for the TOE, but it is and apples and oranges comparison.

Anywhere inparticular where you think the Big Bang theory could use "more".

 

[idav]

Your premises are very shaky, to say the least. To assume you can see into the past and determine past events by looking at stars is a stretch. It isn't direct evidence, it is a guess made on assumption only.

For one we get a lot more information than you can imagine, surely we are not just using the naked eye. And having a picture of the past is not direct evidence? Wow.

Speciation of plants and insects doesn't prove that different organisms slowly changed into completely different, higher organisms over millions of years. Again, your premises is an assumption that is based on a present event. You are assuming events in the past occurred in the same logic people use to pick football games in the present, using assumed probabilities based on present facts.

So maybe we don't have pictures like in the Big Bang theory. But these events were directly observed over long periods of time showing just how easily speciation/greater divergence can occur. Divergence leading to losing the ability to mate is all thats needed, then its just a matter of time. Look how diverse wolfs/dogs have gotten and thats not even with speciation.

On top of all that DNA evidence is irrefutable. Take into account how DNA evidence is making or breaking cases, thats how important it is. DNA doesn't lie when it says chimps are our cousins.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives

Hitler and Stalin both made the same mistakes and look where it got them.

Wow the Hitler card. Oh my!

 

[idav]

Here is more direct evidence of the big bang theory. This one done by observing big bang inflation.

Until now, astronomers have really only had one line of evidence to investigate whether inflation happened: the CMB’s speckled pattern of temperature variations. Studies of these patterns — particularly as seen by ESA's Planck satellite — support the simplest version of inflation.
But having B-modes in hand is another ballgame. “This is not something that’s just a home run, but a grand slam,” says Marc Kamionkowski (Johns Hopkins University), one of the theorists who first suggested inflation-triggered B-modes might be detectable in the CMB. “It’s the smoking gun for inflation.”
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/direct-evidence-of-big-bang-inflation/

 

[Willamena]

Big Bang or Evolution....

Umm... both?

It's like Chuck Norris or Bruce Willis. Both.

 

[Sapiens]

Anywhere inparticular where you think the Big Bang theory could use "more".

From what I can tell it isn't yet quite up to full theory status. If nothing else I'd like to see the dark matter/energy question(s) out to bed.

 

[idav]

From what I can tell it isn't yet quite up to full theory status. If nothing else I'd like to see the dark matter/energy question(s) out to bed.

I can see dark energy/matter being a serious issue for trying to figure what the universe consists of. How it affects the Big Bang theory is in the speed of inflation but doesn't change the fact that inflation is occurring.

 

[Valjean]

They're both well supported facts, but the mechanisms involved in evolution are better understood.

 

[Sapiens]

I can see dark energy/matter being a serious issue for trying to figure what the universe consists of. How it affects the Big Bang theory is in the speed of inflation but doesn't change the fact that inflation is occurring.

It is not the speed of inflation that concerns me, it is the acceleration. That does not fit a simplistic bang, expand, contract, bang again, do it all over model.

 

[Revoltingest]

I vote for evolution.
The math is simpler.

 

[idav]

They're both well supported facts, but the mechanisms involved in evolution are better understood.

Fair point.

It is not the speed of inflation that concerns me, it is the acceleration. That does not fit a simplistic bang, expand, contract, bang again, do it all over model.

OK, I can see that.

I vote for evolution.
The math is simpler.

With that in mind its a little easier to understand why people don't believe big bang cosmology.

 

[Revoltingest]

With that in mind its a little easier to understand why people don't believe big bang cosmology.

What convinces me that it's a good theory is that I hear of no dissent from those who actually learn the physics behind it.
Given that people of many different faiths & non-faith agree, this points to its being a logical conclusion from the agreed upon premises.

 

[Native]

Which has more direct evidence to support the notions. Big bang theory or theory of evolution? I almost want to say they are on equal grounds as observable fact.

The evolution is a fact, but of course, one can discuss the theory itself.

IMO the Big Bang doesn´t qualify as a sound scientific theory. It looks more like the biblical interpretation of the creation and there is all too many assumptions, speculations and contradictions involved in this BBT.

- One can get much more logical informations by for instants reading the Egyptian Story of Creation, the Ogdoad - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogdoad#In_Egyptian_mythology – in which the basic/primordial elements and their qualities are described with complementary female and male allegories, i.e. “attractive and repulsive forces of creation” = the creative circuit of electromagnetism.

There are numerous cultural Stories of Creation, but these tellings don´t deal with the creation of the entire Universe, but “just” with the creation of the Milky Way, the ancient known part of the Universe.

When these latent cosmic gaseous and metallic elements are set in a swirling motion, they result in a central light, which creates all kinds of gaseous and metallic spheres as stars and planets etc., which are repulsed out from the creative center. In this way, our Solar System was once created in the Milky Way center and has mowed out to its actual position.

Most of the ancient Stories of Creation speak of an eternal and limitless Universe in which everything is created from the atomic elements, then dissolved and re-created in eternity.

That is: There is NO Big Bang in the ancient myths of creation and the evolution itself is “eternal changes between creation, dissolution and re-creation".

 

[Native]

Apropos the impossible Big Bang Theory, watch this video:

“Oops! Universe Expanding Too Quickly" -

 

[First Baseman]

For one we get a lot more information than you can imagine, surely we are not just using the naked eye. And having a picture of the past is not direct evidence? Wow.

So maybe we don't have pictures like in the Big Bang theory. But these events were directly observed over long periods of time showing just how easily speciation/greater divergence can occur. Divergence leading to losing the ability to mate is all thats needed, then its just a matter of time. Look how diverse wolfs/dogs have gotten and thats not even with speciation.

On top of all that DNA evidence is irrefutable. Take into account how DNA evidence is making or breaking cases, thats how important it is. DNA doesn't lie when it says chimps are our cousins.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives

Wow the Hitler card. Oh my!

Your picture is in the present, you and scientists assume it is in the past. You are simply making guesses based on facts. That is what they do in Vegas.

 

[First Baseman]

They're both well supported facts, but the mechanisms involved in evolution are better understood.

No they aren't, they are theories only, guesses made from observing present facts. You certainly cannot prove either actually happened. It is fact to you based on your faith in present day theories.