wait, so god might have started the big bang?
what happened to that 7 days of creation thing? or did that evolve into something else.
I'm being serious here, too lazy to research, someone please sum up creationism in a few words. no need for an essay, just wanna know what people are trying to teach kids in the south.
what happened to that 7 days of creation thing? or did that evolve into something else.
I'm being serious here, too lazy to research, someone please sum up creationism in a few words. no need for an essay, just wanna know what people are trying to teach kids in the south.
Many (most) creationists believe that the Genesis part of the bible (about God creating the universe in 6 days) is not to be taken literally, but is a figurative version of how God created our universe. People who believe the Genesis is a literal text are called Young Earth Creationists, or more commonly, idiots.
thanks but do you mean they believe in god still created earth by being responsible for evolution? I mean, if not evolution, how did god create man? or does that adam and eve part still true.
Young Earth Creationists believe that the Earth was created in 6 days, the sky and the stars were created as a backdrop for us and that man came from Adam and Eve.
There are a huge number of different opinions as far as Old Earth Creationists go because their open mindedness allows for many interpretations of the bible, but many believe that God just set the ball rolling with the Big Bang, setting up all of the parameters to allow for life here in Earth.
There are many definitions for "evolution", and usually the one which is most convenient for an argument is chosen at that time.
But understand, mutations are fundamental for biological evolution to have happened. Random mutations are the creative force behind evolution. Mutations are the only way new genetic information can be added.
Right, but both dark and light moths existed before this "evolution" took place. Where did the genetic information for the color of the moth come from? I'll give you a hint, it isn't natural selection.
All you're talking about is one specific phenotype being favored over another, creating an abundance of that phenotype in a population. You might call that evolution, because that is one definition of the word, but that type of evolution does not help you prove the origin of any genetic information, which is where the real controversy lies.
Proving the function of natural selection does nothing to prove that evolution accounts for the origin of genetic information. You are talking about two different things here, two different definitions for the word "evolution"... I see this all the time, people trying to blur the line here in an attempt to find more support for common descent.
If you really want to see where the majority of work in creationism is going on, check this website out: http://www.answersingenesis.org
Almost all of the arguments put forth by evolutionists are countered on this website.
Wow, reading comprehension and spelling own you. Re-read the post, this time slow down and take a deep breath. I know it's hard to read correctly, but try this statement again:
"I am interested in knowing why God could not have set that Big Bang in motion."
I did not make the statement that he did. It is my belief, yes. But I am not holding you to prove me wrong. I am asking you why it is not a possibilty.
You state once again that replacing God with cheese is acceptable and makes sense to do. Hell you even try to make a logical argument for doing so. It's gets a good laugh, but once again answer this question :
Putting on the twisted alien42 logic hat: Can I replace Big Bang with gigantic fart? Or is there more to it than that ?
Shhh!! You can't say that!
How else am I supposed to use all the evidence I have for natural selection to prove common descent and the origin of all species?!?
lol, after posting that I read through the previous posts and realized that I just repeated what you had already said.
*sigh* People are too impressionable. :brokenheart:
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
no one has said that god could not have started the big bang. that is not something that is provable in science, however, so science is not concerned with it. you could not, however, replace the big bang with a giant fart, because while we may not know anything about what happened previous to the big bang (or, more specifically, why it happened), we do know a lot about what happened afterward. so, yes, is god a possibility? yes. but so is cheese. neither can be proven. and neither can be disproven.
but you can always prove anything by going outside of the system, and references to god are always going outside of the system.
This doesn't make any sense. Okay, why do you think that a certain species is alive today? Because the species that came before it, its ancestors, all survived for millions of years. Evolution predicts that the most fit will survive and its beneficial genes will spread throughout the population (think about the moth example).
So, that means the ancestors of a species... all of them in the long chain, would almost certainly have to existed in large numbers! This is the demand of gradualism. If not, then the species would almost certainly have died off, and not passed on its beneficial genes, slowly allowing for evolution.
So where are these vast amounts of intermediate fossils? One is not enough... we should find them ALL THE TIME. They should be ABUNDANT! We're talking millions of years of breeding, the species slowly adapting to the environment, and the ancestors of modern-day species being in abundance (because they were the most fit). Where is the record of this???
But we don't find that AT ALL. Instead, we have only a few example to give, a handful of hardly convincing transitional forms, many of them analogous to the modern-day platypus.
You say that the reason is because its very unlikely that anything is fossilized. Well to that I'll respond with this:
"Furthermore, it is an integral part of the theory that each form is successful, that is, each ?successive approximation? has a survival or reproductive advantage over its predecessor, or else it would not become established and give rise to subsequent forms. Therefore there is no reason whatever for the ?end forms? to have more chance of fossilization than the ?intermediates?. Sampling errors (which includes the ?poverty of the record? argument) are random, and while they could account for occasional or sporadic gaps, they may not be used as an excuse for systematic gaps."
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter