As amusing as I find it to think I'm descended from all creatures great and strange over millions of years. I also have no real problem with accepting that I could be descended from Adam of Eve 6000 years ago when the world was created.
Hell if I know what happened, could be either one quite frankly. My greatest respect for science and all but it's still educated guesswork.
Question is which one do you believe? Is it the big bang followed by evolution as per the gospel of science. Or is the religious view as dictated by the bible? Or perhaps a third?
Ever hear of Carbon-Dating? Earth is A LOT older than merely 6000 years.
Question is which one do you believe? Is it the big bang followed by evolution as per the gospel of science. Or is the religious view as dictated by the bible? Or perhaps a third?
I guess it's cheating the system, but here's how Your Friendly Neighborhood Satanist puts things into order;
An undefined Divine Being put everything in place in what Science calls "The Big Bang". Then He just let things go off on their own. The Adam and Eve story could be taken as an allegory for civilization taking a mainstay shape in this scenario.
And in all seriousness, Creationism is a really far-fetched idea.
1) Evolution never stated that we descend from fish monkeys or stuff like that (religious persons and ignorants are the only ones to claim that).
2) Chillz is right, we have dating methods allowing us to date earth history quite well. 6000 years is only a mere flash in earths history. And I'm not even speaking of the whole universe, which is again much older.
3) We have evidence. You have myths. Make your choice and live with the consequences.
4) 'Gospel of science'? WTF... Science is the exact contrary of unfounded dogmas.
5) You forgot something. Bigbang -> Abiogenesis -> Evolution (Birth of universe -> life develops -> life adapts)
then aliens seeding the earth/the universe being created by a huge bang creating all life in the universe is a farfetched idea
aliens seeding the earth IS completely stupid. And the big bang did not create life, That's what abiogenesis is about.
I love the certainty of the answers so far on a subject of which you can have no certainty.
Evolution is a complex scientific theory, based on survival of the fittest and random mutations of organic life forms all of which evolved from single celled organisms (monkey fish thing being an exaggeration). But like all science it is theory, a theory being a commonly held belief based on many peoples perception of surrounding evidence.
As perception is purely based on sensory data received and processed by the human brain which is subject to fluctuation it can not be wholly counted on. As for carbon dating it is a good indication of the age of the earth but as no one lives for millions of years can not be considered irrefutable proof.
The ability to accept both theories one based on logic one based on faith is completely possible.
then aliens seeding the earth/the universe being created by a huge bang creating all life in the universe is a farfetched idea
That's Scientology. I think believing that 80% of people who hear "Satanism" know what it actually is is incredibly far fetched. Heck, even 30%.
1) Evolution never stated that we descend from fish monkeys or stuff like that (religious persons and ignorants are the only ones to claim that).
Valid point. Never use a strawman argument.
2) Chillz is right, we have dating methods allowing us to date earth history quite well. 6000 years is only a mere flash in earths history. And I'm not even speaking of the whole universe, which is again much older.
Definitely so. I mean -- carbon dating, how is it to be disputed?
Compared at least to religion which is based on faith.
5) You forgot something. Bigbang -> Abiogenesis -> Evolution (Birth of universe -> life develops -> life adapts)
I noticed this as well. Few people seem to understand that there are 3 steps towards how things are (in their short form, nevermind old-earth atmosphere and how that developed so abiogenesis could occur).
The ability to accept both theories one based on logic one based on faith is completely possible.
Not really. Otherwise you can just base the faith related elements around the logically based ones. Arbitrary Christianity doesn't do that thanks to well -- 6k years old.
Along with the faith based assertion of a deity. No point having that -- at all.
Oh don't get me wrong, it can easily be very comforting for some people, but that doesn't mean you're justified in believing it.
The ability to accept both theories one based on logic one based on faith is completely possible.
Possibility does not put these two on the same plane. Strong induction is more powerful than unbacked assertions, even if in the end it does not utterly destroy the possibility of less-justified ideas being the actual truth. So while you are not entirely wrong in the possibility exists for either to be correct, it's rather silly to say that they are equal in possibility.
As for carbon dating it is a good indication of the age of the earth but as no one lives for millions of years can not be considered irrefutable proof.
Carbon dating is actually better evidence than that of an eyewitness. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable and doomed to be warped by subjectivity; radiocarbon dating (and other forms of dating) is a method built upon strong induction that provides formidable evidence and a strong indication as to the age of something.
There is no absolute certainty, no, but the lack of certainty does not make scientific propositions equal to religious ones. There is more credibility behind a series of strong inductive arguments than there is unbacked assertion meant to be believed on authority.
Hey, Avorne, highfire--what you guys are doing is playing exactly into his hand and not arguing against what his points actually are. You're assigning certainty to what's induction in the end, and you're more or less demonstrating his point. So stop that. It's a bad idea.
The problem is that the big bang is answering the wrong question... it answers 'how.' It doesn't answer 'why.' It is evident that the Universe is expanding, There is a beginning of this universe, but the big bang fails to answer why. here's a link for some scientific evidence on creation If you're really looking for answers or a rebuttal, read that, if you don't, then you're just on here to troll, and you're not worth my time.
Of course there's no 100% in science, since it needs to be able to adapt to new evidence. But currently, evolution happening is a certainty as far as it can get, the details of the theory are less certain and researched a lot.
Could you expand on this please? And define what you mean by successful? Last I checked jellyfish weren't creating beautiful works of art. There culture is fairly primitive.
