Sure I understand that. However, there are several different areas within this debate. They can be roughly divided into the origin of the universe (big bang), the origin of life (abiogenesis), and the origin of biodiversity and species (evolution). All three areas are covered by different theories. [/quote
Agreed:
The Big Bang could have occurred with or without the abiogenesis or the evolution.
Disagree - Big Bang theory INCLUDES abiogensis as the explanation of for origin of life.
The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution are all part of the Cretionism vs. Evolution debate, but they are not the same theory.
It is only in recent years, VERY recent years, the science community has tried to make this claim.
As I stated in another thread, it so stunned me that I contacted a respected microbiologist who teaches evolution as part of biology and asked if the theory of evolution includes primodrial soup/big bang/etc. or not. His answer was that the theory of evolution itself DOES includ primordial soup, it is NOT however usually taught in classes that touch on evolution from a biology stand point. So you and others who say it is not part of the overall theory are wrong. You're splitting hairs too much.
Asking for the evolutionist position on the Big Bang and Abiogenesis is like asking a car mechanic for his position on economic free trade. You need to be specific with your questions and realize that "Origins" covers many different fields of science.
No, it is more like asking my mechanic if he is familiar with the whole car or just the muffler?
Of course. Do you understand that when you discuss evolution vs. creationism that you are going to have to realize that the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin of biodiversity are covered by separate theories?
I understand that you are trying to claim a subdivision of evolution is all of evolutionary theory and that you have actually admitted otherwise in a very round about way.
The Big Bang has nothing to do with abiogenesis or evolution, as explained above.
No, it wasn't explained. It was stated.
Big Bang was taught as the explanation for the origin of life for decades, with the basic premise being that the chemical reactions following the cosmic explosion resulted in primordial soup and then the infamous soup to cell to fish to reptile to bird to mammal to man theories. (Or did I reverse some of those? Its been a while since I paid attention to that little train.)
Now, maybe recently they've decided that to avoid issues they'll split hairs and try to separate that, but I'm going to be a stickler. If you want to talk origin of species with me, we're going to get to your "Adam," and I'm going to ask, "Okay, where did HE come from." And if you tell me "He came from an ape," I'll ask, "Where did the ape come from," and if you we work all the back to "basic DNA," I'm going to ask "where did THAT come from.." and eventually you're going to start talking amino acids and I'm going to go, "AHA!"
Actually, thermodynamics and entropy are a big part of the theory. My expertise is in biology, so I am not able to dig deep into the theory and there are still questions within the theory that remain unaswered, such as dark energy and dark matter. However, this doesn't erase the fact that the Big Bang theory is still the best explanation we have, even if it is imperfect.
Thank you for admitting to the errors. That's more than most anti-Creationists will do.
See, Creationists think "imperfect" and "questions that remain unanswered" that revolve around the basic laws of physics equal = "the theory fails the test of science."
You believe there is no "better" explanation, Young Earthers think there is. They want a chance to present that view to you.
Nope, I read both sides thoroughly.
I'm going to challenge that.
See, I took biology, and chemistry, and physics. I read the text books. I made A's on the tests. I read the questions raised by creationists, I debunked some of their statements, but I AlSO debunked some of the claims made by the evolutionists.
Since I did study evolution at a college level, I think it is fair to say I gave them a fair chance to convince me.
Did you ever study the data offered by the Young_earth folk? When they talk about the helium ratios, did you ever go back and find out if the rate of loss is the same as the rate of production?
Factually, helium is ionized in the outer atmosphere and stripped away by the solar wind. Also, large amounts of ionized helium is lost when the Earth's magnetic field flips which occurs once every several hundred thousand years. AiG and other creationists ignore these mechanisms because it falsifies their conclusions and contradicts their interpretation of Genesis.
I don't know anything about AiG.
I do know that the statement you just made is false in as far as the creation scientists that I have read. They have included these mechanisms in their research, and the data still shows that the loss rate does NOT account for the amount of helium that should be in our atmosphere if we have been in this process for 4.6 billion years.
Let's turn the question around. If there is no evidence for a 6,000 year old earth and separate species, then isn't evolution right?
Now that's a fun question. Are you suggesting that every living creature on earth is actually one species?
Or are you just condoning that biology has not yet defined the word species?
If you mean there is one - then science would be wrong about the number of currently identified species.
I'll grant your statement about logical fallacies. In fact I think you just created one you didn't intend to create.
If creationists have not yet proven there are separate species, then neither have biologists, and yet, biologists claim there are.
Through the production of new species, which has been observed. Scientists have observed a single population produce two non-interbreeding populations. When this occurs, mutations can not cross the species barrier creating more divergent species over time.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
BUT having said that.
How do "Sterile offspring" that "lack interbreeding" produce new life forms?
Also, the page you cited says that they technically one of their examples is the SAME SPECIES. I asked about marco evolution - evolution from one species to another.
And even when it shows a statement as support for macro evolution (which is hardly the scale required to explain the current population of the earth) it says, "While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.")
So - it brings us all back to the age of creationist vs evolutionists questions - still unanswered.
You've shown a fish mixed with a fish gives you a new fish.
I asked you to mix a horse with a pig and get a human.
Creationists have NEVER objected to the idea that a fish with a fish, even a different version of fish, can produce a fish.
We will ALWAYS disagree with the concept that a fish out of water became a man.
They aren't afraid, just tired of having to do it with every single new creationist that comes on the board. The helium problem that you spoke about is known as a PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times). For a list of the other PRATT's go to
this webpage.
