Evolution is NOT Big Bang

[Gooch's dad]

Correcting another misconception:

Darwin proposed his theory in the late 1800's. The Big Bang theory wasn't even proposed until roughly 50 years later. By that time, Darwin's theory had been widely accepted as sound science for decades.

Don't confuse the two. They are separate areas of science, one is cosmology, the other is biology.

You don't claim that the theory of gravity is incorrect, do you? Gravity applies to orbital calculations, which requires planets, suns, galaxies etc. The Big Bang is the accepted theory for how such structures arose, but you can still do orbital calculations without knowing exactly where the matter came from, right?

 

[Joe Nobody]

God said it and Bang! there is was

Good point. We have different fields of science lumped together as "evolution" by yecs. Its gotten to the point where I don't know what evolution means when I hear it from young earth creationists. I have to ask for clarification before proceeding.

Joe Nobody

 

[elephanticity]

Correcting another misconception:

Note that it'll probably do little or no good. It's too easy to conflate evolution with cosmology, ethics, biogenesis, Socialism, and atheism, so that a hole in one makes all the connected evils weaker.

Taking the science one point at a time is too hard, unless you make it a straw man attack.

 

[rage]

Another misconception is that Darwinian Evolution equals Evolution theory as a whole.

Darwin's Theory of natural selection does not equal the Evolutionary theory.

Darwin's theory concerning how evolution takes place is but one of several attempts to account in natural terms for evolutionary change (descent with modification).
.....
A dramatic proof of the thesis that life has changed through time is seen in the fossil record of the vertebrates, animals having a segmented backbone. At the beginning of the Cambrian Period (570-500 million years ago), there were no vertebrates at all. Later in the Cambrian, problematic forms appeared which seem to have been related to the vertebrates, but showed distant affinities with the echinoderms as well. (Echinoderms today are represented by starfish, sea lilies, sea cucumbers, etc.; embryologically they appear to compose the phylum most closely related to the Chordata, the phylum to which vertebrates belong.) Toward the end of the Cambrian Period, the first vertebrates appeared: the ostracoderms, jawless fishes possessed of a bony armor plate and having flattened bodies apparently adapted to a bottom-feeding way of life.
...
The record in the rocks, thus, is evidence either for fishes evolving into birds and mammals, or it is evidence of thousands of successive "special creations" - magical replacements of successive faunas by slightly different ones. Curiously, the latter interpretation is as unbiblical as it is unscientific.

If either of the biblical myths were true, all types of vertebrates - living types of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes - would be found along with bacteria and trilobites at the very beginning of the fossil record and would be extractable from all rock layers of later ages. But of course, nothing could be farther from reality.*

Taken from: "CREATION SCIENCE" AND THE FACT OF EVOLUTION" by Frank R. Zindler read the whole article here:
http://www.atheists.org/bone.pit/creationscience.html
and find more good information about evolution here:
http://www.atheists.org/bone.pit/

I give these links mainly to the christians here. Why? In order to better understand your advesaries, you better read up on them, and the real proof they have, not some rebuttal of them by some creationist. . Of course, that is how I became an atheist. I saw where the proof is.

*emphasis added

 

[ZiSunka]

Originally posted by Gooch's dad
Correcting another misconception:

Darwin proposed his theory in the late 1800's. The Big Bang theory wasn't even proposed until roughly 50 years later. By that time, Darwin's theory had been widely accepted as sound science for decades.

Don't confuse the two. They are separate areas of science, one is cosmology, the other is biology.

You don't claim that the theory of gravity is incorrect, do you? Gravity applies to orbital calculations, which requires planets, suns, galaxies etc. The Big Bang is the accepted theory for how such structures arose, but you can still do orbital calculations without knowing exactly where the matter came from, right?

And Christianity is not mind-control. One is a relationship with God and the other is a pychologically-abusive relationship with a human. God's love came first, then thousands of years later, humans got the idea of forming cults.

Don't confuse the two. One is a vountary relationship with God and the other is domination by a sick person.

And actually, the big bang theory has been dead for ten years. Serious cosmologists are rejecting it because the evidence has too many contradictions, so they are leaning toward multiple bangs or "progressive construction."

 

[Satoshi]

Originally posted by lambslove

And actually, the big bang theory has been dead for ten years. Serious cosmologists are rejecting it because the evidence has too many contradictions, so they are leaning toward multiple bangs or "progressive construction."

Creationists often lie about how "scientists are deserting evolution" or that "evolution is dead." Your claim sounds suspiciously familiar, so I must ask for some cites.

 

[newworldcrusader]

Amen lambslove excelent reply I coun'd of said it better my self!

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by lambslove
And Christianity is not mind-control. One is a relationship with God and the other is a pychologically-abusive relationship with a human. God's love came first, then thousands of years later, humans got the idea of forming cults.

Don't confuse the two. One is a vountary relationship with God and the other is domination by a sick person.

And actually, the big bang theory has been dead for ten years. Serious cosmologists are rejecting it because the evidence has too many contradictions, so they are leaning toward multiple bangs or "progressive construction."

The world as we know it and how it came into existence was the first and foremost important revolution that occured. Yet we have to acknowledge the fact that although all evidence still direct to a begin of the world out of nothing, we know at the same time that such a thing is an impossibility, it could not have occured that way.
But we don't have to point out this single event of creation of the universe, to know that in fact everything we know of, is in contradiction to itself.
There is contradiction in everything. Despite the fact we know that matter exist, we find evidence when exploring matter that it cannot exist.

A small example. We have found a particle like an electron to be a bump of material with a small mass and a small size, which has momentum, and behaves like a particle. Yet at the same time we find an electron to behave like a wave, that can inteference (like waves) with itself. Clearly an electron can't be both a particle and a wave, so an electron can't exist, and yet it does.

No matter where you look, you will always find the fact that the world is in contradiction with itself. That is to be seen as the most important thing to know about the world: the world is in eternal conflict within itself, the existence of the world contains the fact it cannot exist.