No, I didn't mean to put across that I agree with the Big Bang, but it is a possibility. The point is, that according to that proof, there was a beginning to matter and time + a relevant being(s) which created them. If I don't get my hands on that book soon, though, I won't be able to be completely sure of these points. Matter having a beginning does not necessarily mean the big bang, though if you want to know, the big bang does not contradict creation either.So TastyPies says that the Big Bang is ridiculous, and Auronhart says it's proof of Intelligent Design. Hm.
He's trying to bring it into context, creation vs evolution even though the theory of evolution doesn't directly contradict creation."I doubt any evolutionist will admit that evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the many species of the world."
I doubt any creationist will admit God doesn't exist. Why is this relevant?
This isn't my area of expertise, so I'll ask a clarifying question. Do these scientists have any serious evidence to prove that certain new species were created/evolved? (because species dying out gives us no information)And we know that things were different in the past (fossils). So species change over time, a lot of time has passed, and there are different species now than there were before (referring to fossils).
Newtonian physics apply under most circumstances, (they can be tested with many different tests) and (I think) only fail at the quantum level. Evolution is more of a guess, (because it is obscure enough that no tests can be made for macro-evolution) therefore I don't think comparing those two is a very good idea.Newtonian physics, for example.
Exactly, the macro-evolution=micro-evolution argument is exactly the above, extreme extrapolation. (Plus we don't have any evidence that species change on the small scale)Originally Posted by Dr Unne
