Do you believed the Big Bang and evolution theory?

[yen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis - Lucy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution - you can see a human family tree here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio...on_controversy - going to read this one after I finish off the articles in the link Beetlebum posted. ^^

Enjoy reading. =)

[s.n.m.p.]

Lucy is simply a bipedal ape.

[yen]

(shudders) I decided to read about the creation-evolution controversy first.

Grabe ang a-way. The debates are endless.

Plus, libog. Apparently, there are different kinds of creationism.

Flat Earth creationism
Modern geocentrism
Young-Earth Creationism
Old-Earth Creationism
etc.

Even creationists are fighting amongst themselves! There are some creationists who are anti-science, and other creationists who are pro-science.

Anyway, I think my beliefs are similar to Evolutionary creationism/Theistic evolutionism. Basically, I believe God created everything including the laws of nature and the universe. =)

@s.n.m.p. - think we better leave it as is. =) I'm ok that you don't agree with the Darwin's theory. I just hope it's okay with you that I find the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection plausible.

As for the BBT, it's too big for me to imagine. It may or may not be.

[Visual C#]

LOL... I never thought that this would be brought up again. This was discussed eons ago in the Politics and Current Events thread. 30+ pages of endless discussion, with absolutely no end in sight. I'm seeing the same thing happening here.

My points:

Science isn't absolute; the theory of evolution, while a "theory", has been proven by mountains of evidence. Even the Catholic Church doesn't disagree with what Evolution says. Pope Pius XII's 1950 encyclical Humani Generis asserts that Evolution, as long as it is not used to uphold atheism, is not in conflict with the teachings of the church.. THIS IS WHAT I THINK IS THE BIGGEST ISSUE CREATIONISTS HAVE OVER EVOLUTION. THAT IT PROMOTES ATHEISM, WHICH IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

Science is all about observation, evidence, experimentation.. not pure assumption. If there is anything flawed in a certain theory, you can debunk it, disprove it, but you have to show convincing evidence that what you are saying is true. Religion/creationism doesn't give this convenience, however. Heck, according to this article, it shows different schools of thought in Creationism!

Most Literal

# Flat-Earth Creationism
# Modern Geocentrism
# Young-Earth Creationism
# Old-Earth Creationism

Well, which one is it? How have you been able to prove it? With snake oil and encantations, and oh, wait... faith? Please. Science is better at explaining at how the world came to be.

[tolstoi]

Well, which one is it? How have you been able to prove it? With snake oil and encantations, and oh, wait... faith? Please. Science is better at explaining at how the world came to be.

Science may provide theories regarding the beginning of the universe but still it could not fathom all the mysteries of creationism..with this hidden mysteries that science is still not able to explain, i say that we have to belieive that there is an OMNIPOTENT being who started everything including the conception of the UNIVERSE and beyond..even Einstine had a notion that "God does not play dice"..meaning he doesn't believe that everything around us exist by a mere coincidence..

[yen]

Uh... tolstoi.Â* I don't think Viktor said that God does not exist.

I think Victor's just upset about the creationists who say scientifically that certain scientific theories are wrong without showing scientific evidence.Â* ^^;;;Â* Science-types can't help but feel disturb by that kind of argument.

From what I read, the majority of people in the US (this is where the controversy is most apparent), doesn't have a problem with believing in God and in science.Â* However, there is a small portion of creationists who keep attacking scientific theories, most especially Darwin's theory.Â* I'll post the articles and quotes about this later.

=) @Viktor.Â* Please don't bash creationism all in one go.Â* A lot of scientists are creationists.Â* Isaac Newton (here I go again... lol) believed firmly in God.Â* Albert Einstein too.Â* Even Darwin, though it is said that after his daughter died, he started having doubts - I think this is understandable. At certain points in our lives, especially after painful events, we can begin to doubt. Quite human really.

[tolstoi]

if indeed science can prove creationism with a scientific evidences then why can't they still come up with absolute facts?..they have evidences only to support theories but these theories are all bound to be debunk later on..these bigbang and evolution theories are nothing but a farfetch supposition!

[yen]

I think misunderstandings tend to happen because there are different kinds of creationism. Like different kinds of faith in the same religion. =)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio...rsus_evolution

Here are the types of creationism:

Flat Earth creationism — Very few people today maintain such a belief.

Modern geocentrism — Very few people today maintain such a belief.

Young-Earth Creationism — This view is held by many Protestant Christians in the USA, and by many Haredi Jews.

Old-Earth Creationism - Old-Earth creationism itself comes in at least three types:
* Gap creationism, also called Restitution creationism — This was popularized in the Scofield Reference Bible, but has little support from Hebrew scholars.

* Day-age creationism

* Progressive creationism

Evolutionary creationism/Theistic evolutionism

Intelligent Design

The creation-evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) is an ongoing dispute in the public arena about the real origins of the universe, the Earth, life, or humanity.

The controversy is not occurring within the scientific community or academia whose members, when pressed, overwhelmingly tend to oppose creationism, nor is it considered of great importance to most religious groups, even those that, when pressed, tend to support creationism. Rather the controversy is promoted by vocal creationists and those who actively dispute creationism as an important battle between truth and falsehood. The debate is most prevalent and visible in the U.S. where it is often portrayed in the mass media in the broader context of the culture wars or a dispute between religion and science.

Creationists often attack scientific theories they dislike in a number of ways including opposition to specific applications of scientific processes, accusations of bias within the scientific community, and claiming problems with the theories they dislike relating to discussions within the scientific community itself. In response, creationists claim to have an alternative either based on faith or based on creation science or intelligent design. Opponents of creationism spend much of their participation in the controversy defending against the attacks.

[yen]

if indeed science can prove creationism with a scientific evidences then why can't they still come up with absolute facts?..they have evidences only to support theories but these theories are all bound to be debunk later on..these bigbang and evolution theories are nothing but a farfetch supposition!

^^;;; Tolstoi, Creationism is a belief system. Not a field of science. Creationism basically means a belief that God is the source of everything in existence.

Your post confuses me. Are you arguing against Creationism or for it?

[tolstoi]

i only believe on GOD as the creator of all things =)