Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. Neither has the origin of life in strict sense either. Those areas are dealt with ditinct disciplines.Originally Posted by [b
We didn't evolve from monkeys. We have a common ancestor, but our lineages developed separately ever since that common ancestor. It doesn't mean that you can make a monkey evolve into a man, it means that the ancestral form gave rise to monkeys on one side and humans on the other (to simplify things).
Some people get by with a little understanding
Some people get by with a whole lot more - A. Eldritch
If you accept that it's not meant to provide absolutes in the first place, then you'll see that there is no overlap between the two, and hence every argument to compare the two is moot.
Some people get by with a little understanding
Some people get by with a whole lot more - A. Eldritch
Ok guys I think we should agree to dis-agree.....
ShadesWolf
The Original HHHHHOWLLLLLLLLLLLLER
Im a Wolves fan, get me out of here......
If you can accept that over time a species can evolve, why cant you accept that if you go back long enough, a single celled organism start grouping multi-celled organisms, and then some of those cells start specialising to do different tasks, and so on etc until you reach a complex animal?
there are also many examples of evolution that we have now, selective breeding of both livestock and pets, there is also the one we covered in school of a certain species of moth in the midlands.
(In summary, the midlands of england is nick named the black country due to the large amounts of polution caused by the industrial revolution, the pollution turned the colour the white bark of the trees the moths would sit on black with the soot, so in the last 100 years the butterfly has changed colour through natural selection from white to black so that it is better camoflaged to avoid predators)
What I'm trying to say, however, is that we don't disagree - rather that there is no argument in the first place. You cannot use science to explain/validate/disprove religion, and conversely you cannot use religion to do the same to science. If you think of the two as disciplines dealing with separate issues, as they indeed are to be thought of, you will see that they do not contradict each other and that they are not mutually exclusive.
Some people get by with a little understanding
Some people get by with a whole lot more - A. Eldritch
Sorry Finn I cant argue this from a logical point of view.
Ive been brought up 'In the Black country' with a religious background, we learnt evolution at school and did science, but we also did religion.
I believe it from the religious side not the science side. I cant argue with you on this one, because its faith, and if you dont have faith, you cannot explain.
Its justs there
ShadesWolf
The Original HHHHHOWLLLLLLLLLLLLER
Im a Wolves fan, get me out of here......
I agree hrvojej, if you put it that way
ShadesWolf
The Original HHHHHOWLLLLLLLLLLLLER
Im a Wolves fan, get me out of here......
This is the crux of most opinion polls... poorly worded questions.
Evolution is not a belief system, nor would its main proponents idly accept its outcomes... instead they act more like an inquistion then the lay faithful... and will pull, prod and disect it to see where it works and where it fails.
As for Big Bang and Evolution. They are separate ideas from separate fields of study. Big Bang is Astrophysics, Evolution is Biology. Geology focuses on how the world is formed it is the bridge between Astrophysics and Biology. Geology uses evolution to date layers in the rock (you may not understand it but that is how a lot of the oil you use is found). All these different groups of scientists love to disprove theories and ideas in their own fields almost as much as disproving them in others. It is very combative and if there where significant gaps they would show each other up for the share joy of doing so.
The other tie in is that the formation of the Universe is old enough (Astrophysics) to allow the formation of the planet which is long enough(Geology) for evolution from single cell to multicell to higher order organisms (Biology).
For those of a religous and scientific bent they understand that our Sun is formed from at least 4 other stars... out of a dust cloud the sun arose and it gave light before any lifeform came about in our Solar System. Also Gensis speaks of an order of things coming about, as a summary it supports evolution as the last to come about is man... it is about kindergarten level science... without a massive amount of training it could not explain evolution in any more simple terms.
Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
Pape for global overlord!!
Like it or not, very single one of developed from a single cell in our mother's womb. In fact early foetal development looks remarkably similar across a wide selection of animals.
It's not that big a jump to then see how a single cell organism can evolve into creatures like us over several hundred million years.
Don't shoot me - I'm just the texture artist.
An interesting Parallel Parmenio
ShadesWolf
The Original HHHHHOWLLLLLLLLLLLLER
Im a Wolves fan, get me out of here......
I find a lot of religious people turn down evolution on the basis 'it makes no sense and is just created by some scientists' and then go and read a rather old book, translated several different times in different ways, as if it is perfect.
It's so hypocritical.
sure.
anything's possible.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks