Evolution v Creationism

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'm not trying to prove creationism I'm just asking how strong the evidence for evolution is.

1) Life is self-replicating

2) This replication has variants through mixing (sex) and mutation

3) Not all life replicates at the same rate


Voilà. Neither of these three maxims is in much serious dispute. Just take it from these three. One can even deem '3' superflous.
It follows that evolution is one of the strongest, most elegant explanatory theories of science.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Creationism could be exactly the same as normal science, if you explain the Big Bang by "God did it". You can also dispute there was ever a Big bang, there are alternative theories, however all science seems to point at an origin of the universe and even precious fractions of a second thereafter, mathematically speaking.

The only claim creationism can make that's any different from actual science is how, and the order in which, things were created. The how is God; that's not exactly testable, is it? And in which order, that's not quite testable at this point either, but we do have strong evidence from the fossil record, from observing thermodynamics and gravity and the current motion of planets, stars, and the galaxies, the redshift, and all other physical phenomena which seems to lead to the conclusion that events happened along a path very similar at the very least, if not exactly like, current Big Bang theory and the resulting explanations about the motion and settling of objects in the universe.

What claim, Rhyfelwyr, Sasaki, anyone.... what claim does creationism make besides God did it? Is there a specific dispute with evolution or big bang? If they are saying everything poofed into existence 6000 years ago involving a supernatural deity, there is no evidence of that; it's pure belief. If they are saying it happened millions or billions of years ago but the process has been sped up by God, there's no evidence of that either. Some believe in an inflationary period of the universe based on math, but that didn't last very long in the cosmological sense.

Creationism covers a wide variety of theories, from the plausible (Big Bang, but not in the Godless sense... Big Bang being evidence of God's existence ) to the implausible (Biblical creationism from 6 to tens of thousands of years ago, with God creating creatures specifically in a certain order which seems to have been disproved by the fossil record and many other things that we think about evolution of cells and organisms) so perhaps we should... define our terms.

*scary violin noise* *shower stabbing scene from Psycho*

If creationism is just current scientific theory, but coupled with "I think God is the reason behind the science" then whatever, that's valid enough. But if you say "Scientific findings by the majority of scientists are wrong because my religion says.... plus this theory by a religious scientist which has been discredited or can never be proven says..." then it's not science, it's religion.