First, evolutionary theory has remained basically the same as far as I'm aware. But even if not, it means we don't make up our minds and then ignore better evidence later. Are you saying it's a bad thing to accept new, better evidence?
And if it never fits correctly into your preconceived notion? Despite observed proof of new evidence, will you still not acknowledge it if it doesn't fit?
Despite the constant Creationist lumping together of the two topics which are totally separate debates, the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. We obviously will never know how the universe was created, since we weren't there to see it. We can only guess.
On the other hand, evolution has been observed in nature several times, proving that it happens. The only thing that is still a theory is the full details of how.
This is otherwise known as progress. Some of you might be familiar with it.
"Restrictions" being relative. Example: a creationist believes that a supernatural "God" created everything. An evolutionist believes that we evolved over time. What's more realistic: a super powered Almighty Lord who we've never seen, heard from, or had proof or even evidence of his existance... or thinking something based upon what we know now? The thing about evolution is, it changes according to discovery. Creationism remains constant, even when it is contradicted...
Creationism is based entirely on blind faith. Evolution, at least, has basis in science.
your talkin tto a guy whos on more drugs than youve even touched in your life, friend. i wont even pretend to care about whatever bullshit philosophy you call your own
The Big Bang is a cornerstone of the Evolutionary theory, just read any child's science book in a public school. Big Bang, Evolution, one after the other. Granted, the BB isn't a specific part of the Evolutionary process (which starts after the bang, on a planet, in a pool of slime), but without the first it's hard to get the other. Just like Creation is part of Creationism, the BB is a 'part' of Evolution.
Omnae, Micro-Evolution has been observed (moths changing color to adapt, mutated fruitflies after radiation bombardment), but Macro-Evolution (one species jumping to another) has not been observed, or documented.
I accept the world around us as proof of a Creator. Which is better, knowing you're going to live forever, or knowing that this is the only life you have so you had better make it a good one?
Gash's arguments, although often marred by difficulties in expressing his opinions in a format easy for his opponants to understand (which is forgivable, considering his condition), are often amazingly persuasive and ingenious, however, unless you are really looking for an answer and know how to interpret it correctly many will misunderstand.
Perhaps a more acceptable way of phrasing Gash's earlier argument would have been that Creationalism is and has always been based on blind faith and over-analysing religion. Many early religions were not really meant to be taken seriously - few ancient greeks, as Gash pointed out, really felt that the gods were sitting on a mountain and you could see them if you climbed high enough. The point was the lessons religion taught and the community and organization it brought.
In the case of Christianity, Creationism may have been written into the works of people held in high esteem by many christians, but perhaps the tale should not be taken literally but instead as one to help persuade people about a particular way of thinking or to vividly illustrate a belief. However, should real, strong facts appear that stand against creationalism appear (as some have) then obviously it is worth revising perhaps how we percieve the human race. Perhaps, as more evidence is found evolution will be proven undeniably right, or perhaps a new, different theory will take its' place.
But Creationism seriously lacks most of the base pillars a theory needs. Namely, there must be no evidence that cannot be explained by the theory in its' field, and that the theory must be applicable to further evidence. Creationism does not adequetly explain how ancient bones of human ancestors show that early humans were very different from the modern variety, nor does it seem to explain how far back human remains can be found (Millions of years, as opposed to the much more recent times in the bible and other religious texts). And none of the key evidence to the theory has been found, such as the skeletons of Adam and Eve, or the Garden of Eden.
Now, I'm not saying the way Gash expressed himself was wrong, merely that perhaps it needed clarification. Nor am I saying that Kas should stop believing creationalism, merely that it should not be taught to children as factual or better then evolutionalism since it doesn't work on a practical, actually-happened level, but perhaps the tale told still gives moral lessons important to christianity, and thus perhaps it is still worth telling.
