Why I believe evolution has a problem with Creationism

[dust1n]

Astrophysics is far newer than Evolution and has none of its problems.

Because Creationists never question the Big Bang or lump that in with evolution or anything.

 

[bobhikes]

Because Creationists never question the Big Bang or lump that in with evolution or anything.

Interesting table it does show the big bang theory is liked less than evolution but the earth being 4.5 billion years old is fine.

* 51 percent of U.S. adults overall (including 77 percent of people who say they are born-again or evangelical) have little or no confidence that “the universe began 13.8 billion years ago with a big bang.”
* 42 percent overall (76 percent of evangelicals) doubt that “life on Earth, including human beings, evolved through a process of natural selection.”
* 37 percent overall (58 percent of evangelicals) doubt that the Earth’s temperature is rising “mostly because of man-made heat-trapping greenhouse gases.”
* 36 percent overall (56 percent of evangelicals) doubt “the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.”

So why is there no category for the Big Bang theory vs creationism. What am I missing? It does seem geologists have it right boring is best when dealing with the public.

 

[Nymphs]

Because Creationism completly disregards science.

 

[Alceste]

Fine what about the misleading terms. Is a Dinosaur really the ancestor of a Bird. Are we families to other species. Is it really a tree.

What about this 100% or nothing view. It does not exist in science, it does not exist in reality. Only God is 100%.

Yeah, birds are probably descended from dinosaurs. Most of the evidence we have points strongly in that direction, but there's still a lively debate in the scientific community about it.

Origin of birds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Family" and "species" are taxonomic terms that help us understand, classify and categorize the diverse life we see around us. We need theoretical models that organize seemingly random information in order to spot patterns and relationships, conduct research and make accurate predictions. Like, for example, the prediction that I won't find a marsupial of any kind in the Canadian Rockies.

Is it an actual, literal tree? No, it's a mental model that helps us organize data, conduct research and make accurate predictions, like for example the prediction that all life forms on earth share the same mitochondrial DNA.

 

[Ouroboros]

Astrophysics has problems too.

Only recently was dark energy and dark matter discovered, and still no good explanation for it.

Not long ago, (10 years or so) it was discovered that the universe expansion is accelerating.

So are there "problems" in astrophysics? Always. Therefore all physics is completely and utterly wrong?

Are there "problems" in evolution? Absolutely. Therefore the overarching theory of evolution must then also be wrong?

 

[dust1n]

Interesting table it does show the big bang theory is liked less than evolution but the earth being 4.5 billion years old is fine.

* 51 percent of U.S. adults overall (including 77 percent of people who say they are born-again or evangelical) have little or no confidence that “the universe began 13.8 billion years ago with a big bang.”
* 42 percent overall (76 percent of evangelicals) doubt that “life on Earth, including human beings, evolved through a process of natural selection.”
* 37 percent overall (58 percent of evangelicals) doubt that the Earth’s temperature is rising “mostly because of man-made heat-trapping greenhouse gases.”
* 36 percent overall (56 percent of evangelicals) doubt “the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.”

So why is there no category for the Big Bang theory vs creationism. What am I missing? It does seem geologists have it right boring is best when dealing with the public.

Ease of reconciliation, I'd suppose. It's easier to reconcile one's own religious narrative with the notion that the universe is super old and started from a very condensed form, as opposed to the notion that us humans derived from a common ancestor with every living species (for the most part, I think) on the planet. It's easier to think God exists if you can just say the world created because of him via the big bang rather than opposed to the big bang. The same thing is a little harder to say when we consider all humans are essentially derived from rodents and fish, etc.

 

[McBell]

So do you agree?

Yes and no.
Most creationists I have seen seem to be more interested in protecting their beliefs than disproving evolution or proving creation.

 

[Bunyip]

I have yet to see a science vs creation thread on any religious forums or in any news or science article. Its always evolution vs creationism.

That' funny, because any debate with pretty much any of the famous creationists covers all of those fields.

 

[Alceste]

That' funny, because any debate with pretty much any of the famous creationists covers all of those fields.

Yeah, it's more like creationism vs. biology, geology, physics and chemistry, since every scientific pursuit had produced mountains of evidence of an old earth and perpetual adaptation.