On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 8:16:01 AM UTC-7, Ric Trexell wrote:
Let me set it straight as to where you evolutionists evolved from. Here are
the steps that you believe in.
1. In the beginning there was nothing.
2. Then, nothing exploded.
3. Rocks of various sizes went out from that explosion. This is called the
big bang.
4. Some of those rocks had oxygen and hydrogen which formed water.
5. Soon a fish evolved from that water.
6. That fish grew legs and walked out of the water.
7. That fish turned into a monkey.
8. That monkey turned into a man.
So although evolutionists say we are related to the monkey, we are really
related to a rock.
If you have any problem with this, according to evolutionists you are nuts.
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding as to what evolutionist believe.
This is what is taught in the public education system and our colleges.
Those that don't think we were evolved from a rock are called creationists.
So next time you pick up a rock to throw in the lake or river, look it over
carefully because it might be your ancestor.

Anybody can twist, distort, and mistate facts and established theory and make it sound silly. But religion on its face, without any distortion at all - sound even sillier - it is something from nothing without any rational explanation.

Anyway, you are conflating two different issues here.

The Big Bang, IN THEORY, was a physical process that is based purely in quantum theory and mechanics. It's up to you to decide whether you want to learn more about it, or just lazily assume a supernatural moment of creation. In any case, once the Big Bang happens by whatever means, EVERYTHING else that is physical easily flows from that instance, and is mathematically measurable. There's not much there to debate any more. The Big Bang has only a tiny handful of outstanding unknowns left, and otherwise, as a theory, it is standing up very well.

Your leap from the physical formation of the universe to biological life leaves a lot to be desired, and rather than science doing the hand-waving here, it is you superminimalizing the process that hard science seeks to understand in as much detail as nature will permit. Some of us appreciate the theory and natural processes that actually result in the ascent of life. Others ignore all of it and instead choose mythology...easier, probably, than science. You've made your choice, and I doubt if incontrovertible proof - which occurs every day - would alter your beliefs. In any case, evolution is an observable process. Not a lie, not a theory, but a fact.

In any case, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process. Science is not there to tell people what to believe and what not to believe. Science is a process that asks questions, and then sets out to find the answers. Science does not always arrive at the correct answers, but it ALWAYS admits to making mistakes and it is always subject to correction. It never blithely assumes anything, and never stops searching for the truth. It tests, and retests, and retests again and again. It is the ONLY process man has to pursue the truth. Religion does not do it; gut feeling and assumption do not do it. In fact, far more often than not, they lead us to half-truths and complete misunderstandings that persist.

You can claim that testable, repeatable, observable science is wrong and that untestable, inscrutable religion is correct - but you do so at your own peril. To me, the scientific process presents a much more plausible scenario than the magic fantasy tale of the Old Testament, a book written at a time of superstition and ignorance.