I believe in both creationism and evolution and listening to those on either side to me are just hilarious entertainment listening to circle logic on both sides.

Even the bible tells us evolution will happen, even says in revelations that people's knowledge will increase thousand fold over what was there currently, if one reads it just as it says and doesn't try to think of it as a magic book.

But personally I believe the universe was created, science 'theory' is big bang, there are other science theories that disprove the big bang when you get into string theory and such.

but I think it was created then from then on for the millions of years things have existed we have been left alone to evolve.


Evolution and Creationism coexist and are both correct in my opinion. 100% evolution is incorrect to me and 100% creationism is incorrect to me. It is blending of both.

But that's my belief. And it works for me and my children and thankfully the school my kids go to also teach that very same system. Thank goodness for private schools.

To be fair, of the Baldwin brothers, Stephen is the dumbest.

You know the current pope said that intelligent design doesn't belong in the classroom.

Oh wait, he's the wrong kind of Christian... my bad. I thought skydaddy would have some consistency in those delivering his message.

>> ^oohlalasassoon:

To be fair, of the Baldwin brothers, Stephen is the dumbest.


And the coolest is Adam Baldwin...oh wait.

Mystifyingly, Channel 4 (a UK broadcaster) has *blocked this in my country (the UK) on copyright grounds.

Invocations (blocked) cannot be called by FlowersInHisHair because FlowersInHisHair is not privileged - sorry.

But personally I believe the universe was created, science 'theory' is big bang, there are other science theories that disprove the big bang when you get into string theory and such.


I thought at least you might be just echoing some pop-science "big bang doesn't work with string theory" idea - but after some Googling, I can't find anyone non-crazy to source this pretty big claim to. Disregarding that, to the extent that string theory ideas would go against the general "big bang" idea (which they do not, and - again - I can't even find someone suggesting they do), it would call into question that specific string theory's ideas (and there is lots of variation among different string theory families - it isn't well established doctrine or something), not the other way around.

If I have a new theory of planet composition that "disproves" plate tectonics, that's a problem for my new theory, not for plate tectonics - at least not unless I have very significant evidence.

Suggesting that vague "other science theories" disprove the big bang gives me very good reason to believe you haven't made any effort to understand any of the science here, not even at a "pop science" type level. To the extent that these beliefs about the nature of the universe are important to you, and to the extent that you want to know truth, I suggest doing some basic reading (even if it's just in, literally, "Popular Science").

And even if science had a much more incomplete or contradictory theory for the early moments of universal expansion, that wouldn't mean creationism is right. There's very little chance science (or religion!) will ever answer questions like "why is there something instead of nothing?", but that doesn't mean you should jump for whichever guy can answer "something" with the most confidence. I think it's better to just let some things be "We don't know yet."