Joined: Feb. 2008
|Quote (bjray @ April 24 2010,14:24)|
I am informed about the difference between evolution, abiogenesis and big bang. While maybe all can be considered different “scientific enterprises”, they all have at least one thing in common: Evolutionary theory sprinkled about them.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaat ? I have no idea what you mean by "evolutionary theory" here, but it doesn't appear to mean what you think it means 1. The theories in question are naturalistic theories, but there's nothing "evolutionary" about that.
You are not doing a good job demonstrating that you are "informed of the differences". If your complaint is with methodological naturalism, come out and say it.
Ironically, some early resistance to the big bang was precisely because it smacked of creationism. This sort of vague philosophical objection was overcome by... evidence, and now most cosmologists accept that it is a compelling model, regardless of theological persuasion.
Furthermore, the notion that the big bang best fits current scientific evidence does not necessitate it being factual.
What other criteria would you propose ? Accordance with one particular twisted interpretation of one specific set of bronze age myths ?
All science is provisional. If a scientific theory is accepted as "factual", it's only a short hand for being consistent and well supported by evidence. Is Newtons theory of gravity "factual" ? Einsteins relativity ? The standard model of particle physics ? None of these are likely to be the final explanation, but unlike creationism, they provide us with tools to understand the world we live in.
|For some reason, I feel like you had all of that pre-typed sitting in a "dusty" word document, waiting to pull it out and post in a forum discussion.|
You are mostly repeating the same tired canards that creationists have been using for the last hundred years. Coincidence ?