what theory do you believe and support and why?

Question

there's a lot of theories on how the world and life started... so what's the theory you are most convinced with and why?

Answer 1

Creation by God. For way to many reasons to list here. Go to www.drdino.com.

Answer 2

I belive the universe originated in the Big Bang, and life on our planet originated via chemical reactions between simple proteins and evolved trough Darwinian evolution.
I belive those theories because they are supported by scientific research. I have seen people say that these theories aren't perfect - they're not. No scientific theory is. No scientific theory CAN be. But scientific theories come about through research and experiment. They are fluid, they change and adapt to new knowlege. This is a GOOD thing.

As for the specif scientific thories I mentioned, they are generally accepted by contemorary scientist (though there are of course always other theories) because the give the best explanations for the problems you raised - at least so far. Science is consatantly moving forward, discovering new things.

Answer 3

Intelligent design, all information supporting it has NEVER been disproven. Big Bang and evolution both violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Big Bang violates "Can't get order out of chaos". If you take a watch, smash it into 1000 pieces and throw those pieces into the air, will they come down as a working watch? What if you threw them up 100 times? How about a billion times? The answer is always no. There would need to be some being to put them together. Order doesn't come out of a random occurence.

Evolution violates "Usable energy in the universe is constantly being converted to mass that can't be used for energy". If an organism were to evolve it would be into a smaller, more energy efficient organism, not the other way around.

On another note, scientist to even try to prove Darwin's version of evolution since it has way too many flaws.

Answer 4

well even the theory of evolution isn't 100 per cent convincing, but id rather believe that than the bible......but who knows, in 1 mill yr time, another theory might crop up :P

Answer 5

I believe that the world was literally created the way the Bible says it was, in 6 24-hour days. The previous post claims that evolution is the only theory that makes any sense, but I argue that both theories are logically sound. I simply believe that the theory of evolution has more unfilled evidentiary holes than creationism.

There is a critical misunderstanding between evolutionists and creationists: many people in both camps currently believe that observations (evidence) speak for themselves, and support a single theory. For instance, evolutionists point to the layers of fossils, which usually have simpler organisms in their lower layers, and say that such an arrangement supports evolution because simpler organisms lived further in the past than more complex organisms.

However, creationists also see the layers of fossils, and say that they point to the occurrence of a global flood that buried simpler organisms before more complex organisms since the simpler organisms are less capable of escaping a flood and tend to live in lower-lying areas in the first place, such as the ocean floor.

You see, we use the same observations and evidence, but we have different preconceived notions about what that evidence should show. Evolutionists believe that the world has existed for billions of years (the purported age gets longer each year ;-) ) and that complex organisms evolved from simple organisms and that all species are gradually improving as time marches on. They also usually believe that physical laws have remained essentially unchanged over this vast period of time.

On the other hand, creationists believe that the universe as we know it has only existed for several thousand years and that God created a distinct set of creatures, both simple and complex, that have "microevolved" over these past several thousand years. Thus, we believe that God created a couple wolves, birds, middle-brown humans, etc. that have micro-evolved to become poodles, great danes, eagles, robins, parakeets, Asians, Caucasians, Africans, etc. Incidentally, this is how all of the animals were able to fit on the ark. It only needed to hold a few specimens from each kind, which micro-evolved and specialized after they were released.

Creationists also believe that the processes we observe on earth and in the rest of the universe have changed over time. Because the universe is young, we believe that it may have started expanding only a few thousand years ago, which helps explain why we can see light from stars that are millions of light years away. We also believe that the earth itself was drastically altered by a global flood, perhaps spawned by a strike from a meteor that collapsed the upper atmosphere, which previously held a great deal more water than it currently does, and burst open great chambers beneath the crust that were filled with water.

Neither evolutionists nor creationists have all the answers, but we both use scientific methods and we both use the exact same evidence. Most importantly, neither camp is impartial or unbiased. Both creationists and evolutionists have passionate beliefs, which is why our arguments often become so heated.

However, that being said, I believe that creationism is a vastly superior theory to evolutionism:

Consider the petrified tree trunks that span fossilized layers that were supposed to have formed over millions of years. How did they get there?

Why are organisms that were supposedly millions of years apart often discovered in the same fossil layers?

How could the sun have not destroyed our planet millions of years ago, since it must have been so much larger than it is today?

The first astronauts to land on the moon put wide pads on their landing gear because they "knew" that the moon would be covered with a thick layer of dust that had collected over millions of years. Turns out, there's only an inch or two of dust on the surface.

Where are all the transitional forms that evolutionists need to fill in the gaps between organisms? As soon as something remotely like a transitional form is discovered, it gets paraded on the fronts of magazines and newspapers, but is much more quietly dismissed when it turns out it's just a diseased example of some other organism or a fraud. Look into this stuff, evolutionism has a very dirty past. We won't even get into the ACLU-concocted Scopes trial...

Evolutionism also has some serious moral ramifications. These shouldn't influence our thinking about which theory is ultimately correct, but they are important to consider. Evolution is intrinsically racist. Look at some older evolutionist textbooks, in which they explain that Africans are more similar to apes than Caucasians. Hitler's rampage would partially justified by this sort of thinking. Evolution is based on survival of the fittest, so what helps you succeed is ultimately right. If evolution is true, then your life has almost no purpose. If you become disabled or weak, then it would be best for the rest of the race if you were eliminated.

Let me tell you, being a Christian creationist brings me an incredible amount of joy and peace. Evolutionists claim that creationism is anti-science. On the contrary, I have become a scientist because I want to please my Lord by exploring what he has given us on the earth, to improve the lives of the rest of those he has made in his image. Evolutionists claim that Christians are willing to destroy the earth, since we believe in Heaven. On the contrary, God has made me a steward of the earth, and it is my joy to serve him by protecting it for those who will come after me. I hope you'll think about this, and I also hope you'll think about what Christ said about himself: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Jesuschrist.asp

Answer 6

Big Bang (disambiguation).

According to the Big Bang theory, the universe emerged from an extremely dense and hot state (bottom). Since then, space itself has expanded with the passage of time, carrying the galaxies with it.In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory of how the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago. The Big Bang theory is based on the observed Hubble's law redshift of distant galaxies that when taken together with the cosmological principle indicate that space is expanding according to the Friedmann-Lemaître model of general relativity. Extrapolated into the past, these observations show that the universe has expanded from a state in which all the matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density. Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity (for reporting on some of the more notable speculation on this issue, see cosmogony).

The term Big Bang is used both in a narrow sense to refer to a point in time when the observed expansion of the universe (Hubble's law) began — calculated to be 13.7 billion (1.37 × 1010) years ago (±2%) — and in a more general sense to refer to the prevailing cosmological paradigm explaining the origin and expansion of the universe, as well as the composition of primordial matter through nucleosynthesis as predicted by the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory [1].

One consequence of the Big Bang is that the conditions of today's universe are different from the conditions in the past or in the future (natural evolution of universe constantly takes place). From this model, George Gamow in 1948 was able to predict, at least qualitatively, the existence of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) [2]. The CMB was discovered in the 1960s and further validated the Big Bang theory over its chief rival, the steady state theory

Modern Evolutionary Theory

Evolutionary theory has undergone modification in the light of later scientific developments. As more and more information has accumulated, the facts from a number of fields of investigation have provided corroboration and mutual support. Evidence that evolution has occurred still rests substantially on the same grounds that Darwin emphasized; comparative anatomy, embryology, geographical distribution, and paleontology. But additional recent evidence has come from biochemistry and molecular biology, which reveals fundamental similarities and relations in metabolism and hereditary mechanisms among disparate types of organisms. In general, both at the visible level and at the biochemical, one can detect the kinds of gradations of relatedness among organisms expected from evolution.

The chief weakness of Darwinian evolution lay in gaps in its explanations of the mechanism of evolution and of the origin of species. The Darwinian concept of natural selection is that inheritable variations among the individuals of given types of organisms continually arise in nature and that some variations prove advantageous under prevailing conditions in that they enable the organism to leave relatively more surviving offspring. But how these variations initially arise or are transmitted to offspring, and hence to subsequent generations, was not understood by Darwin. The science of genetics, originating at the beginning of the 20th cent. with the recognition of the importance of the earlier work of Mendel, provided a satisfactory explanation for the origin and transmission of variation. In 1901, de Vries presented his theory that mutation, or suddenly appearing and well-defined inheritable variation (as opposed to the slight, cumulative changes stressed by Darwin), is a force in the origin and evolution of species. Mutation in genes is now accepted by most biologists as a fundamental concept in evolutionary theory. The gene is the carrier of heredity and determines the attributes of the individual; thus changes in the genes can be transmitted to the offspring and produce new or altered attributes in the new individual.

Still prevalent misunderstandings of evolution are the beliefs that an animal or plant changes in order to better adapt to its environment–for example, that it develops an eye for the purpose of seeing–and that actual physical competition among individuals is required. Since mutation is a random process, changes can be either useful, unfavorable, or neutral to the individual's or species' survival. However, a new characteristic that is not detrimental may sometimes better enable the organism to survive or leave offspring in its environment, especially if that environment is changing, or to penetrate a new environment–such as the development of a lunglike structure that enables an aquatic animal to survive on land (see lungfish), where there may be more food and fewer predators.

Answer 7

Big Bang and evolution - why? becuase I am intelligent enough to look at the facts not just to be brainwashed by the church

Answer 8

yes the big bang and evolution are the most common theories.And the reasons being that most scientific evidence points to them

Answer 9

big bang theory

Answer 10

darwin theroy of eveoulution because it is the only one that makes sense on how human eveoulutionaized