Creationism Versus Abiogenesis, Big Bang Theory, Evolution and Nebular Theory?

Question

So which arguments are most likely to win? Let's have a friendly intelligent debate. There are some links for anybody who might not know what certain things are. So what says you the jury? Which argument seems most plausible to you? Why? And please state your religion or non religion as well thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Answer 1

non-theist

matter/energy -> big bang(s) (more than one universe but we live in the 13.2 billion year old observable universe) -> 5billion years ago earth formed -> 3billion years ago first cell -> evolution -> australopithecus -> man -> jim darwin

Answer 2

Evolution is the one we have the most data on and the model is pretty stable, so the odds have to be high on that one.

Abiogenesis, right now, is more about trying to figure out if certain things -could- have happened. It's a really tough project and they're doing some amazing things with it. From this work will come the work that puts it altogether. Big winner, but a bit in the future yet.

Big Bang. Maybe. It's sort of on hold just now while other avenues are investigated. That's normal science.

Nebular theory. I haven't been keeping up with cosmology for several years now -- if only there were more hours -- so I really can't claim to know enough to critique it.

Creationism is a divine joke. It's entirely based on disproving a version of evolution that the creationists have made up out of bits and pieces of the real thing and pasted over with outright fabrications. It's like me taking the Gnostic Gospels and claiming that God was a evil demi-urge and backing it up with those texts.

I'm rooting for string theory, if only in hopes that, if they get it sorted out well enough, I might be able to understand it someday.

Answer 3

Actually I thought the superstring theory was interesting... It states there are actually 11 dimensions, and that the last few 'curl up'. In the Bible, Daniel says, "The high places, O Lord, curl up in the heavens"

The Big bang theory has problems:

5.1 Horizon problem
5.2 Flatness problem
5.3 Magnetic monopoles
5.4 Baryon asymmetry
5.5 Globular cluster age
5.6 Dark matter
5.7 Dark energy

If you begin with the assumption, 'evolution is true', there will be plenty of evidence for it.

If you begin with the assumption, 'God created the universe', there will still be plenty of evidence for it.

It's a matter of perspective.

The universal forumla used for aging the universe can't be used as there were no laws of physics when the big bang 'happened'. This is also the reason why it can't defy the laws of physics.

Answer 4

(Catholic)

Well first, notice that Creationism is on the opposite side from the four scientific theories, and in fact none of those four scientific theories are exclusive ... they all cover different questions altogether, and all four of them can bet True, or any one of them can be absolutely False and not affect the other three ... they neither conflict with, nor depend on each other.

The fact that Creationism is alone on one side against the other four, is precisely the problem with Creationism ... it claims to explain too much, and as such doesn't explain anything at all.

This is not to say that a "theory of everything" is necessarily unscientific. But Creationism does this by staying vague on the details. How did the universe begin? God spoke ... that's all we know. What mechanism did he use? He can just speak. Where do the laws of the universe come from? God spoke. How do stars form? God speaks. How did life start? God spoke.

Of course, none of these "God spoke" answers actually *explain* anything. An explanation is a description of a complex thing in terms of something simpler. Creationisms does precisely the opposite. It explains complex things in terms of something far *more* complex ... a being that operates outside all known laws (supernatural), with no known motivation, and with mechanisms so complex that they can create universes, laws of physics, galaxies, stars, planets, oceans, whales, people, mice, fleas, E coli., and electrons.

Enough on the outnumbered creationism.

Of the four scientific theories you mention, by *far* the best developed, with the most evidence, is the theory of evolution. It explains a LOT of facts ... from fossil evidence, genetic, molecular biology (DNA similarities), biogeography, embryology, vestigial structures, homologous proteins and structures, morphology, virology, bacteriology, immunology ... everything down to your big toe. But it still doesn't overbite ... it doesn't explain too much. It doesn't explain the orgins of life (abiogenesis). It doesn't explain the origins of stars or planets. It doesn't explain how the universe started or where the laws of nature came from. It explains only why we have so many signs that all life forms have unmistakable signs of being related by common descent. And it does all this with one of the simplest theories in the history of science ... natural selection.

I'll leave the other three theories as an exercise. :-)

Answer 5

We will never have a complete and sufficient answer. Some theories provide different value than others. I am not going to say that they are all right or all have something right, but it is more important that we can look backward and forward in time, through concepts in the mind, to tell us something about where we are going and how things operate in the present. These ideas need not be pitted against one another to have value.

Answer 6

I am pretty sure that there is some kind of powerful being behind all that we see (but maybe I will be proven wrong someday...who knows?!?). But...I think it is very intellectually irresponsible to just say "God did it," and leave it at that. Okay, so God did it. HOW did He do it? Did he just say "let there be galaxies" and BOOM, there was the Milky Way, and every other galaxy out there? Or was there some kind of process? I think the latter is much more likely. These theories just explain how it all happened, or how it possibly happened.

Answer 7

All of you are wrong. We are in the Matrix. Everything around us is just an illusion. Stop debating about religion. Don't worry about it. The only thing you guys have to worry about is the robots that are trying to feed on the heat that is given off our bodies. Only "the One" can save us.



Ps: I can dodge bullets, and Neo ain't got sh!t on me.

Answer 8

I don't see it as a debate. Creationism isn't providing anything in the way of tangible evidence so it can really be dismissed as meaningless.

Answer 9

I think the big bank should go off in the people that keep harping on this subject. Get a life.
Try getting out more.
If you are talking about this in a church, get out of there.
No debate, I don't give a s---.

Answer 10

Science will win. Science will eventually overwhelm everything religious, although atheism is bad science.

Rasied Catholic, now thinking for myself and realizing the truth.