What are is your opinion on these two theorys, and what religion are you?

Question

Which theory would you say has a better basis?

Evolution

Big Bang

I am not saying it is one or the other, but which are you more confident about? and what do you think of them?

And what is your religous classification(trying to be as PC as possible)?

Sorry, I used the possesive not the plural.

Answer 1

6 Day Creation - Muslim

Answer 2

Evolution has far more backing it up than the Big Bang. Fortunately, because it began on this planet and remained here, there is a TON of evidence to support it.

The Big Bang- while I agree this is most likely how things got started/repeated/whatever- I know there is very little evidence to back up the exact occurence. I know the spiral patterns of the universe suggest a scattering in all different directions from one or two focal points, and I know that matter can neither be created or destroyed- so I would assume that the matter was already there in one form or another, but there isn't enough evidence for me to understand quite how it works. In other words, the big bang is still an open topic for me, as well as the most likely to have occured... yeah- I'm taking the agnostic front on that one.

Is there really any PC way to say you're an atheist?

Answer 3

Evolution... Plausible explanation for extreme variance in species by region. It's supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence.

Big Bang Theory... I'm not sold on this idea yet. There may have been a collision and there is evidence that there has been thousands of them... It's too soon to think about matter moving outward when we are still working from a center of the universe that hasn't been proven yet.

I'm agnostic.

Answer 4

Evolution has a much better basis -- there is actual evidence.

As far as cosmology, I like the new versions of "steady state" that have recently come out. The inconsistancies with the Hubble constant and the red shift make "the Big Bang" suspect to me. I see "Big Bang" as just biblical "Creation" dressed up in a lab coat.

I'm an atheist.

Answer 5

Both theories are an evolutionary process. The big bang involves the evolution of galaxies, stars, planets etc from the energy flux of the big bang. Evolution in the sense I assume you are asking is a process which deals with the evolution of life on a planetary body. The asepct of evolution is there in both. They are equally as satisfying--as yet there is no evidence to contradict either theory and much to support both.

Answer 6

In Genesis, it says the Creation took seven days, but the actual author of Genesis, Moses, was several hundred years away from the source.
His version was a retelling of the story, a summing up if you will, for the children of Israel who had been in Egyptian bondage for several generations and had little or no connection to Father Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the fathers of their bloodlines. So Moses was trying to bring the children of Israel wandering in the desert up-to-date with a quick summing up.
The problem of Creationism actually lies in both Moses's telling of the story and the subsequent translations of the Bible. The Bible we have been reading in English was translated from Hebrew into Greek, then from Greek into Latin, and from Latin into German and English, with several hundred years between the orginal authors of the books of the Bible and the Roman Catholic Monks who hammered out what we have as the final version. We don't know how much has been changed, altered or even mistranslated from the original manuscripts. Like the children's game of "Telephone", by the time it gets to the end of the chain, the end result is always different from the original in some way.
So both the Big Bang Theory and Creationism could be true. We the modern people with established, standard day lengths, weeks, months, years in a standardized calendar and time clock, accept the literal translation of days to be a 24 hour period. But the original writers of the story could have used a word similar to days but instead means "phases of time". Some scholars insist that a day in God's time is equal to one thousand years our time, but the truth is we don't know for sure. But I will buy the time phase theory, as evolution fits in to it better, where each day in the bible was NOT a 24 day or a 1000 year time period, but a time phase or era, the time for the creation of the sun, the time for separation of matter from antimatter, the time phase for the rotation of the earth's core to begin attracting and solidifying, the time phase for the separation of water from dry land, the time phase for the development of the atmosphere, and so on.
Evolution also fits in where the earth was planted and populated with every living thing. Did true evolution start here solely on this planet? I believe that life exists elsewhere, as the odds of us being alone in the universe are just too tremendous for me to accept, and I believe that life was brought here by God but had been developed elsewhere, and each era discovered by the scientists was a trial and error period to see which species would survive here and which ones wouldn't make it (Hey, why can't God keep learning even after He supposedly knows everything?)
I know, I know, it's a crazy theory. It's just a personal way for me to reconcile the two. I'm a Pisces, I want everyone to get along. But it makes sense to me and helps me answer the questions and avoid the argument and the fights that go along with it

Answer 7

Evolution, however the two theories are not dependent on each other. I am more for the universe always existing. But you have to really study both of them to make an informed decision about which is more possible.

Atheist

Answer 8

Evolution explains how one species develops into multiple species over time.
The big bang theory explains the origin of matter and the universe.
The two theories don't overlap -- they explain completely different phenomena.

Since evolution can be directly observed, its basis is solid.
The big bang theory doesn't explain pre-bang reality, and so it's less satisfying -- there are still some holes to fill in.

I'm unclassified.

Answer 9

The evidence of Evolution is better than almost any theory in science. The amount of Evidence for the Big Bang is large and rapidly getting greater, but no where near that for evolution.

Answer 10

The Big Bang theory is most certainly plausible, specially with all the "other" ideas of how the univser started, we the bulk of evidence is rested in evolution.

Countle4ss fossils have been unearthed, along with clues like our vestigial organs that we no longer use.

both are credible theories, evolution is based more on evidence.

Answer 11

You would make a good political pollster. This is the same thing they do. They give you choices, none of which are correct in basis, and then give you excuses why you need to choose from among the choices given. When in fact, they win what they want no matter how you choose.

Explain to me what the difference is in your two choices and I'll tell you how dopey your reasoning is.