Quote:
Originally Posted by Hymns  Notice the difference between "Creationist" and "Evolutionist (or whatever else you call yourself). Creation is the origin of something; evolution is not. Someone can be a creationist and an evolutionist.
And to the person who said that you were no more a darwinist than a gravityist, please explain gravity. Or magnetism, too, while you're at it. Truth is, Big Science doesn't have all the answers it says it does. |
"Big Science" does not claim to know how gravity functions, or what causes it on a fundamental level. "Big Science" simply states it exists, and attempts to find out why. Magnetism is also very complicated in function, and effects multiple fields of "Big Science", The difference here is one of observation, and documentation.
Religious Creation cannot be framed as a scientific question, as it has neither documentation or observation, cannot be backed by testable theory, and does not change for these reasons...it is stagnant by definition. Those Hypothesis and Theories proposed by "Big Science", are based upon our current understanding of Physics, Cosmology, Biology....etc, and are ever expanding as new information becomes accepted into the Data stream.
If anyone with understanding of what we term "reality" takes even a glancing look at the options, the Creationist Hypothesis falls short in the first paragraph, and in fact often is nothing more than that one paragraph in the first place. When compared to the Reams of Data found within a single theory put forward by "Big Science", Creationism is laughable.