I swear evolution and the big bang and not at all linked...
the big bang is not the basis of evolution by any means

"Not one evolutionist has explained the Big Bang, the basis for most theories. If they do THAT, I will yield."

Why would an evolutionist have to explain cosmology? :confused:

Oh the guy that states because a few dates do not match HIS calculations of when they happen all history is invalid.

Evolution can't explain what created the beginning matter. Neither can God. All humanity is stumped on that one.

Evolution is not concerned with what created the beginning matter. How could it be? It's like asking metallurgy to account for gravity.

Evolution does not try to explain the entire cosmos. Just the reason why life has changed, is changing, and will continue to change.

I wasn't saying that it was.

@USOnu
"To paraphrase Laplace, astronomy has no need for that hypothesis."

Right, and that's an ..........opinion, ...............not a..............theory.

Really for one scientist to say without any evidence to support it that astronomy has no need to the hypothesis [that God created the Universe] (had to assume that's what he was talking about) says absolutely nothing. It only states that astronomers aren't going to be looking to confirm God's existence. That's good, as we're all in agreement that that would be impossible. Yet, still believeing in God is not contrary to any astronomical theory based on current data. You overstepped on that one. It's probably better to admit it and move on ;-)

zaza Than your statement makes no sense.

I was directing that statement at The_Master_Warrior. I'm agreeing that he's wrong in the aspect that they're related.

I see than TMW read above.

"Yet, still believeing in God is not contrary to any astronomical theory based on current data."

Occam's razor much?

ZaZa: We don't have any experts in here just googling. Sorry, but I created a worthless flame thread. :D

How many expert evolutionary biologists did you expect to find here exactly? You asked for explanations or theories as to how certain complex things evolved, so I found some for you. But apparently they're not good enough because I didn't personally spend years of my life researching the subject in question. Perhaps you should take your questions elsewhere.

Then again, even asking an expert wouldn't help to answer your questions.

Zaza: "The scientist could say it evolved from a lot of things but can't always prove it. Likewise, creationists can't disprove it."

Science doesn't prove things as undeniable fact. As has already been pointed out, the theory of gravity and the theory that germs cause disease aren't proven facts. However, like evolution, these theories fit with the vast majority of the evidence available to study, and therefore until some contradictory evidence is found it's reasonable to assume that they're the most likely explanations for these phenomena.

It seems you require absolute proof that evolution by natural selection is the explanation for the complex organisms which exist on Earth. I'd suggest you learn about the scientific method and why it's considered the best way we have of studying our surroundings, and then possibly modify your requirements accordingly.

I find percent of America that believes in creation disturbing, but I think it is something that we will grow out of. As people grow up, that are less indoctrinated by religion, and education levels increase we see atheism growing and belief in creation going down.

The people that think the Earth was created in 6 days have been falling off greatly. The next step will be to get people to actually look at science rather than being scared by the complexity of things and have to turn to the god answer.

I really need to reread any post I make, especially after heavy editing. Oh well.

"Occam's razor much?"

Occam's razor is a time saving device to suggest where an inquiry should begin. Are you seriously suggesting that it should be an end? That's it, oh no. He said Occam's razor. I'm done for?

Instead of throwing out a catch phrase, put the issue to rest. Cite an astronomical theory that prohibits the belief in God. It should be easy enough if as you say the belief in God truly does take saying that all of Astronomy is wrong. I don't think that you'll be able to do that because your statement was incorrect. One does not have to choose one or the other.

The last one was @ USOnu. (sorry I always forget that)

@ZaZaMaRaNDaBo:

So what was the point of your post? You asked for someone to explain how the ear evolved and I showed you how. It's an evolution of bones from the jaw migrating to the simple ear fish and reptiles have over time.

Random luck in nature resulted in an organ that worked when failures died out over time. You can call this random luck God, Evolution and God aren't contradictory, there is no difference.

Science doesn't make any attempt to prove God exists or does not exist. Science aims to explain how things are. It's perfectly reasonable for you to believe the invisible hand of God guides evolution. It's exceptionally unreasonable for you to blindly state that evolution is false because neener neener I said so.

"I find percent of America that believes in creation disturbing, but I think it is something that we will grow out of. As people grow up, that are less indoctrinated by religion, and education levels increase we see atheism growing and belief in creation going down.

The people that think the Earth was created in 6 days have been falling off greatly. The next step will be to get people to actually look at science rather than being scared by the complexity of things and have to turn to the god answer."

When hell freezes over, sir.

Okay, if you guys say the Big Bang and evolution are not linked, then what started the evolutionary process going?

I can only imagine belief in creation is going up in Europe...you're importing it, of course...

@Master Warrior "Okay, if you guys say the Big Bang and evolution are not linked, then what started the evolutionary process going? "

Evolution doesn't answer how it got started, it only explains how things evolve. Why is this seen as an either-or when it is perfectly compatible with God. Why is the default reaction to reject scientific findings out of fear that it will threaten the existence of God if it happened to be the truth? God doesn't need paranoid defending.

No one knows what caused the first replicators, but once they got started you need three conditions for evolution to occur:
Variation
Selection
Heredity
If you have those three conditions then you MUST get evolution.

Because evolution does not depend on if it was a big bang, a big splat, changes in higher dimensions, varation of the now defunct steady state theory, or what have you.

@Hibiskis The problem is they believe in the literal interpretation of the bible which is not compatible with scientific finding, and, or that only direct intervention in the universe can explain the changes seen.

@TMW:
Clever. You will agree, when hell freezes over, but since everyone knows that doesn't exist, we will never get you to agree.

Astronomy can't disprove gods, but it can certainly make them entirely superfluous, Crazy Anglican. Occam's Razor isn't about where inquiry should begin, it tells you that if you're given two hypotheses you're probably better off with the one that doesn't unnecessarily complicate things without explanation. The existence of an unobservable gods raises questions, like where it came from and what created it (and to answer the inevitable rebuttal of an eternal god, why the god didn't have to be created but the universe did.

Tell me it doesn't exist when you get stuck in it for eternity.

"Astronomy can't disprove gods, but it can certainly make them entirely superfluous, Crazy Anglican."

Nah that doesn't follow. Maybe you'll see that.