Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ShadowMarth
The big bang didn't simply blow up and stars flew out, only the most basic of particles flew out. It took millions of years for them to pull together into atoms, and then basic elements. At this point, the clouds of gas lucky enough to slowly pull together eventually (and extremely slowly) pull together to form massive, basically all-hydrodgen stars. Of course, nuclear fusion takes over, and these are fused into dozens of larger elements, all the way up to iron, the nuclear fusion dropoff. After that, the stars die, and scatter their elements to the winds. Millions of these stars had to live and die to scatter their elements. Once the heavier elements came together however in large clouds, eventually solar systems formed. It's simple gravity.
|
I would say that's a valid theory, but it's still to coincidental how they came together, especially the Milky Way and Earth. The distance from the sun, the mass and atmospheric properties of the Earth, and of course the fact the creation of life itself on what is the only planet perfect for it. To say a
random explosion of particles formed all that is stretching it way farther than any fanatic creationist does. I believe your example is very close to what truly occured, but I believe it was done with the aid and design of a higher power. The odds of a big bang creating the universe in the way ours is a mathmatic impossibility. Like I said, it'd be like blowing up a computer parts shop and ending up with a computer, there's just no way the pieces are gonna fall in that precise an order and location, regardless of influences like gravity.
As for the micro/macro evolution thing, here's the bottom line:
Microevolution is an observable fact, not to mention common sense, i.e. survival of the fittest. You can't dispute it, there is no argument there.
Macroevolution is microevolution to the point you have a new species, and is, by common sense, fact as well, just without proof at the current time. If you think about it, if microevolution is true, than macroevolution must be true, because macroevolution is just the result of many, many, many, many microevolutions.
Now of course, the biggest issue is everyone tries to link drastic things like a monkey and human. Ridiculous. While completely possible, such a drastic mutation would take billions upon billions of years and will never be seen within or species lifespan. True macroevolution is more likely to be found in differences like you would see in for example breeds of dogs, exhibiting noticable and defining differences but similar in most aspects.
"God doesn't conflict with science, afterall, he invented it."