OT:
Its an issue of micro- vs. macro-evolution. I fully believe in a creature's ability to adapt; but when it's taught that entirely new species form from other species, I personally am not too quick to believe this. Darwin taught his evolution on the concept of survival of the fittest. If apes turned into humans, then, why do apes still exist at all since they are the inferior, less "fit" species? Additionally, if macroevolution has occurred, then we would see some creatures in mid-transformation; for example, apes in mid-evolution from ape to human. So from what I see, there are unforgiveable flaws in the theory.
Additionally, evolution was hoped to be an explanation for the initiation of life and the existence of the universe as well, but it fails to provide any reasonable theory. The main thought was that lightning struck mud to stimulate life. This was basically disproved as a possibility, and it still doesn't explain where the lightning - let alone the rest of the universe - came from.
As for the big bang theory, unless I'm mistaken, this is meant to directly conflict with the Creation theory - a way to explain creation while excluding God from the equation. It discounts any form of intelligent design, stating the world was created by chance from nothing.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
