Does it?
The evidence does not tell us that.
The evidence used by BBT gives it support but the theory deals with the evolution of the universe from a hot dense state and does not deal with a beginning.
Some would say that hot dense state, the point of singularity, represents the beginning. Similar to the point of where all the ingredients of bread have been put together. And now we just put the bread in the oven, and wait for it to expand. The point at which bread begins to expand, marking the point where we can understand what as taken place.
You just don't wake up one morning and find your dog had puppies and a small whale Jan.
Evolution is a very gradual process.
In any event you don't as yet seem to understand it from a science approach if you are still in the crockaduck camp.
God isn’t defined as a Spaghetti Monster, but we all get the drift.
My point is, how do you know this event did take place? What did
you observe as evidence, to know this is correct?
Have you seen fossil records? Just as an example.
How is the example of a crocoduck, any worse than Fido —->Whilly?
It makes more sense that no such thing happened. Especially as there is no evidence anyone can easily cite.
The only alternative is to have all species appear at a point, and over the years until now various species have gone extinct..some 98% has gone extinct...and through all that time humans existed as most life went extinct.
How does extinction show that darwinism took place?
The alternative would be to not make up stuff, either scientific or religious. We observe the world as it is. We understand that things do change over time, because we observe it. When all is said and done, that is what we do.
That seems unbelievable whereas a gradual change over time will have species coming and going ... The fossil records support this approach.
It simply means that species die out.
Why invoke darwinism?
Changes took place over many generations.
Which is what we call evolution. We can observe this, and make predictions from it.
But why invoke darwinism? Especially as it has to be believed, or accepted on trust. The majority of people who believe in darwinism, are like you, in that they do not know much, or anything about it.
You saw when I asked Paddoboy for evidence of darwinism. He came back with more folk claiming it.
Creationists often hold a view that the Earth was created less than ten thousand years ago
Those are known as Biblical Young Earth Creationists. Most creationists don’t buy into that. But I can see why it is important for you to, kind of put it out there.
and in that time frame they reasonablyquestion the processes...if they could accept the Earth was as old as science reveals theytoo could accept change take manygenerations perhaps over millions of years.
Why should they have to accept it?
There is no smoking gun here.
The reality is, it doesn’t matter whether or not we accept it. Nothing changes.
But seriously Jan the evidence is easy to find...look into DNA, look at how fossil records can trace the development or minimisation of a particular bone ... It's there if you look.
Again, like Paddoboy, you’re not addressing the question.
What was the evidence,
for you, that meant darwinism is a
scientific fact?
It's there if you look.
Consider the evolution of the eye.
You’re assuming the eye as evolved (darwinian]. Do you believe the eye has evolved, or do you have scientific evidence?
The eye just did not appear one day it evolved over a long time.
Again, how do you know this?
I would love a world with a God but there simply is no evidence.
I don’t think you’ve given it much thought.
But that’s another talk for another time.
The whole concept is clearly made up from a multitude of speculations non of which have support.
If this assertion is the same thinking process which you assert darwinism, it is little wonder you accept it.
