12-01-2004, 03:17 AM
Sir O keeps saying that there is NO scientific fact to back up creationism. First. There would be no evidence of creationism. How could there be? Poof, there's life. A lack of evidence is what God-people actually cite is PROOF of creationism.
Second. The universe is ever expanding. There was a big bang. What was the catalyst to start that? Why couldn't there have been a creator to start that? What would be the other explaination? Objects at rest staying at rest and all. There had to be something to change the state of the mass which eventually exploded. A God is just as logical an explaination as anything else. Since no one officially knows what started it.
If science classes were teaching the story of Genesis, then I'd have a problem. Genesis should be taught (like Greek mythology) in literature class. But creationism does have scientific merit since there has been nothing to disproove it yet.
Second. The universe is ever expanding. There was a big bang. What was the catalyst to start that? Why couldn't there have been a creator to start that? What would be the other explaination? Objects at rest staying at rest and all. There had to be something to change the state of the mass which eventually exploded. A God is just as logical an explaination as anything else. Since no one officially knows what started it.
If science classes were teaching the story of Genesis, then I'd have a problem. Genesis should be taught (like Greek mythology) in literature class. But creationism does have scientific merit since there has been nothing to disproove it yet.