Replies

It is all part of the "evolutionary package."

I can come up with a dozen hypotheses about how the universe came to be that would be compatible with the earth being 4 billion years old - including "God spoke the primordial universe into existence 13.7 billion years ago, then sat back & watched with excitement as His grand physics experiment played out". See? It's irrelevant to the theory of biological evolution.

No it's not! The only thing the Theory of Evolution "needs" from cosmology (for the ToE to not be falsified) is for the Earth to be at least 4 billion years old, and that only because the oldest fossils look like they're over 3 billion years old.

As I said, to Virginia American, if you want to throw out the big bang, I don't blame you. I would too. We can discuss just the earth evidence.

By the way, how do you know that something "looks like" it is over 3 billion years old???

I can come up with a dozen hypotheses about how the universe came to be that would be compatible with the earth being 4 billion years old - including "God spoke the primordial universe into existence 13.7 billion years ago, then sat back & watched with excitement as His grand physics experiment played out". See? It's irrelevant to the theory of biological evolution.

Yes, but your hypothesis would not go hand in hand with the rest of the scientific community. When origins are discussed in detail, and you ask the question "where did that come from?" then most evolutionists will eventually get to "the big bang" caused it and they will even add how they are just on the verge of seeing where the big bang occurred in time. I agree that the hypothesis called evolution does not stand or fall on the big bang hypothesis, but to ignore its significance in what is taught even to school children regarding biological evolution seems disingenous. If it isn't necessary, then why teach it? In the very least, it is often taught as fact, which it is not.