Last time i checked the big bang is just solely the theory of how the earth formed not the whole universe
How the universe was formed, no-one knows
I still find any explanation from religious zealots to be more retarted and contradictory than the last

Nope, Big Bang has always been about how the universe was formed.

Serious face, did I miss something??

Zombie Jew is Jesus, dunno about Monkey Fuckers.

God dam i have been very misinformed then
Well thats even harder to believe then

Like I said, if he designed lifeforms to evolve and adapt to their environments, there's no reason religion and the theory of evolution should be mutually exclusive. Of course, Darwin's variation is a load of shit, 'cause no creature has ever changed species, and there's never been any evidence to suggest that there ever was. A lizard has never become a fish, a bird has never become a frog, and an ape has never become a human.

And Darwin's theory of evolution is a theory, not because of its solid empirical foundations, but because of this cycle.

As for the Big Bang, I'm fairly certain that most experts have discarded the Big Bang theory, because there's no scientific explanation for something coming from nothing, and in order for there to be an explosion, there has to be something present.

No species has ever changed into another overnight. Evolution isn't about changing your clothes to suit the time of day, but a slow, steady change towards something different by means of natural selection.

That whole tricky non-random survival by randomly mutating replicators.

Take fish. Swimming in a river. When all of a sudden, some prehistoric volcano dumps a pissload of ash into the river. Most of the fish will die because of increased acidity, etc.

Then you'll get some that will survive, through a random mutation, which makes them less susceptible to changes in pH. So they don't die from the acidity change. 2 of those fish that survived go on to mate, and their offspring (by way of the proven science of genetics) are passed this acidity resistance gene.

Same thing goes for legs. If food is hard to come by, and a fish (gotta love them) has a genetic defect that makes their fins harder, but still mobile, then they may be able to snatch at shore-loving animals. Over time, as the population increases, they'll mate and mate and mate, then because of even more competition for the food in the water, then the ones that have the original defect will stand a better chance of survival, because they can grasp at food that isn't in the water.

If you honestly think that evolution could be plausible, then you need to accept that the world is indeed 4.something billion years old, and that this could NOT have happened over 7 days, like The Book says it did.

If you want evolution in action, then think about humans. Mountain climbers in particular. Most of the climbers who have scaled Everest, or Kilimanjaro are from families with previous explorers in. With the addition of technology, and a cylinder of oxygen, then anyone can do it. But look at the natives of that area. All of them, without exception, are able to survive for extended periods of time in areas of significantly lower oxygen saturation. This will be something that has evolved over a massive amount of time, a populace doesn't just magically gain the ability to go jogging in areas of low atmospheric pressure, and lower than usual oxygen saturation.

Darwin's theory is the closest thing that we have to absolute fact, because of the weight of work that has been done on his original hypothesis, and as science generally progresses further, we uncover more and more that supports evolution as fact. DNA, full genetic sequences, drug research. All of these have uncovered startling links between seemingly unrelated species.

Why, if apes have never become human, do we share an overwhelming majority of our genetic sequence with them? Taking into consideration that evolution takes millions of years, then the tiny detraction between some species of apes, and humans would easily be some small defects that have grown through cross- and inbreeding.

You can't take a scientific theory, and try to shoehorn it into religion. Given that pretty much everything that has been uncovered as a result of scientific investigations will go against any religion that you try to force it in to.

And as far as rejections of the Big Bang go... There's other theories. The Big Bang only hypothesizes about the creation of the CURRENT universe. Other theories cover previous universes. Things like the bang/crunch cycle, where a universe reaches a critical expansion point, and undergoes contraction, to a critical implosion point. Chances are that at that implosion point, unstable compounds and elements in a unique situation could easily become cataclysmically explosive.

Yes, but this wasn't what Darwin advocated, or not totally, at least. Remember that whole missing link deal? He died looking for proof that certain species had evolved into other species, e.g. apes into humans.



When did I say that the world wasn't at least 4 billion years old? I don't buy the whole "the world is only 10000 years old" tripe. That's what ignorant rednecks use when they hear that recorded history only goes back about 10000 years or so and merge that fact with what they think they know about scripture. I'm aware that the world is much older than that.



Evolution, yes. DARWINIAN evolution, no. Darwinian evolution hinges on the idea of the missing link between species, and there is no such thing.



Where are these "missing links" then? Where's all the evidence of these in-between organisms?



That's a pretty epic generalization you have there. There are a number of passages in the Bible that I know of that describe scientific truths thousands of years before they were "discovered" in Europe. Remember that the Middle East was a hotbed of learning and education for a very long time. Great scientific leaps were undertaken by devoutly religious men. For that matter, the same holds true in Europe and North America, as well. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. As far as the origin of the universe and life itself, sure there's conflict there, and in other areas as well, but when a theory doesn't conflict with religious doctrine or vice versa, there's no reason one can't be "shoehorned" into the other.



I'm aware that there are other theories. But that's what they are: THEORIES. Meaning it's not a certainty. So until there's concrete evidence that confirms one of these myriad theories, I reserve the right to put my belief in Zombie Jew and his dad.

Which literally makes the idea that the earth is millions of years old Older Than Dirt.

Lick my balls.

Metal Hammer is now trying to get people to put Heavy Metal down as a religion in the 2011 census
Thats my new religion right there

These are all done in fun now

Dream Evil already talks about the Book of Heavy Metal. I wish them good fortune.

Fuck jesus and god and all that smack
Lemmy created the world in 3:00 minutes, he pronounced himself as Creator of all things and master of the moustache
Hes sorely regretting doing all this with all the shit pop and R'N'B out at the minute tho

FUCKING DREAM EVIL!

Holy shit, Smokey, you just made top of my list of most fucking awesome people in the world ever.

I used to mosh the FUCK out whenever I played this when I was a DJ.

Thats right, I moshed.

And air-drummed.

In the fucking DJ booth.

I suspect I might just get ripped the fuck off that list in a second.

Dream Evil was only good when Gus G played guitar and Snowy Shaw played drums.