Creationism Vs Evolution

ZOMG RANT ALERT

It sickens me how many people in this country don't believe in evolution.  I heard a statistic that it's around half, but I doubt it's that many.  Science is about rational thought and testable ideas and experiments.  Rejecting the scientific theory of the origin of the human race is like not believing in friction, saying something like that it's god's will that things don't move infinitley.  Even though most fundamental scientific principles are proved indirectly at first (like the spherical nature of the earth), when we are able to directly observe it, we are right because it has been tested indirectly so much.  Religious extremists dismiss evidence like fossils as "tricks by god to test our faith" or something like that.  I bet if someone took a born again christian or another religious extremist in a time machine back 65 million years ago, observed dinosaurs, and returned, they would still reject their direct observations as "hethanistic trickery" or something like that.  Courts have ruled in some places that scientific arguments in favor of creationism can be taught in public schools, what will they have to show?  This intelligent design theory they yammer about is nothing more than pseudoscience, and a lazy underestimation of the power and magnitude biodiversity, natural selection, and time can accomplish.

All right, according to the law of Conservation of Energy, and the Laws of Motion, stuff (ie energy, in any particular form, lets say its an amount of matter suitable for a Big Bang) will not move on its own. It will stay right where it is, no matter how much time you give it to move. It's gonna stay right where it is. Starting to move on its own would mean that a force was created from no where, ie energy was created, and you can't do that (apparently) according to that law of the conservation of national forests. I mean energy.

This can be extrapolated to incredibly complex things, such as the core of our particular planet. Sure, that giant ball of iron is spinning now, but its not very well understood why it started spinning in the first place, other than the theory of Random Chance Directed by Assumptions. (ie, the idea that an equation, with enough limiters removed, will produce infinite results, and in those results, you will find what we find today. See Evolutionary; Big Bang theory.)

Random chance, or the scenario where given infinite time, every possible possibility will happen, is not applicable. Because something has to be moving already, for other things to be moved, and that limit, in itself, automatically negates the Infinite Time Variable. For example, you have six rubber balls sitting in a box. You let it sit there, for an infinite amount of time, and surely, given enough time, the balls will have managed to bounce off eachother in every conceivable manner. Nope, wrong, unless you moved one of the balls to begin with, thus starting the chain reaction of bouncing, but that in turn will not last indefinitely, because there is not a perfect (100%) transfer of energy from your first initial movement, happening continuosly as each ball bounces. Lets say that we have to have a perfect transfer of energy, because we KNOW that if given infinite amount of time, the balls will hit eachother in every possibly manner. To have a perfect transfer of energy, you cannot have individual balls in a box. You will have an amount of energy, of some equivocable amount to the balls and box. Because that is the only way to have a force act upon something (in this case our blob of energy) and have it move forever, because there is nothing else to interact with it except itself.

So, in its simplest form, evolutionary theory vs creationist theory, is the statement "this amount of energy that is the universe has always been here, it never "started" per say, and it's in constant motion because it just is, ie, that is its state of existence (nothing is still/therefor everything is moving)" vs the statement "God made this ball of energy, lovingly regarded as the universe, and poked it, thus starting it moving."

psychologically, this is the idea there there is only what you sense vs the idea that there is more than what you can sense. Therefor, to prove one of these true (as both cannot be proved at the same time, from my understanding) it would make the other wrong. In simpler terms, the correct statement is saying Nothing = Nothing, and its adversary is stating Nothing = Something, a contradiction, and thus, not possible.

Thus, it is a conundrum of two unprovable theorems, according to practices of observable science. If we are to prove the first, then that means then that would mean that second would have to be false. But to prove the second would mean that we would be able to sense God, and God would no longer exist outside of our observable means, and that would prove the first true.

Therfor, to prove either one of them true, one must (and would) prove them both true. The solution is to Find God. God, in these terms, is simply defined as whatever started the motion in the universe in the firstplace. Of course, we could only find a part of him, because if we managed to sense all of God, then that would mean that he was totally within the universe already, and that would mean that the rubber ball moved on its own, ie, created its own movement! Oh no! So we would have to find traces first.

Wait, what about the fact that we exist? That would be a footprint in itself, because if we weren't started by an Outside Force, then we couldn't exist by current scientific law, unless it IS possible for something to move(start) itself. That would be the only other answer. But why would something start itself, why would nothing simply become something? I dunno! Because that would be creation as well. Weeeeeeee!