NO! If the big bang didn't happen, there are infinite possibilities to what could've happened. You can't just assume something with nothing to base your assumption on. Each of the stars could have formed by some other means. Saying that it must have been God is like saying "if you don't believe in god, you're a bad person," which is simply not true, there's more than two options.
A Great Video Which Is Throws The Theory Of Evolution Out Of The Window
- Thread starter Mountain_Fire77
- Start date
- Status
NO! If the big bang didn't happen, there are infinite possibilities to what could've happened. You can't just assume something with nothing to base your assumption on. Each of the stars could have formed by some other means. Saying that it must have been God is like saying "if you don't believe in god, you're a bad person," which is simply not true, there's more than two options.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Abiogenesis and the Big Bang DID happen, it's just not clear exactly how.
By no means am I judging anyone's values. The video was important as it showed a different point of view to the big bang and the origin of man. further video's may make better points and have better arguments to broaden the scope of investigating the origins of the universe and the origin of life beyond that of Big Bang (which is a pretty open interpretation of the beginning).
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
This is not about broadening the scope of investigations, it's about making stupid people believe lies. The Big Bang is a deduction from the fact that the universe is expanding, it is based on evidence, not one person's experience. Abiogenesis is less well supported, since most evidence was lost in the process, but we know something like that must have happened. Anyway, the principle of evolution means that there is not much for God to do anyway, much less a highly advanced creative entity.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
What ever you wish to call it you are speaking with an authority you do not possess, quoting others whose intellectual honesty is called into serious question, and disregarding the meticulous work of tens thousands of researchers whose objective is to explore our origins. (Many of whom believe that the reality of the Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution are some of the greatest marvels bestowed by God.) If you don't want me to call it pontificating I can just say you are talking crap. I was trying to be polite.
Sorry, I utterly missed that beauty. Evolution does claim to describe how species arise. Their is a small clue in the title of Darwin's work.
I for one am not talking about treating science as a total belief structure. Anyone who is merits the same contempt I have for those who choose religion to provide their total belief structure. However, if a topic can be investigated by science then science's findings take precedence, since they are testable, falsifiable and repeatable.
This reply isn't science but then again it says it all!
Please read some current science research espcially biology related reaseach or just some standard news articals. If you were to do this you would find that a day will not go by without you seeing more research that backs up evolution. I see it all the time its as clear as day, how do you miss it?
Science is about 'proof' and it throws it out every hour of every day.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
The existence or non-existence of God.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
I'm still not sure why not knowing the origin of the universe, or the origin of life leads to a belief in God.
Not sure on what platform of knowledge you are making the statement that the origins of the universe are known?
..... Or are you saying that IF the origin of life and the universe was known its not clear how that would lead to belief in god??
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
People point to the present lack of definitive knowledge about the origins of the universe and life as supportive of the God theory, and I'm not sure why.
someone started the "evolution theory" to become what? only one thing: to be popular! God created man in his own image.. *smokes*
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
u r dum
because it falls in line with scriptural explanations of the nature of god and the living entity and the living entities relationship with both god and also the material creation
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
What does? Not knowing?
Supernatural explanations were not required to describe gravity for instance, or hydrodynamics, what's the difference?
Supernatural explanations were not required to describe gravity for instance, or hydrodynamics, what's the difference?
Actually there is a supernatural element to gravity in the sense that it is axiomatic (we don't know why gravity works - we just know that it does) - ironically this is why scientists first tried to discredit the findings of gravity as supernatural because there it is not defined or seen to be contingent on natural laws (which gives gravity its axiomatic status - obviously if gravity was contingent on some other law it would not be axiomatic)
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Is that supernatural, or just unknown? How about my other example? We don't say a ship floats due to a supernatural personality, although previous to the discovery of the principle of buoyancy some may have thought that.
Doesn't it seem obvious that in the distant past, everything was thought the result of a spirit, and as we gain scientific knowledge, the things we attribute to spirits are getting fewer and fewer? Now the only things we have left to attribute to the doing of a spirit are the early universe, and early life? ....both areas that, due to various reasons are inherently difficult to figure out?
Doesn't it seem obvious that in the distant past, everything was thought the result of a spirit, and as we gain scientific knowledge, the things we attribute to spirits are getting fewer and fewer? Now the only things we have left to attribute to the doing of a spirit are the early universe, and early life? ....both areas that, due to various reasons are inherently difficult to figure out?
- Status