God created the world in 7 days? or Big Bang?

[Czechanada]

The difference is:
Science: Can provide some answers that, although lead to even more questions, give us knowledge and are answers.

Theistic Religion: Gives fake answers and brainwashes everyone.

Non-theistic religion: Does nothing really, besides pherhaps helping achieve inner peace.

Ummmm... Did you PROVE that the Bible is fake? No? Exactly.

You probably didn't even read it, nor understand it if you talk like that.

This statement made all the fans of the Protocols of the Secret Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion excited.

Just because a book is written, it doesn't mean that it has potential validity.

[Ifreann]

Ummmm... Did you PROVE that the Bible is fake? No? Exactly.

You probably didn't even read it, nor understand it if you talk like that.

Fake? There are some verifiable items in the Bible, the ones that refer to events corroborated by other sources such as Assyrian and Egyptian monuments. The creation story in Genesis is not one of these items.

There's also verifiable items in the Harry Potter series.

[Immoren]

I tend to believe the Big Bang, but I'm not gnostic about that.
I mean, science doesn't explain anything, if it is a theory and not a fact.

Scientific theories contain facts

For example, light, particle, or wave? Theory of relativity, or quantum mechanics? Second law of thermodynamics or the theory of evolution?

What about them?

And you have to remember that Stephen Hawking himself, one of the developers of the Big Bang theory, has said he might be wrong.

And that's wrong because?

[Transhuman Proteus]

Technically the Big Bang didn't create the world, it created the Universe... But what started the Big Bang? I hope they answer that question soon, no one really has an explanation, religion or science!

Stephen Hawking is of the mind there is no need for something to "start" the Big Bang in the way you are thinking.

I tend to believe the Big Bang, but I'm not gnostic about that.
I mean, science doesn't explain anything, if it is a theory and not a fact.

Remember - Theory as a scientific word has a bit of a different meaning than common every day usage.

For example, light, particle, or wave? Theory of relativity, or quantum mechanics? Second law of thermodynamics or the theory of evolution?

What the...?

And you have to remember that Stephen Hawking himself, one of the developers of the Big Bang theory, has said he might be wrong.

Which is a lot more than a lot of theists are willing to admit. The difference being - there is evidence in support of the Big Bang, not so much for the "God made the big bang".

[Jehuddah]

I tend to believe the Big Bang, but I'm not gnostic about that.
I mean, science doesn't explain anything, if it is a theory and not a fact.
For example, light, particle, or wave? Theory of relativity, or quantum mechanics? Second law of thermodynamics or the theory of evolution?

And you have to remember that Stephen Hawking himself, one of the developers of the Big Bang theory, has said he might be wrong.

You're misunderstanding the usage of Theory in this instance.

Theory in science is a set of developed explanations for why a phenomenon happens.

Furthermore, the very basis of the scientific method is that it is always willing to be wrong.

No, what I meant is that the scientists got to the conclusion of the Big Bang because of observable phenomenas, HOWEVER, they never really SAW the Big Bang, it is theoretical, and who know, maybe it is wrong.
Science is conflicting itself, is light, a particle, or a wave? In one theory it's that, in the other, it's that.
Theory of relativity and quantum mechanics are conflicting, they can't co-exist, currently, we are using them both, however, at least one of those theories are wrong, unless there are two truths, which aren't.
The second law of thermodynamics is conflicting the theory of evolution, which by the law, nothing can become more complex and orginized, unless acted by an external force, AND the universe is becoming more chaotic.

[Czechanada]

Fake? There are some verifiable items in the Bible, the ones that refer to events corroborated by other sources such as Assyrian and Egyptian monuments. The creation story in Genesis is not one of these items.

There's also verifiable items in the Harry Potter series.

I made a similar argument in a previous thread, but Arch had stated that a source can still have verifiable items even if one does not agree with it's argument.

[Immoren]

No, what I meant is that the scientists got to the conclusion of the Big Bang because of observable phenomenas, HOWEVER, they never really SAW the Big Bang, it is theoretical, and who know, maybe it is wrong.

Like atomic theory and germ theory.

Science is conflicting itself, is light, a particle, or a wave? In one theory it's that, in the other, it's that.
Theory of relativity and quantum mechanics are conflicting, they can't co-exist, currently, we are using them both, however, at least one of those theories are wrong, unless there are two truths, which aren't.

And?

The second law of thermodynamics is conflicting the theory of evolution, which by the law, nothing can become more complex and orginized, unless acted by an external force, AND the universe is becoming more chaotic.

[/quote]
Earth gets energy from sun.

[Czechanada]

You're misunderstanding the usage of Theory in this instance.

Theory in science is a set of developed explanations for why a phenomenon happens.

Furthermore, the very basis of the scientific method is that it is always willing to be wrong.

No, what I meant is that the scientists got to the conclusion of the Big Bang because of observable phenomenas, HOWEVER, they never really SAW the Big Bang, it is theoretical, and who know, maybe it is wrong.
Science is conflicting itself, is light, a particle, or a wave? In one theory it's that, in the other, it's that.
Theory of relativity and quantum mechanics are conflicting, they can't co-exist, currently, we are using them both, however, at least one of those theories are wrong, unless there are two truths, which aren't.
The second law of thermodynamics is conflicting the theory of evolution, which by the law, nothing can become more complex and orginized, unless acted by an external force, AND the universe is becoming more chaotic.

You can't see gravity. Is gravity theoretical?

[Ifreann]

You're misunderstanding the usage of Theory in this instance.

Theory in science is a set of developed explanations for why a phenomenon happens.

Furthermore, the very basis of the scientific method is that it is always willing to be wrong.

No, what I meant is that the scientists got to the conclusion of the Big Bang because of observable phenomenas, HOWEVER, they never really SAW the Big Bang, it is theoretical, and who know, maybe it is wrong.

And if contradictory evidence comes to light, the scientific community will be only too happy to embrace it once confirmed.

The second law of thermodynamics is conflicting the theory of evolution, which by the law, nothing can become more complex and orginized, unless acted by an external force,

And do you think that there is nothing external to Earth that can provide more energy to life on Earth? Things like maybe an enormous fucking ball of plasma?

[Lengleland]

Do you think its possible that god Created the Big Bang? Thus creating the world?

[Neutraligon]

You're misunderstanding the usage of Theory in this instance.

Theory in science is a set of developed explanations for why a phenomenon happens.

Furthermore, the very basis of the scientific method is that it is always willing to be wrong.

No, what I meant is that the scientists got to the conclusion of the Big Bang because of observable phenomenas, HOWEVER, they never really SAW the Big Bang, it is theoretical, and who know, maybe it is wrong.
Science is conflicting itself, is light, a particle, or a wave? In one theory it's that, in the other, it's that.
Theory of relativity and quantum mechanics are conflicting, they can't co-exist, currently, we are using them both, however, at least one of those theories are wrong, unless there are two truths, which aren't.
The second law of thermodynamics is conflicting the theory of evolution, which by the law, nothing can become more complex and orginized, unless acted by an external force, AND the universe is becoming more chaotic.

Not really, light has aspects of both a particle and a wave, no conflict there. The second law of thermodynamics does not conflict with evolution, you are misunderstanding the second law completely.

[Farnhamia]

Fake? There are some verifiable items in the Bible, the ones that refer to events corroborated by other sources such as Assyrian and Egyptian monuments. The creation story in Genesis is not one of these items.

There's also verifiable items in the Harry Potter series.

Yes, there are, but the items - events is a better word - in the Bible to which I referred can be verified, such as King Jehu of Israel abasing himself before Shalmaneser III of Assyria or the existence of Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judaea.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Do you think its possible that god Created the Big Bang? Thus creating the world?

There's no evidence for it.

[Transhuman Proteus]

The difference is:
Science: Can provide some answers that, although lead to even more questions, give us knowledge and are answers.

Theistic Religion: Gives fake answers and brainwashes everyone.

Non-theistic religion: Does nothing really, besides pherhaps helping achieve inner peace.

Ummmm... Did you PROVE that the Bible is fake? No? Exactly.

You probably didn't even read it, nor understand it if you talk like that.

There is a lot in the Bible (OT in particular) we are quite positive did not occur. Such as a literal play out of the events in Genesis.

There is also things that did happen or exist included. Much like the Illiad. Or any other ancient text. The Bible doesn't get a free pass just because it's the bible. You wish to say it is true - the onus is on you to prove.

[Farnhamia]

Do you think its possible that god Created the Big Bang? Thus creating the world?

No.

[Individuality-ness]

Do you think its possible that god Created the Big Bang? Thus creating the world?

No evidence for a deity, so no.

[Jehuddah]

No, what I meant is that the scientists got to the conclusion of the Big Bang because of observable phenomenas, HOWEVER, they never really SAW the Big Bang, it is theoretical, and who know, maybe it is wrong.

Like atomic theory and germ theory.

Science is conflicting itself, is light, a particle, or a wave? In one theory it's that, in the other, it's that.
Theory of relativity and quantum mechanics are conflicting, they can't co-exist, currently, we are using them both, however, at least one of those theories are wrong, unless there are two truths, which aren't.

And?

The second law of thermodynamics is conflicting the theory of evolution, which by the law, nothing can become more complex and orginized, unless acted by an external force, AND the universe is becoming more chaotic.

Earth gets energy from sun.[/quote]
And. the sun creates evolution? No.

How can we, intelligent beings were created? So it's whether the thermodynamics is wrong, OR Evolution is wrong, there aren't two options.

Some of the scientific theories are debatable.

[Ifreann]

Do you think its possible that god Created the Big Bang? Thus creating the world?

Do you think it is possible that there is an invisible, intangible dragon in my bedroom?

[Thrice Crownlands]

The difference is:
Science: Can provide some answers that, although lead to even more questions, give us knowledge and are answers.

Theistic Religion: Gives fake answers and brainwashes everyone.

Non-theistic religion: Does nothing really, besides pherhaps helping achieve inner peace.

Ummmm... Did you PROVE that the Bible is fake? No? Exactly.

You probably didn't even read it, nor understand it if you talk like that.

Science need not provide evidence to he falseness of a theory which has no evidence to back up its own truth.

Though, if need me, The Bible proposes the occurance of several things which contradict science and recorded history. For instance, it states that human civilization developed, flourished, and then was completely wiped out, barring less then a dozen people (most of whom were related). History shows no record of such a world-wide catastrophy in the sense that their is no visible break in human civilization; granted, local areas have been whipped out by local problems, but on a whole regions continued to show continuous development (or, at the very least, not getting destroyed overnight), countering that assertation.

Secondly, The Bible is one making the extraordinary claims that run counter to proven and commonly held rules: not the other way around. As such, it is their job to provide enough concrete evidence to prove themselves feesable before a real scientific discussion on the issue even makes sense. Simply saying "You can't prove me wrong" to a hypothesis which is unfalsifiable proves nothing. Tell me, what piece of evidence would have to show up to prove conclusively to you that the bible is a load of crap. I'm not saying it IS going to show up, just something that could be imagined within the bounds of reality that would definitively change your mind? If that dosen't exist, then you're either so stubborn, or have a definion of god so fluid, that it is no longer held sway be reason.

[Jehuddah]

Do you think its possible that god Created the Big Bang? Thus creating the world?

No evidence for a deity, so no.

Ummmm..... That's twisted logic.
If you say there's no evidence, then is your evidence is that there is no evidence? That's wrong.
You might ASSUME there is no God, but that's it, you cannot be a gnostic atheist.

[Zz89137zZ]

Personaly it doesn`t matter how we got here, because we are here now.

[Farnhamia]

No evidence for a deity, so no.

Ummmm..... That's twisted logic.
If you say there's no evidence, then is your evidence is that there is no evidence? That's wrong.
You might ASSUME there is no God, but that's it, you cannot be a gnostic atheist.

The default position is no. If evidence appears, we evaluate it and change our minds if necessary.

[Anachronous Rex]

You're misunderstanding the usage of Theory in this instance.

Theory in science is a set of developed explanations for why a phenomenon happens.

Furthermore, the very basis of the scientific method is that it is always willing to be wrong.

No, what I meant is that the scientists got to the conclusion of the Big Bang because of observable phenomenas, HOWEVER, they never really SAW the Big Bang, it is theoretical, and who know, maybe it is wrong.

Well actually, we have. In the sense that we have detected light from it. Which is pretty much what "saw" means.

Science is conflicting itself, is light, a particle, or a wave? In one theory it's that, in the other, it's that.

It's both. Science is perfectly clear on this.

Theory of relativity and quantum mechanics are conflicting, they can't co-exist, currently, we are using them both, however, at least one of those theories are wrong, unless there are two truths, which aren't.

The theory of relativity is wrong. This isn't news. It just happens to work on a number of useful scales. Like Newtonian physics.

The second law of thermodynamics is conflicting the theory of evolution, which by the law, nothing can become more complex and orginized, unless acted by an external force, AND the universe is becoming more chaotic.

Oh really? Well then watch me perform a miracle by growing a crystal. Bow before your lord and savior Anachronous Rex.

[Jehuddah]

Do you think its possible that god Created the Big Bang? Thus creating the world?

Do you think it is possible that there is an invisible, intangible dragon in my bedroom?

We ASSUME there isn't, in fact, we are pretty sure there isn't.
But we don't KNOW that.

[Great Nepal]

And. the sun creates evolution? No.
How can we, intelligent beings were created? So it's whether the thermodynamics is wrong, OR Evolution is wrong, there aren't two options.

No, however since sun provides energy, earth can not be considered a closed system hence second law doesn't apply.

Some of the scientific theories are debatable.

Of course they are, thats the difference between science and theology. Obviously, you will need more than "YOU DIDN'T SEE IT. DUHHHHH!" to debate it. Preferably alternate hypothesis, with evidence to support it which has been peer reviewed.