At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
see thats where the big problem for me is, because i can see plenty of rational and logical evidence and reasoning for both christianity/theism, and atheism.
I prefer to look at both sides and see the reasons for them, while many of both belief systems see it as one sided, despite both world views being pretty reasonable, if you just take the time to look at both sides exstensivly.
i just find it strange that people think that christianity and theism is such a great leap of faith, there are just as many holes in evolution and big bang theory.
Just to clear this up. Evolution and big bang theory have explained just about every piece of evidence thrown at them so far. They change to fit the evidence - which is what makes science so powerful. Evolution is used reliably to make predictions about how populations of organisms behave over time and these predictions go into our health service and make drugs which are effective. It also informs us how to use drugs to avoid the evolution of bacteria that we cannot defeat.
This is not what the topic is about but I wanted to make sure science was not misrepresented.
hmmm....okay, have you explained the whole "how did the big bang create the universe without something before it" thing?
Because science tells us that everything has a beginning, and thats really one of my core reasons for believing that there has to be an eternal creator, that exists out of time, because otherwise you get into the loop of "thingo a was created by thingo b, but where did thingo b come from? it must have been created by thingo c, but where did thingo c come from?"
sorry for getting a little of topic, just would like a rational explanation for that, and if i can get a rational explanation telling me an alternative to an eternal creator to start the big bang, and i might just revise my beliefs.
Atheists are fond of saying that what we creationists think about the universe is based on our early education (presuppositions). I contend that SOME scientists base their belief in evolution on their own suppositions. In spite of what some would have us to believe, there are many qualified scientists who believe in creation.
hmmm....okay, have you explained the whole "how did the big bang create the universe without something before it" thing?
Because science tells us that everything has a beginning, and thats really one of my core reasons for believing that there has to be an eternal creator, that exists out of time, because otherwise you get into the loop of "thingo a was created by thingo b, but where did thingo b come from? it must have been created by thingo c, but where did thingo c come from?"
sorry for getting a little of topic, just would like a rational explanation for that, and if i can get a rational explanation telling me an alternative to an eternal creator to start the big bang, and i might just revise my beliefs.
No. The big bang theory does not describe what caused the expansion, it doesn't claim to, it doesn't have to. It only describes what happened after t=0. Perhaps this is a problem with it for you, but big bang theory, in what it claims to explain, does not have holes. We observe it, we make predictions with it, it works.
There are many hypotheses about where the big bang came from - that's for another topic if you want to start it in astronomy or physics. But I would appreciate it if you waited a few days - I have a very busy few days ahead.
No. The big bang theory does not describe what caused the expansion, it doesn't claim to, it doesn't have to. It only describes what happened after t=0. Perhaps this is a problem with it for you, but big bang theory, in what it claims to explain, does not have holes. We observe it, we make predictions with it, it works.
There are many hypotheses about where the big bang came from - that's for another topic if you want to start it in astronomy or physics. But I would appreciate it if you waited a few days - I have a very busy few days ahead.
the·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē)
n., pl. -ries.
-An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
-A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
Exactly my point. You can only hypothesize, make assumptions, theories, make conjectures, guess and speculate but the bottom line is, it is not fact and the fact that you believe it despite solid evidence means you have faith in evolution and the big bang.
it is not fact and the fact that you believe it despite solid evidence
Which solid evidence is that?
Also you may want to read this:
Quote:
"In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.
In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them."
Linear Mode
