Genesis and The Big Bang

[TTanT]

So... if looking at someones profile= stalking...

 

I'm being stalked by two girls! Win!

And a mod! Cool!

 

...And Hex....

[warri0r45]

What are the good arguments against evolution? Let's argue some. The only ones I've come across have been either misinterpretations of what evolution is or misinterpretations of some other science (such as thermodynamics, for example).

 

To be honest, I'm not that interested in evolution nor have I done enough research on the topic. This is why I didn't claim if it's true or false. Right now I'm just on the fence and reserving my opinion until I learn more about it.

 

You claimed there were good arguments against it, let's hear some. If you want to learn more I can help you out by clarifying any misconceptions.

 

As for the rest of your post, I don't disagree with the general thrust of it. Skepticism is a good thing and helps us come up with new ways of thinking about things. But I agree with assassin as well. There are some things we can be sure of; some things which will probably never be disproven. I mean sure, at the back of your mind you could be open to the possibility that we're all terribly wrong about everything, but to focus on that as a likelyhood in the face of overwhelming evidence is stupid.

[meol]

Bah. Too much spam and unnecessary flaming in this thread, like mrshinyredplanet said. Take this as a last warning.

 

Good. So we're over that now.

[Danqazmlp]

I can't really understand the whole argument for Genesis. Maybe it is an American thing, because from an early age here in the UK, evolution and the big bang have been taught as fact and genesis as a solid fiction. Maybe it is just the British way of thinking, hell, we have Darwin on our money.

 

To me genesis is so illogical, we may as well just say it was all done by aliens. I will say that I believe there may be a higher power somewhere, but I do not believe everything was created by it/they.

 

Who to believe, a thousand year old book, made by people who at the time thought the world was flat, translated over the ages numerous times but has almost no proof, or scientists, in the modern world, who have been able to explore the mysteries of particles and the universe for years. It isn't a tough choice, even if it does leave the world a bit empty.

[Lateralus]

I can't really understand the whole argument for Genesis. Maybe it is an American thing, because from an early age here in the UK, evolution and the big bang have been taught as fact and genesis as a solid fiction. Maybe it is just the British way of thinking, hell, we have Darwin on our money.

 

I think it's because our state school system is still officially Christian (as is the entire country). It seems to have turned state schools into atheist factories.

[DaN]

I can't really understand the whole argument for Genesis. Maybe it is an American thing, because from an early age here in the UK, evolution and the big bang have been taught as fact and genesis as a solid fiction. Maybe it is just the British way of thinking, hell, we have Darwin on our money.

 

 

 

The education system in the UK is far superior to that in the US. As seen in this thread, and indeed the rest of the forums.

[Skull]

It's taught the same way here, at least in public schools. I have no idea what they teach in private schools since I can't afford 10k a year to wear a uniform and have to learn about the bible from nuns.

[Blutters]

I know little about what Genesis says or the exact logistics of the Big Bang Theory. I would propose that if the Big Bang Theory tosses the creation of the Earth and other planets to chance, coincidence, a random occurrence, then there may have been a higher, and indeed possibly divine being that interfered just enough to allow events to align for Earth to support life. Whether that being was an all-powerful, all-seeing God is unknown, as also is whether or not such a being still exists. If that being was not in fact divine then we would still somehow have to explain how they were created. However, I'd like to point out that human kind did not rise directly out of dirt and rocks. That is the strongest foundation of my faith, no matter how anyone wants to try to define or explain it. Somehow we got from basic minerals to fully-functioning lifeforms.

[mlclm]

I can't really understand the whole argument for Genesis. Maybe it is an American thing, because from an early age here in the UK, evolution and the big bang have been taught as fact and genesis as a solid fiction. Maybe it is just the British way of thinking, hell, we have Darwin on our money.

 

 

 

The education system in the UK is far superior to that in the US. As seen in this thread, and indeed the rest of the forums.

Yes, because forming an opinion about the intelligence of an entire nation is best done with a handful of kids trolling around on the internet.

[DaN]

I would propose that if the Big Bang Theory tosses the creation of the Earth and other planets to chance, coincidence, a random occurrence,

 

It does no such thing.

[Blutters]

I would propose that if the Big Bang Theory tosses the creation of the Earth and other planets to chance, coincidence, a random occurrence,

 

It does no such thing.

Kk so the Big Bang Theory says the universe made a big plan beforehand and got all of its buddies together...

Like I said, I don't know that much about either. However, the topic-starter asked us to state what WE know, and not look anything up, and I did just that and more.

[Racheya]

I can't really understand the whole argument for Genesis. Maybe it is an American thing, because from an early age here in the UK, evolution and the big bang have been taught as fact and genesis as a solid fiction. Maybe it is just the British way of thinking, hell, we have Darwin on our money.

 

 

 

The education system in the UK is far superior to that in the US. As seen in this thread, and indeed the rest of the forums.

Yes, because forming an opinion about the intelligence of an entire nation is best done with a handful of kids trolling around on the internet.

Maybe, but it is a fact that we learn about evolution from a young age. If you go to a Christian Primary School, you might get taught about Genesis, but once you go to secondary they're by law required to teach you about the big bang in physics, and evolution in biology.

 

Also I only just realised that it was Darwin when I looked on the back of my tenner XD

[DaN]

I would propose that if the Big Bang Theory tosses the creation of the Earth and other planets to chance, coincidence, a random occurrence,

 

It does no such thing.

Kk so the Big Bang Theory says the universe made a big plan beforehand and got all of its buddies together...

 

Yes, a theory held a tea party with its friends. :rolleyes:

[Blutters]

I would propose that if the Big Bang Theory tosses the creation of the Earth and other planets to chance, coincidence, a random occurrence,

 

It does no such thing.

Kk so the Big Bang Theory says the universe made a big plan beforehand and got all of its buddies together...

 

Yes, a theory held a tea party with its friends. :rolleyes:

Yeah bud. Just jackassin you back. You don't appear more intelligent just because you say NO. Feel free to explain how the Big Bang Theory includes nothing random or left to chance, though. Y'know, something to actually back yourself up with, something productive. You could very well teach me something rather than shun me for spite of ignorance.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

Yeah bud. Just jackassin you back. You don't appear more intelligent just because you say NO. Feel free to explain how the Big Bang Theory includes nothing random or left to chance, though. Y'know, something to actually back yourself up with, something productive. You could very well teach me something rather than shun me for spite of ignorance.

 

In what way do you use random?

 

It's not like the universe rolled a giant set of dice and because "6" came up we poofed into existence. The earth's existence and our existence on it is the culmination of an extremely long series of natural processes.

It's true that there is some randomness to that, but due to the size of the universe it's basically inevitable that a planet like ours with intelligent life would arise.

[Barihawk]

I return to my original point, which has yet to even be noticed:

 

Why can't the two coexist? Like I said, Georges Lemaitres was a devout Catholic before, during, and after he came up with the theory of the Big Bang. He was awarded by the Vatican for significant contribution to science.

 

He could have the two coexist, why can't others? I'm not saying one's wrong, I am not saying one's right. But why must you all carry on like they are mutually exclusive?

 

In the grand scheme of things, knowing for sure if we were dropped on this Earth by a Creator or evolved from a puddle of goo is kind of pointless. It satisfies nothing except for curiosity and a seeking of knowledge. You can be atheist or Christian and still be just as good of a brain surgeon, mathematician, teacher, plumber, politician, marketing executive, lawyer, biologist, pharmaceutical technician, whatever. Why is it necessary to bring such passion to something that's rather mundane in the vast realm of science? With the exception, of course, to the concept of defying God (which drove many of the 'greats' in science to do their research which have lead to many advances in numerous fields) which is kind of silly because atheists don't believe in God in the first place :P

 

Essentially we are in yet another black/white/us/them debate again that boils down to hard headed repetition of the same arguments, pointless whittling at each other's posts, and personal attacks. Hurray.

[brunokiller]

I would propose that if the Big Bang Theory tosses the creation of the Earth and other planets to chance, coincidence, a random occurrence, then there may have been a higher, and indeed possibly divine being that interfered just enough to allow events to align for Earth to support life.

 

The chance to win a lottery is essentially negigible.

 

Does this mean no one ever wins a lottery?

[Lateralus]

I return to my original point, which has yet to even be noticed:

 

Why can't the two coexist? Like I said, Georges Lemaitres was a devout Catholic before, during, and after he came up with the theory of the Big Bang. He was awarded by the Vatican for significant contribution to science.

 

He could have the two coexist, why can't others? I'm not saying one's wrong, I am not saying one's right. But why must you all carry on like they are mutually exclusive?

 

In the grand scheme of things, knowing for sure if we were dropped on this Earth by a Creator or evolved from a puddle of goo is kind of pointless. It satisfies nothing except for curiosity and a seeking of knowledge. You can be atheist or Christian and still be just as good of a brain surgeon, mathematician, teacher, plumber, politician, marketing executive, lawyer, biologist, pharmaceutical technician, whatever. Why is it necessary to bring such passion to something that's rather mundane in the vast realm of science? With the exception, of course, to the concept of defying God (which drove many of the 'greats' in science to do their research which have lead to many advances in numerous fields) which is kind of silly because atheists don't believe in God in the first place :P

 

I don't think the two can coexist. If you believe a divine spark started a chain reaction (even at the smallest level) then you're moving outside of the realms of science. I don't think the concept of god has any place in science.

 

As for saying it satisfies nothing except for curiosity and the search for knowledge, I think perhaps we differ greatly in that respect. Satisfying curiosity and seeking knowledge seem like two perfectly good pastimes to me.

[Barihawk]

I return to my original point, which has yet to even be noticed:

 

Why can't the two coexist? Like I said, Georges Lemaitres was a devout Catholic before, during, and after he came up with the theory of the Big Bang. He was awarded by the Vatican for significant contribution to science.

 

He could have the two coexist, why can't others? I'm not saying one's wrong, I am not saying one's right. But why must you all carry on like they are mutually exclusive?

 

In the grand scheme of things, knowing for sure if we were dropped on this Earth by a Creator or evolved from a puddle of goo is kind of pointless. It satisfies nothing except for curiosity and a seeking of knowledge. You can be atheist or Christian and still be just as good of a brain surgeon, mathematician, teacher, plumber, politician, marketing executive, lawyer, biologist, pharmaceutical technician, whatever. Why is it necessary to bring such passion to something that's rather mundane in the vast realm of science? With the exception, of course, to the concept of defying God (which drove many of the 'greats' in science to do their research which have lead to many advances in numerous fields) which is kind of silly because atheists don't believe in God in the first place :P

 

I don't think the two can coexist. If you believe a divine spark started a chain reaction (even at the smallest level) then you're moving outside of the realms of science. I don't think the concept of god has any place in science.

 

As for saying it satisfies nothing except for curiosity and the search for knowledge, I think perhaps we differ greatly in that respect. Satisfying curiosity and seeking knowledge seem like two perfectly good pastimes to me.

 

I think it is a good pastime. I enjoy studying even after many years of high education (shudder). However, in the end it's insignificant compared to other things being discovered. It's for nothing but bragging rights. And if you are someone like me, God deserves a place in science if he created the laws behind it :P. *runs before inevitable flaming from others*

[Saru Inc]

I can't really understand the whole argument for Genesis. Maybe it is an American thing, because from an early age here in the UK, evolution and the big bang have been taught as fact and genesis as a solid fiction. Maybe it is just the British way of thinking, hell, we have Darwin on our money.

 

 

 

The education system in the UK is far superior to that in the US. As seen in this thread, and indeed the rest of the forums.

Yes, because forming an opinion about the intelligence of an entire nation is best done with a handful of kids trolling around on the internet.

 

 

lol'd.

 

 

 

The American schooling system is far far superior than UK's. Do the students take advantage of that? Probably not.

[Lateralus]

And if you are someone like me, God deserves a place in science if he created the laws behind it :P. *runs before inevitable flaming from others*

 

What I'm trying to articulate is quite difficult, but I'll try to make myself clearer. When I said god has no place in science, I meant he can't have a place in science. In order for it to be scientific and explainable, the answer has to be something other than 'Oh, that was god.' If you believe god created the laws governing the universe, then he has to have done it in a way where it looks as if he hasn't done anything; he has to have created but only be an observer to the creation - Do you get what I'm trying to say? That unexplainable divine spark just can't fit into scientific method.

[billybob323]

If you believe god created the laws governing the universe, then he has to have done it in a way where it looks as if he hasn't done anything

That's exactly what He did. He created everything in such a way that we can attempt to explain it using the reasoning power that He gave us. He did this because it allows us to choose Him. I agree that it's pointless to answer a scientific question by saying "God did it." But that doesn't mean the scientific method can't lead us to the conclusion that God did it.

[Lateralus]

If you believe god created the laws governing the universe, then he has to have done it in a way where it looks as if he hasn't done anything

That's exactly what He did. He created everything in such a way that we can attempt to explain it using the reasoning power that He gave us. He did this because it allows us to choose Him. I agree that it's pointless to answer a scientific question by saying "God did it." But that doesn't mean the scientific method can't lead us to the conclusion that God did it.

 

The scientific method can not lead to a conclusion for which there is no evidence. You said it yourself that everything is created in such a way that god is not required, and that means he can be ruled out. If you believe in a god, then it's completely on faith (which I'm sure is a virtue in your eyes - it's not in mine). Faith - that is, belief without, and perhaps in spite of, evidence - has no place in science.

[Saru Inc]

If you believe god created the laws governing the universe, then he has to have done it in a way where it looks as if he hasn't done anything

That's exactly what He did. He created everything in such a way that we can attempt to explain it using the reasoning power that He gave us. He did this because it allows us to choose Him. I agree that it's pointless to answer a scientific question by saying "God did it." But that doesn't mean the scientific method can't lead us to the conclusion that God did it.

 

The scientific method can not lead to a conclusion for which there is no evidence. You said it yourself that everything is created in such a way that god is not required, and that means he can be ruled out. If you believe in a god, then it's completely on faith (which I'm sure is a virtue in your eyes - it's not in mine). Faith - that is, belief without, and perhaps in spite of, evidence - has no place in science.

 

 

Lat is right. Though I believe in God, you cannot scientifically prove him. That is a fact. DOES THAT MEANS HE DOESN'T EXIST is what we must now ask ourselves. Simply because Science cannot explain something... Does that automatically rule it out? Some would say yes; some would say no.

[gorgoroth]

Alright, i'm not what you would call the biggest Christian anymore, but i used to be a very spiritual person therefor my view of this thread might be a bit scewed. But what i say will carry fact as well as some logic.

 

I've never really been too much into the Big Bang theory. To me the thought of being an evolved form on a monkey is an insult. The fact that a single cell, ONE CELL, created all of this around me, around us, seems pretty stupid. If you're going to tell me that 1 cell split into two, then kept on multiplying and some of the cells decided to grow into plants, some into animals then i would like to know how? How did they change from plants to animals. And then there is also the fact of male and female. If one cell split into 2 identical cells, then howcome we have 2 different genders today?

Then we get to the more religios part. Thining about it makes so much more sense, even if you are athiest, satanist, islamic, jewish, budist, or whatever. Knowing that there was some sort of creator is much more logic than knowing we are the result of a chemical concoction gone wrong. Then the Bible might not make sense all the time, but it has been around longer than any other (or most other) books, and i'm sure its been around since before the Big bang theory. And reading the Bible you start to see that alot of the things writin in it (predictions) have already come true so why can't the theory of creation be true aswell.

 

The way i see it in the end is that the Big Bang (geez this reminds me of summer 2008. One hell of an part....) theory is the lazy man's way of getting out of a religion, or atleast some sort of belief.