Genesis and The Big Bang

[warri0r45]

First, (I think someone brought this up already, but here it is again because it's important) the scientific method demands that a hypothesis is testable and can be repeatedly tested with the same result, and due to the nature of history, historical events (no matter how far back or recent you are trying to go) are not repeatable. For example (this is only an example so please don't go crazy over this), prove to me, using the scientific method, that Napoleon Bonaparte existed. The scientific method demands that Napoleon Bonaparte be repeatable in order to be proven, yet history is not repeatable and it is impossible to travel back in time. Sure you could dig up what you claim to be his remains, but I could easily just say those are someone else's remains. You could say that there are numerous historical writings about him, but I could say they were all written by superstitious and arrogant fools just trying to come up with a good story. You could say that almost everyone believes he existed because of all the evidence, but I could claim that's because everyone who believed differently was killed by some radical group. The point is, just because you say it happened or say it didn't happen, no matter how much evidence you provide, the scientific method demands it be repeatable and we can not know for sure unless we travel back in time, which is impossible.

 

This leads me to my second point, something I brought up early in the debate but was ignored. It is very possible that in the sciences that make guesses about the past, most conclusions are just a different biased opinion from the same scientific data. For example, light has been observed to behave as both a wave and a particle. There have been many tests to prove this. Scientists concluded that the behavior of light is dependent on the test you set up. If you set up a test to prove light behaves like a wave, it will behave like a wave. Likewise, if you set up a test to prove light behaves like a particle, it will behave like a particle. Either way, light is still light and testing it to be a wave or a particle does not change what it is.

 

I think you’re kind of half right. It’s true that for a hypothesis to be scientific, it needs to be testable, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that processes we can’t repeat (historical events) aren’t scientific, or can’t be known with some certainty. Using evolution as an example, we can hypothesise that we ought to find a particular retrotransposon in our DNA at a particular location by virtue of it being there in the chimpanzee genome (the assumption here is that it was inserted in our common ancestor’s genome prior to the radiation of the two species). That’s exactly what we find between the human and chimpanzee genome – many examples of identical retrotransposon insertions despite the astronomical improbability of it turning out that way. The only rational interpretation there is that we share common ancestry.

 

To give another example, we can hypothesise that a particular chimpanzee protein must have an amino acid sequence very similar, if not identical to ours, despite not needing to. Looking at evolutionary relationships more broadly, we can hypothesise that genetic/protein sequence similarity must correlate with morphological similarity, and as a general trend that’s exactly what we find.

 

Hell, even the fact that we continually find other species even have DNA and protein is an implicit confirmation of a widely overlooked hypothesis. Common ancestry would seem to necessitate some common molecular and genetic strategies, and there is no a priori necessity for all lifeforms to be based on DNA, to use proteins and to use pathways like glycolysis to create energy, but that’s what we see ubiquitously in all species. Added, there’s no a priori need for life to be based on only 20 particular amino acids and five bases (including uracil) when there are more chemical possibilities out there. It would only take one species with fundamentally different biology to throw a spanner in the works of evolutionary theory, but we've never found one.

 

As for your example, the very fact that light is referred to as both a wave and a particle by scientists kind of wrecks it – if this example was all just biased opinion and not a measured interpretation based entirely off the data, you would expect to see dogmatic scientists just accepting one or the other based on their own stupid whims. That just not the case in science, for the most part anyway. Any interpretation of the data is likely to be rational and measured, and full of concern that we need more data to make a definitive judgment (something you see a lot of in science).

[Shinjula]

Moving on to the other articles you posted and their arguments as to why Christianity is the only possible Religion....

 

The first one...

http://www.carm.org/secular-movements/atheism/why-believe-christianity-over-all-other-religions

...actually offers very little in the way of argument. Theres a couple of refutations against a literal interpretation of the Quran and the LDS scriptures, but I dont think may here would be arging in favour of either of those.

And theres the standard argument "What caused the Universe?" to which the answer "I dont know" doesnt equate with "God did it", there are simply many more possibilities, if indeed it atually has a cause which quantum physics is showing more and more these days isnt actually necessary.

 

The second one...

http://www.carm.org/secular-movements/atheism/why-believe-christianity-over-all-other-religions

I've already shown the argument that there must be absolute truth doesnt have to extend beyond "The only absolutely truths is that there arent any other absolute truths"

Religions contradicting each other only implies they cant all be literally true, but it ignores the idea that there could be grains of truth in all of them. It then goes on to argue about prophecy which is something I've never been remotely convinced by.

The stories of miracles are easily ignored since to anyone not a Christian doubt in the authors of the bible is quite high.

 

The third one

http://www.gospeloutreach.net/whychristianity.html

tries to go for logic but the logic is very flawed and falls down quite easily. It dismisses Atheism on the ground that it cannot find the cause of the Big Bang ignoring the possibility that people might prefer the honesty of the physicists who say "We just don't know yet".

It acts as though Atheism fails because it doesnt offer an opinion on morality, but the concern of Atheism is not which morality to follow but a simply yes/no on the existence of god, it is not there to make nay further judgements.

His repeatedly incorrect use of the law of contradiction is just silly, there are huge possibilities when it comes to the nature and structure of god, that's the whole deal with god/s, you have a potentially limitless number of possibilities because of the supposed power involved.

Here's an example

"Christianity teaches that when a person dies, that person will go to heaven or to hell. Eastern religions say those who die will be reincarnated. Now a person could go to heaven or hell, or be reincarnated, but he cannot go to heaven or hell and be reincarnated at the same time."

Or it could be the case that some people are reincarnated and some go to heaven, depending on actions in their life, or belief systems they hold to.

He then argues against some of the other religions but I cant see a single decent argument.

He argues against Hinduism because of the irrationality of the truth of all religions (which I've shown to be possible already)

He argues against because of the lack of miracles and prophecies and given a religions purpose is to instruct about life and morality I dont see the neccessity of either.

Buddhism gets a weird response claiming it doesnt offer answers for life, which it does, that ones it just completely wrong. I imagine the guy just hasnt had any contact with buddhists.

He argues against animism saying it is non ethical, which I suppose it is, but that wouldnt make it wrong.

He argues against Wicca saying that finding truth in other religions is somehow contrdicting with the Wiccan Rede again as though there cant be multiple truths.

He then goes on to argue as though most non christians think Jesus doesnt exist, which is quite untrue, most acknowledge him as a historical figure. It just that most people have played Chinese whispers and know how it works. The gospels werent written at the time of Jesus but some years after.

And then we're back to prophecy.

 

The last one

http://www.faithfacts.org/world-religions-and-theology/why-christianity

is the most ridiculous. Assume a law which would only apply to your own religions followers is true and then show how followers of other religions come a cropper (in some bizarre analogy to jumping out of a plane). It just makes assumptions about what it true. In essence all it says is that if Christianity is literally correct then all followers of other religions are in trouble. And I dont dont have a problem with that statement, but it says nothing about the truth of the Universe.

[billybob323]

The first one... actually offers very little in the way of argument. Theres a couple of refutations against a literal interpretation of the Quran and the LDS scriptures, but I dont think may here would be arging in favour of either of those.

And theres the standard argument "What caused the Universe?" to which the answer "I dont know" doesnt equate with "God did it"

Something tells me you didn't actually read the whole article. Yes, it makes agruments against the Quran and LDS scriptures, and yes no one on this thread has argued in favor of those. But it did not say the answer to "what caused the universe?" is "I don't know." It actually lists several claims that are in the Bible about the creation of the universe and explains how those claims have been proven true in recent years by astrology/cosmology. It then lists several claims that are in the Bible about the earth in general and explains how those claims have also been proven true in recent years by archeology, geology, etc. This is far from a simple "I don't know."

 

The second one... I've already shown the argument that there must be absolute truth doesnt have to extend beyond "The only absolutely truths is that there arent any other absolute truths"

Religions contradicting each other only implies they cant all be literally true, but it ignores the idea that there could be grains of truth in all of them. It then goes on to argue about prophecy which is something I've never been remotely convinced by.

Why can't "there must be absolute truth" extend beyond "the only absolutely truth is that there aren't any other absolute truths"? That's special pleading, and it doesn't make any sense. If there is one absolute truth, and that absolute truth claims that there are no other absolute truths, what makes that one truth an absolute truth among a myriad of non-absolute truths?

 

About the idea that there could be grains of truth in other religions, yes there could. You could probably find a "grain" of truth in almost anything if you look hard enough. But if you're looking for a religion to follow, why would you choose one that you know is only partially true? After all, anyone looking for a religion would most likely know how important a choice it is and would want to be certain that their choice can stand up to many different tests.

 

About the prophecies, you also haven't studied the Bible enough to really know about them, as you admitted in an earlier post. There are hundreds of prophecies in the Bible, some of them fulfilled, some of them not yet. By the way, an unfulfilled prophecy is definitely not the same as a false prophecy. But the most important prophecies in the Bible are the ones that are about Jesus, and all of those were fulfilled. Actually, a group calculated the possibility of all the prophecies made about the Messiah being fulfilled by one person, and it turned out to be much greater than the number of people who are alive and who have ever lived many times over.

 

The third one tries to go for logic but the logic is very flawed and falls down quite easily. It dismisses Atheism on the ground that it cannot find the cause of the Big Bang ignoring the possibility that people might prefer the honesty of the physicists who say "We just don't know yet".

Yes, some people can accept "we don't know yet", but other people may prefer something that can and does offer a rational explanation.

 

[still about the third] It acts as though Atheism fails because it doesnt offer an opinion on morality, but the concern of Atheism is not which morality to follow but a simply yes/no on the existence of god, it is not there to make nay further judgements.

Actually, "atheism" by definition just says "no" about the existence of god, not even leaving open the possibility of "yes". But about your comment, you're right that atheism doesn't say much, if anything, about morality, and maybe you're right that that's not its purpose. But just ignoring it doesn't make the sense of "oughtness" that humans have go away. You know, the thing that tells you "I ought to help that cripple who tripped and accidentally threw his crutch across the room" or "I ought not beat up that old lady and take her money." You will never hear your pet (or any other animal) say "I ought not knock over that potted plant because I might get in trouble." That sense of "oughtness" is unique to humans, so where did it come from?

 

[still about the third] His repeatedly incorrect use of the law of contradiction is just silly, there are huge possibilities when it comes to the nature and structure of god, that's the whole deal with god/s, you have a potentially limitless number of possibilities because of the supposed power involved. Here's an example "Christianity teaches that when a person dies, that person will go to heaven or to hell. Eastern religions say those who die will be reincarnated. Now a person could go to heaven or hell, or be reincarnated, but he cannot go to heaven or hell and be reincarnated at the same time." Or it could be the case that some people are reincarnated and some go to heaven, depending on actions in their life, or belief systems they hold to.

Some people being reincarnated while others going to heaven/hell would mean multiple, often contradicting, religions must be true. As discussed elsewhere (namely the second article), this can not be true, on the premise of absolute truth. And what exactly do you think is silly about the law of non-contradiction? To accept contradictions as truth is to live in absurdity.

 

[still about the third] He then argues against some of the other religions but I cant see a single decent argument. He argues against Hinduism because of the irrationality of the truth of all religions (which I've shown to be possible already)

Maybe I just lost track of all the quotes, but where did you prove it possible? I see where you've declared it, but not where you've proved it.

 

[still about the third] He argues against [i assume you meant to write Islam here?] because of the lack of miracles and prophecies and given a religions purpose is to instruct about life and morality I dont see the neccessity of either.

Jesus fulfilled prophecies and performed miracles in order to prove to those around him that he is who he says he is. So, in a way, there is necessity.

 

[still about the third] Buddhism gets a weird response claiming it doesnt offer answers for life, which it does, that ones it just completely wrong. I imagine the guy just hasnt had any contact with buddhists.

Actually, the article says Buddhism "provides no answers about the ultimate meaning of existence." Existence isn't necessarily the same thing as life. A piece of chalk exists, but it is not alive.

 

[still about the third] He argues against animism saying it is non ethical, which I suppose it is, but that wouldnt make it wrong.

That would make it wrong to anyone who believes heaven/nirvana/a good reincarnation is based on how many good deeds you did in your life, which is most other religions.

 

[still about the third] He argues against Wicca saying that finding truth in other religions is somehow contrdicting with the Wiccan Rede again as though there cant be multiple truths.

Again... there can't. As it says in the article, "If there is 'no one right religion, way, or truth for all,' then why is this rule universal?"

 

[still about the third] He then goes on to argue as though most non christians think Jesus doesnt exist, which is quite untrue, most acknowledge him as a historical figure. It just that most people have played Chinese whispers and know how it works. The gospels werent written at the time of Jesus but some years after.

And then we're back to prophecy.

I saw the words "Some say that Jesus was a myth," I don't know where you saw "most non-christians think Jesus doesn't exist" in that article. I'm not familiar with the phrase "Chinese whispers" so I don't really know what you meant in that sentence. Archeology has proven that the four gospels that tell about Jesus' life were written no later than 70 A.D. and probably before, more than enough time for four men to have spent three years travelling with Jesus and then a number of years after the crucifixion/resurrection writing about their travels.

 

The last one is the most ridiculous. Assume a law which would only apply to your own religions followers is true and then show how followers of other religions come a cropper (in some bizarre analogy to jumping out of a plane). It just makes assumptions about what it true. In essence all it says is that if Christianity is literally correct then all followers of other religions are in trouble. And I dont dont have a problem with that statement, but it says nothing about the truth of the Universe.

The only laws I saw mention of in that article were the law of gravity (in the analogy, which I admit is a bit weird), the law that we are all going to die (if you would like to argue against that, be my guest, I will wait patiently), and God's laws (which, granted, if you are an athiest you will think are pointless anyway. But you have to admit- if everyone always followed all of the ten commandments, the world would be a much more peaceful place. Too bad that's impossible, except for God). But the point of the article was to show what each of four different religions says about death and what it offers after death. It is a fact that we are all going to die, and a lot of people are afraid of death so it is no surprise some seek comfort or a hope of a better life after death.

 

Hinduism says we will all reincarnate and what we reincarnate as depends on whether we were good or bad. I can see how that could offer some comfort, but it's not much of a guarantee that you will enjoy your reincarnated life. Buddhism just says life and death are some kind of an illusion, which doesn't make much sense to me so I shouldn't comment on it. Islam says the number of your good deeds will be compared to the number of your bad deeds, and you will be sent to either heaven or hell accordingly. This, also, doesn't offer much of a guarantee. How are you to know you've consistently done more good deeds than bad deeds throughout your entire life? Christianity, on the other hand, is unique from all other religions in that it says no one is able to reach heaven by their own effort. The only way you can reach heaven is by accepting Jesus as your savior and letting the Holy Spirit work in you, and if you do that, it is a guarantee. So I think you focused too much on the analogy (which I admit was a poor choice) and skipped everything it said about death and what different religions say will happen afterward.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

Actually, "atheism" by definition just says "no" about the existence of god, not even leaving open the possibility of "yes". But about your comment, you're right that atheism doesn't say much, if anything, about morality, and maybe you're right that that's not its purpose. But just ignoring it doesn't make the sense of "oughtness" that humans have go away. You know, the thing that tells you "I ought to help that cripple who tripped and accidentally threw his crutch across the room" or "I ought not beat up that old lady and take her money." You will never hear your pet (or any other animal) say "I ought not knock over that potted plant because I might get in trouble." That sense of "oughtness" is unique to humans, so where did it come from?

 

It's true that traditionally atheism might've been more accurately described as the belief in the lack of a god, but the overwhelming modern day usage is to refer to someone who lacks the belief in a god. Most modern atheists are not so naive or ignorant as to claim that there is no possibility that a god exists, merely that there is an incredible lack of evidence for one. As Carl Sagan said: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I've yet to see any extraordinary evidence.

 

As far as morality goes humans are far from the only animal species that exhibit "moral" behavior. Our morals are but a higher expression of the idea that you shouldn't eat your pack-mates because it means more food for you in the long run.

[Shinjula]

Well you've misunderstood where I'm coming from and no mistake. I'm not proving anything is true. Proving things are possible, that certain properties in the Universe do not preclude these things from happening.

 

The main thing I think looking from your answer is to go over again why absolute truth is not a neccessity.

 

Using the existence of a paradox to imply something else is true only works if it is the only other option.

>>>If truth is relative, then the statement that truth is relative is an absolute truth and would be a self-defeating statement by proving that truth is not relative. But, if truth is absolute, then the statement "truth is absolute" is true and not self-defeating. It is true that truth exists.

 

Or it could simply be the case that the only absolute truth is that there is no other absolute truth.

 

Which also works perfectly fine and doesnt contradict itself.

 

Basically you are finding that there is a necessary absolute truth - that three is a least possible absolute truth of "the only absolute truth is that there is no other absolute truth" and assuming a whole bunch of stuff about absolute truth just because a single statement must at the least be true.

As for "what makes that one truth an absolute truth among a myriad of non-absolute truths?" nothing makes it. I'm saying it MAY be the case that that is the Universe is that way and since it cant be proven otherwise any further extrapolation that demands more than "among a myriad of non-absolute truths?" is unproven.

 

 

OK well I cant deal with everything in a single page otherwise it will spin into a myriad bits and no one but us two will have any clue whats going on, or any desire to join in, so starting with the first bit (which actually I think is quite important)

Something tells me you didn't actually read the whole article. Yes, it makes agruments against the Quran and LDS scriptures, and yes no one on this thread has argued in favor of those. But it did not say the answer to "what caused the universe?" is "I don't know." It actually lists several claims that are in the Bible about the creation of the universe and explains how those claims have been proven true in recent years by astrology/cosmology. It then lists several claims that are in the Bible about the earth in general and explains how those claims have also been proven true in recent years by archeology, geology, etc. This is far from a simple "I don't know.

You've misinterpreted what I meant here, sorry I mustn't have been clear.

my quote of

"What caused the Universe?" to which the answer "I dont know" doesnt equate with "God did it"

is me saying the correct answer to what created the universe that a scientist would give is "I dont know". So what I was really saying is that to a scientist the question "What created the Universe?" poses no problems at all because I am unafraid of saying "I dont know" and not knowing doesnt imply a creator of whatever sort.

 

And as for the claims in the bible proven true about the formation of the Universe by astronomy, having taken a look at them I honestly cant believe you have the temerity to bring them up as they are laughable. All you've got is god created time, hardly an uncommon theme in creation myths, creator gods usually create time. You do have the word 'spread out' which I can understand could correspond to an expanding universe if you were feeling particularly poetic but its hardly accurate and the number of times its used in the past tense (the expansion of the universe hasnt stopped) preclude it from being an accurate description. The verse taken to imply tectonic activity is nothing of the kind and doest even vaguely day anything other than earthquakes happen, which I can assure you is not a modern invention of geology, people have always known that the landscape changes. "The mountains rose; the valleys sank down" is hardly an insightful description of plate tectonics, its just a colourful phrase any primitive might come up with to describe the creation of his world.

The thing is Genesis taken as an allegory is fine. Its interestingly poetic language, but the moment you start attributing meaning to these phrases beyond the poetic you run smack into big trouble, that of the overall view. If there is subtle meaning to the tale why is the obvious meaning of Genesis so at odd with reality. It does clearly describe the creation of all life in under six days. If the subtlety is true why is the obvious so completely wrong? Why does the creation of the stars come after the creation of the earth? The guy has to posit a translucent layer of cloud over the earth to get round that one, and that is also contrary to planetary physics (something I've studied myself).

There may tiny things which match up slightly with reality but that doesnt overcome the great problems with the general description which is just wrong.

[warri0r45]

On the issue of the evolution of morality, here's a good background:

 

http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y64l052.html

 

Evolution nicely explains 1 and 2, but 3 is still a bit of a mystery. It could also explain why we see cheaters in such a negative light and punish them for it.

[Jes]

I'm a Christian, and I will admit that both ideas are strange, but I would think that Genesis is more valid because I believe that everything was created by a higher power. I would prefer to believe I was put on this Earth for a reason rather than by accident. There are too many questions and not enough answers for the big bang theory. I don't think that there would be any other logical explanation for different DNA, atoms, and molecules. I'm not into nature or science or any of that, but I have to admit things like tornadoes, volcanoes, lightening, earthquakes, and tsunamis are to amazing to have been created by mistake. The water cycle is too complex. It has so many different steps and processes throughout it that repeat. The planet Earth is just close enough to the sun to give us a fair amount of heat and light without burning us to death. Is that just a coincidence? And what would explain the "Supernatural" and ghosts? Are they just chemicals or figments of our imagination? Also, humans and animals all have natural instincts already programmed in our minds. Where would they have come from? A baby cries when it's hungry or thirsty because it can't speak. When a bird finds a mate they stay together until one dies, and then the other dies of loneliness. A humans body works together to keep us alive. We also have nerve to warn ourselves. We breathe naturally even during our sleep. We dream. Everything seems to fit perfectly together and I don't think that it just happens to be a coincidence...

[ElkNight]

but I would think that Genesis is more valid because I believe that everything was created by a higher power.

This is like me saying I think the Big Bang is more valid because I believe it's true.

 

I am going to let someone else who is more educated in the big bang and evolution tear that post apart.

[Jes]

but I would think that Genesis is more valid because I believe that everything was created by a higher power.

This is like me saying I think the Big Bang is more valid because I believe it's true.

 

I am going to let someone else who is more educated in the big bang and evolution tear that post apart.

Yeah, honestly I was rethinking that, but I'm tired and I've had a very long day. So whatever. But if that's the only thing that you can find wrong with my post than it really doesn't bother me at all.

[ElkNight]

Oh, its not even close to the only thing. But other people (like warrior) know way more then me about this stuff, and they could do a better job.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

I'm a Christian, and I will admit that both ideas are strange, but I would think that Genesis is more valid because I believe that everything was created by a higher power. I would prefer to believe I was put on this Earth for a reason rather than by accident. There are too many questions and not enough answers for the big bang theory. I don't think that there would be any other logical explanation for different DNA, atoms, and molecules. I'm not into nature or science or any of that, but I have to admit things like tornadoes, volcanoes, lightening, earthquakes, and tsunamis are to amazing to have been created by mistake. The water cycle is too complex. It has so many different steps and processes throughout it that repeat. The planet Earth is just close enough to the sun to give us a fair amount of heat and light without burning us to death. Is that just a coincidence? And what would explain the "Supernatural" and ghosts? Are they just chemicals or figments of our imagination? Also, humans and animals all have natural instincts already programmed in our minds. Where would they have come from? A baby cries when it's hungry or thirsty because it can't speak. When a bird finds a mate they stay together until one dies, and then the other dies of loneliness. A humans body works together to keep us alive. We also have nerve to warn ourselves. We breathe naturally even during our sleep. We dream. Everything seems to fit perfectly together and I don't think that it just happens to be a coincidence...

 

• We weren't "put here" and our being here is not "accident."
  
• What are some of the questions you have about the big bang theory?
  
• "Tornadoes [sic], volcanoes[sic], lightening[sic], earthquakes, and tsunamis" aren't created, and they aren't a "mistake."
  
• In what way is the water cycle too complex?
  
• The sun's distance from the earth and the level of heat/light/etc that it provides is one of the causes of our evolution. The sun is not at the "perfect distance" because we are here, we are here because our planet lies within the hospitable zone of our solar system.
  
• The supernatural does not exist. Ghosts are in fact figments of people's imaginations.
  
• There are perfectly logical evolutionary explanations for our behavior.
  
• Our bodies' processes aren't a "coincidence." They are the result of billions of years of cosmic, chemical, and biological evolution.
  

 

Your entire post is basically one big argument from incredulity.

[Zamorakshadow]

I am going to let someone else who is more educated in the big bang and evolution tear that post apart.

 

Ohaithere :)

 

[hide]

I'm a Christian, and I will admit that both ideas are strange, but I would think that Genesis is more valid because I believe that everything was created by a higher power. I would prefer to believe I was put on this Earth for a reason rather than by accident. There are too many questions and not enough answers for the big bang theory. I don't think that there would be any other logical explanation for different DNA, atoms, and molecules. I'm not into nature or science or any of that, but I have to admit things like tornadoes, volcanoes, lightening, earthquakes, and tsunamis are to amazing to have been created by mistake. The water cycle is too complex. It has so many different steps and processes throughout it that repeat. The planet Earth is just close enough to the sun to give us a fair amount of heat and light without burning us to death. Is that just a coincidence? And what would explain the "Supernatural" and ghosts? Are they just chemicals or figments of our imagination? Also, humans and animals all have natural instincts already programmed in our minds. Where would they have come from? A baby cries when it's hungry or thirsty because it can't speak. When a bird finds a mate they stay together until one dies, and then the other dies of loneliness. A humans body works together to keep us alive. We also have nerve to warn ourselves. We breathe naturally even during our sleep. We dream. Everything seems to fit perfectly together and I don't think that it just happens to be a coincidence..

[/hide]

 

First off, believing in Evolution in Big Bang does not mean a higher power doesn't exist. Big Bang claims that the universe expanded from a singularity 15 bilhon years ago, Abiogenesis explains the origin of life, and Evolution explains the diversity and complexity of life once it exists, it is possible to believe a God created the Universe via Big Bang, and in fact most religious scientists ( and there are a lot of religious scientists) do.

 

Now, there are milhons of planets in our galaxy alone, nevermind the universe. Is is obvious that at least one ( or a bilhon...) planet would have liquid water, being neither too cold nor too hot. That isn't a "coincidence", it's... obvious. DNA, water cycles, etc, may all seem very complex, but if you understand the laws of physics and chemistry, it's not really complex. In a universe made of elements with different properties, that fuse to create even more elements and that combine with eachotherm creating lots lots of possible combinations with different properties, EVERYTHING is possible. Well, maybe not "everything", some laws of physics just can't be broken, but you got my point.

 

Now, instincts, emotions, etc, all came from evolution. Evolution it isn't an "accident", as natural selection brings order to the randomness of evolution. Instincts and thoughs first formed when the brain started forming... i'll leave a link to a video explaining the evolution of the brain:

 

Note that the creator of the video has a "Origin of" series, and videos of that series soon to be uploaded are about the origin of morality and cognition, which seem to talk about the points you made better. I highly recommend the videos of that guy to ANYONE, he is freakin awesome :P

 

With the Origin of the brain and thoughs, instincts and behaviour patterns would soon appear thanks to Evolution and Natural Selection, if you understand a lot of Evolution very well it is easy to understand.

In fact, the way we think and behave is proof of evolution. It is proven that "The annoying boss at work" behaves exacly like the Alpha Male of primate species, because of Evolutionary Behaviour. The one that acts like "The boss" will get more power, get more ladiez, have more children, and spread his genes.

 

Human behaviour is programmed by Evolution, because the goal of every living being is to reproduce and spread his genes. Men are programmed by Evolution to find women with big breasts hot, because big breasts are are a sign of fertility, and the man want his children to have the best genetics possible.

A bird will live with a partner to spread his genes. A baby will cry when hungry because Evolutions programs him to survive, and made him call the attention of the parents ( programmed to MAKE him survive) by crying.

Even the existence of religion has been explained by Evolution. There is a gene that makes people more religious, and it was selected for in the Nat. Selection because it was more of a "storytelling gene", the ones who told better stories got better along with the other people ( which is very important to ape species, that are VERY social), had more children, and spread the "storytelling" gene along. Soon "storytelling" became religion.

 

This all may have sounded like a giant red herring, but my point is, instincts and human/animal behaviour patterns appear by Evolution, and this has been explained by science. All you need is a brain.

[Jes]

Oh, its not even close to the only thing. But other people (like warrior) know way more then me about this stuff, and they could do a better job.

I think you have nothing better to do than be an [wagon]. Why don't you go onto the Food thread and criticize what I had to eat today.

[ElkNight]

Oh, its not even close to the only thing. But other people (like warrior) know way more then me about this stuff, and they could do a better job.

I think you have nothing better to do than be an [wagon]. Why don't you go onto the Food thread and criticize what I had to eat today.

How was I being an [wagon]? I just said your post had flaws and I would let other people explain them, because I knew others would do done a better job then me.

[Jes]

I'm a Christian, and I will admit that both ideas are strange, but I would think that Genesis is more valid because I believe that everything was created by a higher power. I would prefer to believe I was put on this Earth for a reason rather than by accident. There are too many questions and not enough answers for the big bang theory. I don't think that there would be any other logical explanation for different DNA, atoms, and molecules. I'm not into nature or science or any of that, but I have to admit things like tornadoes, volcanoes, lightening, earthquakes, and tsunamis are to amazing to have been created by mistake. The water cycle is too complex. It has so many different steps and processes throughout it that repeat. The planet Earth is just close enough to the sun to give us a fair amount of heat and light without burning us to death. Is that just a coincidence? And what would explain the "Supernatural" and ghosts? Are they just chemicals or figments of our imagination? Also, humans and animals all have natural instincts already programmed in our minds. Where would they have come from? A baby cries when it's hungry or thirsty because it can't speak. When a bird finds a mate they stay together until one dies, and then the other dies of loneliness. A humans body works together to keep us alive. We also have nerve to warn ourselves. We breathe naturally even during our sleep. We dream. Everything seems to fit perfectly together and I don't think that it just happens to be a coincidence...

 

• We weren't "put here" and our being here is not "accident."
  
• What are some of the questions you have about the big bang theory?
  
• "Tornadoes [sic], volcanoes[sic], lightening[sic], earthquakes, and tsunamis" aren't created, and they aren't a "mistake."
  
• In what way is the water cycle too complex?
  
• The sun's distance from the earth and the level of heat/light/etc that it provides is one of the causes of our evolution. The sun is not at the "perfect distance" because we are here, we are here because our planet lies within the hospitable zone of our solar system.
  
• The supernatural does not exist. Ghosts are in fact figments of people's imaginations.
  
• There are perfectly logical evolutionary explanations for our behavior.
  
• Our bodies' processes aren't a "coincidence." They are the result of billions of years of cosmic, chemical, and biological evolution.
  

 

Your entire post is basically one big argument from incredulity.

I know I have no proof, but neither do you. I don't think about or care about what happened billions of years ago because I'm in 2009 not the year one billion. I don't believe that I my ancestors were monkeys. Looks at them now. Do they appear to be getting anymore intelligent...no. They live then they die. Why aren't we still evolving? And there can be about 11 different processes to the water cycle. It basically recycles itself. You're only saying that its' not complex because you couldn't think of anything better to say. Honestly I was stating my opinion, not looking for someone to be a [wagon]. Don't worry, I have plenty in my life.

[Jes]

Oh, its not even close to the only thing. But other people (like warrior) know way more then me about this stuff, and they could do a better job.

I think you have nothing better to do than be an [wagon]. Why don't you go onto the Food thread and criticize what I had to eat today.

How was I being an [wagon]? I just said your post had flaws and I would let other people explain them, because I knew others would do done a better job then me.

Yeah and you know what? Whatever some has to say about my "flaws" is going to be wrong to me. You know why? Because this thread is based merely on opinion. And if you don't know much about this subject how would you know if what I had to say was wrong?

[Zamorakshadow]

Oh, its not even close to the only thing. But other people (like warrior) know way more then me about this stuff, and they could do a better job.

I think you have nothing better to do than be an [wagon]. Why don't you go onto the Food thread and criticize what I had to eat today.

How was I being an [wagon]? I just said your post had flaws and I would let other people explain them, because I knew others would do done a better job then me.

Yeah and you know what? Whatever some has to say about my "flaws" is going to be wrong to me. You know why? Because this thread is based merely on opinion. And if you don't know much about this subject how would you know if what I had to say was wrong?

 

Stop that before this place becomes a flamewar -.-

 

And this thread is not based merely on opinion, as scientific facts are based on evidence, and they are being discussed and put to test in this thread. This is kind of off-topic since the thread wasn't about arguing Science Vs. Religion in the first place, but any argument in the internet with "Big Bang" and/or "Creationism" in the name is bound to become like that...

It is almost a rule of the internet.

[Jes]

I'm a Christian, and I will admit that both ideas are strange, but I would think that Genesis is more valid because I believe that everything was created by a higher power. I would prefer to believe I was put on this Earth for a reason rather than by accident. There are too many questions and not enough answers for the big bang theory. I don't think that there would be any other logical explanation for different DNA, atoms, and molecules. I'm not into nature or science or any of that, but I have to admit things like tornadoes, volcanoes, lightening, earthquakes, and tsunamis are to amazing to have been created by mistake. The water cycle is too complex. It has so many different steps and processes throughout it that repeat. The planet Earth is just close enough to the sun to give us a fair amount of heat and light without burning us to death. Is that just a coincidence? And what would explain the "Supernatural" and ghosts? Are they just chemicals or figments of our imagination? Also, humans and animals all have natural instincts already programmed in our minds. Where would they have come from? A baby cries when it's hungry or thirsty because it can't speak. When a bird finds a mate they stay together until one dies, and then the other dies of loneliness. A humans body works together to keep us alive. We also have nerve to warn ourselves. We breathe naturally even during our sleep. We dream. Everything seems to fit perfectly together and I don't think that it just happens to be a coincidence...

 

• We weren't "put here" and our being here is not "accident."
  
• What are some of the questions you have about the big bang theory?
  
• "Tornadoes [sic], volcanoes[sic], lightening[sic], earthquakes, and tsunamis" aren't created, and they aren't a "mistake."
  
• In what way is the water cycle too complex?
  
• The sun's distance from the earth and the level of heat/light/etc that it provides is one of the causes of our evolution. The sun is not at the "perfect distance" because we are here, we are here because our planet lies within the hospitable zone of our solar system.
  
• The supernatural does not exist. Ghosts are in fact figments of people's imaginations.
  
• There are perfectly logical evolutionary explanations for our behavior.
  
• Our bodies' processes aren't a "coincidence." They are the result of billions of years of cosmic, chemical, and biological evolution.
  

 

Your entire post is basically one big argument from incredulity.

I know I have no proof, but neither do you. I don't think about or care about what happened billions of years ago because I'm in 2009 not the year one billion. I don't believe that I my ancestors were monkeys. Looks at them now. Do they appear to be getting anymore intelligent...no. They live then they die. Why aren't we still evolving? And there can be about 11 different processes to the water cycle. It basically recycles itself. You're only saying that its' not complex because you couldn't think of anything better to say. Honestly I was stating my opinion, not looking for someone to be a [wagon]. Don't worry, I have plenty in my life.

Essentially, your post was:

 

Maybe you're right, but I don't give a [cabbage] because, uh.... you're an [wagon].

Yeah I was being a [bleep], but are you completely ignoring everything else I said.

[Wongtong]

I know I have no proof, but neither do you. I don't think about or care about what happened billions of years ago because I'm in 2009 not the year one billion. I don't believe that I my ancestors were monkeys. Looks at them now. Do they appear to be getting anymore intelligent...no. They live then they die. Why aren't we still evolving? And there can be about 11 different processes to the water cycle. It basically recycles itself. You're only saying that its' not complex because you couldn't think of anything better to say. Honestly I was stating my opinion, not looking for someone to be a [wagon]. Don't worry, I have plenty in my life.

First of all, calm down. We're not all being [wagon], we're just simply stating our own opinions on this matter.

 

We are still evolving through subtle mutations or changes throughout generations.

Are you sure you understand what evolution is about? I don't know everything about evolution but I do know the jist of it; the monkeys we know today share a common ancestor which we evolved from, which is why the monkeys of today can't evolve into humans now. Okay that sounds kind of confusing, I'm sure someone knows what I'm talking about.

 

What does the water cycle being complex have to do anything? It's just a cycle that occurs, it's not complex at all...

[Jes]

I know I have no proof, but neither do you. I don't think about or care about what happened billions of years ago because I'm in 2009 not the year one billion. I don't believe that I my ancestors were monkeys. Looks at them now. Do they appear to be getting anymore intelligent...no. They live then they die. Why aren't we still evolving? And there can be about 11 different processes to the water cycle. It basically recycles itself. You're only saying that its' not complex because you couldn't think of anything better to say. Honestly I was stating my opinion, not looking for someone to be a [wagon]. Don't worry, I have plenty in my life.

First of all, calm down. We're not all being [wagon], we're just simply stating our own opinions on this matter.

 

We are still evolving through subtle mutations or changes throughout generations.

Are you sure you understand what evolution is about? I don't know everything about evolution but I do know the jist of it; the monkeys we know today share a common ancestor which we evolved from, which is why the monkeys of today can't evolve into humans now. Okay that sounds kind of confusing, I'm sure someone knows what I'm talking about.

 

What does the water cycle being complex have to do anything? It's just a cycle that occurs, it's not complex at all...

If you would read my original post you would know that I happen to think that it is too complex to just occur "just because". If it's not complex to you guys, I would love to see you live without it.

[ElkNight]

Things don't occur just because. There is a reason things happen. Just because you can't see a reason don't assume a god did it.

[Wongtong]

I know I have no proof, but neither do you. I don't think about or care about what happened billions of years ago because I'm in 2009 not the year one billion. I don't believe that I my ancestors were monkeys. Looks at them now. Do they appear to be getting anymore intelligent...no. They live then they die. Why aren't we still evolving? And there can be about 11 different processes to the water cycle. It basically recycles itself. You're only saying that its' not complex because you couldn't think of anything better to say. Honestly I was stating my opinion, not looking for someone to be a [wagon]. Don't worry, I have plenty in my life.

First of all, calm down. We're not all being [wagon], we're just simply stating our own opinions on this matter.

 

We are still evolving through subtle mutations or changes throughout generations.

Are you sure you understand what evolution is about? I don't know everything about evolution but I do know the jist of it; the monkeys we know today share a common ancestor which we evolved from, which is why the monkeys of today can't evolve into humans now. Okay that sounds kind of confusing, I'm sure someone knows what I'm talking about.

 

What does the water cycle being complex have to do anything? It's just a cycle that occurs, it's not complex at all...

If you would read my original post you would know that I happen to think that it is too complex to just occur "just because". If it's not complex to you guys, I would love to see you live without it.

Just because something is or isn't complex doesn't mean I can live without it... What kind of logic is that?

"OH HEY, THIS CYCLE IS SO COMPLEX, IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, YOU DON'T GET ANY WATER."

 

The water cycle doesn't occur "just because". Water is evaporated because of the sun, then it forms clouds, and then the clouds get filled with lovely water, and then it rainnsss, and then little itty puddles go on the ground, and then the sun evaporates the water again... It's all a chain of events. Maybe I'm not getting what you're saying, did my explanation of water cycle appear too complex for you?

 

You ignored my comment about evolution, have you studied/learnt about evolution?

[Jes]

Things don't occur just because. There is a reason things happen. Just because you can't see a reason don't assume a god did it.

I know if you read that right you would see that I knew. I know there is a reason to it. And what the hell would the point in believing in a god. That's what believing in a god is. It's having blind faith and knowing that there is a reason for most things, even if we can't see it. Trust me, I went a lot of my life being atheist and agnostic so don't try to make me out to be some kind of crazy Jesus freak that only believes because someone told me to. I do everything on my own freewill. I didn't state my opinion to start an argument. I just believe that the world and how everything in it pieces itself together is too complex in general to have just occurred on it's own. I've never once believed in the big bang theory, even when I didn't believe in God, and I never will.

[ElkNight]

Just curious, but what did you believe in when you were Atheist? (instead of big bang)

[Jes]

Just curious, but what did you believe in when you were Atheist? (instead of big bang)

Why don't you take a guess? Trust me, it'll be easy.