time to renounce religion..

[sooey]

If god did it science would ask, who created god.
You can either choose to live in complete ignorance of how we came to be here and just put all responsibility on some higher "being", without a shred of evidence.
Or you can strive to find out using whatever scientific methods are available, the results of which are subject to intense scrutiny by other scientists.
I know which method I prefer, even if there may never come a day when scientists can explain "everything".

 

[skitzee2k]

The big bang does not advocate something from nothing.

It deals with how a singularity expanded very quickly.

 

[oompah]

The big bang does not advocate something from nothing.

It deals with how a singularity expanded very quickly.

Where did the supposed singularity come from,remember this is only a theory.

 

[sooey]

A singularity is just a name that scientists give to a region of space where they don't know what happens.
So you can't really say what the big bang does or doesn't advocate.

 

[uzziel49]

You can either choose to live in complete ignorance of how we came to be here and just put all responsibility on some higher "being", without a shred of evidence.

Religion/faith/call it what you will is not a choice to live in ignorance of how we came to be here - quite the opposite in fact. It offers an alternative explanantion to the random principle which surely has to be accepted otherwise.

There's no reason why a person of faith cannot also devote their working lives to understanding the scientific principles at work in the creation and perpetuation of life. Just because a supernatural diety chose to create, doesn't mean he/she/it did that outside of the realms of science, or the laws of nature, or however else you choose to define them - they may have done, but not necessarily. In fact, some might say that by understanding how things are created might bring them also to a closer understanding of the creator...?

 

[skitzee2k]

A singularity is just a name that scientists give to a region of space where they don't know what happens.
So you can't really say what the big bang does or doesn't advocate.

I can, and have. The big bang is about the expansion/collapse of a singularity. It doesn't mention where the singularity came from so therefore it cannot possible advocate it. It also doesn't advocate the grassy knoll theory of how JFK was killed or any other theory that is not about how a singularity expanded...
...you people confuse me sometimes.

In answer to the previous poster, i don't know where it come from...maybe it was always here. expanding and contracting again and again..

 

[skitzee2k]

You can either choose to live in complete ignorance of how we came to be here and just put all responsibility on some higher "being", without a shred of evidence.

Religion/faith/call it what you will is not a choice to live in ignorance of how we came to be here - quite the opposite in fact. It offers an alternative explanantion to the random principle which surely has to be accepted otherwise.

There's no reason why a person of faith cannot also devote their working lives to understanding the scientific principles at work in the creation and perpetuation of life. Just because a supernatural diety chose to create, doesn't mean he/she/it did that outside of the realms of science, or the laws of nature, or however else you choose to define them - they may have done, but not necessarily. In fact, some might say that by understanding how things are created might bring them also to a closer understanding of the creator...?

...it all depends doesn't it, on the level of blind belief.

If they believe something that roughly corresponds with scientific view, i can see how they could be a scientist..if they believe in literal/personal creation...then they have no understanding of scientific method and should be dumped in the bin like a cat.

 

[oompah]

A singularity is just a name that scientists give to a region of space where they don't know what happens.
So you can't really say what the big bang does or doesn't advocate.

So quite possibly (going back to what I said previosly) something out of nothing.The creationist like to think its clearly written down in Genesis the scientist think, but as yet cannot prove the earth was evolved by another means and never the twain shall meet.

 

[skitzee2k]

A singularity is just a name that scientists give to a region of space where they don't know what happens.
So you can't really say what the big bang does or doesn't advocate.

So quite possibly (going back to what I said previosly) something out of nothing.The creationist like to think its clearly written down in Genesis the scientist think, but as yet cannot prove the earth was evolved by another means and never the twain shall meet.

...well I wouldn't say the earth evolved, but it was formed by natural methods..that is accepted scientific fact.

 

[uzziel49]

they believe in literal/personal creation...then they have no understanding of scientific method and should be dumped in the bin like a cat.

Maybe it's possible to believe in a "literal/personal creation" and still understand scientific method - and also understand the limitations of the extent of our scietific knowledge. We're a very arrogant race to assume that we can understand absolutely everything, aren't we? Perhaps we can, one day. But since we're all of creation is subject to the law of entropy it's likely that we'll have ceased to exist before all that can be known, is known....

Irrespective of life beginning with the involvement of a creator being or just some random chance combination of events illustrated by scientific theory, once we do understand scientifically how life truly began, Man being Man will try to replicate it to prove the theory. What's the odds on that working out well?

 

[sooey]

A singularity is just a name that scientists give to a region of space where they don't know what happens.
So you can't really say what the big bang does or doesn't advocate.

So quite possibly (going back to what I said previosly) something out of nothing.The creationist like to think its clearly written down in Genesis the scientist think, but as yet cannot prove the earth was evolved by another means and never the twain shall meet.

That's the way I'd look at it but skitzee wants to play semantics with it.
Science will never be able to disprove the existence of god, the people who make their living from "preaching" this imaginary benefactor's "teachings" will always be able to adapt their arguments to take into account all new discoveries.

 

[skitzee2k]

lol. No semantics.
I simply said earlier that the big bang is not saying that something was created out of nothing, it doesn't comment whatsoever on where the original matter comes from.
And someone, maybe you said that we can't be sure what the big bang theory says or advocates ...

 

[skitzee2k]

they believe in literal/personal creation...then they have no understanding of scientific method and should be dumped in the bin like a cat.

Maybe it's possible to believe in a "literal/personal creation" and still understand scientific method - and also understand the limitations of the extent of our scietific knowledge. We're a very arrogant race to assume that we can understand absolutely everything, aren't we? Perhaps we can, one day. But since we're all of creation is subject to the law of entropy it's likely that we'll have ceased to exist before all that can be known, is known....

Irrespective of life beginning with the involvement of a creator being or just some random chance combination of events illustrated by scientific theory, once we do understand scientifically how life truly began, Man being Man will try to replicate it to prove the theory. What's the odds on that working out well?

I think we can safely rule out that some time of genie magicked us into being...but that is just my opinion, and it would depart from almost every understood and proved scientific method..but it gets quite deep and complicated.

Our understaning on abiogenesis and the 'creation' /origin of the universe has come a long way... but we haven't had many suprises in the last 7-8 decades...mistakes happen a lot less these days.

 

[Big Tone]

The burden of proof is not on scientists to disprove every, and any, crackpot notion some nut comes up with. Whenever scientists prove beyond doubt that a particular religious aspect is wrong to the Bible Bashers they simply move the goal posts and put a different spin what was written in their ‘Book of life for dummies’.

One of our greatest scientists, Galileo, was placed under house arrest for heresy because he dared to say the Earth is not the centre of the universe. He knew this to be the case based on sound scientific principles and a telescope. It wasn’t until the 1980s that the church formally announced he was right.

"All truth goes through three steps: First it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."

Good luck Prof Hawking; you can expect a rough ride...

 

[sooey]

The only reason he was held under house arrest was cos he retracted his assertions. If he hadn't he was getting burnt at the stake.