GOOD HEAVENS. (And I mean that. The heavens were created by God and display His glory. Real scientific theories like evolution and the Big Bang are things of beauty when they are fully understood and appreciated. There are no ugly scientific theories, only people who don't understand them and go on to make ugly parodies of them. Keats was right: all truth is beauty.)
Atheists and TEs: Universe came into being with a big bang. before the big bang, everything is packed into nothing. then nothing exploded because of a dust went into it(oh yeah? where the dust comes from?)
Show me even one credible site that describes the Big Bang in terms even remotely resembling or evoking such a horrendous misrepresentation of the Big Bang Theory.
As always, for a glimpse of the real deal go to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
you better explain why some galaxies rotates clockwise some CCW. nothing can't change itself.
The Law of Angular Momentum Conservation states that the angular momentum of a system is conserved
unless an external torque acts on the system. To credibly apply this law to disprove the Big Bang theory, you will have to:
1. Measure / calculate the initial angular momentum of the initial singularity.
2. Measure / calculate the combined angular momentum of all the existent galaxies in the universe today.
3. Demonstrate that there is a change in the amount of angular momentum between value 1 and value 2, and that there is no possible source of external torque that can account for the difference (I don't know, GR / quantum physics might throw spanners in at the scale of the very large and very small)
Or to your specific formulation, you have to demonstrate that there is no possible combination of galaxies, some rotating clockwise and some counterclockwise, that can correctly conserve the angular momentum of the initial singularity.
I await mathematical formulations.
To Sharingan:
The chief difference between atheists and Christians in these areas is not necessarily in scientific details. It is only
some Christians that disagree with the general scientific community on issues like the origin of life, not all.
What atheists and Christians must definitely disagree on is the
significance of these areas. What does it mean? Where will it go?
For an atheist:
1. Origin of life: some atheists believe that it was simply a random occurence, others that such organized systems will inevitably emerge in complex chemical environments. Whichever it is, the atheist believes that there was no significance. The universe would not have been any different with or without life and there was no point to it happening.
2. There is no part of the personality that remains and is observable after death. Therefore the human does not have an after-death life of any kind.
3 & 4. The typical atheist response is utilitarian, namely that anything which works is good. We should preserve the environment because if we destroy planet Earth
we ourselves will have no planet left to live in. We should have strong and healthy communities because we have evolved for such communities and therefore we are worse off without them. Notice that the emphasis is on what we can do for ourselves, what the action brings about for our own benefit. There is no "external mandate". For example, if we had another planet on which we could live, and if we could easily live there, then there would be no problem with destroying the environment on this planet.
For a Christian:
1. Whether life originated naturally (i.e., God didn't need to suspend any physical laws for life to arise) or supernaturally, it was an act of God. In the same way that history is willed by God even though it has explainable causes, the origin of life was willed by God even if it has physically explainable causes as TEs believe. Life has a significance.
2. There is a wide diversity of beliefs. Some believe that there is a definite heaven and hell, others that there is only heaven and all humans will eventually be in it, others that there is only heaven and that humans consigned to hell will be permanently destroyed after a finite period of time (instead of "burning ever after") But the chief difference between all three and atheism is that Christians must recognize that after death the human persists, because God has given humans immortality (all or only some depends on personal view), and is judged for his/her actions on earth, even though none of this is scientifically verifiable here on earth.
3 & 4. We are directly commanded by God to be good stewards of His creation and to love our neighbours as ourselves. This stems directly out of the fact that God created our environment and God created our neighbours, and that God's intended will was for all these components to coexist in harmony. Thus Christianity is not so much concerned about "what good will preserving the environment do for me" so much as if God wants it done then we do it (a "deontological" basis).
Hope I've answered your questions
