Could someone explain me evolution & Big Bang?

[Oncedeceived]

I think the bible claims a lot of things that are not true.

You must realise that if you can make an argument for Christianity you can make an argument for every religion,
that's the price a faith must pay, if one is right they all are, if there was evidence for any one religion then there would be only one religion, faith is only needed in all religions because there is no evidence.

This is completely false in every instance. First, all religions are different and do not profess the same beliefs, thus if different thy can not all be right.

There is evidence for Christianity and in fact, it reflects what we see in the universe and is consistent within its own worldview.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Dark matter completely concurs with God "philosophy". The Bible claims that Jesus holds the universe together. That there is a force that indeed holds the universe together supports that claim.

Using the Bible to make predictions isn't as impressive when you do it after science has already made the observations. Given how 'after the fact' it is, do you really consider the discovery of dark matter to be evidence supportive of the Bible?

More generally, of course, the Bible has been twisted and wrangled to support every idea and philosophy under the Sun. Flat Earth, round Earth, geocentrism, heliocentrism, stationary, rotating... black people are inferior, all races are equal, men are better than women, all sexes are equal, gays should be murdered on sight, celibate gays are OK, all sexualities are equal...

Now, if you could predict observations before they're made, that might be impressive.

 

[Golan]

This is completely false in every instance. First, all religions are different and do not profess the same beliefs, thus if different thy can not all be right.

There is evidence for Christianity and in fact, it reflects what we see in the universe and is consistent within its own worldview.

Is Christianity a faith?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This is completely false in every instance. First, all religions are different and do not profess the same beliefs, thus if different thy can not all be right.

There is evidence for Christianity and in fact, it reflects what we see in the universe and is consistent within its own worldview.

"There is evidence for [religion] and in fact, it reflects what we see in the universe and is consistent within its own worldview" - Anon.

What religion doesn't have adherents who say this? Muslims say that embryology confirms the Quran, Hindus say the Big Bang confirms the Vedas, Christians say evolution confirms the Bible, etc.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Using the Bible to make predictions isn't as impressive when you do it after science has already made the observations. Given how 'after the fact' it is, do you really consider the discovery of dark matter to be evidence supportive of the Bible?

It would be after the fact if the Bible was written after the discovery. It is humorous to claim that it is an after the fact situation when the Bible was written thousands of years ago and yet we are just finding out that it predicted it thousands of years before the discovery.

More generally, of course, the Bible has been twisted and wrangled to support every idea and philosophy under the Sun. Flat Earth, round Earth, geocentrism, heliocentrism, stationary, rotating... black people are inferior, all races are equal, men are better than women, all sexes are equal, gays should be murdered on sight, celibate gays are OK, all sexualities are equal...

It can be true of any type of material that spans thousands of years that interpretations can be different by different readers. However, the actual words are there for antiquity. For instance, the Bible and a flat earth. It seems that only those who wish to interpret as such do so.

During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. From at least the 14th century, belief in a flat Earth among the educated was almost nonexistent, despite fanciful depictions in art, such as the exterior of Hieronymus Bosch's famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights, in which a disc-shaped Earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere.[3] According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[4] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[5]
Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat-earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution.[6] Russell claims "with extraordinary [sic] few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat", and credits histories by John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White, and Washington Irving for popularizing the flat-earth myth.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth#cite_note-Russell97-7


It is apparent even now people will claim that the Bible claims a flat earth while historically it has shown that not to be what the church claimed.

Geocentrism and heliocentrism can both still be argued scientifically.

I don't get the black people being more inferior. I don't know of any scripture that could be interpreted as such.

Gender issues must be taken within context.

Homosexuality is not considered ok in the Bible and I don't know where you or others have determined it meant anything but that. However, there will always be interpretations that vary. That being said, there are things that are not interpretive. Such as this:

I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
Isaiah 45:12

We know the universe is expanding now. By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. [Hebrews 11:3] [Emphasis Added] - See more at: Scientific Facts in The Bible


By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. [Hebrews 11:3] [Emphasis Added] - See more at: Scientific Facts in The Bible
The verses that claim that those things that are visible are made of the non visible.

Scripture speaks of singing stars and now we know that they do "sing".

Now, if you could predict observations before they're made, that might be impressive.[/quote]

The observation was made before the discovery. That is why it is impressive. The information was not available to those who wrote the Bible and thousands of years later we find that they predicted what we have found.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Is Christianity a faith?

I don't understand your question?

 

[Golan]

Is Christianity a faith?

I don't understand your question?

Then I don't care because you are obviously out of it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then I don't care because you are obviously out of it.

 

[Golan]

Then I don't care because you are obviously out of it.

I agree, what time do they give you your meds? it's fun here.....soon?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It would be after the fact if the Bible was written after the discovery. It is humorous to claim that it is an after the fact situation when the Bible was written thousands of years ago and yet we are just finding out that it predicted it thousands of years before the discovery.

That's not what I said. I said the prediction is after the fact, because people say "The Bible details dark matter, how prophetic!" only after dark matter has been discovered by science. Never once did people in the 1800s or early 1900s say "Gee, isn't it funny how the Bible talks about mysterious matter in deep space that has mass but doesn't interact with light!", only for such matter to then be discovered.

Looking at the Bible after dark matter has been discovered and saying, "Oh, it was there all along" is not impressive, it's just reinterpreting nebulous passages after the facts have been discovered.

It can be true of any type of material that spans thousands of years that interpretations can be different by different readers. However, the actual words are there for antiquity. For instance, the Bible and a flat earth. It seems that only those who wish to interpret as such do so.

During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. From at least the 14th century, belief in a flat Earth among the educated was almost nonexistent, despite fanciful depictions in art, such as the exterior of Hieronymus Bosch's famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights, in which a disc-shaped Earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere.[3]According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[4] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[5]
Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat-earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution.[6] Russell claims "with extraordinary [sic] few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat", and credits histories by John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White, and Washington Irving for popularizing the flat-earth myth.[7]

It is apparent even now people will claim that the Bible claims a flat earth while historically it has shown that not to be what the church claimed.

Yes, I'm well aware that this is a Victorian fantasy, and that the round Earth was known (and measured to surprising accuracy) in the Ancient Greek times, and I never claimed otherwise. My point is that there were those who interpret the Bible to support the idea of a Flat Earth (they still exist, y'know), even if they were a minority.

Geocentrism and heliocentrism can both still be argued scientifically.

...
...
No, they really can't. Heliocentrism won hundreds of years ago, and every advance in gravitation just confirms this more. Geocentrism has gone the way of the flat Earth and the luminiferous aether.

I don't get the black people being more inferior. I don't know of any scripture that could be interpreted as such.

Really? The scripture in question is Genesis 9:20-27, the Curse of Ham. The standard interpretation for centuries was that this curse was black skin, and it was the core defence of the slave trade. Though the passages were reinterpreted when slavery ended, some white supremacists still interpret those passages in the racist way.

Gender issues must be taken within context.

Homosexuality is not considered ok in the Bible and I don't know where you or others have determined it meant anything but that.

Without diving into widely forbidden territory, the core passages can be either discarded (Leviticus laws don't apply any more) or retranslated ('arsenokoitai' etc are novel words with unknown meaning; 'homosexual' is only one possible translation). You can choose "Leviticus dietary laws don't count... but the anti-gay one does", or "Leviticus doesn't count, period", etc. Interpretation for all views, come one, come all!

However, there will always be interpretations that vary. That being said, there are things that are not interpretive. Such as this:

I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
Isaiah 45:12

We know the universe is expanding now. By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. [Hebrews 11:3] [Emphasis Added] - See more at: Scientific Facts in The Bible

That site hurts my brain.

Scripture speaks of singing stars and now we know that they do "sing".

No, they don't.

The observation was made before the discovery. That is why it is impressive. The information was not available to those who wrote the Bible and thousands of years later we find that they predicted what we have found.

No, they did not. Various passages were reinterpreted to insert things like dark matter. At no point did anyone before the discovery say "From the Bible, I predict space is filled with mass that doesn't interfere with light, that would account for discrepancies in galactic rotation velocities". Only after the discovery was the Bible suddenly replete with references to dark matter. You're retroactively reinterpreting passages to make it look like the Bible was prophetic all along (and maybe it was, but unless you can predict observations before they're made, it doesn't count. And no, the Bible's antiquity doesn't matter).

Retroactive reinterpretation is not prediction.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

dp

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's not what I said. I said the prediction is after the fact, because people say "The Bible details dark matter, how prophetic!" only after dark matter has been discovered by science. Never once did people in the 1800s or early 1900s say "Gee, isn't it funny how the Bible talks about mysterious matter in deep space that has mass but doesn't interact with light!", only for such matter to then be discovered.

To begin with the Bible is meant for many many generations of readers. The fact that these clearly predict what should be found in the universe is exactly what so many people claim never occurs and then when shown that it is a prediction the Bible makes you and other then turn and claim that it is "after" the fact. The Bible was written thousands of years prior to the discovery. If the Bible was used as a hypothesis and then science researched the passage, the discovery could have come from Bible. The same happened when Matthew Fontaine Maury found the path in the seas as was predicted in Psalms 8. He knew if it was in the Bible he should be able to fine them and he did. This was prediction of the Bible that was researched and discovered.

Looking at the Bible after dark matter has been discovered and saying, "Oh, it was there all along" is not impressive, it's just reinterpreting nebulous passages after the facts have been discovered.

Why? The fact that thousands of years ago they predicted that the universe would have evidence of being held together by Jesus and we find that there is a force that holds the universe together that is even undetectable makes that prediction pretty impressive. Why would uneducated men thousands of years ago think that something was holding the universe together or there would even be a need for it?

Yes, I'm well aware that this is a Victorian fantasy, and that the round Earth was known (and measured to surprising accuracy) in the Ancient Greek times, and I never claimed otherwise. My point is that there were those who interpret the Bible to support the idea of a Flat Earth (they still exist, y'know), even if they were a minority.

OK.


...
...

No, they really can't. Heliocentrism won hundreds of years ago, and every advance in gravitation just confirms this more. Geocentrism has gone the way of the flat Earth and the luminiferous aether.

I am not sure you are aware of the fact that scientists use both models in scientific research.

The irony is that after all the disputes over these different theories, neither one is necessarily correct. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity upset both models. New evidence has also shown that the Solar System’s center of gravity is not the exact center of the Sun. This means that either model is acceptable regardless of the fundamental differences between the theories. Astronomers use both the heliocentric and geocentric models for research depending on which theory makes their calculations easier. It definitely seems as if some things are relative after all.

Read more: Difference Between Geocentric and Heliocentric
​

Really? The scripture in question is Genesis 9:20-27, the Curse of Ham. The standard interpretation for centuries was that this curse was black skin, and it was the core defence of the slave trade. Though the passages were reinterpreted when slavery ended, some white supremacists still interpret those passages in the racist way.

No, I had not ever heard of this. :o

Without diving into widely forbidden territory, the core passages can be either discarded (Leviticus laws don't apply any more) or retranslated ('arsenokoitai' etc are novel words with unknown meaning; 'homosexual' is only one possible translation). You can choose "Leviticus dietary laws don't count... but the anti-gay one does", or "Leviticus doesn't count, period", etc. Interpretation for all views, come one, come all!

Yes, we can forego this.

That site hurts my brain.

No, they don't.

Oh, yes they do.

(Newser) – NASA has discovered a group of massive red stars that are actually humming to themselves. The planet-hunting Kepler space telescope recently spotted sound waves emanating from the stars, the Wall Street Journal reports. NASA recorded the tune, and played it recently at a press conference in Denmark. “It is a giant red concert,” says the astronomer who made the recording. “They have many different frequencies and overtones.”

NASA Finds Singing Stars - Telescope spots sound waves traveling through space

No, they did not. Various passages were reinterpreted to insert things like dark matter. At no point did anyone before the discovery say "From the Bible, I predict space is filled with mass that doesn't interfere with light, that would account for discrepancies in galactic rotation velocities". Only after the discovery was the Bible suddenly replete with references to dark matter. You're retroactively reinterpreting passages to make it look like the Bible was prophetic all along (and maybe it was, but unless you can predict observations before they're made, it doesn't count. And no, the Bible's antiquity doesn't matter).

Retroactive reinterpretation is not prediction.

I totally disagree.

 

[bhsmte]

To begin with the Bible is meant for many many generations of readers. The fact that these clearly predict what should be found in the universe is exactly what so many people claim never occurs and then when shown that it is a prediction the Bible makes you and other then turn and claim that it is "after" the fact. The Bible was written thousands of years prior to the discovery. If the Bible was used as a hypothesis and then science researched the passage, the discovery could have come from Bible. The same happened when Matthew Fontaine Maury found the path in the seas as was predicted in Psalms 8. He knew if it was in the Bible he should be able to fine them and he did. This was prediction of the Bible that was researched and discovered.



Why? The fact that thousands of years ago they predicted that the universe would have evidence of being held together by Jesus and we find that there is a force that holds the universe together that is even undetectable makes that prediction pretty impressive. Why would uneducated men thousands of years ago think that something was holding the universe together or there would even be a need for it?



OK.


...
...


I am not sure you are aware of the fact that scientists use both models in scientific research.

The irony is that after all the disputes over these different theories, neither one is necessarily correct. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity upset both models. New evidence has also shown that the Solar System’s center of gravity is not the exact center of the Sun. This means that either model is acceptable regardless of the fundamental differences between the theories. Astronomers use both the heliocentric and geocentric models for research depending on which theory makes their calculations easier. It definitely seems as if some things are relative after all.

Read more: Difference Between Geocentric and Heliocentric
​

No, I had not ever heard of this. :o





Yes, we can forego this.






Oh, yes they do.

(Newser) – NASA has discovered a group of massive red stars that are actually humming to themselves. The planet-hunting Kepler space telescope recently spotted sound waves emanating from the stars, the Wall Street Journal reports. NASA recorded the tune, and played it recently at a press conference in Denmark. “It is a giant red concert,” says the astronomer who made the recording. “They have many different frequencies and overtones.”

NASA Finds Singing Stars - Telescope spots sound waves traveling through space




I totally disagree.

The bible is the most quoted book in the history of mankind and many take every word as true, yet any objective analysis of how credible the book is, is completely off limits.

I compare to this to how many christians decide to try and discredit scientific evidence and discoveries. They work so hard to find any flaw they can hang their hat on, yet, when it comes to examining a book written thousands of years ago by unknown authors, decades after events supposedly took place, contains many errors, contradictions and later additions, their appetite to find any flaws changes dramatically.

This is the ultimate double standard, is is purely driven from the cognitive dissonance many believers experience.

 

[EternalDragon]

Really? The scripture in question is Genesis 9:20-27, the Curse of Ham. The standard interpretation for centuries was that this curse was black skin, and it was the core defence of the slave trade. Though the passages were reinterpreted when slavery ended, some white supremacists still interpret those passages in the racist way.

Really, that is not an interpretation. Since it does not say what the mark is, there can be no interpretation one way or the other. Just like the fruit of the tree of life. No one really knows exactly what kind fruit it was.

Mainly it was a Baptist and Mormon assumption. The majority of Christian Churches in the world, the ancient churches, including the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox churches, Anglican churches, and Oriental Orthodox churches, did not recognize these interpretations and did not participate in the religious movement to support them.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

After seeing flaws in Christianity itself I'm slowly leaving it, but I'm not really going into atheism...Darwin was an Agnostic, same for Einstein. That's why I changed my icon to "Seeker". I don't know what to believe anymore. I don't know much about evolution and the explosion, so if someone could explain it to me in a simple way.

And if someone could explain these:

1. How can nothing create the universe.
2. Since the magnetosphere of the Earth is very young, how could there even be advanced life, because the magnetosphere protects us from solar radiation?
3. The missing links?

And the evidence for your claims. Thank you.

1. There is no evidence of a Big Bang event 13 Billion years ago except in the minds of theorists. This idea was expounded upon false assumptions of redshift, believing as they do it pointed to velocity. Then as science advanced and redshift would of made these galaxies be traveling at fractions of c, they decided that theory was no longer tenable, so it became space stretching to explain these observations.

But of course they always fail to tell you that Plasma redshift has been observed in the laboratory and that 99% of the universe is Plasma. Even Hubble himself believed that as then undiscovered phenomenon was the cause of redshift and was the most likely explanation. Since then we have discovered redshift as a natural event of the electron density of plasma.

Edwin Hubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."

To which that hitherto unrecognized principle of nature has been recognized as being a plasma phenomenon.

As for the age, that too has been called into doubt.

Space News | Electric Galaxies Defy Big Bang - YouTube

Big Shock to Big Bang | Space News - YouTube

And the issue is far from settled, despite mainstream claims.

Universe The Cosmology Quest Part 1 of 2.wmv - YouTube

Universe.The.Cosmology.Quest.Part2of2.wmv - YouTube

2. The age of the magnetosphere is as unknowable as the age of the Earth, but it is indeed electrical in nature, as magnetic fields can not exist without electric currents.

The Lorentz Force

Origin of Permanent Magnetism

Magnetosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A magnetosphere is the area of space near an astronomical object in which charged particles are controlled by that object's magnetic field.[1][2] Near the surface of the object, the magnetic field lines resemble those of a magnetic dipole. Farther away from the surface, the field lines are significantly distorted by electric currents flowing in the plasma (e.g. in ionosphere or solar wind)."

3. Still missing.

You will now hear how these scientific claims are wrong without a single fact presented, it is up to you to decide if theoretical "claims" outweigh facts.

 

[stevevw]

Dark energy is here to stay. Thanks to the link that concurs with mainstream cosmology. You posted links that accept mainstream cosmology and none agree with your God did it philosophy. What's your point?

What i posted doesn't support any side at the moment. Gravity is gravity and it doesn't prove or disprove God. Dark matter and energy are fairly unknown parts of the cosmos. It is still early days and some things they may never understand. The sites i linked were just talking out how they dont understand how it all works. They have put forward some hypothesis but thats it at the moment.

What I'm saying is that there are some unusual things happening out there that seem to break the normal behaviors of what we know about gravity. Some mysterious force is at play that makes up much of the universe. It maybe mysterious to scientists because it is unknown and they may find out something that fits in and all makes sense. But it also maybe mysterious because it is. If God has something to do with it and as we get closer to seeing into the very core of how things are made just as we are with the higgs boson then maybe we will see something that doesn't make sense and cannot be explained and only comes from God. Maybe that something will go beyond how we understand things according to how we see laws and physics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What i posted doesn't support any side at the moment. Gravity is gravity and it doesn't prove or disprove God. Dark matter and energy are fairly unknown parts of the cosmos. It is still early days and some things they may never understand. The sites i linked were just talking out how they dont understand how it all works. They have put forward some hypothesis but thats it at the moment.

What I'm saying is that there are some unusual things happening out there that seem to break the normal behaviors of what we know about gravity. Some mysterious force is at play that makes up much of the universe. It maybe mysterious to scientists because it is unknown and they may find out something that fits in and all makes sense. But it also maybe mysterious because it is. If God has something to do with it and as we get closer to seeing into the very core of how things are made just as we are with the higgs boson then maybe we will see something that doesn't make sense and cannot be explained and only comes from God. Maybe that something will go beyond how we understand things according to how we see laws and physics.

Like gravity, Dark Energy does not support or disprove God either. But then neither does the theory of evolution. It may disprove certain people's personal view of God, but we have known for ages that Noah's Ark was a myth and that caused very few people to become atheists if any. Evolution may have hurt quite a bit, since people can now see how life did not need God to get here. Still it does not disprove God, just the God of Genesis.

Dark Energy seems to be fairly well supported by evidence. What is my evidence that it is correct? Well one very strong point in its favor is that juvenissum is against it

ETA: And putting God into science because you can match some vague verses to him is a mug's game. You might as well become a Muslim since they are past masters at that nonsense.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What i posted doesn't support any side at the moment. Gravity is gravity and it doesn't prove or disprove God. Dark matter and energy are fairly unknown parts of the cosmos. It is still early days and some things they may never understand. The sites i linked were just talking out how they dont understand how it all works. They have put forward some hypothesis but thats it at the moment.

What I'm saying is that there are some unusual things happening out there that seem to break the normal behaviors of what we know about gravity. Some mysterious force is at play that makes up much of the universe. It maybe mysterious to scientists because it is unknown and they may find out something that fits in and all makes sense. But it also maybe mysterious because it is. If God has something to do with it and as we get closer to seeing into the very core of how things are made just as we are with the higgs boson then maybe we will see something that doesn't make sense and cannot be explained and only comes from God. Maybe that something will go beyond how we understand things according to how we see laws and physics.

The Higgs Boson was supposed to be that missing piece that would explain it all. Now they know that it doesn't.

One possibility has been brought up that even physicists don’t like to think about. Maybe the universe is even stranger than they think. Like, so strange that even post-Standard Model models can’t account for it. Some physicists are starting to question whether or not our universe is natural. This cuts to the heart of why our reality has the features that it does: that is, full of quarks and electricity and a particular speed of light.
This problem, the naturalness or unnaturalness of our universe, can be likened to a weird thought experiment. Suppose you walk into a room and find a pencil balanced perfectly vertical on its sharp tip. That would be a fairly unnatural state for the pencil to be in because any small deviation would have caused it to fall down. This is how physicists have found the universe: a bunch of rather well-tuned fundamental constants have been discovered that produce the reality that we see.
A natural explanation would show why the pencil is standing on its end. Perhaps there is a very thin string holding the pencil to the ceiling that you never noticed until you got up close. Supersymmetry is a natural explanation in this regard – it explains the structure of universe through as-yet-unseen particles.
But suppose that infinite rooms exist with infinite numbers of pencils. While most of the rooms would have pencils that have fallen over, it is almost certain that in at least one room, the pencil would be perfectly balanced. This is the idea behind the multiverse. Our universe is but one of many and it happens to be the one where the laws of physics happen to be in the right state to make stars burn hydrogen, planets form round spheres, and creatures like us evolve on their surface.
The multiverse idea has two strikes against it, though. First, physicists would refer to it as an unnatural explanation because it simply happened by chance. And second, no real evidence for it exists and we have no experiment that could currently test for it.
As of yet, physicists are still in the dark. We can see vague outlines ahead of us but no one knows what form they will take when we reach them. Finding the Higgs has provided the tiniest bit of light. But until more data appears, it won’t be enough.


Higgs Boson Gets Nobel Prize, But Physicists Still Don't Know What It Means - Wired Science


So unlike the god of the gaps like so many people think I use when discussing this type of thing, it is we know and yet we can't explain. That is what is happening. We are discovering that it isn't gaps in our knowledge so much as what we know is not what we thought would be found.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The bible is the most quoted book in the history of mankind and many take every word as true, yet any objective analysis of how credible the book is, is completely off limits.

I compare to this to how many christians decide to try and discredit scientific evidence and discoveries. They work so hard to find any flaw they can hang their hat on, yet, when it comes to examining a book written thousands of years ago by unknown authors, decades after events supposedly took place, contains many errors, contradictions and later additions, their appetite to find any flaws changes dramatically.

This is the ultimate double standard, is is purely driven from the cognitive dissonance many believers experience.

The thing about errors, contradictions and supposed additions they seem to only be such to those who don't believe the answers to those "problems". Prophecy is one such thing. There are past, present and future prophecies that unless one has studied deeply they are not going to understand the differences.

I would like to say too that I find it strange that people who write about people or events some 50 to 100 years in the past do so without anyone questioning the accuracy of the event/person. However, you see someone writing in that time span in the Bible and it is called into question. It is not unusual for that time period for everything that was said was remembered in remarkable accuracy. It is also true for that time period and much much earlier for important information to be written down at the time and passed on. So even if the authors wrote it anywhere from 38- even 65 years later would not be a concern to the accuracy of the material. We are talking about an era where the spoken words and written manuscripts were imperative to communication.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Like gravity, Dark Energy does not support or disprove God either. But then neither does the theory of evolution. It may disprove certain people's personal view of God, but we have known for ages that Noah's Ark was a myth and that caused very few people to become atheists if any. Evolution may have hurt quite a bit, since people can now see how life did not need God to get here. Still it does not disprove God, just the God of Genesis.

Evolution does not disprove God..God of Genesis.

Dark Energy seems to be fairly well supported by evidence. What is my evidence that it is correct? Well one very strong point in its favor is that juvenissum is against it

Supported by what evidence and evidence of what?

ETA: And putting God into science because you can match some vague verses to him is a mug's game. You might as well become a Muslim since they are past masters at that nonsense.

Your lack of consideration to the entire Christian worldview is what causes you to doubt the ability to have even those who are not Christian to have some truth in their worldviews as well. This is due to the reality of another supernatural being, Satan. Satan uses bits of truth to persuade those in other worldviews.