Teaching the difference?

athorist · Aug 10, 2008

Sarapin said:
Often I hear them claiming to have "evidence" for those claims. Some even claim that "evidence" to have the same level of sophistication than real science.

There are many people who, like you, believe that evolution is science while creation is religion ... but is that true? This is at the heart, the underlying, or the core issue of the debate. The purpose of this post is to help shed some light on the issue...

It is valid to make a distinction between the two main types of science: origins science and operational science. As the name suggests, origins science deals with the question about the origins of something or some event in the past, which is by definition unique, unobservable, and unrepeatable. By contrast, operational science involves understanding how something operates in the present, which by definition is repeatable and observable. (Batten, D. 2002)

Oh come on. There is no debate at all about this within the scientific community. It precisely the aim of creationist propaganda to pretend being science, whilst it infact is not even closely. Can you cite any research favouring creationism that has been peer-reviewed? At which universities are those scientists that you have in mind teaching? What's their field of expertise? Maybe an article in nature/science/cell ? I'd be most happy to actually see some science done by creationists, instead of empty claims without any supporting evidence. If it weren't for creationist crackpots who seem to endlessly assert that bilogists got it all wrong, there would be no debate about the topic at all. Seriously not a topic in the scientific community at all. The real topic of discussion within the scientific community is on how to actually defend the scientific method from religious propaganda of the most hideous and dishonest kind. There may be discussions about creationism vs. evolutionism on the internet (because the faithheads simply cannot admit defeat here), but there really isn't any amongst the scientific community.

Sarapin said:
It should be obvious that microbe-to-man evolution is a unique process that happened in the past. It can't be directly tested or observed, and it most definitely cannot be repeated. The tests and experiments that are done here and now in the present that relate to the past tend to be quite limited and often require a lot of assumptions to be made to fill in the many unknowns (a prime example of this may be the assumptions behind the radiometric dating, such as the initial composition of parent/daughter elements, for example).

What's wrong with radiometric dating then? You think that the theory of radioactive decay is wrong? Where? Show an experiment where it fails, please. If you accept the theory of radioactive decay then you have no reason at all to reject radiometry. What assumptions are made? Can you name some, maybe? It's a very precise physical theory. We are using it to construct the most precsise clocks that mankind has ever seen. But off course the experts of the field got it all wrong, and some creationist crackpots have the ultimate truth here, right?

Sarapin said:
The further the event is in the past, the more assumptions are involved. The same is true of creation: it is a unique event that occured in the past that can't be directly tested or observed or repeated.

So, both evolution and creation fall into the origins science category. It should be obvious that both sides have the same data (i.e. observations in the present) yet somehow they come up with different interpretations or stories. The question has to be asked, why? Both creation and evolution are influenced by philosophical beliefs. Creation is obviously influenced by the Bible, but evolution is also largely influenced by materialism...

The theory of evolution (science) is influenced by experimental observation. It is one of the most rigorously verified theories of all human theories ever. Whereas there is not one single peace of convincing evidence favouring that creationist horseshit. I repeatedly asked to show me some research that has been done indicating otherwise. Where is it?

Sarapin said:
So some of the parts that you call 'real science' are actually outside the realms of science, that is to say that they are not directly observable, testable, or repeatable. The creation vs. evolution debate isn't religion vs. science, it isn't a debate over the data, it's a debate about the right interpretation of the data. To be blunt: at the core of the debate it is one over clashing philosophies.

Were are those other interpretations of the data? I ask again that you show me respective research papers.

Sarapin said:
Anyway, I got distracted and forgot to address the question. It doesn't really worry me whether or not they teach creation in secular schools, but just as long as they teach evolution in its proper context (that is, evolution is an unproven theory that largely deals with origins science) and that they make the nature of the debate clear to students ... then the students can make an informed decision about what they want to believe. That is showing and encouraging critical thinking, which is an important skill for later education at university.

Fair enough. Evolution is certainly not a disputed theory. It is a scientific theory, yes. The word theory is obviously not used in the same way by scientists as by creationists. It's the equivocation fallacy of the century.

Sarapin said:
References:
Batten, D. (2002). 'It's Not Science'. Creation Ministries International. Retrieved online 10 August 2008 from: creationontheweb.com/content/view/2480

That is not peer-reviewed science. The fact alone that it comes from "Creation Ministries International" clearly shows that it is about pushing a certain faith and not about scientific inquiry. I again ask you to show me peer-reviewed research.

salida · Aug 10, 2008

Oh, one last note to Athorist to answer your Nostradamus prophesies versus Biblical prophesies. (This is like comparing an apple to an orange).

-The Bible is 100% accurate and mentions specific people, places and events.

- Nostradamus is indeed a false prophet. His fans propose theories about "devices" that Nostradamus supposedly used to "encode" his prophesies. Then his fans use these theories to prove their theories - this is called circular reasoning not logic. Next, by applying an arsenal of these discovered "devices" they manipulate Nostradamus text to fit their desired interpretation. The case for Nostradamus accuracy rests entirely on his fans. ****According to sound interpretative principle they fail to demonstrate that the prophesies refer uniquely one particular event.

salida · Aug 10, 2008

What is peer-reviewed science? Who are they? What is their agenda? Are they humanists, christians, socialist or athiests? I'm a scientist - and what one teaches is according to their own worldview not where most of the evidence points to. For example, darwinism is a fraud. It can't be tested using the scientific method and either can intellectual design or creation science which has much more logic and evidence behind it.

salida · Aug 10, 2008

The first scientists and inventors where mostly christians not the darwin type. Darwinism came in later on so that humanists and agnostics could push their agenda - this is their religion. Religion just means a set of beliefs. More and more secular scientists are going toward intelligent design and dumping darwinism. In 10-20 years it will be a different landscape of scientists. I believe in microevolution and some macroevolution - but something coming from nothing is a big hoax.

athorist · Aug 10, 2008

salida said:
The first scientists and inventors where mostly christians not the darwin type.

That's plain wrong. I recommend reading the article on the history of science on wikipedia. They were neither christians nor proponents of Darwinian theory. Aristotle hardly was a christian, right? I fail to see how this is relevant to the question at hand anyway. But maybe you could elucidate that?

salida said:
Darwinism came in later on so that humanists and agnostics could push their agenda - this is their religion.

Which agenda are you talking about? Humanism? Might I remind you that Darwin was a christian? Do you have any evidence for this claim?

salida said:
Religion just means a set of beliefs.

Indeed. So by your own definition neither agnosticism nor atheism (especially not humanism) qualify as Religion.

salida said:
More and more secular scientists are going toward intelligent design and dumping darwinism.

Which ones? Can you name some, please? At which universities do they teach? What publications have they made? Or are you just making stuff up as you go along? Even after repeated requests from me to cite any work of such scientists you fail to do so. All I have seen from you so far are absolutely unfounded (and for the most part evidently false) assertions. I will put it bluntly: Put up, or shut up.

salida said:
In 10-20 years it will be a different landscape of scientists.

Sure, lol. Do you know this because you have seen it in a crystal ball or something? Maybe you have a time machine? You call yourself a scientist... is that the way you do science? Just making wild claims without any evidence backing them up?

salida said:
I believe in microevolution and some macroevolution - but something coming from nothing is a big hoax.

Ah... we're mixing up evolution and abiogenesis again, aren't we? You'd do yourself a favour to not emberass yourself any further by demonstrating that you obviously have not the slightest clue of what you're talking about.

athorist · Aug 10, 2008

salida said:
Oh, one last note to Athorist to answer your Nostradamus prophesies versus Biblical prophesies. (This is like comparing an apple to an orange).

-The Bible is 100% accurate and mentions specific people, places and events.

- Nostradamus is indeed a false prophet. His fans propose theories about "devices" that Nostradamus supposedly used to "encode" his prophesies. Then his fans use these theories to prove their theories - this is called circular reasoning not logic. Next, by applying an arsenal of these discovered "devices" they manipulate Nostradamus text to fit their desired interpretation. The case for Nostradamus accuracy rests entirely on his fans. ****According to sound interpretative principle they fail to demonstrate that the prophesies refer uniquely one particular event.

The case for the Bible's accuracy rest entirely on it's fans, too. You still fail to name any research done on this subject.

athorist · Aug 10, 2008

salida said:
What is peer-reviewed science? Who are they? What is their agenda? Are they humanists, christians, socialist or athiests?

Does it matter if they have evidence? Many of them are christians, btw.

salida said:
I'm a scientist - and what one teaches is according to their own worldview not where most of the evidence points to.

You just succesfully demonstrated that you certainly do not deserve to be called a scientist. Scientists teach according to worldview and not evidence? I'm afraid, no. It's not what scientists do. It's what you do, maybe.

salida said:
For example, darwinism is a fraud. It can't be tested using the scientific method and either can intellectual design or creation science which has much more logic and evidence behind it.

You did not even bother looking at the papers that I cited, did you? Those (amongst many other papers) provide hard evidence for evolution.

Again you claim to have evidence for creationist theories. Still you fail to show me. Even after repeated requests you fail to provide a single piece of research that would provide evidence for your claims. Again:

Show your evidence, please!

salida · Aug 10, 2008

No, darwin wasn't a christian. This is a false claim. And creation science is the most true - everything else is a big pack of lies! Where do you get your sources for your information? Even if I showed the evidence which isn't new to me - you will falsely discredit it to fit into your worldview. This is irrelevant. I already printed out the evidence of the Bible - Thus, you do your own research and homework. I'm not going to do it for you.

***You show me YOUR EVIDENCE that Darwin was a christian. Where does it state this? I'm not going to show anymore evidence about anything. Its your turn Ms.

salida · Aug 10, 2008

What papers?

salida · Aug 10, 2008

Ms - No, the Bible is not entirely on its fans. Remember, when Israel became a nation in 1948? This was a detailed prophesy of the Bible - this had nothing to do with me being a fan or not - it happened anyway. I don't have the room to mention the hundreds of them here.

salida · Aug 10, 2008

Show me your supposed papers? You keep saying "evolution" but I still haven't heard what kind of evolution. Darwinism or what? I believe in microevolution and in some macroevolution what is your "evolution Ms.?

athorist · Aug 10, 2008

salida said:
No, darwin wasn't a christian. This is a false claim. And creation science is the most true - everything else is a big pack of lies! Where do you get your sources for your information? Even if I showed the evidence which isn't new to me - you will falsely discredit it to fit into your worldview. This is irrelevant. I already printed out the evidence of the Bible - Thus, you do your own research and homework. I'm not going to do it for you.

***You show me YOUR EVIDENCE that Darwin was a christian. Where does it state this? I'm not going to show anymore evidence about anything. Its your turn Ms.

Anymore evidence? You've shown none so far.

As for Darwin being christian:

Though Charles Darwins family background was Nonconformist, and his father, grandfather and brother were Freethinkers, at first he did not doubt the literal truth of the Bible. He attended a Church of England school, then at Cambridge studied Anglican theology to become a clergyman. He was convinced by Willaim Paley's teleological argument that design in nature proved the existence of God, but during the Beagle voyage he questioned, for example, why deep-ocean plankton had been created with so much beauty for little purpose as no one could see them, or the problem of evil of how the ichneumon wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs could be reconciled with Paleys vision of beneficent design. He was still quite orthodox and would quote the Bible as an authority on morality, but was critical of the history in the Old Testament.

(Source: wikipedia)

It is true that he lost his faith later on in his life. But when he wrote his fameous book "The Origin of Species" he clearly was a christian.

athorist · Aug 10, 2008

salida said:
What papers?

These ones, which I now provide for you the third time:

Cavefish as a Model System in Evolutionary Developmental Biology by William R. Jeffrey, Developmental Biology, 231:, 1-12 (1 Mar 2001) - contains experimental tests of hypotheses about eye evolution

Crystal Structure Of An Ancient Protein: Evolution By Conformational Epistasis by Eric A. Ortlund, Jamie T. Bridgham, Matthew R. Redinbo and Joseph W. Thornton, Science, 317: 1544-1548 (14 September 2007) - refers to the reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals by back-tracking along the molecular phylogenetic trees and demonstrating that the proteins in question WORK

Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory by J.R. Weinberg V. R. Starczak and P. Jora, Evolution vol 46, pp 1214-1220, 1992 - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Experimentally Created Incipient Species of Drosophila by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Olga Pavlovsky, Nature 230, pp 289 - 292 (02 April 1971) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment by A. Galiana, A. Moya and F. J. Alaya, Evolution vol 47, pp 432-444, 1993 - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Genetics of Natural Populations XII. Experimental Reproduction of Some of the Changes Caused by Natural Selection by Sewall Wright & Theodosius Dobzkansky, Genetics, 31(2): 125-156 (1946) - direct experimental tests of natural selection mechanisms

Hedgehog Signalling Controls Eye Degeneration in Blind Cavefish by Yoshiyuki Yamamoto, David W. Stock and William R. Jeffery, Nature, 431: 844-847 (14 Oct 2004) - direct experimental test of theories about eye evolution and the elucidation of the controlling genes involved

Initial Sequenceing of the Chimpanzee Genome and Comparison with the Human Genome, The Chimpanzee Genome Sequencing Consortium (see paper for full list of 68 authors), Nature, Vol 437, pp 69-87, 1 September 2005 - direct sequencing of the chimpanzee genome and direct comparison of this genome with the previously sequenced human genome, whereby the scientists discovered that fully twenty-nine percent of the orthologous proteins of humans and chmpanzees are IDENTICAL

Origin of the Superflock of Cichlid Fishes from Lake Victoria, East Africa by Erik Verheyen, Walter Salzburger, Jos Snoeks and Axel Meyer, Science, vol 300, pp 325-329, 11 April 2003 - direct experimental determination of the molecular phylogeny of the Lake Victoria Superflock, including IDENTIFYING THE COMMON ANCESTOR OF THE 350+ SPECIES IN QUESTION and NAMING THAT ANCESTOR as Haplochromis gracilior

Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity by M.E. Boraas, D.B. Seale and J.E. Boxhorn, Evolutionary Ecology Vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 153-164. Feb 1998 - direct experimental test of hypotheses about the origins of multicellularity

Resurrecting Ancient Genes: Experimental Analysis Of Extinct Molecules by Joseph W. Thornton, Nature Reviews: Genetics, 5: 366-375 (5 May 2004) - direct experimental reconstruction in the laboratory of ancient proteins from extinct animals

Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura by E. del Solar, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol 56, pp 484-487, 1966 - direct experimental test of selection mechanisms and their implications for speciation

The Master Control Gene For Morphogenesis And Evolution Of The Eye by Walter J. Gehrig, Genes to Cells, 1: 11-15, 1996 - direct experimental test of hypotheses concerning eye evolution including the elucidation of the connection between the Pax6 gene and eye morphogenesis, and the experimental manipulation of that gene to control eye development

The Past As The Key To The Present: Resurrection Of Ancient Proteins From Eosinophils by Steven A. Benner, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 99(8): 4760-4761 (16 April 2002) - direct experimental reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals

athorist · Aug 10, 2008

salida said:
Show me your supposed papers? You keep saying "evolution" but I still haven't heard what kind of evolution. Darwinism or what? I believe in microevolution and in some macroevolution what is your "evolution Ms.?

I suggest typing "Evolution" into google. The wikipedia article provides a quite extensive definition.

Sarapin · Aug 10, 2008

Firstly, it is noted that you did nothing but side-step or evade the issue brought up in my previous post, which is at the heart of my position.

Lastly, this is not a forum for debating origins as laid out in the forum rules. You ask a question we give the answer, and if you need clarification you can then ask for it. If you want to debate creation vs. evolution (as futile as it would be) then you should check out the Creation vs. Evolution sub-forum or just try a different website that focuses on that issue, namely CvE (I think it is called).

Questions By Non-Christians: This Forum is for non-believers seeking to know more about Christianity. This forum is NOT for Apologetics or debates.

Jersey · Aug 10, 2008

athorist said:
Many christians seem to believe the earth is only 6000 years old and that the big flood happened and all that fancyful stuff. Often I hear them claiming to have "evidence" for those claims. Some even claim that "evidence" to have the same level of sophistication than real science. They say the theory of evolution is disputed among scientists and would want to teach science and creationism alongside in schools.

What I do not get, is how on earth teaching both theories alongside in schools could do christianity any good? If you really teach both theories and show the evidence for both, then it will just be too obvious for any kid that creationism is the hoax of the century. Why do christians keep asserting that there is doubt among scientists when there in fact is not. I always thought lying was against gods will?

Since Christians are so adamant about teaching superstitious creationism in the public schools, I think it would only be fair and balanced to teach evolution in the Sunday school classes of all churches also right?

OldChurchGuy · Aug 11, 2008

athorist said:
I think I undestand the process of how people believe that. What I don't understand is how the rest of you can just be so silent about it. The very mechanism that you just described seems to be quite dangerous to me: basically you are telling me that people reach a conclusion just by studying the bible, even if it is at odds with reality. Isn't that strikingly similar to what the people who justify the worst attrocities through religion do? To me this shows a fundamental flaw in the way religion works. If you accept people teaching such hilarious stuff based only on faith, that means that litterally anything goes. Everything could be justified that way.

Yeah, that is true, there were a few who held on their beliefs. Those are not called scientists, because they don't look at observational evidence. And I may point this out again: it was very very (very) few people. The rest of scientists did no remain silent about it. They kept pointing towards the evidence, they made sure those people do not get a chance to teach their distorted idea of science in schools or universtities. I would have expected the same from reasonable christians with respect to YEC. I will restate my proposition: "Teaching the difference will be desasterous PR for christianity" - heck, it already is bad PR.

As for the experiments: yes, there were light-bending experiments done, but (as far as I remember right) this was in the late 80ies when the theory was already accepted to be mainstream. There were other experiments that have been done earlier on, especially with respect to special relativity which is much easier to confirm experimentally. Today one of the most convincing evidence for both special and general relativity are GPS satelites which really could not work without relativity being correct.

I think I understand that. But my proposition (I state again) is not an attack on YEC theory itself, but rather on the way that chistianity handles it.

kind regards
athorist

I think Markus6 is correct that many Christians do get involved in discussions about a 6,000 year old earth.

The problem is that these discussions are a matter of faith and therefore neither group is going to change it's mind easily. As said before when a person concludes the correct interpretation of the Bible is a literal one then it can be a matter of faith and/or staying true to God to believe the earth is 6,000 years old. Evidence to the contrary cannot be adopted easily if one wants to stay faithful to a literal interpretation of the Bible.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

Staccato · Aug 11, 2008

Jersey said:
Since Christians are so adamant about teaching superstitious creationism in the public schools, I think it would only be fair and balanced to teach evolution in the Sunday school classes of all churches also right?

I somewhat doubt that this is a cause taken up by many, even the staunchest proponents of evolution, mainly because they recognise that evolution is science, and therefore belongs in the science classroom and not in the church. The reverse in also true for literal creationism espousing a 6,000 year old earth, in my opinion.

I don't know why many Christians get worked up by this issue to be honest. If they believe in God then quite how He created the cosmos should be a matter not overly high on the agenda. If you trust in God then the mechanisms used are secondary to the knowledge that He did it. As one of my friends put it, once you embrace God He does not give you answers to your questions, more He takes away the frustration of not knowing the answer.

Not that I'm encouraging ignorance in the area, far from it. As it so happens, I believe Genesis to be allegorical, and also think the process of micro, and to some extent macro, evolution to be true. And I do indeed encourage people to think about the origins of life and the universe and come to their own opinion. But, when all is said and done, arguing over it is just petulant.

athorist · Aug 11, 2008

Staccato said:
I somewhat doubt that this is a cause taken up by many, even the staunchest proponents of evolution, mainly because they recognise that evolution is science, and therefore belongs in the science classroom and not in the church. The reverse in also true for literal creationism espousing a 6,000 year old earth, in my opinion.

I agree with the above. I would claim that this also applies to OEC, though.

Staccato said:
I don't know why many Christians get worked up by this issue to be honest. If they believe in God then quite how He created the cosmos should be a matter not overly high on the agenda.

That's what I would have thought, too. Mind you, evolutionary biology does not make any statement whether gods exist or not. Claiming to precisely know how the christian god created the cosmos seems actually quite pretentious to me and probably even against the christian dogma, but then I am no theologist and do not know for sure. Seems to me though that this would be claiming to understand how god works, which (as far as I am aware of) is by definition impossible for the christian god.

Staccato said:
If you trust in God then the mechanisms used are secondary to the knowledge that He did it. As one of my friends put it, once you embrace God He does not give you answers to your questions, more He takes away the frustration of not knowing the answer.

Well this actually opens another can of worms, because the critique of the "god of the gaps" that is often brought by atheists and agnostics would then apply here. That would draw us way off-topic though, I guess.

Staccato said:
Not that I'm encouraging ignorance in the area, far from it. As it so happens, I believe Genesis to be allegorical, and also think the process of micro, and to some extent macro, evolution to be true. And I do indeed encourage people to think about the origins of life and the universe and come to their own opinion. But, when all is said and done, arguing over it is just petulant.

Well the question of the orgins of life (abiogenesis) is not the same as the quetion of evolution. There seem to be more than one interesting hypothesis, but none of them can be put on any hard evidence.

As for the origin of the cosmos itself, I think that's more the realm of physics, or even philosophy. Could well be that this is a question that will never be solved in any satisfying way. It's hard to tell what actually happen at the precise moment of the Big Bang singularity or even before. From what I understand the concept of "before" does not even really make any sense, since space-time popped into existance with the singularity. Even the question of causation does not really seem to make any sense, since we're looking at a time-interval below the Planck-Time.

Staccato · Aug 11, 2008

athorist said:
I agree with the above. I would claim that this also applies to OEC, though.

Oh yes, I would concur. No religious theory of creation belongs in the science classroom, especially not the thinly veiled ad-hoc creationism hybrid that is ID.

athorist said:
That's what I would have thought, too. Mind you, evolutionary biology does not make any statement whether gods exist or not. Claiming to precisely know how the christian god created the cosmos seems actually quite pretentious to me and probably even against the christian dogma, but then I am no theologist and do not know for sure. Seems to me though that this would be claiming to understand how god works, which (as far as I am aware of) is by definition impossible for the christian god.

Well many would claim that Genesis sets out quite specifically how the earth and the universe in general was created (well, I say specific, I don't mean it comes with elaborate answers as to the actual processes, but describes how it was performed). Whether people take this literally, metaphorically or allegorically is the sticking point however, and many simply cannot get over the different interpretations (or evolution, which one would be flippant, and incorrect, to describe succinctly as the rejection of Genesis and creation myths in general). This is a very sad point, because Christianity is so much more than this singular issue, but one that many cannot seem to overcome, retreating into fundamental interpretations of the Bible or dogmatic adherence of secular tenants vis-à-vis evolution. Quite how the universe was created, whilst I agree is such an important question and one we should strive to answer, has an answer for believers in 'God', and anything else is just minor details.
Now I'm not saying we should fall back on on 'Godidit', but merely that origins of life and existence should be a question that occupies the mind of the non-believer more than the believer in my opinion.

athorist said:
Well this actually opens another can of worms, because the critique of the "god of the gaps" that is often brought by atheists and agnostics would then apply here. That would draw us way off-topic though, I guess.

As in that which cannot be explained is attributed to God, or have I misunderstood what you meant?

athorist said:
Well the question of the orgins of life (abiogenesis) is not the same as the quetion of evolution. There seem to be more than one interesting hypothesis, but none of them can be put on any hard evidence.

Oh yes, of this I am aware. And, to be perfectly honest, many who are not satisfied by the conjecture now would not be swayed if all the evidence you could muster were presented. The theories presented are, and I'm sure you must sense this also, rather thin on ground with regards to abiogenesis or biogenesis. That's improbable, therefore God? Maybe, but I like to think it's more than that.

athorist said:
As for the origin of the cosmos itself, I think that's more the realm of physics, or even philosophy. Could well be that this is a question that will never be solved in any satisfying way. It's hard to tell what actually happen at the precise moment of the Big Bang singularity or even before. From what I understand the concept of "before" does not even really make any sense, since space-time popped into existance with the singularity. Even the question of causation does not really seem to make any sense, since we're looking at a time-interval below the Planck-Time.

I, for what it is worth, am convinced by the evidence for Big Bang theory, specifically that exhibited by inflation theory, red shift, the WMAP background radiation images and so on. But, now that we have a credible, although some would say far from foolproof, explanation for the existence of the universe, does this remove the need, or possibility, of God? In my opinion no, although some would disagree. Whilst it is true that time would probably not existence prior to the Big Bang, making it possible that there was a 'time' (I use the word loosely) when there was 'nothing' (again, loosely meant), it is equally conceivable that, rather than quantum fluctuations or whatever it is that it is theorised started the Big Bang (been a long time since I read up on it unfortunately, so correct me if I'm wrong), an entity, namely God, started it also. There is no scientific evidence for this, nor will there ever be in my opinion, so I guess it's a matter of faith. Which must be a frustrating answer, so my apologies.

Teaching the difference?

Newbie

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Sarapin

Guest

Senior Member

Regular Member

Tarut keeps on dreaming

Newbie

Tarut keeps on dreaming

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency