In other words you don't want to accept that a priest wrote your entire concept of the Big Bang as his concept of creation which you adopted??????
When LeMaitre came up with big bang theory, he was working as a physicist at the university of Leuven in Belgium.
Yes, he was also a priest. And Carl Sagan was an atheist.
Who cares?
The pope at one point tried to invoke LeMaitre's work to make a theological point, saying "see? the universe began at some point and god created it".
Do you know what LeMaitre's reaction was to that? He wrote the pope a letter to ask him to STOP saying such things, insisting that his big bang model was a
scientific model and NOT a theological point.
Correlation does not imply causation in any way.
The fact that LeMaitre was a catholic priest isn't any more relevant then the people who invented algebra being muslims.
The science of these people is
independent of their religious beliefs.
That you now don't want to accept the fact that the Big Bang is nothing but a creation event proposed by a priest is a personal problem with accepting facts you should learn to deal with.
Now, you are not only making claims about LeMaitre that make no sense, you are also misrepresenting big bang theory.
Contrary to popular belief, big bang DOES NOT explain the origin of the universe.
Much like how evolution explains what happened to life
once it existed, so does the big bang explain what happened to the universe
once it existed.
Our math and understanding of physics can only take us back to what is called "planck time". Going back further makes our understanding of physics collapse, most likely because we haven't unified gravity with the other forces yet.
As Lemaître said: “As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God… It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of the universe.”
LeMaitre can say what he wants. The fact is that his big bang theory doesn't make any mention of any gods or other supernatural shenannigans.
His religious interpretations of science are irrelevant to the science.
Like your saying life just sprung up by random chance
Where did he say that?
I doubt he would agree to that.
"created" IMPLIES agency. It IMPLIES an act by a being. It is a LOADED word.
Try words like "formed" or "developed", which are more neutral. They don't tend to assume answers before asking the questions.
without being able to demonstrate that life can come from non-life by random chance or even design by humans?????
We have no need to demonstrate strawmen...
So can you demonstrate life from non-life in the lab? So I guess we are kinda stuck then, huh?
Yes, we are stuck. Stuck because you insist on arguing strawmen.
It's not that you don't have a good explanation - it's you don't have any that don't rely on belief - just like I got.
And blind belief is bad, I agree.
The thing however, is that rational and intellectually honest people simply say "I don't know" when they don't know........
And you never answered my question: Which one of the 20 some theories of how life started do you choose to put your "faith" in?
There's no reason to put any "faith" in anything.
There are several
hypothesis about how life came to be and every one of them is under investigation.
Until they come up with a solid supported theory, I'm perfectly content saying that science is working on it and that we don't know yet but have a couple of neat ideas.