Is this appropriate?

[Dead_reckon]

You know, a person's faith, whatever it might be (including atheism, which is based on the un-provable, therefore "faith-based" tenet that there is no God) is such an important part of who they are, that they SHOULD have a right to express that.  (Provided that such expression is not "evil" - e.g. involving sacrificing children...)

agree'd, as i said, i do not have a religion, but i do not belive in sciences theory either. if i saw somthing to prove either side was without a doubt true, then i would simply belive that was how we came to be (example being: somone parting a large body of water, walking on water, ect)

[GX1_Man]

Not believing in science is rather short sighted. If you don't believe in gravity can you float in the air? Of course not.

Religion is a matter of faith which frequently (and hopefully) transcends science to a higher level of oneness with a creator and provides a meaning for science, if you will.

[Dead_reckon]

Not believing in science is rather short sighted. If you don't believe in gravity can you float in the air? Of course not.

Religion is a matter of faith which frequently (and hopefully) transcends science to a higher level of oneness with a creator and provides a meaning for science, if you will.

i belive in science, just not the "big bang" theory. it is plausible, as is the bible. i belive proven science.

[GX1_Man]

"I believe" is OK, but it doesn't affect the reality of the situation, in the final analysis.

[johnchain]

Wait a minute....you gotta update your sciences....the big bang already isn't the origin anymore....with string theory and in place we already know that we're in one out of an unimaginably large amount of universes....The theory states that the big bang created this one universe that we are in at the moment, it is not the origin of life.

Btw, science offers theories. And even though theories are theories and have not "yet" been proven, it does not mean to disbelieve the concept of science. Science is mearly a tool to better our lives. Even though theories may have not been proven, we use these unproven theories for technology.

At one point it was believed that the earth was the center of the universe. This theory was believed until sciences developed the ability show this wrong, proven, not a theory.

An example of why the sciences show progression in theories to the becoming of laws compared to that of religious theory?

The catholic church did not accept this principle of sun and earth until it was proven to them in 1992  

So religious beliefs defintely play a role in one's life and give an answer to the point of science, and yet they are also based upon theories. But when theories slowly start being proven, theories that were proposed at the dawn of certain religions...what will be left?

Will science turn the theory of religion into a law? or continue to claim a lack of evidence? What a mess our earth is in?

[Dead_reckon]

heres a good question: if there was once life on mars, where did it go? i mean its pretty much a solid fact that mars had life... somthing killed the atmosphere, thus the planet died... heck, venus would be livable, if the atmosphere was thinner

[johnchain]

Once again, life on Mars is a theory. It contained and still contains the ingredients for organic compounds. Yet life was a theory on Mars. They say that there is this orbit aroudn the sun that is the perfect environment for living and they say that this ring of environmental perfection expands outwards. So there could have been life on venus at one point that spread to earth, and maybe it will spread to Mars and traces are showing up. but this is over billions of years so nothing to worry about for us.

I read in this biology textbook that earth's early natural gases with the combination of lightning and sun could produce organic compounds that evolve into prokaryotes and so forth (miller and Urey experiment). And then they also found that RNA could be produced with the earth's gases as well (don't take my word for it, i'm not a biologist, but this is what I read, many questions can be answered through kownledge). The mystery right now is...how did RNA turn into DNA? This is still unknown and is currently a mystery. Yet the theory that life could spontaneously generate existed until a few people and a few experiments with rotten gravy and meat proved that theory otherwise. So how long will it take before that mystery with DNA is solved? Theoretically (again that word) if this solution is found, it pretty much says life was a probabilitical chance in a combination natural events.

However, I still do not know how "natural events" were put into place. But then again think about it, could something have always been there? Scientists have found dimensions with NO TIME, literally. That means nothing moves nothing exists cus it has no time to exist. The crazy things people know today.  

[Dilbert]

Wow, we got off-topic a ways. However, this topic interests me.

Now, I have not read too much on the String Theory. I've read the premise of it, and it proves intriguing. But for now my faith's on the Big Bang.

To any who say that the Big Bang does not coincide with Creation, let's look at Genesis:

2Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

-Genesis 1:2-3 NIV

Now, let's look at the Big Bang theory:

After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe.

Something that went from sub-atomic to the present size of the Universe (which was said to happen in a tiny fraction of a second) would certainly create a burst of energy. Would this make light? We do not know for certain, but it would certainly seem so.

Also note this interesting tidbit:

here are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.

NO explosion. None! But the "bang" doesn't have to be an explosion. Still, however, there would be plently of light.

Also: What caused the Big Bang in the first place?

all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown.

(emphasis mine)

No-one knows what caused the Big Bang, and this is where science and faith part. Or rather, science has stopped going on in that direction, at least for the time being, while faith has a hypothesis.

What if God caused the Big Bang when he said, "Let there be light"? It did say that the Earth was without form and a void. Sounds like the singularity that became the Universe to me.

Am I right? Maybe, maybe not. However, science was never certain; it started with hypotheses. My theory is one of many. But for me one thing is certain: I believe in the Creation and the Big Bang, if true, is a scientifically accepted backup of my theory. It lines up with point after point to the letter. The only place where they disagree (and the BB theory doesn't truly disagree, it simply hasn't come up with an alternate explanation!) is what caused the Big Bang in the first place.

[johnchain]

As I was saying, they have already hinted the existance of other universes....meaning more big bangs, meaning let their be light is being said quite a few times. As for genesis.....this happened in a matter of days, correct?

The formation of the earth took 50-100 million years to form according to radioactive dating.

the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

water?

[Dilbert]

Ah, but does it not say:

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

--2 Peter 3:8 NIV

So when God said he made the Earth in 6 days, he may have meant an epoch for each.

water?

According to the Evangelical faith, the Bible has two truths: literal truths and symbolic truths. Who can say what He meant? Not I! I'll let the religious scholars squabble over it; I could care less.

And I was just saying what I believe, and I was showing the point that religion is not necessarily too far off of scientific evidence. Let's not turn this into a religious debate, here.

[johnchain]

Okay okay, you're right, I see your connections.

[Dilbert]

OK. Though you yourself make a valid point.

[homer]

NO explosion. None! But the "bang" doesn't have to be an explosion.

then why do they call it the big bang? if no bang was present im sure they would have called it something remotely related to the event. this is a way of putting their theory on life support, if the intial theory gets shot down, they simply claim it was a misconception and quickly come up with another similiar theory.

the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

im confused. what dont you get about that statement? the bible CLEARLY states "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." and in GEN 1:6 "let there be an expanse between the waters to seperate the water from water." so with respect to GEN 1:6 and GEN 1:1, the earths surface, once created, was completely covered in water.

The formation of the earth took 50-100 million years to form according to radioactive dating.

have a read. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html. radioactive dating is proven to be inaccurate.

[Hopester Doofus]

The Bible was written by men, not God. Correct?

[KJD]

I really don't see any reason why the bible can't be taken literally. Although it's not written as a scientific book what is written has been scientifically scrutinised for a very long time. There are many qualified scientists that accept it and many that reject what it says.

It appears that the biggest factor in the argument is the bias of the people arguing. Everyone is biased. Which bias is the best bias is the question.

The fossil record is a major embarassment to evolutionists but supports the creation theory. There is also much geological evidence to show a young age for the earth- not the billions of years required for evolution to take place, if it were possible.

However if you start by disbelieving in the possibility of God's existence (not a very scientific approach to seeking the truth) then the evidence will be interpreted differently.

Going back to a previous point in this thread about why other religions seem to be more readily accepted than Christianity, I believe it's all about the name and person of Jesus Christ. He made some very confronting claims and statements. As a well known author once stated Jesus is either:
 a) a liar,
 b) a lunatic, or
 c) is who he says he is - Lord.

Our bias is a result of which one we choose.