Christian version of Darwin's Origin of Species

gabers

Cosmo wrote:

gabers wrote:

Sometimes science takes a leap of faith too. Someone please explain to me how the big bang theory is so much more believable than God creating the heavens and earth. Forget all the other stuff, just argue big bang over creation. I'll wait.

For the record, I am a Christian and believe in evolution. I find a way to make both work. It just doesn't fit into most people's neat little beliefs.

...
Science in not so much about answers... it is more about questions.
Science does not profess to know what existed before the Big Bang... but, Christianity has it neatly wrapped up in 5000 year old text? Wouldn't that mean, men... 5000 years ago knew more about our Universe than we know today... right?
...
Since no one has the answer... except the Christians... I can come up with my own hypothesis. The Big Bang was simply the start of the existance of this Universe we are experiencing at this time. It is a cycle. Explosion. Expansion. Equilibrium. Contraction. Compression. Explosion. Never ending... no beginning. We created God in order to give it meaning... when maybe there in no meaning... other than what we make of it.
I have no proof of this... but, at the purely logical level... it's just as good as the Bible's explanation. The biggest difference... I'm not telling eveyone else the I know the truth.

But your beliefs take a leap of faith just as creation does. And although you're not telling everyone you know the truth, the reality is most people that believe 100% in the big bang theory do profess to know this as the truth, or at least the only possibility.

I don't believe the earth is 5,000 years old. I do believed humans evolved. But from what? Hard to say. But it's hard to once again take a leap of faith that we somehow evolved from a primordial ooze. How? No one has yet been able to generate life in a laboratory, and I suspect no one will.

Prince Of Dorkness

prfctlefts wrote:

All the legitimate alternatives should be presented in the classroom. For a professor to say you can't mention or discuss intelligent design is fascism.

Intelligent design isn't a "Legitimate alternative," it's idiot Christians grasping at straws as they admit that evolution is real but "God did it anyway."

Prince Of Dorkness

prfctlefts wrote:

I believe in creative design and I believe in evolution,but I think it was over seen by a Higher Power.

And you're allowed to have whatever beliefs you want.. but you can't teach them in science class because they're not science.

The problem I have with Science is that it doesn't advance the human condition in any moralistic way,and jesus did.

That's because SCIENCE isn't moral... it's just a study of FACTS. ERg.

If everybody Followed his teachings we would have Peace On Earth. Would we not ?

We would not. Our last president was an evangelical, claimed that Jesus was in his heart and he was a war monger and evil to the core. Like more evangelicals.

I know I'll get branded and get looked down upon for being a christian on here bcos that's what most atheist do.

And you'd never lump people together like "the atheists," would you. Fuck, you people don't even listen o yourselves, do you?

Prince Of Dorkness

gabers wrote:

Sometimes science takes a leap of faith too. Someone please explain to me how the big bang theory is so much more believable than God creating the heavens and earth.

Because if you were an astrophysicist or cosmologist you'd be able to prove it's existence on paper. It's been done. And they've got radio recordings of the echos it's made in space and even a sort of "photograph" of the remnants of it reflecting back from space. Kind of, I'm dumbing it way down.

And even the Pope can't prove that God is real. which is why teaching your fables doesn't belong in a school.

Cosmo

gabers wrote:

But your beliefs take a leap of faith just as creation does. And although you're not telling everyone you know the truth, the reality is most people that believe 100% in the big bang theory do profess to know this as the truth, or at least the only possibility.

I don't believe the earth is 5,000 years old. I do believed humans evolved. But from what? Hard to say. But it's hard to once again take a leap of faith that we somehow evolved from a primordial ooze. How? No one has yet been able to generate life in a laboratory, and I suspect no one will.

...
No. I am not taking a leap of faith because I know that I don't know.
As for the Big Bang... are you saying you do not believe that the galaxies are moving away from one point, even though there is evidence of that? I thought you were asking about the time before the Big Bang... not the event, itself.
As for Evolution... there are transitional fossils in the fossil record. Evolution tells us that if you look at the layer of rock that is the right age, And in the right place... you will find those transitional fossils. Such as the one that links fish to amphibian. i think it is a bit easier to take the leap of faith in Evolution... than all of Mankind is the result of incest between a man and his rib that was perpetrated by a talking snake.
But, that's just me... and who am i to say... right?

gabers

I guess I'm playing the devil's advocate more than anything, because I don't think man came from Adam and Eve, I don't believe a big flood wiped out every creature on earth except the ones put on on big ass ship - in short, I really don't think the old testament is too much more than a book of fables myself. With a little truth creeping in every now and then. I know all about the expansion theory. I have an earth science degree from a major university. I understand and agree with most of the science of the big bang theory. I'm just saying at the end of the day, we don't really know how the universe began.

Gern Blansten

gabers wrote:

Sometimes science takes a leap of faith too. Someone please explain to me how the big bang theory is so much more believable than God creating the heavens and earth. Forget all the other stuff, just argue big bang over creation. I'll wait.

For the record, I am a Christian and believe in evolution. I find a way to make both work. It just doesn't fit into most people's neat little beliefs.

One point I have always tried to make (as an atheist/agnostic) is that belief in evolution does not automatically negate religion. I was raised Methodist but my father was a veterinarian and he taught us very early about evolution. I honestly don't remember knowing that people actually refuted it until I got to college.

Gern Blansten

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

haffajappa wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN9zpf5cT0M&feature=player_embedded

What if atheists published a 50 page introduction to the bible?
Why can't Christians let people have their beliefs?

they feel it is their duty to "save" people.

man kirk cameron is such a douche.

i like how it said "due to the number of atheists not being cordial in their responses, all comments have been disabled." lol, they can present their side of things but refuse to allow criticism of their message....how typical...what a joke...

I'd like to see Eddie kick Kirk Cameron in the balls really really hard

catefrances

Gern Blansten wrote:

gabers wrote:

Sometimes science takes a leap of faith too. Someone please explain to me how the big bang theory is so much more believable than God creating the heavens and earth. Forget all the other stuff, just argue big bang over creation. I'll wait.

For the record, I am a Christian and believe in evolution. I find a way to make both work. It just doesn't fit into most people's neat little beliefs.

One point I have always tried to make (as an atheist/agnostic) is that belief in evolution does not automatically negate religion. I was raised Methodist but my father was a veterinarian and he taught us very early about evolution. I honestly don't remember knowing that people actually refuted it until I got to college.

well which are you an atheist or an agnostic???

decides2dream

Jasunmark wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

I believe in creative design and I believe in evolution,but I think it was over seen by a Higher Power.

And you're allowed to have whatever beliefs you want.. but you can't teach them in science class because they're not science.

that's the main issue for me. intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory, but a religious one. evolution IS a scientific theory. they are NOT the same, at all. so evolution absolutely gets taught in science class whereas intelligent design does not belong there...at most, if a religious studies/theory class exists at the HS level, it could well be taught there. otherwise, it simply has NO place in a PUBLIC school curriculum.

Gern Blansten wrote:

One point I have always tried to make (as an atheist/agnostic) is that belief in evolution does not automatically negate religion. I was raised Methodist but my father was a veterinarian and he taught us very early about evolution. I honestly don't remember knowing that people actually refuted it until I got to college.

exactly.
i am not religious, but i was saying the same earlier. it is possible to believe in BOTH.

he still stands

"Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality — are unknown or, in some forms of agnosticism, unknowable.[1] It is not a religious declaration in itself, and an agnostic may also be a theist or an atheist.[2]" - wikipedia

catefrances

he still stands wrote:

"Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality — are unknown or, in some forms of agnosticism, unknowable.[1] It is not a religious declaration in itself, and an agnostic may also be a theist or an atheist.[2]" - wikipedia

a bad place to end the definition and so...

An agnostic atheist is atheistic because he or she does not believe in the existence of any deity and is also agnostic because he or she does not claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does not exist. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but does not claim to have definitive knowledge of this.

Gern Blansten

catefrances wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

gabers wrote:

Sometimes science takes a leap of faith too. Someone please explain to me how the big bang theory is so much more believable than God creating the heavens and earth. Forget all the other stuff, just argue big bang over creation. I'll wait.

For the record, I am a Christian and believe in evolution. I find a way to make both work. It just doesn't fit into most people's neat little beliefs.

One point I have always tried to make (as an atheist/agnostic) is that belief in evolution does not automatically negate religion. I was raised Methodist but my father was a veterinarian and he taught us very early about evolution. I honestly don't remember knowing that people actually refuted it until I got to college.

well which are you an atheist or an agnostic???

I am an Agnostic atheist.....seriously

Gern Blansten

catefrances wrote:

he still stands wrote:

"Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality — are unknown or, in some forms of agnosticism, unknowable.[1] It is not a religious declaration in itself, and an agnostic may also be a theist or an atheist.[2]" - wikipedia

a bad place to end the definition and so...

An agnostic atheist is atheistic because he or she does not believe in the existence of any deity and is also agnostic because he or she does not claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does not exist. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but does not claim to have definitive knowledge of this.

I guess agnostic in the sense that I will not claim to understand the first second of the universe and while I do not feel any superior being is involved until science discovers the cause I am willing to leave a window open for the invisible man.

but I don't think it is likely

Prince Of Dorkness

gabers wrote:

I'm just saying at the end of the day, we don't really know how the universe began.

So just to be safe we better throw in "it also could have been made by a lonely God in a big white dress so someone would worship him."

Fucking Christ.

Shawshank

How fucking closed-minded do you have to be in order to believe our world/universe is here just by an accidental set of circumstances.

soulsinging

Shawshank wrote:

How fucking closed-minded do you have to be in order to believe our world/universe is here just by an accidental set of circumstances.

About as delusional as you have to believe that a big human being in the sky that loves only humans made this all up 5000 years ago and is just throwing a bunch of tragedy at us to test our faith in him.

Shawshank

soulsinging wrote:

Shawshank wrote:

How fucking closed-minded do you have to be in order to believe our world/universe is here just by an accidental set of circumstances.

About as delusional as you have to believe that a big human being in the sky that loves only humans made this all up 5000 years ago and is just throwing a bunch of tragedy at us to test our faith in him.

That was the predictable response I was expecting.

Gern Blansten

Shawshank wrote:

How fucking closed-minded do you have to be in order to believe our world/universe is here just by an accidental set of circumstances.

so what evidence are you basing your beliefs on?

Cosmo

Shawshank wrote:

How fucking closed-minded do you have to be in order to believe our world/universe is here just by an accidental set of circumstances.

...
'Closed minded'? How?
And yes... it is a random set of circumstances in a hostile environment that we live in.
At time time, in this space... life can exist. Move the Earth closer or further from the Sun... and things would be different. The Earth's core will cool, thus shutting down the machinery that creates the atmosphere... life ends. As the Sun cools, it will expand... consuming the terrestrial planets (Earth being one). The Milky Way Galaxy will collide with the Andromeda Galaxy... will more than likely change our planet (if it still even exists then).
Life on Earth exists because it is at the right distance, orbiting the right sized star... at this time... in this space in the Universe. This won't always be true.