Quote:
I also am aware that the "Big bang theory" is the most complete current explanation for origin of the observed universe, and that NO-ONE, especially not scientists; believes that it is the final and ABSOLUTELY complete explanation. Not least, there is at present little or no good basis for saying what came before, or why the Big One went BANG. [As an aside, I think that "God said 'Let there be Light' ..." is a really excellent pre-scientific description of what scientists tell us happened during the Big One. Don't you?]
The two are not incompatable.
I HAVE "researched the other [your] side". The "evidence", such as there is, for "young-earth" theory simply does not stand up to critical examination. It is on the same level and has the same validity as those who argued, based on the same scriptures, that the earth did not orbit the sun, but vice-versa [or is that also a "God-thing" that you are unwilling to to concede to the "theories" of the unbelievers?]. Even hard-core "intelligent design" types concede some validity to evolution, at least on a micro level, because it is so easily demonstrated and even observed: it is only on the macro or new species level that they seriously try to "refute" evolution. The reason is that it is only on the macro level that they have any hope of convincing anyone, and because the argument, for them, on that level is a priori: macro evolution takes tens of thousands to millions of years- the earth is only 8,000 years old- there hasn't been enough time for macro evolution to happen- therefore macro evolution hasn't happened, -therefore the earth is only 8,000 years old, - because that's what our leaders tell us scripture says.
The "theory" is also on pretty shaky legs from a scriptural basis as well. As a suggestion: when the scientific evidence conflicts with one's understanding/ interpretation of scripture, it is best to doubt one's understanding, not the science. The WORD may be inerrant, but human understanding of the WORD is highly fallible. [/B]
|
I HAVE "researched the other [your] side". The "evidence", such as there is, for "young-earth" theory simply does not stand up to critical examination.
So having no idea why big bang banged, having no idea what happened or what existed before big bang, and having not one reasonable explanation as to why inate matter even existed at all, that, that I ask holds up to critical examination?
It is on the same level and has the same validity as those who argued, based on the same scriptures, that the earth did not orbit the sun, but vice-versa [or is that also a "God-thing" that you are unwilling to to concede to the "theories" of the unbelievers?.
What does this have to do with any discussion point I've put forward?
I also am aware that the "Big bang theory" is the most complete current explanation for origin of the observed universe, and that NO-ONE, especially not scientists; believes that it is the final and ABSOLUTELY complete explanation.
I'm confused, It either banged or it didn't.
It's the current explanation, not the final explanation and not the complete explanation. But it sure holds up to critical exam. If that's all it takes to be a respected scientist I'm in.
because that's what our leaders tell us scripture says.
Think for yourself
As a suggestion: when the scientific evidence conflicts with one's understanding/ interpretation of scripture, it is best to doubt one's understanding, not the science.
yea because science is certainly infallible
and I should throw away my faith because some man came up with the flavor of the day explanation that is not final and certainly not complete.
is a really excellent pre-scientific description of what scientists tell us happened during the Big One. Don't you?
Scientists don't even know what happened during the mythical big one. How can it be an explanation for anything.
As I sit here thinking of the big one I think of the tremendous intricacies (spelling) of this galaxy much less the ecosystem of this planet, I mean everything I think of works so perfectly together and to think some big bang from mysterious matter came together and formed all this blows my mind .
I mean in any other aspect of life, if someone was trying to justify something with this much vagueness and dependence on coincidence we'd send them to the looney bin.
But a scientist said so. So it shall be.