even if you come away not believing in a God after months or years of being a Christian for instance, like you say there wesleyana ''you got confidence '' from reading the bible,that is enough for most people, some people are in the depths of dispair and believing in even a ''stone''(nferyn would love this one lol) has some psychological benefits, don't you think? i think so.

as for whether you going to hell? girl, i won't even dream of answering that one , (heavy sin) it's between you and the Man or woman up there or down there? everywhere? you know what i mean

WesleyanA:

like my pastor told me "God is not a God of logic. he does his stuff in mysterious ways" i guess that's a good explanation.

As Seun said, that's not really an explanation, but rather a dodging of the question

WesleyanA:

it's normal not to believe in God for a while i guess.

It is as normal to do it for a while as it is to never do it or always do it

WesleyanA:

maybe you're going through that stage of questioning who you are and what your place is in life. I knew i was going through that stage. I still am sort of.

Never stop questioning, WesleyanA, never ever. It would be such a monumental waste of a good mind/brain.
The thing is, it is - for me at least - perfectly OK to believe, as long as your honest with yourself. Don't go around claiming that you believe because of evidence or reason though, because that is utter baloney.

WesleyanA:

There is definitely such thing as evolution though.

Do study evolutionary theory, it's elegance and explanatory power are breathtaking. I even get 'spiritual' when confronted with the natural world

WesleyanA:

sigh, i'm still confused

Continue your questioning, maybe your confusion will stop, maybe it won't, but at least your understanding will deepen.

sisimose:

@seun no she has not being 419ed lmao

That would mean that the pastor's intent was dishonest, which I doubt, so no, she hasn't been 419ed

WesleyanA:

what i found out is that it's fruitless to argue religion.

christianity is not a religion of logic. Because of how most of the stuff in the bible didn't make sense to me and some of my pastors preaching never made sense to me, i was thinking too that God didn't exist but i was scared that if he did exist (. . .if) I'll go to hell.

i'm about 80% believer now. even though i still think I'll end up in hell for doubting his existence.

like my pastor told me "God is not a God of logic. he does his stuff in mysterious ways" i guess that's a good explanation.

it's normal not to believe in God for a while i guess. maybe you're going through that stage of questioning who you are and what your place is in life. I knew i was going through that stage. I still am sort of.

There is definitely such thing as evolution though.

sigh, i'm still confused

wesleyan, first, it is not wrong for you to doubt when you're confused or dont have the answers. Even a disciple that followed Jesus for three years doubted, and he wasn't castigated. "However, blessed are they who have not seen and yet believe." But some people have to see and understand before they believe.
it is no surprise that many things in the bible seem not to make sense. it was the same for me at a point and even now, there are some things i don't fully understand. the bible is not just words, sentences and paragraphs. it isn't a storybook. it is representation of spiritual realities in words. if you don't have the Spirit of God, you can't understand the spirit behind the letter. (1Cor.2:13-15). On a very basic level though, translations that use modern day english eg NIV are much easier to understand, than say KJV. However, you need to have your inner eyes 'opened' to know the Word (Eph. 1:17-18)
it is not fruitless to argue religion, the bible says in 1Pet 3;15 to be always ready to answer anyone who asks. However we are not to devote ourselves to fruitless argumenst. Paul argued in the synagogues with the jews and also argued with the greeks. A huge part of the new testament writings of Paul are arguments; arguements against the false doctrines of their day and so on. The only problem with doing so is that no one comes to know God by fine-sounding arguments.(1Cor 2;1-4) You can't argue your way into a revelation knowledge of God. To the 'wise' person in this world, the message of the cross is foolishness (1Cor 1;18). Arguments help however to answer questions which keep us away from him; questions like evil in the world, etc. This issues keep us back and make us unwilling to devote our full attention to finding the answers. When we understand the major issues, then we can respond to His free gift of life. I think what your pastor meant to say is that God does not think like men, that the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom; (1Cor. 1;25) and His ways are not how ways Is. 55;8-9. Saying that christianity is not logic is false. It is a higher form of logic. eg. when someone hits you, what's the logical thing to do? Hit back. But when you have a premise like 'evil cannot be overcome with evil' (Rom 12; 17-21) then you can understand the logic behind turning the other cheek. When you come to know Him, He makes perfect sense and you come to appreciate His depth of unsearchable wisdom and understanding (see 1Cor 2;6-8, Rom. 11;33-36)

The beauty of the new dispensation is that the promise of God is "they will ALL know me, from the least to the greatest of them" (Heb. 8;10-12). Everyone can know Him and be sure of Him. Everyone can relate with Him because the barrier that seperated us has been broken (Eph. 2;12-19, Col1;14-15). That is the goal. If you don't know Him and you aren't sure, then that shows you that you're not yet living the life, and if you want to, you can make efforts to find Him.(Phil.3;8-10)
The bible is full of promises, God can be held to his word; "you will seek me and you will find me when you search for me with all your heart". There are too many scriptures to quote here. However, the first thing to understand is that the prayer of a sinner he will not hear. the only prayer of an unbeliever that he'll hear is the prayer of repentance. From there on, it's bliss all the way.
If you have issues that make you less of a believer (the other 20%), ask them and we'll try to answer. then i'd explain how it is you can get to know God for yourself.
And by the way, its not possible to hold that GOd's word is true and also believe that macroevolution is true. Either one is true and the other false or they are both false. In my case, i dont believe in evolution - and i'm a biologist,    Rom. 3;4. Cheers.

ricadelide:

And by the way, its not possible to hold that GOd's word is true and also believe that macroevolution is true. Either one is true and the other false or they are both false. In my case, i don't believe in evolution - and i'm a biologist, Rom. 3;4. Cheers.

I knew they had to exist somewhere, biologists that don't believe in evolution
You guys must be of a rare breed, sorry kind
Care to explain what exactly makes you doubt the TOE?

Well said ricadelide.

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. God cannot be brought down to a laboratory to be viewed empirically. His ways are past finding out, and He in His own sweet time will reveal the truth.

I pray that people will have an open mind to such revelations as they come.

Bobbyaf:

I pray that people will have an open mind to such revelations as they come.

Coming from you, that definitely makes me shudder.

nferyn:

I knew they had to exist somewhere, biologists that don't believe in evolution
You guys must be of a rare breed, sorry kind
Care to explain what exactly makes you doubt the TOE?

It's funny, i'm doing a Phd in molecular biology and i don't believe in evolution. I'm in a very lonely company though. LOL. But i'm sure there are are other biologists who don't.
I believe in intra-species evolution. At the very least, viruses are always evolving. i don't beleive in cross-species jumps.
the first doubt, of course, is that am a believer - i hold God's word to be absolutely true. Rather than why do i not believe in TOE, it's more like why should I? I don't expect science to believe in God, most scientists are naturalists, so it doesn't surprise me that we need a counter-argument to explain life and the universe. Believe me, the best place to enjoy biology is from a biblical christian perspective

ricadelide:

It's funny, i'm doing a Phd in molecular biology and i don't believe in evolution. I'm in a very lonely company though. LOL. But i'm sure there are are other biologists who don't.

Well, you've got Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells. The force of their arguments is rather weak though.

ricadelide:

I believe in intra-species evolution. At the very least, viruses are always evolving. i don't beleive in cross-species jumps.

What magical barrier is there to prevent speciation events from taking place? Why micro-evolution and not macro-evolution? The underlying processes are identical and there's nothing in the genome that prevents it, afaik.
Obviously, I am not a biologist, but only a social scientist with a keen interest in evolutionary biology. And, in view of your professional and educational background I am very interested in what exactly makes you doubt evolution

ricadelide:

the first doubt, of course, is that am a believer - i hold God's word to be absolutely true.

So basically you'll reject evidence if it contradicts your faith?

ricadelide:

Rather than why do i not believe in TOE, it's more like why should I?

IVR's, the resemblance of mitochondrial DNA to bacterial DNA?
Maybe the following will interest you as a molecular biologist:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/286/5439/458?ijkey=wdICO7J7uPLqc
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

ricadelide:
I don't expect science to believe in God, most scientists are naturalists, so it doesn't surprise me that we need a counter-argument to explain life and the universe. Believe me, the best place to enjoy biology is from a biblical christian perspective

How so?

PS: Ricadelide, I must say I truly appreciate your effort and I hope you can help me better understand your position, whether or not we will eventually agree or not.
PPS: I actually first wanted to put in a reference to Francis Collins when I replied to WesleyanA's post, as I consider his position to be one that a sensible theist can take (although I don't agree with him and many theists use arguments from his authority to shut up non-theist dissenters)

@nferyn
how u can pick on a few words and overlook the passage is beyond me. At first you claim there was NO explotion at all now its an explosion that was not chaotic or disorderly - let me get this straight. We have a highly densed nuclues (proton, cosmic egg, whatever) at a very high temperature and pressure expanding rapidly through explosion and the result is unchaotic and orderly? You would not know science if it hits you in the face.

nferyn:

Either you accept the scientific method to arrive at truth or you don't. But if you do, you have to accept one of the basic principles of the scientific method as well, the criterium of falsifiability [/b]of hypotheses. You then should accept any attempt at falsification of your hypothesis on the basis of how well the evidence lines up with your hypothesis and if the evidence contradicts your hypothesis, you should accept it to be falsified. You cannot pick and choose the evidence that fits your hypothesis and reject the evidence that doesn't. Either your hypothesis is valid or it isn't.
[b]Christian Cosmology based on a literal reading of Genesis is manifestly not a valid hypothesis, let alone a theory.

What in science name have you come up with now? You(and atheism) very well break this rule. You've totally thrown away and rejected the scientific evidence against bb i brought up earlier sticking to the few that bb can cook up. You totally ignore that most of bb is based on speculation and can not be proven. What i've deduced is that atheism is in fact a religion and truly based on faith (refer to my last post). You have a few of your type ("scientific" evidence that points in your direction, you disregard other (still scientific) evidence that opposes it and most of all you conclude based on a huge amount of what is mere speculation and largely unprove-able notions.

And you continually scream science as if you are one professor, when you do not understand the principle of explosion - a principle that your bb theory so thwarts - by claiming the universe exploded within itself and expanded but yet there was no space out of it. That is to say, an atom (actually much smaller and without any exterior space) just exploded within itself and became this huge infinite universe. Wow! I swear you have more faith than i do.

Look if you want to talk science talk science - since you obviously do not understand when ricadelide talks supernatural, but do not hide behind your so called rules that is only rightly interpreted and implemented by you. If you want an open and honest discussion (or research) or bb, intelligent design and/or genesis, i'm always around.

nferyn:

So basically you'll reject evidence if it contradicts your faith?

I knew you'd say that. That's not entirely true. I don't reject evidence, rather i'd hold the evidence to more scrutiny. The same evidence can be presented before two different people and their deductions could be different. For example, the evidence of comparative genomics in terms of the similarity of DNA across species is true. To a naturalist who doesn't beleive in God, it suggests that there is a common ancestor. To one who does, it illustrates that the creator left his blueprint in all his creatures - making different species with essentially the same material and varying the things he chooses to.
what baffles me is the way in which similarities are assumed to mean commonality of descent - that's the same idea behind bacteria and the mito - that assumption is only necessary when you rule out a creator.
micro-evolution seems to be more rapidly occuring in microorganisms than in higher species. Someone will make a deduction about that in a way that favours evolution. In my case, i have premises that make me see it in a totally different light.

I enjoy your posts as well - cos i can understand your position. However, I'd explain my grouses with the TOE in much detail later. I've spent too much time online today though; av'got papers to read.

Ricadelide and Somze as soon as you get the time please take a look at these streaming videos and give me your views. I believe you should find them interesting. The one hour or so presentation is worth it.

Here is the link:

http://www.halos.com/videos/index.htm

The Centre of the universe video really shaters the theory of the doppler's effect as it relates to the universe. I know you guys will appreciate the videos.

God bless.

Bobbyaf:

Ricadelide and Somze as soon as you get the time please take a look at these streaming videos and give me your views. I believe you should find them interesting. The one hour or so presentation is worth it.

Here is the link:

http://www.halos.com/videos/index.htm

The Centre of the universe video really shaters the theory of the doppler's effect as it relates to the universe. I know you guys will appreciate the videos.

God bless.

bandwidth is low - using it up for other stuff. Wish i could just download it instead. Anyway will take a look at it.

nferyn, somze, bobbyjaf et al,

you guys should check this link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/progs/06/hardtalk/mackay06sep.ram

and let me know what you think.

somze:

@nferyn
how u can pick on a few words and overlook the passage is beyond me. At first you claim there was NO explotion at all now its an explosion that was not chaotic or disorderly - let me get this straight. We have a highly densed nuclues (proton, cosmic egg, whatever) at a very high temperature and pressure expanding rapidly through explosion and the result is unchaotic and orderly?

Playing the semantics game, are we? The Big Bang was nothing like we, as ordinary human beings, can imagine. The coming into existence and rapid expansion of spacetime is not comparable at all to anything we would ordinarily call an explosion. Ask that to any physicists and he/she will tell you as much.
Your - or rather Wayne Jackson's - argument was entirely based on analogy. He was comparing the consequences of an ordinary explosion to the results of the Big Bang, a deeply flawed and misleading analogy. Regular explosions only happen within the existing spacetime. The usage of the word explosion within a popular scientific and educational context is permissible as the goal is to to elucidate a complex phenomenon. Expanding the use of that analogy beyond that context is disingenuous, especially if it is not treated as analogous, but rather as synonymous.

somze:

You would not know science if it hits you in the face.

Yeah right, and you would, no doubt.

somze:

Either you accept the scientific method to arrive at truth or you don't. But if you do, you have to accept one of the basic principles of the scientific method as well, the criterium of falsifiability of hypotheses. You then should accept any attempt at falsification of your hypothesis on the basis of how well the evidence lines up with your hypothesis and if the evidence contradicts your hypothesis, you should accept it to be falsified. You cannot pick and choose the evidence that fits your hypothesis and reject the evidence that doesn't. Either your hypothesis is valid or it isn't.
Christian Cosmology based on a literal reading of Genesis is manifestly not a valid hypothesis, let alone a theory.

What in science name have you come up with now? You(and atheism) very well break this rule.

Where?

somze:

You've totally thrown away and rejected the scientific evidence against bb i brought up earlier sticking to the few that bb can cook up.

Which evidence? The assertions based on analogy and the - non-scientific - anthropic principle? Of course, anyone with even the tiniest bit of scientific integrity would do that.

somze:

You totally ignore that most of bb is based on speculation and can not be proven.

No, it is not based on speculation, it is inferred from the observations and still unfalsified. You could of course come up with a better falsifiable explanation that explains the observations better.

somze:

What i've deduced is that atheism is in fact a religion and truly based on faith (refer to my last post).

Empty assertion. On what faith exactly is it based?

somze:

You have a few of your type ("scientific" evidence that points in your direction, you disregard other (still scientific) evidence that opposes it and most of all you conclude based on a huge amount of what is mere speculation and largely unprove-able notions.

Proof is for mathematics and logic, not for science. In science, evidence is key. your sloppy usage of scientific terminology only shows your lack of insight into the scientific method

somze:

And you continually scream science as if you are one professor, when you do not understand the principle of explosion - a principle that your bb theory so thwarts - by claiming the universe exploded within itself and expanded but yet there was no space out of it. That is to say, an atom (actually much smaller and without any exterior space) just exploded within itself and became this huge infinite universe. Wow! I swear you have more faith than i do.

Can you stop the psychobabble for a moment and ponder over what you just wrote here? The post-modernists can learn a few tricks from you in the construction of hermetic sentences void of content.

somze:

Look if you want to talk science talk science - since you obviously do not understand when ricadelide talks supernatural, but do not hide behind your so called rules that is only rightly interpreted and implemented by you.

I have no idea what you're on about here. Can you rephrase?

somze:

If you want an open and honest discussion (or research) or bb, intelligent design and/or genesis, i'm always around.

I'm glad to hear, but I don't like to discuss cosmology any further, as it doesn't interest me in the slightest. Intelligent Design on the other hand

ricadelide:

I knew you'd say that. That's not entirely true. I don't reject evidence, rather i'd hold the evidence to more scrutiny. The same evidence can be presented before two different people and their deductions could be different. For example, the evidence of comparative genomics in terms of the similarity of DNA across species is true. To a naturalist who doesn't beleive in God, it suggests that there is a common ancestor. To one who does, it illustrates that the creator left his blueprint in all his creatures - making different species with essentially the same material and varying the things he chooses to.

How then do you explain the findings from the link on the [url=http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html]comparison of the human and great ape chromosomes[/url]?

ricadelide:

what baffles me is the way in which similarities are assumed to mean commonality of descent - that's the same idea behind bacteria and the mito - that assumption is only necessary when you rule out a creator.

I thought that Margulis' endosymbiotic theory partially undermines common descent in it's simplistic tree of life representation . Anyway, the findings from genomic comparison are perfectly in line with the predictions of the TOE and if they weren't, they would be the ideal way of falsifying the TOE. Also, how come another finding of comparative genomics, namely the predictions on speciation events coming from mutation rates of non-coding DNA perfectly match with the dates obtained from radiometric dating of fossils?

ricadelide:

micro-evolution seems to be more rapidly occuring in microorganisms than in higher species. Someone will make a deduction about that in a way that favours evolution. In my case, i have premises that make me see it in a totally different light.

Care to expand?

ricadelide:

I enjoy your posts as well - because i can understand your position. However, I'd explain my grouses with the TOE in much detail later. I've spent too much time online today though; av'got papers to read.

Looking forward to it.

@ Ricadelide

nferyn, somze, bobbyjaf et al,

you guys should check this link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/progs/06/hardtalk/mackay06sep.ram

and let me know what you think.

Interesting indeed how the level of interest in creationism is growing. Thanks for the link.

@nferyn
You were actually correct about the explosion argument. Most websites i go through fall short of explaining it as a chaotic explosion but stick to a gradual expansion.

There 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.

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

1. Infinitesimally small object yet with infinitely high temperature and pressure and infinitely densed.

The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

2. This object appeared because , em em err err ugghh! Look I'm a scientist, i'm smart take it that way.

The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models, the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density and concomitantly huge temperatures and pressures, very rapidly expanding and cooling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

3. As a scientist that knows a lot about everything i'm allowed to purely speculate without any inference or evidence just pure speculations. My fellow science friends too have their speculations about BB. You go ahead choose which one you want and its okay as far as no supernatural force is involved.

As much as BB has it range of "observational" scientific evidence (that assumes the correctness of a lot of unproved theories like Einstein's Relativity, Cosmological Principle, inflationary theory. Heisenberg uncertainty principle - most basically mathematical models) and its speculations, like -

[list]
[li]Expansion of the Universe [/li]
[li]Origin of the cosmic background radiation [/li]
[li]Nucleosynthesis of the light elements[/li]
[li]Formation of galaxies and large-scale structure [/li]
[/list]

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_pillars.html

it also has a number of scientific issues (problems and puzzles) it is grapling with. Such as

[list]
[li]Horizon problem[/li]
[li]Flatness/oldness problem[/li]
[li]Magnetic monopoles[/li]
[li]Baryon asymmetry[/li]
[li]Globular cluster age[/li]
[li]Dark matter[/li]
[li]Dark energy[/li]
[/list]

and more

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_problems.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

As usual a few of these have their explanations based on more "assumed correct" speculations, principles and models.

Now is BB the only plausible theory that is consistent with these scientific evidences it offers? Look at what a renowned Astrophysicist has to say -

People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

I see, hmm, any examples? Yes indeed

In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.5 Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.6 Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950.

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

In view of all this i guess Ricadelide, bobbyja and I can bring up our own theory - yes you guessed it write

[center]Genesis 1[/center]

In the begining God created the sky and the earth. The earth was empty and had no form,

Now i find the BBC hard talk link quite interesting, i hope you took a look at it too. i also i'm looking at a the subject -
"Does God Exist?"
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/does-god-exist-c.htm

Will hola!!!

somze:

@nferyn
You were actually correct about the explosion argument. Most websites i go through fall short of explaining it as a chaotic explosion but stick to a gradual expansion.

Bcause the Big Bang, according to the theory, wasn't an explosion, but an expansion.

2. This object appeared because , em em err err ugghh! Look I'm a scientist, i'm smart take it that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

That's not what he said, and he certainly wasn't implying that. While, non-scientists and Creationists have the luxury of making up or "inventing without due cause" non-answers to cosmology and other sciences that deal with origins, scientist don't. So, the evidence shows: space, time, etc, were caused by the big bang; and at one point there may have been a singularity. Due to physical and other constraints it isn't possible at the moment to go beyond a certain point in time. However, there are some very good hypotheses for what was "before" the Big Bang.

3. As a scientist that knows a lot about everything i'm allowed to purely speculate without any inference or evidence just pure speculations. My fellow science friends too have their speculations about BB. You go ahead choose which one you want and its okay as far as no supernatural force is involved.

Don't be asinine. Supernatural forces would be included if there was a way to test them (after describing them, of course) mathematically or otherwise in the future and to tie them in with other working theories.

As much as BB has it range of "observational" scientific evidence (that assumes the correctness of a lot of unproved theories like Einstein's Relativity, Cosmological Principle, inflationary theory. Heisenberg uncertainty principle - most basically mathematical models)

Einstein's theory of relativity has been shown to work and has testable evidence behind it. The others work mathematically, IIRC - that is evidence in its own right (although I think Heisenberg's goes further than that).

and its speculations, like -
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_pillars.html

it also has a number of scientific issues (problems and puzzles) it is grapling with. Such as

[list]
[li]Horizon problem[/li]
[li]Flatness/oldness problem[/li]
[li]Magnetic monopoles[/li]
[li]Baryon asymmetry[/li]
[li]Globular cluster age[/li]
[li]Dark matter[/li]
[li]Dark energy[/li]
[/list]

I haven't come across some of them, but I do know Dark matter isn't an assumption and there are working theories for Baryogenesis. And so on.

@K A G

Bcause the Big Bang, according to the theory, wasn't an explosion, but an expansion.

I stand corrected

That's not what he said, and he certainly wasn't implying that.

1. Please look up the link again. It is written clearly that the early part of the BB is speculative and different scientist have different speculations about it.

While, non-scientists and Creationists have the luxury of making up or "inventing without due cause" non-answers to cosmology and other sciences that deal with origins, scientist don't.

The bible does not go into great details of Creation and NO one will insert speculations into the bible to answer things the bible leaves silent. The bible simple states God did it and not necessarily how it was done. I think this points to something - We dont make things up.

So, the evidence shows: space, time, etc, were caused by the big bang; and at one point there may have been a singularity.

Most evidences are observational and based on theories not yet proved. Why are we going over this again? Yes there are evidences for it but i pointed out that there are evidences against it too. Some of the issues have been explained but not up to an acceptable level, since they depend on on assumptions, principles and theories that have not been proven. Most however, have not be explained at all. I noted all this.

Due to physical and other constraints it isn't possible at the moment to go beyond a certain point in time. However, there are some very good hypotheses for what was "before" the Big Bang.

Lets put it this way - Numerous speculations dont question them because smart scientists say so.

Einstein's theory of relativity has been shown to work and has testable evidence behind it. The others work mathematically, IIRC - that is evidence in its own right (although I think Heisenberg's goes further than that).

Sticking to the theories mentioned,
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle - was not accepted by Albert Einstein and some other physicist (such as Alfred Lande). The only reason why most scientist accept it today is

Whether Einstein's view or Heisenberg's view is true or false is not a directly empirical matter. One criterion by which we may judge the success of a scientific theory is the explanatory power it gives us, and to date it seems that Heisenberg's view has been the better at explaining physical subatomic phenomena.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

So if tomorrow this is proved empirically wrong, think of how many of their ideas - subatomic and cosmological - will go down with it. Maybe i can start a conspiracy theory about this

Einstein's Relativity Theory - It still has its issues. I'll give you just 2 sites (trust me there are many) to explain -
Theory is true - but not much said about it, so a forum discusses it.
http://digg.com/general_sciences/Einstein_s_relativity_theory_proven_with_the_lead_of_a_pencil

Theory is false - http://www.physics.semantrium.com/relativity.html

You can do your search for more.

I haven't come across some of them, but I do know Dark matter isn't an assumption and there are working theories for Baryogenesis. And so on.

Dark matter ( i think, from what i read before my last post) is not an assumption but it counts against BB. I think it is observed some where in space. Baryogenesis (again i think from what i remembered reading before my last post) is more of an hypothesis ( purposedly did not use the word "speculation" that explains stuff mostly in favor of BB.

Cheers.

somze:

@K A GI stand corrected
1. Please look up the link again. It is written clearly that the early part of the BB is speculative and different scientist have different speculations about it.

However, the evidence for the Big Bang isn't aren't speculative.

The bible does not go into great details of Creation and NO one will insert speculations into the bible to answer things the bible leaves silent. The bible simple states God did it and not necessarily how it was done. I think this points to something - We don't make things up.

Then you haven't read most of the writings of Creationists, particularly that of the Young Earth Creationists.

Most evidences are observational and based on theories not yet proved. Why are we going over this again?

I don't think that's the way it works. If the different lines of evidence have and can be observed, then the theory would be based on them, not vice versa. Also, theories are not proved in science. And, sometimes it's necessary to go over things again for the purpose of clarification.

Yes there are evidences for it but i pointed out that there are evidences against it too. Some of the issues have been explained but not up to an acceptable level, since they depend on on assumptions, principles and theories that have not been proven. Most however, have not be explained at all.

First, you didn't point out any problems with the Big Bang theory, you just copy/pasted what you thought were problems without reading the lines that prefaced them:

"Throughout the historical development of the subject, problems with the Big Bang theory were posed in the context of a scientific controversy regarding which model could best describe the cosmological observations (see history section above). With the overwhelming consensus in the community today supporting the Big Bang model, many of these problems are remembered as being mainly of historical interest; the solutions to them have been obtained either through modifications to the theory or as the result of better observations."

Second, what is an acceptable level? So far the theory as a whole is unfalsified and the evidences for it keeps mounting.

Finally, theories are based on evidence and science still doesn't prove.

I noted all this.
Lets put it this way - Numerous speculations don't question them because smart scientists say so.

Then you don't know scientists.

Sticking to the theories mentioned,
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle - was not accepted by Albert Einstein and some other physicist (such as Alfred Lande). The only reason why most scientist accept it today is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

So if tomorrow this is proved empirically wrong, think of how many of their ideas - subatomic and cosmological - will go down with it. Maybe i can start a conspiracy theory about this

Well, it turns out Einstein was wrong on that front (by the way he refused to accept it not because of evidence against it, but because he didn't like what it implied. True story). And the reason most scientists accept it today is - wait for it - because it works. If it is falsified at some time in the future then aspects of sub-atomic and comoslogical theories will be discarded; however, that's a big if.

Einstein's Relativity Theory - It still has its issues. I'll give you just 2 sites (trust me there are many) to explain -
Theory is true - but not much said about it, so a forum discusses it.
http://digg.com/general_sciences/Einstein_s_relativity_theory_proven_with_the_lead_of_a_pencil

Theory is false - http://www.physics.semantrium.com/relativity.html

You can do your search for more.

If you have the time, do a google search for Flat Earth theory and Geocentricism. Heck, just type in the Universe and the Earth is 6,000 years and see tthe number of forums and sites that are dedicated to ridiculous ideas. Einstein's theory of relativity hasn't been falsified; there's too much evidence for it; and scientists aren't idiots.

Dark matter ( i think, from what i read before my last post) is not an assumption but it counts against BB.

No it doesn't.

I think it is observed some where in space. Baryogenesis (again i think from what i remembered reading before my last post) is more of an hypothesis ( purposedly did not use the word "speculation" that explains stuff mostly in favor of BB.

Cheers.

Pretty much sums it up.

YOU are the one that is ignorant in not knowing that there is the supernatural. the books by Dawkins and others that you've been reading have, rather than enlighten, made you more ignorant of realities that are beyond your scope (because all you do is reject anything that is beyond your scope)

Beautifully put, it is what I have been trying to drill into nferyn's head with my multiple posts, but I suck when it comes to expressing my thoughts into words.

Nferyn thinks Science is the end all and be all in explaining the world's infinite complexity. Its so naive it borders on insanity. Even Einstein believed in a higher being, or unexplained forces, and he was way smarter than any of us. There are many things science doesnt explain and WILL NEVER EXPLAIN because it cannot. It has its limitations. To have such blind faith in a man made construct to the point of fanaticism is no different than religious fanatics really in my mind. The differenc eis Science for the most part benefits humanity and furthers our understanding of the world around us albeit to a limited degree.

shango:

YOU are the one that is ignorant in not knowing that there is the supernatural. the books by Dawkins and others that you've been reading have, rather than enlighten, made you more ignorant of realities that are beyond your scope (because all you do is reject anything that is beyond your scope)

Beautifully put, it is what I have been trying to drill into nferyn's head with my multiple posts, but I suck when it comes to expressing my thoughts into words.

Ah shango, welcome. Always nice to see that my favourite stalker pays me a visit
Unfortunately, and I regret to bring this up, you have been a little liberal with the truth in the matter.
1. Our discussions have been about me voicing my conviction that you lack a basic insight in the scientific method and your reactions to me voicing that opinion.
2. I have never claimed that science explains everything, only that where science cannot explain something, religion is even a worse candidate at explanation.
3. Drilling into my head is indeed a fair characterisation of you incessant attempts at stalking, after our first encounter, you've been following me around almost every thread you can find to voice your disagreement with my points of view, even though your objections are often times quite irrelevant to the discussion.

shango:

Nferyn thinks Science is the end all and be all in explaining the world's infinite complexity.

Not quite. It is the best tool we currently have, though, and the only reliable one at that. It is still rather limited though due to it's rigour and methodological restrictions.

shango:

Its so naive it borders on insanity.

Here we go again. Entering the land of slurs, ad homs and character assassinations. Not to forget the straw men you like to put up that should represent my opinions.

shango:

Even Einstein believed in a higher being, or unexplained forces, and he was way smarter than any of us.

Another argument from authority. You should know by now that this is a logical phalacy. By the way, you are also putting up a straw man of Einstein's positions, as he neither believed in a higher being, nor in unexplained forces (unless you call unexplained force a deep awe in the face of the beauty and magnificence of the universe)

shango:

There are many things science doesnt explain and WILL NEVER EXPLAIN because it cannot. It has its limitations.

And where, my dear shango, did I say otherwise? The problem is that, when faced with something science doesn't yet or cannot in principle explain, some people automatically assume that religion is a better explanatory factor, while it usually is a far poorer candidate than science ever would be.

shango:

To have such blind faith in a man made construct to the point of fanaticism is no different than religious fanatics really in my mind.

Straw men galore. Your mind really is limited if you have to use such piss poor argumentation.
1. Where did I show blind faith? Kindly show me those instances where I exhibit blind faith.
2. Man made construct: Is the emotional baggage of those words supposed to discredit the value of the man made construct that science is or is it just another rhetorical trick?
3. What religious fanatics are you talking about? Those that fly planes into tall buildings, stone adulterous women or bomb abortion clinics? Do you really want to put me in the same category as those fanatics or is this sentence yet again a rhetorical device to discredit my opinions?

shango:

The differenc eis Science for the most part benefits humanity and furthers our understanding of the world around us albeit to a limited degree.

Your point? Or is this, once again, another pre emptive defensive move from your side?

Ah shango, welcome. Always nice to see that my favorite stalker pays me a visit

Aha ha, please. Get over yourself. This isnt your website and noone is paying you "a visit". The ego on this guy is incredible. This is an open forum where people come here to post and debate and argue and post information. Perhaps you think the world revolves around you. But Whilst you are on this fora 24/7 as witnessed by your countless posts every fucking day please check the last time I even signed on here. You live life here on this forum obviously, I live life in the real world as witness by your 2500+ post count. So who really is the stalker? I post here like once a month while you never fail to respond to any of my posts, and it shows with how quick it took you to submit that last post. Sorry to have kept you waiting all those months my friend, but you probably won't see me on here till another couple of months. Till then keep hitting that refresh button awaiting my next reply.

Stalker indeed. So says the 4 posts a day guy. Calling someone out on their bullshit and better than thou attitude aint stalking buddy. Maybe in the world off nferyn where Nairaland is your home where everyone pays you a visit and those that respond to the "almighty" are trespassing on your sacred property.

Get a life.

lovely, shango the one minute man

You are the one with the ego problem, as since I called you on your scientific ignorance, you've been following me around like a duckling, accusing me of things I never said.
When will you actually address my points instead of continuing your ad hominem slurfest.

Look at what started of this merry go round (I underlined the factually incorrect statements):

shango:

the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. like all scientific thoeries that are not laws it has holes. i never said theories where not held in high esteem by scientists, learn to read. And laws are held in higher regard to theories. Go read any introductory science book. The thoery of evolution does seek to explain the origin of species. read darwins work of the same name. people try to reply to my facts by posting bs and irrelevant nonsense. the evolution thoery contains alot of facts like genetic mutations (which supports the idea that organisms might infact evolve, so does dna and genes and genetic processes) it does not state for a fact that evolution does occur hence it is still a THEORY. When such physical proof is shown it will become a LAW

shango:

basic scientific methods illeterates

And there came the first slur

shango:

and capitalistic society as we know it has huge problems and flaws. making money has inherent evils and is not neccessarily better than the barter system for example. the single minded viewpoints of post-colonial drones never ceases to amaze me.

And here we actually agree

@the poster: I don't care where you go,if you like believe in your SHIT thats your problem

@everyone

What has come over you all that you raise and discuss this kind of topics on this forum? The ultimate aim of any human being, I believe, should be the salvation of your soul. Whatever you believe in that will give you salvation is none of any body's businesss, but yours.

If you like, belive that a tree, or a dog, or a stone will give you salvation, (then that is the god you believe in), however, as for me and my household, we will surely serve and worship the Lord God Almighty.

If you want to know this almighty God, then go and read your bible.

N.B[i][/i] I used to engage in this stupidity and fallacy of querying the bible and questioning God many years ago together with a cousin of mine who is a PHD Holder in Engineering. It led both of us nowhere.

Now, I know that God is the ultimate source of power and Him and His word (the bible; which by the way, He honours even above His name), therein lies all the answers to man's life problems, including all the blasphemous nonsense some people have written in this thread.

bodsibobo:

@everyone

What has come over you all that you raise and discuss this kind of topics on this forum? The ultimate aim of any human being, I believe, should be the salvation of your soul. Whatever you believe in that will give you salvation is none of any body's businesss, but yours.

Why shouldn't these issues be raised. There perfectly legitimate topics of discussion.
When you state that the ultimate aim of a human being should be the salvation of it's soul, then you're already presupposing the existence of such a thing as soul. Never has anyone ever been able to show evidence of the existence of a soul, so why should I accept that there is such a thing?

bodsibobo:

If you like, believe that a tree, or a dog, or a stone will give you salvation, (then that is the god you believe in), however, as for me and my household, we will surely serve and worship the Lord God Almighty.

And you are absolutely certain that this specific God, with the specific properties described in the Bible, exists? What a vanity.

bodsibobo:

If you want to know this almighty God, then go and read your bible.

He's quite a confusing fella, isn't he, that God of yours? And a capricious, unpleasant deity as well.

bodsibobo:

N.B[i][/i] I used to engage in this stupidity and fallacy of querying the bible and questioning God many years ago together with a cousin of mine who is a PHD Holder in Engineering. It led both of us nowhere.

I can only imagine. Ignorance is a biblical virtue, after all.

bodsibobo:

Now, I know that God is the ultimate source of power and Him and His word (the bible; which by the way, He honours even above His name), therein lies all the answers to man's life problems, including all the blasphemous nonsense some people have written in this thread.

Good to know you consider us, blasphemers, a problem to be solved. I just hope you won't retort to the kind of solutions your almighty God regularly used to get rid of those that opposed his chosen people.

nferyn:

And you are absolutely certain that this specific God, with the specific properties described in the Bible, exists? What a vanity.

He's quite a confusing fella, isn't he, that God of yours? And a capricious, unpleasant deity as well.

That's the rub isn't it. The problem with proving whether or not there is a God is the same problem as proving that all of us aren't figments of somebody else's imagination. Or any other number of equally plausible. . . or implausible situations.

But in any case, the original point of this response was to point out that perhaps what people believe is God is incorrect. Assuming it is even possible for a human mind to comprehend God (which makes even more assumptions about the ability of humans to conceive of something it has never (and can never?) experience), perhaps God really is capricious and not as "nice" as we'd like.

I think both sides of the argument are more similar than they think. Both have a theory - God exists, God does not. Both have evidence that proves their case. . . in many instances the exact same evidence. The problem is - as someone has mentioned before - the evidence is subject to interpretation and there is no way to quite demonstrate that either way of looking at it is "wrong".

Grr. . . I hate only having a few seconds every few weeks to come onto this forum.

mr atheist , ACCEpt into ur life now, I dont want you my brother to realize that there is God in hell, I love u but Jesus loves u most ,

MP007:

mr atheist , ACCEpt into your life now, I don't want you my brother to realize that there is God in hell,

There's a God in hell?

I love u but Jesus loves u most ,

How do you know that?

ok ooo, u go soon believe