Science Vs God?????

I've always thought that the Big Bang theory can be seen as an observance to something that happened. Why it happened, or who did it itself cannot be explained just by looking at the result. Sort of like if you're outside a fenced baseball field, and get hit in the head with a ball. Sure, you know what it is (a ball), but you don't know who did it or why it happened. Someone may have thrown it out, hit it out, or something else entirely. Maybe that's a lame analogy, but it's the only thing I can think of to explain what I'm trying to say ^^U

Hero - I agree 100%. I'm entirely comfortable with "God was responsible for the Big Bang," and science has nothing to say either way about that, and doubtfully ever will. But there's it's a long way from "God was responsible for the Big Bang," and "God created the world and the universe exactly like it says He did in Genesis."

If God can create man, woman, and animals all at full growth, then I don't doubt He could make Earth in a full-fledged version. Not really what I've always believed, but it's a different view on things. Personally, I always thought that if the Big Bang is true, then God caused it and if the world took billions of years to shape, no one ever attributes how long a 'day' really is in Genesis. But I think I'm just rambling now, so I'll go off and play a few games until I think can add something to this thread.

I don't doubt that He could create the world in any state he wants - I just doubt that He would do something so silly and pointless. Until someone can give me a plausible explanation why God would create a world that appears to be one million times older than it actually it is, I'm going to keep repeating Occam's Razor.

Have you considered that Genesis is simply a myth with no historical basis, rather than trying to squeeze and contort evidence to try to fit it into the text?

Yeah, I have. But then again it seems like people always tell me 'anything written can be taken out of context, or over a period of time, be rehashed and retranslated to mean something different than intended.' I mean, if people feel that the written word is fallible, then that means there could be a lot of meanings in Genesis...or none at all. That also means, though, that written theories, scientific surveys, et al. is also fallible. Notsomuch that the word itself is clumsy and prone to failure, misinterpretation, or 'coloring' of the truth, but the fact that those who put the word down are.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Captain Vegetable
Exept that Occam's Razor is thoroughly ignored in any other case in science.

Your statement is null because the entire scientific community ignores Occum concerning creation. They prefer the more complex explanation of the Big Bang and evolution and the inherantly impossible circumstances surrounding them, rather than God created everything.

You can't just evoke it when it suits you.

So, the real definition of Occum's Razor is this: The most simple answer is usually the correct one...but only if it suits me!

---

What insipid nonsense.

Science and faith-based explanations do not deserve equal weight, otherwise we'd still be burning witches at the stake and using leeches to suck out "bad blood."

Surely it is "simpler" to trace the cause of the bubonic plague to evil spirits or sorcery or pick-the-superstition-of-your-choice, rather than rat-borne microscopic pathogens. But thankfully, science has taught us not to rely on myth, and people no longer die by the millions of curable disease.

Likewise, myth has no place in explaining the origins of Earth.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero
I mean, if people feel that the written word is fallible, then that means there could be a lot of meanings in Genesis...or none at all. That also means, though, that written theories, scientific surveys, et al. is also fallible.

---

I've never said scientific evidence was infallible. But scientific theories have evidence behind them, while religious stories generally have none.

Quote:

---

Notsomuch that the word itself is clumsy and prone to failure, misinterpretation, or 'coloring' of the truth, but the fact that those who put the word down are.

---

And the fact that those who defend the word are prone to all of those things. And that defenders of the word have much more to gain from manipulation than those who put it down.

Science is based on the search for truth, and scientists are driven, in part, by a desire for fame. The scientist that proves the existence of God will be the greatest scientist who ever lived. What does science have to gain by conspiring to cover up the existence of the Almighty?

Then ask yourself what religious leaders have to lose by the acceptance of science.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cyco


Dont you ever tell me what to do. Ever.

---

Ever or never ever....????

Quote:

---

That's why I think science, at least in the most pioneering fringes, is more 'special interest' than anything.

---

If you are doing things correctly, it doesn't matter. If you set out to prove that all turkeys have yellow skin, to serve your own interest in turkey skin colors, and all the turkeys have brown skin(relative to your measuring standard), you're going to find brown skinned turkeys. If you're attempting to prove they have blue skins, you'll find brown skins. It doesn't matter what you're looking for, if you are doing things correctly, you will find what there is.
There are a few other things I can go over in this example, but they shouldn't be necessary. The main point= honest interpretation and presentation of evidence. If you find something contrary to your own "interests", feel free to look for something else that disproves it. Many do, I imagine. And if someone is attempting to support conclusions that there own tests disagree with, then you don't call that science.



Can you honestly say that your book was made purely with the interest of truth in mind? it doesn't seem that way, but I have read but the one paragraph. Anyways, books with special interests should telegraph those interests to their target audience, so I'm quite curious.


regarding the quote from your book:
I think "all else being equal" is a necessary qualifier. And for the purpose of practical use, change it to "all known things being equal". If both possibilities you are considering have an intelligent god involved,with aspirations towards creation, then yes,I would consider it more likely that that god did actually take a role in circumstances instead of simply letting them develop on their own.

However, what evidence supports the inclusion of a god into the list of "known things"? before including god in the formation of probabilities, you have to have a reason to put one in there in the first place. If the variable of god is arbitrarily included:

Quote:

---

Personally, I always thought that if the Big Bang is true, then God caused it and if the world took billions of years to shape

---

then the probability is flawed. And I mean "added arbitrarily", not "added as the result of a mistake". Which we make allowances for. As part of the "only human clause", or whatever you want to call it.

Quote:

---

that written theories, scientific surveys, et al. is also fallible.

---

you should be able to test scientific theories. thats the value of the scientific method.

Wow. I go to bed and wake up to this. Excellent point Hero and Burgundy. I find myself agreeing with everything you've both said.

Sure, God could've been behind the Big Bang, it never says how God created man, just that He did.

And I'll also agree that clerics have more to lose through science, than science has to lose through faith. I love science. I love theory. And, as far as I can tell, science is awefully correct most of the time for anyone, clerics included, to totally discount it.

I didn't get into this argument as a "God vs. Science" conduit. I have my faith, and at the same time trust science.

P.S. The reason God "hid" certain things is to facilitate faith, Burg. That's why He did things the way He did. ;)

P.P.S. \"the book\" spoken about all throughout those verses is Revelation, and Revelation only. Remember, the Bible wasn\'t a complete work at the time of Revelation\'s penning. They were letters from Paul to some churches, historical accounts of Christs life, and a catalogue of early Jewish history.

Not until later were the manuscripts assembled and called \"The Bible.\" So, when John wrote, \"this book,\" having no foreknowlege of the assemblence of the Bible, he meant \"this book\" Revelation.