Big Bang Theory of the Universe's Begining Thrown Into Question

[AstroBlue]

Oh, you don't need carbon 14 to prove the earth is old. You can use stuff like sedementary layers or ice core drilling to prove that without resonable doubt.

But then again, maybe God created the electronic radiation of the "big bang", built the earth with layers that "prove" it's old, and then buried skeletons of things that never existed like dinosaurs and neanderthals to "test our faith".

And that's why I hate debate between religion vs science. Science is based on "solid" "facts" which you can prove or disprove, the Bible on the other hand is "amorphous" and "subject to interpretation". I wish God would just send down a "solid" Bible with linear notes explaining what she EXACTLY means.

Until then, the science vs religion debate is like arguing over the contents of a psychology textbook compared to Shakespeare's Tempest. They both have merit about the human mind, but because the Tempest is subject to interpretation, you can't compare them or use them against each other.

[Captain Vegetable]

Until then, the science vs religion debate is like arguing over the contents of a psychology textbook compared to Shakespeare's Tempest. They both have merit about the human mind, but because the Tempest is subject to interpretation, you can't compare them or use them against each other.

Agreed, but this never was a "science v. relegion" debate.

[AstroBlue]

Since things can be carbon 14 dated to as far back as 70,000 years, it makes an intelligent attempt at nullifying the "young Earth" belief many Christians hold to, thus contributing to the theories of Evolution and the Big Bang, all be it indirectly.

Agreed, but this never was a "science v. relegion" debate.

Could've fooled me

[Captain Vegetable]

Could've fooled me

You're going to have to do better than that.

[frostwolf ex]

"stupid bitch prime"

discarded title for metroid prime
>runs away<

[gamevet]

Nobody in religion says, "oh they discovered this and this so we have to change how we look at the Bible" or whatever. Religion is fixed, the truths are the truths according to the book or doctrine. The discovery of this huge ancient galaxy doesnt change the fact that God created the world in 7 days. Nobody's gonna be putting white-out to Genesis anytime soon.

Yet, the church came up with the idea of Purgatory. The original testament said nothing about it.

[Captain Vegetable]

Yet, the church came up with the idea of Purgatory. The original testament said nothing about it.

Wrong. The book of Macabees mentions it, which is of the original cannon.

And it is also mentioned, though not by name, in the Gospel according to Luke, chapter 16.

[Omni]

You have nothing to lose if you are wrong. I am the most wretched form of life on this green Earth if I am wrong.

So, no. Unfortunately I cannot say the same thing.

May I ask why not?

[bbobb]

Why does the Universe have to have a beginning?

Isn't it possible that our concept of time is completely wrong, and there is no beginning or end? That's always been my problem with the big bang theory... we always try to put things into ways we understand.

[/philisophical rambling]

[rezo]

You see, the thing is not that the conclusion supports itself, but that the whole Christian argument need reference an absolute authority. It is this authority that all Christian arguemnts stem from, not the conclusions of said arguments.

What authority does science have, but the authority it imposses upon itself?

" or is entirely dependent on something else sufficiently detached from reason - which could be a million things and none of the million would have priority over any of the others so I just ignore that whole set.
"

So if a faith based belief is not supported purely by the supposed merit of the conclusion, then it is supported by anything else, like your authority. Any arbitrary thing can replace it and be of equal value as far as reasons go.

Science as I understand it is based on the work that is done. If an argument can predict future results it is regarded as a possible explanation for said results and over time if it is continually proven through more tests its regarded as a more likely explanation. If its disproven then the scale halts or moves back.