"Well, I believe the theory of there being a God can be disproven, and I believe that the theory of a God creating life has already been disproven."
Actually, neither has been disproven. There is no 100% proof either way.

My <3 goes out to you, Jmurph.

<3 <3 <3

You put it better than I think I would if I tried to explain that.

Ugh. Your post sounded fine until you had to throw that last line in. Can you guys quit it with the jabs already? They're absolutely frustrating to listen to and cheapens your argument.

Jmurph gets a tick of approval. Creationist idiots are not christians, in the real sense. I can tolerate real christians - I think they're wrong, but it isn't worth worrying about.

Creationists are another matter. Trying to muddy the waters of reality annoys the hell out of me.

<quote>
Also, Jp, you do know that alot of evidence points away from the big bang, right? In fact, it is currently by no means the common theory, just one you have latched onto.
</quote>

The Big Bang is the only current scientific theory that explains several apparently unrelated observations we have made. In most cases, the theory predicted these observations. There is next to no evidence against it.

There are two major problems, currently. I am telling you these in the interests of scientific honesty, but keep in mind the incredible loads of evidence for it while reading these:

1 - The current 'big' scientific theories (Specifically, relativity and quantum mechanics) can't handle the actual instant where the Bang first turns up. That particular moment, at t=0, all the equations blow up. What you get is a singularity, a point of infinite density and infintesmal volume, and current physics doesn't handle that too well. However, it is already known that quantum mechanics and relativity aren't perfect at all - they don't mesh. We don't have a quantum theory of gravity. When someone finally comes up with the next 'big' theory, merging quantum mechanics and relativity, this problem will most likely just go away. It's probably an artifact of the minor inaccuracies in current theories.

2 - The current Big Bang requires something called 'inflation' in order to get the theory to match patterns of temperature distribution in the Cosmic Microwave Background. This inflation is basically a ridiculously rapid period of expansion that happens for a very short time before turning itself off. This is probably a bigger problem. Getting the next relativity may fix it, but it's more likely that the solution will lie in the nature of Dark Energy, a sort of anti-energy that has been predicted due to the apparent acceleration in the expansion of the universe. Certain variants of Dark Energy cause this inflation to occur.

Those are the two main problems. Pretty much anything else is basically nitpickery - Is c 3x10**8 or 2.99x10**8 sort of things.

Now let's look at the main pieces of evidence -

1 - The thing that caused the Bang to be first formulated - the universe is expanding. It was noticed because of the observation that light from pretty much everything in the universe is red-shifted by an amount proportional to the distance between the object and our solar system. Look up hubble shift on Wikipedia if you want to learn more about that.

Basically, if you time-reverse an expansion, you get a collapse to a point. Put time back to normal, and you get a 'explosion' of space-time from an infintesmal point - the Big Bang.

2 - The existance of the Cosmic Microwave Background, a low-energy 'hum' of electromagnetic radiation, that can be found no matter where you point your telescope. Also, it's incredibly uniform - it varies in magnitude by about 1 part in 10000 - which is really small, given how faint it is.

Using the Big Bang, the 'temperature' of this radiation was predicted to be about 3 kelvin - three degrees above absolute zero. It was measured afterwards at 2.7 kelvin - Which is within uncertainty. This is pretty powerful evidence - there isn't much else that could generate EM radiation of the appropriate energy, with a particular spectrum, and spread it so uniformly across the sky.

3 - Finally, the ratios of various light elements in the universe has been predicted by the Big Bang, and fits what we can see within uncertainty.

Trying to get all three of those results without the Bang is pretty damned difficult. That is why the Big Bang is the currently accepted theory on the origins of the universe today. The only other alternative is the Steady State model, which can't account for any of the three main pieces of evidence provided for the Big Bang, and also requires the constant creation of new matter or energy for it to work. There are no other theories.

Before you say something like 'But I don't believe it, and neither do any of my friends!', you should be aware that you don't have the education to make an informed and rational decision on the subject, and thus don't really count. All scientists (That aren't fundies pretending to be scientists) accept the Big Bang.

<quote>
My religion states that God created the world. Now, wouldn't someone who had all power be able to create this world already a couple billion years old??
</quote>

Yes, James, that could have happened. The world could have also been created last thursday, with all the appearance of being 3.5 billion years old. If you're argument holds, so does that one. Hopefully, you can see that the argument is illogical - I can't prove you wrong. At all. That doesn't make you right - quite the contrary. It makes you dead wrong. It means that you can't ever, ever provide any evidence for your faith - it is consistent with all possible worlds. That means that you can't ever, ever logically back up your beliefs. I hope you can see why that's a problem. If you can't, I suggest looking up information on the logical (As opposed to the legal) definition of the Burden of Proof.

<quote>
On that note, couldn't someone who was all powerful also creater the universe so that it continually expands, the founding evidence behind the Big Bang?
Whatever scientific evidence says, it can easily be disputed by the Christian faith.
</quote>

"Well, God made it look like that!" isn't disputing. That's childish contradiction. It isn't evidence. It isn't even justification, unless you want to put the cult of Last Thursdayism on the same ontological level as christianity.

<quote>
Also, theirs a book Ive been reading- The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. It in itself does not outright prove Christianity, but ti does dispel most of the common arguements against it, using scientific fact.
</quote>
(emphasis mine)

Then he's already wrong. There is no such thing as scientific fact. There is scientific-we're-99.99999%-sure-it's-correct, there's scientific theory (Which is pretty much synonymous with the first one), but there is no scientific fact. I won't explain why right now - This comment is already way too long. Look up inductive logic in your local library, or on wikipedia, or something, for an explanation.

<quote>
And most fo the books in the book were written well over a thousand, close to 2.
</quote>

Burrow is correct here. The Bible is generally thought to have been compiled in 100 AD or so. Of course, books have been added and removed since then, but the basic thing began back then.

<quote>
Actually, neither has been disproven. There is no 100% proof either way.
</quote>

You're slightly wrong there. There can be no proof of anything in inductive logic - but there can be disproofs. The problem is that it's impossible to falsify anything about your deity. Last Thursdayism strikes again.

I would like to point out that being 99.99999% sure is still close enough, when it comes to the issue, and scientists are far more certain then that. Evolution has stood for over 200 years. It isn't going to fall. If scientists couldn't kill it over that time, they never will. Some of the outer coating may change - some of the details might have to be different - maybe genetic drift is the primary motive for change in species over time, not natural selection. But the basic idea - Over time, animals grow more suited to their environment - that won't ever change. The same was true for newton's theories. They may have been recoloured and rejigged a bit by Einstein, but the basic ideas still hold - Newton's Three Laws hold as much today as they did when they were formulated.

<quote>In which case the parables of Jesus probably confuse the heck out of you.</quote>

"Daddy, did Jesus save that poor little lost sheep?"

"Yes he did, son, yes he did. Just like that silly, silly prodigal son."

(Couldn't help myself. The mental image was so damned amusing)

Not really. I've gotten used to typing huge streams of text about any- and everything. :P

Jamesburrow should be happy I don't just dismiss him out of hand with a one-line quip. No, I develop a logical argument that probably took way too much of my time for too little benefit, and THEN I made my one line quip! Last Thursdayism, ha! Where do I come up with this stuff?

PS - Nobody enlighten anybody else as to where I came up with this stuff

PS - Nobody enlighten anybody else as to where I came up with this stuff

Science class? :o

I'm not trying to debate or prove anything.

Atheist, you shall burn.

religon sucks

come up with something more imaginative than this---->
a group in the 1900s that thought "we dont like jews, lets create a plan full of propaganda and make peoplenot want to be a jew!(or even hate religion)"
somepeople belive the war never even happend (WWII), and that is was just propaganda ....


i know somehtng thats more imaginative!!!!
RELIGION...

although.. i side with both. (science and religion)

but these comments are making me for now, side with science much more..

Faggot ^


Christian niggers, jewish niggers, all kinds of niggers you should get the FUCK off my planet nigger.