First of all, the debate is not "God vs. Big Bang." The Big Bang is far from being the only scientific theory on creation. And the scientific community has most certainly not decided unquestionably on that as the answer. Many scientists outright dismiss the Big Bang theory. The current scientific stance on how the universe was created is "We don't know."
Heck, we're not even entirely sure how our own moon was created yet.
That's the answer I side with as well. I think it's a bit absurd to assume that we could actually know and understand how everything was first created. We haven't even found a cure for the common cold and some people think we can know for a fact how existence sprang into being? We simply don't have the scientific knowledge...or knowledge in general...to know something like that right now. We may never know. In fact we'll probably never know. The universe is an extremely complex place. The human mind cannot conceive of the simple concept of infinity or absolute nothing so how can we visualize how nothing became something infinite?
I don't personally believe in God, but with the limited knowledge we have of the universe, I think "Everything was created by God" is just as plausible a theory as anything else at this point.
I cannot, however, believe in the literal description of creation in Genesis. For one thing, there are two versions of creation, right after one another, in which things occur in different orders. Obviously they both can't be true. That's not even a scientific impossibility...it's a simple logical impossibility. I hear so may people say that they feel everything in the Bible is literal and true...if that's the case, do you also believe creation happened twice...in different orders...at the same time? That passage alone suggests that a literal interpretation may not be the best one. I feel there are more important elements of the Bible and Christianity in general than whether or not Genesis is literal and true. It being a mythological story to convey a general idea does not in any way devalue the fundamental beliefs of Christianity.
Plus there are quite a number of things discussed in Genesis and Creation that have been outright scientifically disproven. Any archaeologist, geologist, or paleontologist can tell you that.
And...men don't have fewer ribs than women, so....
And a few specific points I want to address:
Evolution does not describe how life/the universe was created. It only describes how life changed once it was already there. So it is perfectly possible to believe God created life and in evolution.
Quote:
Originally posted by Krypto
You?re absolutely right. But there is one religion which is different. All of the religions except one are about followers who attempt to do enough stuff that is ?right? in order to get a reward. The only religion which has followers who have a god who has descended to Earth and is there for them is Christianity.
Not even close to true. There are a lot of other religions out there so this is a pretty bold claim to make. Islam, for example, is extremely similar to Christianity. Both it and Judaism contain instances of prophets through which God speaks to his people. Greek religion was already mentioned. Norse religion is another example. Do a little research into other world religions of both past and present and you will found countless references of God or Gods coming into contact with their/his/her people/guiding them/etc.
Obviously it seems more true to you than other religions because it's your own religion. But other people view Christianity the same way you view Greek mythology. I personally view all religions as mythology so looking at this from an objective point of view, you really can't factually state that your religion must be the correct one because a dozen other people with different views and just as much proof are going to say the same thing about their own religions.
Quote:
Originally posted by Krypto
They did have simpler minds in the way that they considered things and worked with things. I mean, if they were as advanced as we are, they?d have built all of the thing which we?ve built because they?d have been able to figure it out. Remember, going along with what you?ve said, all of the material was here when they were, too, right? So, if they weren?t simpler, then we?d have Egyptian skyscrapers-not pyramids.
Their minds were no less "advanced" than ours. Having inferior technology does not make a culture "simple-minded." It simply means the technology hasn't been discovered/invented yet. The reason we are able to make as many of the discoveries as we do in modern times is because we are building on the knowledge of past generations. Scientific progress spans generations. Many of the concepts of modern medicine (i.e. our current understanding of the circulatory system) were original proposed by Greek scientists and doctors.
And Egyptian skyscrapers? They're called pyraminds. The design of the pyramind was extremely advanced and ingenoius for its time. The Egyptians are not an ancient culture I would call "simple-minded." Most archaeologists say the opposite.
Several hundred years from now, there will probably be a few people like you who look back at this time period and think, "Wow, they were so simple-minded!"
Also, last I checked, Christianity originated around your labelled "simple-minded" time period. If we're to operate under your theory that all ancient cultures=simple-minded, then the people who started your religion fall into that category as well.
Quote:
Originally posted by lion_roog
Well, I know that several Bible stories (couldn't tell you which ones off hand) have been proven as actual events by archeologists...
Not the way most Christians interpret them though. The Flood for example: Geological evidence shows that sea levels rose dramatically around the time period this story is believed to have originated. The "birthplace of civilization" (i.e. the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers) would have been flooded during these sea level changes. To any civilization living in that area, it would indeed seem like the entire world had flooded.
By the way, SimbaTheLion, I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but it is not possible to prove that God does not exist with science or math. Many scientists and mathematicians are atheists because their findings and studies have caused them to question religious faith, but as a fellow atheist and someone who keeps up-to-date on scientific knowledge I can garuntee you the scientific community has not found a way to disprove the existence of God.
No offense, but you have a very flawed understanding of science.
Quote:
Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
If something has been rigorously proven, it is true and its validity cannot be destroyed.
That, for example. Scientific and mathematical theories that were once considered "proven" have been disproven in the past. I agree with Pnt, Einstein would shudder at the sound of that statement. You are essentially treating science like a religion and when you start doing that, you become a hypocrite. Science is not about unquestionable faith. It is about discovery, experimentation, trial and error, etc. It is about finding the best way to explain things based on the available evidence. Evidence changes. New things are discovered. Therefore scientific theory must also change.
Any scientist who approaches life under the assumption that all his or her beliefs are irrefutable is a pretty poor scientist.
You say you've not had any university education yet. I have. And before that I went to a college prep private high school with an extremely good math and science program. I was raised in a family very interested in science with a brother who is a genius at math. I grew up reading science news and trying to learn everything I possibly could about the universe. And I have never come across any irrefutable proof that God does not exist. Believe me, as an atheist, I would love it if such a thing existed because I would have some solid validity for my beliefs. But it doesn't. Sorry.
Quote:
Originally posted by Simba_2004
Like the one thread saying that the world is going to end on 6-6-06, I laugh at that, since after all it was "scientifically proven" by the "Bible code."
Aaaand, this is also a very flawed understanding of science. You're saying science proved that the world was supposed to end that day? By the Bible code? You're confusing science and paranoia now. Just because something disagrees with the Bible, does not make it "science." And last I checked, the idea of 666 being an evil number was supposed to be a religious idea, not a scientific one. Time is a human construct, and I garuntee you all scientists know this.