this is one area where people with opposing viewpoints will have to agree to disagree. what you might feel is evidence there is a god, others will argue are merely the writings of man. what you might feel is not evidence supporting the big bang theory, others will find extremely credible.

it's not either of our place to say someones beliefs, regardless of what they are, are "right" or "wrong". to discredit someones beliefs discredits your own.

 

I'm sorry but that is bull****, Medic is way off base with that one. There IS evidence of evolution, and there is evidence our universe is expanding. There is strong theory and evidence that there was a big bang.

There is ZERO concrete (read: measurable, observable data) to suggest there is a God... of any sort.

The slippery thing about creationism is that it doesn't NEED evidence, yet it demands it of those in opposition to itself.

God (religion) requires leaps of faith. Science shuns any theory that requires such a leap of faith.

Trying to quantify good an evil requires you to frame the question in morality. Morality is not universal, and is not "set in stone". Therefor trying to answer such a question is impossible, unless all participants subscribe to a single "moral ideal". While nice, this is obviously not how the world works.

 

and you would be to the scientific community what Jim Bakker or Pat Robertson is to the christian community; a zealot.

to say that scientific theories of where we all came from requires no leaps of faith is rather ignorant. these theories require the common man to believe what is told to us by the scientists, as they are describing to us things that we will never see.

take the "big bang" theory. this is a great theory to describe the creation of the universe. but, what science has yet to explain is what caused the "big bang". the theory also requires us to believe that certain events, out of an infinite number of possibilities, took place exactly as scientists believe they did.


"good and evil" or "right and wrong" are always set in stone. the mitigating circumstances surrounding the actions being judged are what vary.

if a guy steals your car because he wants it, is that right or wrong? it's wrong.

if the guy steals your car so he can sell it to feed his family, is it now right? no, it's still wrong, but many people would believe that the actions surrounding the wrongdoing mitigate it.

 

I don't fight for everyone in the world, but some of them only cause harm to others and they should executed.

 

First of all, I am not a zealot, there are no zealots in the scientific community. In order to be a zealot you have to blindly believe something without empirical proof. That is not science. The 'beliefs' you perceive me to have are able to be measured, studied and quantified. No where in my beliefs is there anything that requires me to take 'a leap of faith'.

Why would you make a distinction between "the common man" and what I can only assume is an "enlightened, uncommon(?) man"? I'm not sure I see where you are going with that statement.

I (and I dare say any real scientist) doesn't want any man, common or otherwise, to believe anything the scientist tells them. Scientists don't REQUIRE or DEMAND people believe them; they present a theory, data to back it up, and a logical conclusions based on that OBSERVABLE data. It is up to the participant to make up their own mind. Hopefully they have enough intelligence to understand the conclusions the scientist draws. If they don't, it's up to them to find an alternative using the same scientific method. Scientist describe things that ANYONE can see. That is the point, and a major cornerstone of scientific theory/methodology; their findings HAVE to be able to be seen by anyone and everyone.

Just because you may not understand the science behind theory a) doesn't mean the scientist is trying to "pull the wool over your eyes" b) means it's not observable (aka requires you to "believe" the scientist blindly), and c) doesn't mean it's the scientists responsibility to educate you on the fundamentals of the science involved. That is the observer's responsibility.

Your arguments are not logical. Please show me where a scientific theory requires a leap of faith akin to what creationists espouse.

You talk about probability; or what is commonly called "the perfect 747" argument. This is an argument creationists use wherein it announce that the probability of life originating without design is as improbable as a hurricane whipping through an airplane junk yard and assembling a perfect Boeing 747 out of all the junk parts.

The creationists come in and say, "See how improbably that is! There is a much simpler answer: God." Right

Now let's take a look at the probability of life arising in the universe without a divine intervention.

We know that at least 1 planet (Earth) is capable of producing and sustaining life.

It has been estimated that there are between 1 billion and 30 billion planets in our galaxy.

There are about 100 billion galaxies in the universe. Lets take the more conservative number (and knock a few zero's off just to be prudent): a billion billion available planets are in our universe.

Let's then assume that the chance of life occurring on a planet is extremely small maybe 1 in a billion. (1:1,000,000,000 against)

So we have life spontaneously originating on around one billion planets. Earth being one of them.

This theory of huge numbers is called the Anthropic principle. While great for giving us an idea of the changes of life originating on a planet it cannot, I repeat cannot be used (and shouldn't be) to try and explain the multitudes of life forms on our planet. We have something else entirely to explain that: Darwin's theory of natural selection and evolution. This is also observable.

Which brings me to my next question: which is less probable? What I have presented above? Or the theory that there is some sentient, intelligent force even MORE complex that is "turning the *****" and making sure everything plays out in a pre-ordained way? You see God is not simple at all. Design theories don't answer questions, they multiply them infinitely. Not only does this God have to control every thing, every particle, every alien race, every galaxy in the universe, he is then charged with the responsibility to get involved with the emotional, political and every day lives of those that believe in him. Listening to and answering (when he can be bothered) to all their thoughts, wishes and prayers. Simple... right.

To address your comments on the big bang:
Firstly:

"the theory also requires us to believe that certain events, out of an infinite number of possibilities, took place exactly as scientists believe they did."

The possibilities were not infinite, the Anthropic principle shows this. Using your logic, you are trying to say these events happened because scientists say they did, and they expect you to believe it on that merit alone. That is not what they are saying at all. The events happened independently of scientists. What you are trying to say is that scientists were the "Creator". Things are they way they are because scientists said so. That's like saying the world was once flat, but because scientists convinced people that it was a sphere using geometry and physics it suddenly became round. The Earth was always round. It just took a few thousand years for humans to figure it out.

Granted, the cosmological equivalent of Darwin's theory has not been found. The big bang theory is a start. All the matter in our universe came from something, and since we can measure the universe's expansion, it has to have expanded from something. There are a some new theories coming to light on how and where the big bang originated from and while not as satisfying as Darwin's explanation of where life came from because it places heavier demands on luck (of which the Anthropic principle allows us to assert far more luck than human intuition is comfortable with), that doesn't mean we should abandon the search in favor of an even MORE complex and MORE improbable intelligent design explanation (I use the word "explanation" lightly here, as the ID theory doesn't explain anything, it just raises the question on "who or what designed the designer?).

Footnote: Much of the information above was lifted from the pages of "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. For anyone that is further interested in some of the things I have said, give it a read.

While the above was slightly tangent to the discussion at hand, it sheds some light on this Good vs. Evil debate. Good and evil are human ideas. They are not present in the rest of nature. Being as they are human ideas everyone has their own. Finding a universal answer is just as difficult as finding a Universal Theory of Everything. And as you can see by just scratching the surface like this post attempted to, that is very difficult indeed.

 

how can they be sure that it isn't just less hot!? where do they draw the line at what the absence of heat is(Cold)!?