The Bible in quotations

[J70]

At the same time lads is atheism not even more illogical than faith?

I mean its a case of going "right there are those people over there who believe in God, of which there is no scientific evidence, but I am say there is definitely no God"

Kinda weird logic because how in the hell do you know there is no God?

I mean if you need evidence to support faith then why would you even consider God's existence in the first place?

And why would you waste your time to make a decision that you believe such a thing could never exist and arguing with the people of faith that he does not exist?

That's what I can't get my head around?

Agnostics make sense at least they are just going "Well I dunno.... maybe,... maybe not" "Yeah sometimes I do but then other times well I just dunno"

Do you believe in the existence of fairies?

Never looked into it in depth, so I wouldn't really be in a position to comment on their full existence. Alot of their happenings seem to have a perfectly logical explanation but at the same time I know I wouldn't want to the man who had to go at fairy fort with a digger. I suppose its a case of who knows, so why mess with it?

Now let me ask you a question.... Do you believe in Extra Terrestrial life forms? And do you think that it is a logical thing to search for evidence of those life forms?

First, I don't believe in fairies as there is zero evidence to support their existence.  Same with werewolves,  banshees, vampires, ghosts, Bigfoot, gods, etc. etc.

ET life is, of course, a possibility.  Our planet is obviously proof that life exists. No reason why, given the magnitude of the galaxy and wider universe,  it should not have developed elsewhere.

As for looking for it, well that is a question of feasibility and economics.

[omaghjoe]

You do realise that the big bang is only a theory

Probably the most quoted, most misconceived objection to Big Bang and every other scientific theory.

there is no real evidence of it

Really? Maybe I should suggest a reading list.

And that the theory is based on that everything in the universe appears to be moving away from everything else, from the point that we are looking at it.

Correct. You have an alternative interpretation of this observation?

The real truth is that scientists don't have a feasible explanation on the origins of the universe

On what basis have you arrived at this "real truth"? What explanation do you propose that is more "feasible" than the big bang. And where have you published your research?

the Big Bang theory is only a proposal based on what we know

What is the word "only" doing in this phrase? You would prefer proposals based on what we don't know?

much like the Adam and Eve theory.

What? I have to leave now. My mind has just gone into boggle overdrive

I'm all ears Hardy, you've got smart comments but no real factual answers. Why do you believe that the Big Bang theory is correct? What evidence is there for it?

You do realise that scientists spend so much time trying to prove the Big Bang theory is because they don't have any evidence that it happened in the first place?

[omaghjoe]

At the same time lads is atheism not even more illogical than faith?

I mean its a case of going "right there are those people over there who believe in God, of which there is no scientific evidence, but I am say there is definitely no God"

Kinda weird logic because how in the hell do you know there is no God?

I mean if you need evidence to support faith then why would you even consider God's existence in the first place?

And why would you waste your time to make a decision that you believe such a thing could never exist and arguing with the people of faith that he does not exist?

That's what I can't get my head around?

Agnostics make sense at least they are just going "Well I dunno.... maybe,... maybe not" "Yeah sometimes I do but then other times well I just dunno"

Do you believe in the existence of fairies?

Never looked into it in depth, so I wouldn't really be in a position to comment on their full existence. Alot of their happenings seem to have a perfectly logical explanation but at the same time I know I wouldn't want to the man who had to go at fairy fort with a digger. I suppose its a case of who knows, so why mess with it?

Now let me ask you a question.... Do you believe in Extra Terrestrial life forms? And do you think that it is a logical thing to search for evidence of those life forms?

First, I don't believe in fairies as there is zero evidence to support their existence.  Same with werewolves,  banshees, vampires, ghosts, Bigfoot, gods, etc. etc.

ET life is, of course, a possibility.  Our planet is obviously proof that life exists. No reason why, given the magnitude of the galaxy and wider universe,  it should not have developed elsewhere.

As for looking for it, well that is a question of feasibility and economics.

Very strange that you believe in ET life when there is no evidence that such a thing could exist, we don't even know how or why it started on earth FFS. But if the universe is so large then pretty much anything is possible including Bigfoot, banshees, faires etc

Also if according to scientists we are all just floating atoms and molecules how would we even recognise life if we did find it? Could we have already passed over other life forms as they see themselves and vise versa? Including on this planet?

The scientific evidence and theroy would suggest all things are possible and we could never possibly understand the whole thing.

[Keyser soze]

At the same time lads is atheism not even more illogical than faith?

I mean its a case of going "right there are those people over there who believe in God, of which there is no scientific evidence, but I am say there is definitely no God"

Kinda weird logic because how in the hell do you know there is no God?

I mean if you need evidence to support faith then why would you even consider God's existence in the first place?

And why would you waste your time to make a decision that you believe such a thing could never exist and arguing with the people of faith that he does not exist?

That's what I can't get my head around?

Agnostics make sense at least they are just going "Well I dunno.... maybe,... maybe not" "Yeah sometimes I do but then other times well I just dunno"

I agree to a point.

As I see it, he problem is as simple as.

What (or who) caused the Big Bang?

Could it have been a 'being' or was it a 'happening'?

What was there before it?

The obvious problem with crediting some kind of being with creating the big bang is you are then stuck with the question of what created this being with such awesome power and knowledge.

So your telling me that you only believe in God if he created the Big Bang?

You do realise that the big bang is only a theory, there is no real evidence of it?
And that the theory is based on that everything in the universe appears to be moving away from everything else, from the point that we are looking at it.

The real truth is that scientists don't have a feasible explanation on the origins of the universe, the Big Bang theory is only a proposal based on what we know, much like the Adam and Eve theory.
It may take another eureka moment like Charles Darwin on evolution to explain the origins of the universe however my guess is that while it may further our understanding of the universe it will probably also make it more complicated and end up creating more questions than answers.

I rest my case lol

[omaghjoe]

At the same time lads is atheism not even more illogical than faith?

I mean its a case of going "right there are those people over there who believe in God, of which there is no scientific evidence, but I am say there is definitely no God"

Kinda weird logic because how in the hell do you know there is no God?

I mean if you need evidence to support faith then why would you even consider God's existence in the first place?

And why would you waste your time to make a decision that you believe such a thing could never exist and arguing with the people of faith that he does not exist?

That's what I can't get my head around?

Agnostics make sense at least they are just going "Well I dunno.... maybe,... maybe not" "Yeah sometimes I do but then other times well I just dunno"

I agree to a point.

As I see it, he problem is as simple as.

What (or who) caused the Big Bang?

Could it have been a 'being' or was it a 'happening'?

What was there before it?

The obvious problem with crediting some kind of being with creating the big bang is you are then stuck with the question of what created this being with such awesome power and knowledge.

So your telling me that you only believe in God if he created the Big Bang?

You do realise that the big bang is only a theory, there is no real evidence of it?
And that the theory is based on that everything in the universe appears to be moving away from everything else, from the point that we are looking at it.

The real truth is that scientists don't have a feasible explanation on the origins of the universe, the Big Bang theory is only a proposal based on what we know, much like the Adam and Eve theory.

It may take another eureka moment like Charles Darwin on evolution to explain the origins of the universe however my guess is that while it may further our understanding of the universe it will probably also make it more complicated and end up creating more questions than answers.

What are you talking about?

The point of my post is that proposing that some intelligence created the big bang only introduces one more thing, way more fantastical, that has to be explained.

As for "only a theory"... a classic non-scientific dismissal.  Theory in science means something different to theory in everyday use.

There is lots of evidence for the big bang.  Its been around since Hubble in the 20s and predicted the discovery of background microwave radiation in the 60s and is still standing 50 years on as scientific study only gets more detailed.  Doesn't mean another model wont build on it and replace it, but its been very successful so far.

Yes but scientific theories are  based on evidence and there is scant evidence of the Big Bang. Unlike: Evolution which has been all but proven.
The atomic theory where the evidence is overwhelming
Or the Tectonic Plate theory where the evidence is pretty solid but still needs open to question and further refinement.

Lets not confuse the Big Bang with theories like those above, it is just a case of something that was floated but is very difficult to disprove and it will probably take a Darwin eureka like moment to disprove it.
The problem for me is that it is hard to swallow that in the whole complexity of the universe is something as simple as the Big Bang? Just doesn't add up. Its the Adam and Eve of its day I don't have an alternative explanation tho but I don't feel the need to have a scientific explanation for the origins of the universe, it becomes pretty irrelevant anyway to our lives don't you think?

[omaghjoe]

At the same time lads is atheism not even more illogical than faith?

I mean its a case of going "right there are those people over there who believe in God, of which there is no scientific evidence, but I am say there is definitely no God"

Kinda weird logic because how in the hell do you know there is no God?

I mean if you need evidence to support faith then why would you even consider God's existence in the first place?

And why would you waste your time to make a decision that you believe such a thing could never exist and arguing with the people of faith that he does not exist?

That's what I can't get my head around?

Agnostics make sense at least they are just going "Well I dunno.... maybe,... maybe not" "Yeah sometimes I do but then other times well I just dunno"

I agree to a point.

As I see it, he problem is as simple as.

What (or who) caused the Big Bang?

Could it have been a 'being' or was it a 'happening'?

What was there before it?

The obvious problem with crediting some kind of being with creating the big bang is you are then stuck with the question of what created this being with such awesome power and knowledge.

So your telling me that you only believe in God if he created the Big Bang?

You do realise that the big bang is only a theory, there is no real evidence of it?
And that the theory is based on that everything in the universe appears to be moving away from everything else, from the point that we are looking at it.

The real truth is that scientists don't have a feasible explanation on the origins of the universe, the Big Bang theory is only a proposal based on what we know, much like the Adam and Eve theory.
It may take another eureka moment like Charles Darwin on evolution to explain the origins of the universe however my guess is that while it may further our understanding of the universe it will probably also make it more complicated and end up creating more questions than answers.

I rest my case lol

Thanks for your invaluable input.

However I would most welcome it if you could take us through the Big Bang theory and the evidence that it happened.

[Hardy]

You do realise that the big bang is only a theory

Probably the most quoted, most misconceived objection to Big Bang and every other scientific theory.

there is no real evidence of it

Really? Maybe I should suggest a reading list.

And that the theory is based on that everything in the universe appears to be moving away from everything else, from the point that we are looking at it.

Correct. You have an alternative interpretation of this observation?

The real truth is that scientists don't have a feasible explanation on the origins of the universe

On what basis have you arrived at this "real truth"? What explanation do you propose that is more "feasible" than the big bang. And where have you published your research?

the Big Bang theory is only a proposal based on what we know

What is the word "only" doing in this phrase? You would prefer proposals based on what we don't know?

much like the Adam and Eve theory.

What? I have to leave now. My mind has just gone into boggle overdrive

I'm all ears Hardy, you've got smart comments but no real factual answers. Why do you believe that the Big Bang theory is correct? What evidence is there for it?

You do realise that scientists spend so much time trying to prove the Big Bang theory is because they don't have any evidence that it happened in the first place?

They're not particularly smart comments. Any Junior Cert science student could have made them.

Some of them are a bit sarcastic, for which I should apologise. However, you cannot expect to be taken seriously when you dismiss the big bang theory as being "much like the Adam and Eve 'theory'".

Before you start dismissing scientific theories and equating them with fairytales, superstitions and legends you might acquaint yourself with the definition of a scientific theory. It's a lot more than a speculation, as you seem to think. Here's one description that's good enough for starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

As regards your question about the evidence for big bang,  you can do some googling to get a pretty good answer. Prepare a for a few years of reading. After that, you may want to reconsider your statement that "scientists spend so much time trying to prove the Big Bang theory because they don't have any evidence that it happened in the first place."

You ask why I believe the big bang theory is correct. The word "correct" doesn't really apply, because science doesn't deal in certainties. It works on probabilities and on the basis that the explanation that fits all known observations has the highest probability of being the best explanation of how the world works. And that the one that has not been supported by ANY observations (e.g. the Adam and Eve "theory") has pretty much zero probability of being a reasonable explanation of anything.

So, in reality, scientists spend their time trying to DISPROVE big bang and all other theories. Every time they fail, they have actually succeeded in further cementing the theory's status as the best possible explanation for everything we observe.

[J70]

At the same time lads is atheism not even more illogical than faith?

I mean its a case of going "right there are those people over there who believe in God, of which there is no scientific evidence, but I am say there is definitely no God"

Kinda weird logic because how in the hell do you know there is no God?

I mean if you need evidence to support faith then why would you even consider God's existence in the first place?

And why would you waste your time to make a decision that you believe such a thing could never exist and arguing with the people of faith that he does not exist?

That's what I can't get my head around?

Agnostics make sense at least they are just going "Well I dunno.... maybe,... maybe not" "Yeah sometimes I do but then other times well I just dunno"

Do you believe in the existence of fairies?

Never looked into it in depth, so I wouldn't really be in a position to comment on their full existence. Alot of their happenings seem to have a perfectly logical explanation but at the same time I know I wouldn't want to the man who had to go at fairy fort with a digger. I suppose its a case of who knows, so why mess with it?

Now let me ask you a question.... Do you believe in Extra Terrestrial life forms? And do you think that it is a logical thing to search for evidence of those life forms?

First, I don't believe in fairies as there is zero evidence to support their existence.  Same with werewolves,  banshees, vampires, ghosts, Bigfoot, gods, etc. etc.

ET life is, of course, a possibility.  Our planet is obviously proof that life exists. No reason why, given the magnitude of the galaxy and wider universe,  it should not have developed elsewhere.

As for looking for it, well that is a question of feasibility and economics.

Very strange that you believe in ET life when there is no evidence that such a thing could exist, we don't even know how or why it started on earth FFS. But if the universe is so large then pretty much anything is possible including Bigfoot, banshees, faires etc

Also if according to scientists we are all just floating atoms and molecules how would we even recognise life if we did find it? Could we have already passed over other life forms as they see themselves and vise versa? Including on this planet?

The scientific evidence and theroy would suggest all things are possible and we could never possibly understand the whole thing.

What do you mean there is no evidence for ET life? We're here, aren't we? There is no reason why a planet similar to earth somewhere else could not harbor life. Doesn't mean it exists  or existed elsewhere, but the strong possibility is certainly there given the age and vastness of the universe.

Yeah fairies and the like could exist (is there anything that couldn't?), but there is zero evidence for them being anything other than a figment of the imagination which took hold at a time when people were ignorant, uneducated and casting about for something to explain the world. To compare them to the possibility of extraterrestrial life is simply ludicrous.

I don't think I've ever heard a scientist describe us a "just floating atoms and molecules". And unless you're aware of life forms that don't grow, reproduce, use energy, interact with their environment etc. etc. I don't what you're talking about when you say "how would we even recognise life if we did find it?"

[J70]

At the same time lads is atheism not even more illogical than faith?

I mean its a case of going "right there are those people over there who believe in God, of which there is no scientific evidence, but I am say there is definitely no God"

Kinda weird logic because how in the hell do you know there is no God?

I mean if you need evidence to support faith then why would you even consider God's existence in the first place?

And why would you waste your time to make a decision that you believe such a thing could never exist and arguing with the people of faith that he does not exist?

That's what I can't get my head around?

Agnostics make sense at least they are just going "Well I dunno.... maybe,... maybe not" "Yeah sometimes I do but then other times well I just dunno"

I agree to a point.

As I see it, he problem is as simple as.

What (or who) caused the Big Bang?

Could it have been a 'being' or was it a 'happening'?

What was there before it?

The obvious problem with crediting some kind of being with creating the big bang is you are then stuck with the question of what created this being with such awesome power and knowledge.

So your telling me that you only believe in God if he created the Big Bang?

You do realise that the big bang is only a theory, there is no real evidence of it?
And that the theory is based on that everything in the universe appears to be moving away from everything else, from the point that we are looking at it.

The real truth is that scientists don't have a feasible explanation on the origins of the universe, the Big Bang theory is only a proposal based on what we know, much like the Adam and Eve theory.

It may take another eureka moment like Charles Darwin on evolution to explain the origins of the universe however my guess is that while it may further our understanding of the universe it will probably also make it more complicated and end up creating more questions than answers.

What are you talking about?

The point of my post is that proposing that some intelligence created the big bang only introduces one more thing, way more fantastical, that has to be explained.

As for "only a theory"... a classic non-scientific dismissal.  Theory in science means something different to theory in everyday use.

There is lots of evidence for the big bang.  Its been around since Hubble in the 20s and predicted the discovery of background microwave radiation in the 60s and is still standing 50 years on as scientific study only gets more detailed.  Doesn't mean another model wont build on it and replace it, but its been very successful so far.

Yes but scientific theories are  based on evidence and there is scant evidence of the Big Bang. Unlike: Evolution which has been all but proven.
The atomic theory where the evidence is overwhelming
Or the Tectonic Plate theory where the evidence is pretty solid but still needs open to question and further refinement.

Lets not confuse the Big Bang with theories like those above, it is just a case of something that was floated but is very difficult to disprove and it will probably take a Darwin eureka like moment to disprove it.
The problem for me is that it is hard to swallow that in the whole complexity of the universe is something as simple as the Big Bang? Just doesn't add up. Its the Adam and Eve of its day I don't have an alternative explanation tho but I don't feel the need to have a scientific explanation for the origins of the universe, it becomes pretty irrelevant anyway to our lives don't you think?

Al scientific theories are open to refinement. Plate tectonics, like evolution with biology, is nothing short of amazing in the way it tied together the entire field of geology under one overarcing framework. Not sure why you think it is still open to question.

All it would take to disprove the big bang theory would be evidence that the universe was NOT expanding. Unless you are going to align yourself with a theory that says it started expanding sometime AFTER its origin (is there such as theory?), I'm not sure what your objection to it is. Like I said previously, it is still standing 90 years after the idea was first proposed. That is pretty robust by any scientific standards. What it DOES say is that even if the big bang theory as a whole is ultimately rejected, much of it will probably be retained given its proven explanatory power. Similar to Newton and Einstein.

[muppet]

ArmaghJoe, the Big Bang Theory wasn't created because the galaxies are moving away from each other. The Theory was proposed initially and on the basis of the theory it was agreed that certain observations would have to be made which could undermine or support the theory.

One of those predictions was that if the universe could be observed to be expanding this would add weight to the theory. For example the background cosmic microwaves from just after the Big Bang. This was being theoretically predicted in Princeton University while by amazing coincidence, just down the road, it was famously being observed by people who had no idea what it was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

There are many other observations that add weight to the theory. It hasn't been completely proven scientifically, but all of the observations give a lot of weight to the theory. So I will go with that until something proves otherwise.

[omaghjoe]

Alright lads I'm not really interested in keeping three conversations going at once, probably the fault of my ego for responding. On a side note where do you suppose egos come from lads?

Anyway firstly I would like to clarify a few things:

I am aware of what scientific theory is and my comment "just a theory" was probably the wrong choice of words but in any case it should not have been taken as a stand alone comment as I had went on to acknowledge that it is based on the observations/ theory that everything in the universe is moving away from everything else. However the fact that in this thread people are willing to take individual quote that  out of a multi-authored, multi translated 2000-5000 year old book which they have never read in its entirety to prove their argument that the whole thing is rubbish, then it does not surprise me that they would attempt to manipulate my post in an attempt to depict me as a creationist (of which I am not) and undermine by points.
For example I could take the quote "scienice does not deal with certainties" from Hardy's post and run with but I won't I get what he was trying to say

As for comparing the Big Bang theroy to Adam and Eve I would also like to clarify this. I am not comparing the two on the evidence we have now rather on the evidence that was/is available at the time each was/is accepted as a logical explanation. Adam and Eve theory existed for thousands of years and is actually based on scientific theory as well. If you see procreaton and the numbers of the population growing then it is perfectly logical to assume that it all started with two people and grew from there. Of course we can laugh and scoff now and say that it has no basis in fact  at those people for believing that but they were only doing what scientists are doing now with  the Big Bang theory and that is basing it off observations that are available to them. It's a bit simplistic for me but I am more a questioner than follower.

Tetonic Plate theory like many scientific theroies has many holes, for example many geologists don't buy the convection theory, as they figure it aint possible with the measured densities of rock. I'm fairly well convinced on it but I am open to new theories. However the weathering and cooling theory was accepted until about 50 years ago, as the evidence for it also appeared quite strong (and still does!).

Floating atoms is pretty much what we are and everything else to according to the atomic theory, which I might add has been all but proven. So if that is the case then everything is possible in this universe and the only thing that is preventing us from seeing it all are our bodies which are incapable of observing those things. In other words we most likely will never be able to understand the universe!

However surely the basis of looking for new life is not looking to some far off world it would be researching how it started here in the first place, of which we have no idea.

Anyway let me say this, if you believe in the Big Bang and ET on the availble evidence then you are taking an enormous leap of faith. And I am glad that you have it in your lifes and it is a vital component for living.

[muppet]

Alright lads I'm not really interested in keeping three conversations going at once, probably the fault of my ego for responding. On a side note where do you suppose egos come from lads?

Anyway firstly I would like to clarify a few things:

I am aware of what scientific theory is and my comment "just a theory" was probably the wrong choice of words but in any case it should not have been taken as a stand alone comment as I had went on to acknowledge that it is based on the observations/ theory that everything in the universe is moving away from everything else.

You still have it backwards. It wasn't based on this at all, the theory existed long before that observation.

However the fact that in this thread people are willing to take individual quote that  out of a multi-authored, multi translated 2000-5000 year old book which they have never read in its entirety to prove their argument that the whole thing is rubbish, then it does not surprise me that they would attempt to manipulate my post in an attempt to depict me as a creationist (of which I am not) and undermine by points.
For example I could take the quote "scienice does not deal with certainties" from Hardy's post and run with but I won't I get what he was trying to say

I started the thread and have read it in its entirety. Why would you say the above?

As for comparing the Big Bang theroy to Adam and Eve I would also like to clarify this. I am not comparing the two on the evidence we have now rather on the evidence that was/is available at the time each was/is accepted as a logical explanation. Adam and Eve theory existed for thousands of years and is actually based on scientific theory as well. If you see procreaton and the numbers of the population growing then it is perfectly logical to assume that it all started with two people and grew from there. Of course we can laugh and scoff now and say that it has no basis in fact  at those people for believing that but they were only doing what scientists are doing now with  the Big Bang theory and that is basing it off observations that are available to them. It's a bit simplistic for me but I am more a questioner than follower.

Adam & Eve is/was based on scientific theory? And this was the same as what scientists are doing now with the Big Bang Theory?

I have heard it all. There were no observations whatsoever to support Adam & Eve. But they went ahead with The Bible and to this day there are people who insist it is absolutely true.

Tetonic Plate theory like many scientific theroies has many holes, for example many geologists don't buy the convection theory, as they figure it aint possible with the measured densities of rock. I'm fairly well convinced on it but I am open to new theories. However the weathering and cooling theory was accepted until about 50 years ago, as the evidence for it also appeared quite strong (and still does!).

Floating atoms is pretty much what we are and everything else to according to the atomic theory, which I might add has been all but proven. So if that is the case then everything is possible in this universe and the only thing that is preventing us from seeing it all are our bodies which are incapable of observing those things. In other words we most likely will never be able to understand the universe!

Agreed, but what is your point?

However surely the basis of looking for new life is not looking to some far off world it would be researching how it started here in the first place, of which we have no idea.

Anyway let me say this, if you believe in the Big Bang and ET on the availble evidence then you are taking an enormous leap of faith. And I am glad that you have it in your lifes and it is a vital component for living.

People ARE researching how life began here. It does't help that some people confuse the issue with Adam & Eve stories.

As for your last line, how do you like the reverse statement: Anyway let me say this, if you believe in the Big Bang and ET GOD on the availble evidence then you are taking an enormous leap of faith. And I am glad that you have it in your lifes and it is a vital component for living.

How do you like it?

This despite the fact that we have far more evidence for The Big Bang. I can imagine how you would have treated the likes of Galileo.

[screenexile]

Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve

QED

[omaghjoe]

Alright lads I'm not really interested in keeping three conversations going at once, probably the fault of my ego for responding. On a side note where do you suppose egos come from lads?

Anyway firstly I would like to clarify a few things:

I am aware of what scientific theory is and my comment "just a theory" was probably the wrong choice of words but in any case it should not have been taken as a stand alone comment as I had went on to acknowledge that it is based on the observations/ theory that everything in the universe is moving away from everything else.

You still have it backwards. It wasn't based on this at all, the theory existed long before that observation.

Hmmm.... I don't think so

However the fact that in this thread people are willing to take individual quote that  out of a multi-authored, multi translated 2000-5000 year old book which they have never read in its entirety to prove their argument that the whole thing is rubbish, then it does not surprise me that they would attempt to manipulate my post in an attempt to depict me as a creationist (of which I am not) and undermine by points.
For example I could take the quote "scienice does not deal with certainties" from Hardy's post and run with but I won't I get what he was trying to say

I started the thread and have read it in its entirety. Why would you say the above?

My sincere apologies

As for comparing the Big Bang theroy to Adam and Eve I would also like to clarify this. I am not comparing the two on the evidence we have now rather on the evidence that was/is available at the time each was/is accepted as a logical explanation. Adam and Eve theory existed for thousands of years and is actually based on scientific theory as well. If you see procreaton and the numbers of the population growing then it is perfectly logical to assume that it all started with two people and grew from there. Of course we can laugh and scoff now and say that it has no basis in fact  at those people for believing that but they were only doing what scientists are doing now with  the Big Bang theory and that is basing it off observations that are available to them. It's a bit simplistic for me but I am more a questioner than follower.

Adam & Eve is/was based on scientific theory? And this was the same as what scientists are doing now with the Big Bang Theory?

I have heard it all. There were no observations whatsoever to support Adam & Eve. But they went ahead with The Bible and to this day there are people who insist it is absolutely true.

There were observations to suggest that it is true, procreation the ever expanding population, the idea of evolution was a long way off so it was a scientific explantion. In hindsight it was completely untrue of course but it made sense at the time for those generations

Tetonic Plate theory like many scientific theroies has many holes, for example many geologists don't buy the convection theory, as they figure it aint possible with the measured densities of rock. I'm fairly well convinced on it but I am open to new theories. However the weathering and cooling theory was accepted until about 50 years ago, as the evidence for it also appeared quite strong (and still does!).

Floating atoms is pretty much what we are and everything else to according to the atomic theory, which I might add has been all but proven. So if that is the case then everything is possible in this universe and the only thing that is preventing us from seeing it all are our bodies which are incapable of observing those things. In other words we most likely will never be able to understand the universe!

Agreed, but what is your point?

It was a response to J70 that it was cast iron certainty, however the whole statement could be considered as a demonstration of how scientific theories are often replaced and debunked

However surely the basis of looking for new life is not looking to some far off world it would be researching how it started here in the first place, of which we have no idea.

Anyway let me say this, if you believe in the Big Bang and ET on the availble evidence then you are taking an enormous leap of faith. And I am glad that you have it in your lifes and it is a vital component for living.

People ARE researching how life began here. It does't help that some people confuse the issue with Adam & Eve stories.

eh? Im not confused in the slightest

As for your last line, how do you like the reverse statement: Anyway let me say this, if you believe in the Big Bang and ET GOD on the availble evidence then you are taking an enormous leap of faith. And I am glad that you have it in your lifes and it is a vital component for living.

How do you like it?

I'm cool with that, I believe its the teaching of most religons

This despite the fact that we have far more evidence for The Big Bang. I can imagine how you would have treated the likes of Galileo.

Not a whole lot tho in fact very scant in comparison to the geological theories mentioned above

I can imagine how you would have treated the likes of Galileo.

With good manners and a kind heart I hope?

[muppet]

George Lemaitre first proposed the Big Bang idea in 1927.

Hubble first observed evidence that the universe was expanding in 1929.

It got it's name in the 1950s as a derisive comment from Hoyle.