Here's why Creatards might be right

[TheRocketSurgeon]

what position ? that science has discovered how the universe was created exactly and why there are different complex organisms on the earth . a lot of people do think that i dont think that thats what im arguing against and saying these theories are just theories . yes science can and does know many things about nature but there is much that science cannot explain . whats wrong with challenging belief systems that claim to have everything all figured out but do not quite add up?

There is indeed much that science cannot explain. However, the things you are talking about are things that science has explained.

There is nothing wrong with challenging everything; we're trying to tell you that what you are challenging is something that does not exist. Science makes claims you appear to know nothing about, and does not make many of the claims you are making. It indicates to us that you need to learn more about what the actual claims of science are before you pronounce judgment on them.

[The Grand Nudger]

and there also is no proof in the unlikely possibility that everything that exists is just the result of random accidental perfect coordination between very different organisms that all live on the same earth . other than the big bang leftover noise that the scientist religious leaders have assumed must be from the big bang event.

 that science has discovered how the universe was created exactly and why there are different complex organisms on the earth .

What position?  Notice that you declined to make your case...and instead, pulled the above.  I don't think we have to look very hard to see that you've changed course mid-river. No one is proposing your transparently fatuous positions..except yourself. Worse still, you can't remain consistent to these positions, that you offered, yourself.

a lot of people do think that i dont think that thats what im arguing against and saying these theories are just theories .

You're babbling, at this point...not arguing.  To argue, you would have to present a case.  

yes science can and does know many things about nature but there is much that science cannot explain .

Agreed-ish.....but none of the questions you've asked belong to the "great unknown" camp.  Do they?

whats wrong with challenging belief systems that claim to have everything all figured out ?

Nothing at all.....but since you're not doing that...and since no ones claiming to have It All™ figured out....how is it relevant?

[Esquilax]

. whats wrong with challenging belief systems that claim to have everything all figured out but do not quite add up?

The problem is this: you have, literally, no understanding of what the belief system you're "challenging," actually believes, and thus what you're challenging is a belief system that you've made up, are then attributing to us when we do not hold it, and are then completely ignoring every attempt to correct you.

The problem is that you refuse to know what you're talking about.

[jenny1972]

yes the "evidence" is the discovery of a mysterious noise that scientists assume must me the remnant of the " big bang " event . christianity has evidence too

The difference is this: that noise, which is actually microwave radiation, was predicted as a result of the BB hypothesis in 1948. Scientists took what we know about light's behavior and predicted that there ought to be an immensely red-shifted remnant, which Penzias and Wilson discovered in 1964. That is not an "assumption" -- that is the logical implication of a hypothesis that has been observed. This is how hypotheses are investigated and supported -- implications are deduced, predictions are made, evidence is gathered and analyzed, and the hypothesis is either discarded, modified, refined, or confirmed.

Equating that process with the bullshit in the Bible reveals an ignorance of the scientific method on your part.  You'd do well to repair that ignorance before you resume pronouncements on matters scientific.

yes but why there are genetic variations is what is debatable

It's only debateable to the uneducated. We know why genes mutate. We understand how their phenotypic expression allows outside influences to interact with the genotype.

If you think you're able to debate evolution, you'd better bring facts. I personally don't think you know much about it.

[...] you just dont want to question your religion.

Equating scientific knowledge with blind faith doesn't reflect well upon you.  You seem like a nice-enough person, but one desperately in need of higher education.

You let me know when religion tests its claims about gods or afterlives, and modifies them to accommodate reality.

Until then, this is just you flaunting your lack of insight.

nobody can prove anything either way[...]

Firstly, science doesn't deal in proof -- that is the realm of logic and mathematics.  Science deals in evidence.

The overwhelming mountain of evidence favors evolution by natural selection. And there is contrary evidence for "intelligent design".  What is so intelligent about an eyeball that buries its light-receptors behind a sheath of blood vessels, thereby reducing effective vision? What is so intelligent about genetic predispositions to cancer? What is so intelligent about having an appendix prone to inflicting peritonitis upon bursting, as happens often?

there is no proof that there is an intelligent design although there are indications that there could be .

ID has been pretty thoroughly discredited as an explanation for human physiology. It has also been demonstrated to have been created not to explain human physiology, but rather to afford the introduction of creationism into American schools.

and there also is no proof in the unlikely possibility that everything that exists is just the result of random accidental perfect coordination between very different organisms that all live on the same earth .

There is, however, a veritable mountain of evidence, easily available to anyone who is actually interested in learning.

other than the big bang leftover noise that the scientist religious leaders have assumed must be from the big bang event.

As shown above, this is an incorrect reading of events.

You really should read more and post less.

im not arguing against evolution evolution makes sense and has been proven im arguing against the theory that an unintelligent explosion led to the beginning of evolution

[Whateverist]

nobody can prove anything either way there is no proof that there is an intelligent design although there are indications that there could be . and there also is no proof in the unlikely possibility that everything that exists is just the result of random accidental perfect coordination between very different organisms that all live on the same earth . other than the big bang leftover noise that the scientist religious leaders have assumed must be from the big bang event.

I see. So you'd just like to paint science in the most ludicrous manner possible so that you can argue its answers are no better than those of religion. You are at least right that extremely ludicrous is the direction to go if you wish to argue for a false equivalency between the two. However, the more you say about science the more obvious it becomes you don't know what you're talking about. The 'left over noise' wasn't just attributed to the big bang arbitrarily. When science posits it as a theory it isn't elevating it to dogma the way religion would, it is merely stating that it is the best explanation presented so far .. the one that makes the best account of all the known data. The door is wide open to present a better theory. [Pro tip: this isn't an appropriate place to suggest creator genie.]

[The Grand Nudger]

Then those lines of reasoning you offered, Jenny, in support of your position (design/designer) are irrelevant.  The fact that there are many species is explained by evolution, not by a design, not by a designer.  Correct?

[jenny1972]

. whats wrong with challenging belief systems that claim to have everything all figured out but do not quite add up?

The problem is this: you have, literally, no understanding of what the belief system you're "challenging," actually believes, and thus what you're challenging is a belief system that you've made up, are then attributing to us when we do not hold it, and are then completely ignoring every attempt to correct you.

The problem is that you refuse to know what you're talking about.

Big Bang Theory - The Premise

The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory.



... its just a theory far from proven assuming that nothing existed before then and inexplicably came into existence it is science version of creation , it does not prove that there is not an intelligent plan behind it all . intelligent beings create organized and complex inventions we see this proven in human beings who create inventions through intelligence  the complexity of our universe and nature and evolution indicates that it could be a result of an intelligent plan . we are proof that intelligence creates complex organized cooperative manifestations. we have more proof that intelligent beings are responsible for complex designs .

[The Grand Nudger]

assuming that nothing existed before then and inexplicably came into existence it is science version of creation ,

That may be "just a theory"...but it isn't the Big Bang Theory.  That's Jennys theory.

it does not prove that there is not an intelligent plan behind it all . intelligent beings create organized and complex inventions we see this proven in human beings who create inventions through intelligence  the complexity of our universe and nature and evolution indicates that it could be a result of an intelligent plan . we are proof that intelligence creates complex organized cooperative manifestations.

Okay, so..then, the only possible logical inference here -with regards to the universe- is that human beings designed and created the universe. That would be quite the feat, don't you think?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

1) You're right, it doesn't prove there's not an intelligent plan behind it all. It doesn't prove anything. And we don't know where it came from, but we have a pretty damned solid grasp on what happened once it began to expand.

2) Please never say "just a theory" again. Theory does not mean guess. Theory does not mean guess. Theory does not mean guess.

Your questions about the evolution of life seemed to indicate that you felt the Big Bang Theory could not explain how life diversified into all the things that exist on earth. You're right, it can't. All the BBT talks about is how the Singularity expanded into the matter in the universe, which at first was pretty much all hydrogen ions (protons). Gravity, nuclear fusion, and organic chemistry account for most of the rest of it.

[Esquilax]

Big Bang Theory - The Premise

And where do you get ""random explosion from nothing," from a premise that clearly states "expansion from something."?

its just a theory far from proven assuming that nothing existed before then and inexplicably came into existence it is science version of creation

So now you're reduced to "it's just a theory!" which means you also don't understand the basic terminology of science.

, it does not prove that there is not an intelligent plan behind it all .

Sure. What proves there wasn't an intelligent plan behind it all is that you have absolutely zero evidence for it beyond your incredulity at complex concepts. But "I can't understand it!" is not evidence that it happened by magic.

intelligent beings create organized and complex inventions we see this proven in human beings who create inventions through intelligence  the complexity of our universe and nature and evolution indicates that it could be a result of an intelligent plan . we are proof that intelligence creates complex organized cooperative manifestations.

And again, if you want to go there then you must acknowledge that it's equally true that we've never seen any thinking being create a reality, which is an indication, according to the premises of your argument, that intelligent beings cannot do so.

You don't just get to stop everything at the stage that agrees with you when it goes on further.