God vs Big Bang- Are either correct?

[bennyboy]

@OP

Fuck off. How dare you come into the science section and put forth these ideas as though they are equal candidates? You are so clearly a Christian (or maybe muslim) poe, that I'm forced to ask-- don't you know that lies make baby Jesus cry?

I'll explain the difference in process: it's not that creationism or the Big Bang Theory are right or wrong. It's how people arrive at an interest in, or a belief in, either idea. The Big Bang was arrived at by seeing how the universe expands, and projecting that motion in reverse through time-- "Wait a minute, if everything's moving apart, it must have once been together." The idea of Creationism was arrived at by reading the Bible, already believing in God, and then making special pleas, unsupported assertions, and other obvious logical mistakes to arrive at the answer you wanted. If you did that to your taxes, you'd risk a healthy jail term. Luckily for you, you do it with ideas about the mythological figure of your choice, and you risk only mockery.

So here is me, mocking you.

Most astrophysicists admit that they are humbly ignorant with regard to the truth about our universe. Specifically, very recently they had to completely revise their opinions regarding the expansion of the universe and in doing so had to add in that 96% of reality is now stuff called "dark matter" and "dark energy" that we know nothing about other than than it now makes sense what we're observing.

God of the gaps = fail.

I explicitly stated that this wasn't about the ultimate rightness of theories-- it's about the quality of the process arriving at those theories. In science, theories are made which explain what is OBSERVED, with the theory hopefully explaining all the observations. In religions, observations are combed selectively for data, with the observations hopefully justifying, or at least not completely excluding, the religious idea. The problem, however, is that the Sky Daddy myth is completely irreconcilable either with what can be observed, or with logic.

If you say you started first with physical observation, and then arrived at the conclusion that a massive invisible being must be behind what you've observed, you're a liar. You see, Creationism is not science. It's an insult to science-- a complete inversion of the right way of forming ideas about the world.