Genesis 1:1 contradicts science.

[Mudhammam]

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."

Wrong. The scientific consensus places the age of the Universe to be around 13.8 billion years old. We could rightly say this constitutes the beginning. The Earth, on the other hand, is 4.5 billion years old. Does the beginning include the 9.3 billion years or so that followed the birth of the Universe? Perhaps Christians define "beginning" to include all time but that's obviously a dumb idea. Maybe we should re-define "heavens," "and," and "Earth" too.
So when Christians say that science doesn't contradict the Bible, tell them to open the first page and read the first sentence. Bam.

[Ksa]

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."

Wrong. The scientific consensus places the age of the Universe to be around 13.8 billion years old. We could rightly say this constitutes the beginning.

What? Are you unfamiliar with Brian Greene's multiverse theory? That this is an universe among many, like suggested by our extraordinary value of empty space density?

Existence has no beginning and no end, this universe may have a beginning but it's just the event horizon, we know nothing else. If we spawned later in the future, we would have no measurable evidence that there even are other galaxies because they would have accelerated away from the event horizon long ago.

You're just dead wrong. I want you to point out a single thing in existence that is unique. Is Earth unique, NO there's other planets. Is our sun unique, NO there's other stars. Is our galaxy unique? NO, there's other galaxies. Then you come say our universe is unique. Why? Why be so unreasonable you only make one exception, that this trend stops with the Universe?

[Simon Moon]

Pants are created on 3rd day.

The sun created on the 4th.

Photosynthesis, we don't need no stinking photosynthesis!

[Mudhammam]

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."

Wrong. The scientific consensus places the age of the Universe to be around 13.8 billion years old. We could rightly say this constitutes the beginning.

What? Are you unfamiliar with Brian Greene's multiverse theory? That this is an universe among many, like suggested by our extraordinary value of empty space density?

Existence has no beginning and no end, this universe may have a beginning but it's just the event horizon, we know nothing else. If we spawned later in the future, we would have no measurable evidence that there even are other galaxies because they would have accelerated away from the event horizon long ago.

You're just dead wrong.

This irritates me about scientists. They use "theory" in two distinct ways and then express frustration when the public misapplies the term ("Evolution is only a theory!"). Brian Greene's multiverse "theory" is a scientific hypothesis and requires confirmation by evidence to be anything more. That said, the Earth was not created in the beginning (of our space-time universe), and my point stands unscathed.

[Ksa]

What? Are you unfamiliar with Brian Greene's multiverse theory? That this is an universe among many, like suggested by our extraordinary value of empty space density?

Existence has no beginning and no end, this universe may have a beginning but it's just the event horizon, we know nothing else. If we spawned later in the future, we would have no measurable evidence that there even are other galaxies because they would have accelerated away from the event horizon long ago.

You're just dead wrong.

This irritates me about scientists. They use "theory" in two distinct ways and then express frustration when the public misapplies the term ("Evolution is only a theory!"). Brian Greene's multiverse "theory" is a scientific hypothesis and requires confirmation by evidence to be anything more. That said, IF the Big Bang was the beginning of THIS Universe, my point stands unscathed.

No, mathematical models predicted for the existence of Higgs boson long before it could be measured and discovered. You underestimate the power of mathematics, probably because you don't master it very well yourself. Brian Greene's calculations are mathematics and it at some point has to factor for several universes.

Of course, until it is measured and discovered, the math remains very abstract but you can't just discard it and treat it as religion because at least it is a highly logical deduction rather than a story being told.

[Jackalope]

Pants are created on 3rd day.

The sun created on the 4th.

Of course pants were created on the 3rd day - there was no sun, you expect people to walk around in shorts or something? Brrr.

[Mudhammam]

No, mathematical models predicted for the existence of Higgs boson long before it could be measured and discovered. You underestimate the power of mathematics, probably because you don't master it very well yourself. Brian Greene's calculations are mathematics and it at some point has to factor for several universes.

Of course, until it is measured and discovered, the math remains very abstract but you can't just discard it and treat it as religion because at least it is a highly logical deduction rather than a story being told.

You're right, I don't understand the mathematics. Moreover, I'm willing to bet you don't either. But it's all besides my original point anyhow. And who said to discard it and treat it as religion? The people who speak of the "multiverse" as if it is a scientific fact are the ones who have taken a leap of faith. I doubt even Brian Greene would take it that far at this point.

[Jackalope]

This irritates me about scientists. They use "theory" in two distinct ways and then express frustration when the public misapplies the term ("Evolution is only a theory!"). Brian Greene's multiverse "theory" is a scientific hypothesis and requires confirmation by evidence to be anything more.

(I may be completely off my rocker here, but I've got the ball, and Imma run with it.)

I believe you are conflating two different meanings of theory here.

Brian Green's multiverse theory is a mathematical model, and belongs purely to world of theoretical physics. As such, it is not strictly scientific, as you alluded. However, as it does belong to the world of theoretical physics and not (yet) to the world of science, it would be inappropriate to apply the scientific definition of theory to it.

[Mudhammam]

(I may be completely off my rocker here, but I've got the ball, and Imma run with it.)

I believe you are conflating two different meanings of theory here.

Brian Green's multiverse theory is a mathematical model, and belongs purely to world of theoretical physics. As such, it is not strictly scientific, as you alluded. However, as it does belong to the world of theoretical physics and not (yet) to the world of science, it would be inappropriate to apply the scientific definition of theory to it.

Thank you for the clarification. But seriously, it might improve communication if they find another word instead of "theory" to express their models (how about just "string model").

[Jackalope]

Thank you for the clarification. But seriously, it might improve communication if they find another word instead of "theory" to express their models (how about just "string model").

It certainly might - however every specialized field has specialized vernacular, and I don't think we're ever going to get away from that.

I think you'd have better luck getting laypersons to learn something about that which they criticize.