Do you Believe in evolution or creationism?

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

Most people who think it was aliens consider themselves believers in "intelligent design", not creationism. Nonetheless, both scenarios leave evolution out of the picture.

MattUD1

Ahh, but what's the difference between Intelligent Design and creationism?:D

I actually consider myself and ID theorist, simply because the title fits better than "Theistic evolutionist."

Here we go.

Yes, in ID the intelligent designer is not defined, and thus can be God, aliens, or something else entirely. However, God and aliens are the only two designers that have been used, and God has been used far more, so. . . .

Intelligent Design was really created solely to combat the rule of Separation of Church and State by not specifically mentioning God in a cIassroom textbook.

I don't believe in using the dictionary to define a philosophical belief.

Dracargen

Okay, but your Wikipedia excerpt basically says an identical thing to what the dictionary did:

Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities, whose existence is presupposed.

Dracargen

(emphasis added)

And then:

In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution.

Dracargen

Since this is indeed a debate about evolution, it can reasonably be said that the people talking about "creationism" are using the word in this sense.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]

I don't believe in using the dictionary to define a philosophical belief.

GabuEx

Okay, but your Wikipedia excerpt basically says an identical thing to what the dictionary did:

Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original formby a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities, whose existence is presupposed.

Dracargen

(emphasis added)

And then:

In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution.

Dracargen

Since this is indeed a debate about evolution, it can reasonably be said that the people talking about "creationism" are using the word in this sense.

I know. It's just a quirk I have. I consider theistic evolution to be creationism, so it's slightly annoying when people go "creationism sucks!" even though I know what type of creationism they're *usually* talking about.

[QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

Most people who think it was aliens consider themselves believers in "intelligent design", not creationism. Nonetheless, both scenarios leave evolution out of the picture.

Dracargen

Ahh, but what's the difference between Intelligent Design and creationism?:D

I actually consider myself and ID theorist, simply because the title fits better than "Theistic evolutionist."

Here we go.

Yes, in ID the intelligent designer is not defined, and thus can be God, aliens, or something else entirely. However, God and aliens are the only two designers that have been used, and God has been used far more, so. . . .

Intelligent Design was really created solely to combat the rule of Separation of Church and State by not specifically mentioning God in a cIassroom textbook.

As shown in the Memorandum opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
MattUD1

I DO think ID should be in cIass, either as a philosophy or theology or social studies subject.

[QUOTE="FatMan1945"]

You two give atheists a bad name. Seriously, if you do not believe in a Deity, that is fine, but do not act like you are smarter than everyone else and act as though people who believe in a religion are idiots. Biology/Science/Chemistry is my favorite subject, and I know a LOT about evolution and the Big Bang theory. Yet I still Believe in Creationism. Does that make me an idiot?

To me, there is a lot of proof for Creationism, but not the conventional evidence that you can take a picture of. I also believe in Evolution because there is evidence for that also. Creationism is ridiculous without Evolution, and Evolution is ridiculous without Creationism. They work together PERFECTLY, yet Atheists and Believers are too stubborn to see.

DeeJayInphinity

Well, seeing as they both do not believe in a Deity, that usually means they are Atheists, Agnostics, or Scientoligists.

Evolution describes how we evolved, but does not tell us how it started. That is where God comes in. Something had to start evolution, so what was it? Also, Science in general points to Creationism. Energy can't be created nor destroyed, yet it HAD to be created. Something bigger than what is in this universe had to create it. That is just one basic example.

I could be completely wrong, but so can everyone else. Nobody knows if there is a God, so noone can say for sure. I just use my knowledge and faith to determine what makes the most sense to me.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]produce this evidence plzGabuEx

Why does anything exist?

My inability to reasonably answer that question without coming back to the idea that something must have created it was basically what led to my belief in some form of universal creator. The option that the universe is just an eternal repeating oscillation (singularity - big bang - expansion - expansion slows down - contraction - back to singularity) was dealt a pretty severe blow when scientists found that the expansion of the universe was not slowing down, but instead was speeding up.

Of course, then one could ask the question of "where did the creator come from?", which is a fair question, but a completely different question irrelevant to this one.

I don't really understand the logic there. You're treating beliefs like some kind of multiple choice test where one of our explanations has to be correct. If we don't understand how the universe was created than why grasp at straws and take the first answer that might fit? Maybe we just don't know and never will.

Well, seeing as they both do not believe in a Deity, that usually means they are Atheists, Agnostics, or Scientoligists.

FatMan1945

And Buddhists, and Wiccans, and Satanists, and other Pagans. . .

[QUOTE="MattUD1"]As shown in the Memorandum opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
Dracargen

I DO think ID should be in cIass, either as a philosophy or theology or social studies subject.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]

[QUOTE="MattUD1"]As shown in the Memorandum opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
MattUD1

I DO think ID should be in cIass, either as a philosophy or theology or social studies subject.

I'm not sure why creationists insist on it being in the SCIENCE cIassroom when a lot of people (though not everyone) are content with having it in another cIass. I guess it's because this generation is more science-oriented and putting it in the science cIassroom would make it more appealing. . .but then that is not admitted by them, because to do so would imply that it needs to be appealed to.:?

[QUOTE="FatMan1945"]Well, seeing as they both do not believe in a Deity, that usually means they are Atheists, Agnostics, or Scientoligists.

Dracargen

And Buddhists, and Wiccans, and Satanists, and other Pagans. . .

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="FatMan1945"]Well, seeing as they both do not believe in a Deity, that usually means they are Atheists, Agnostics, or Scientoligists.

foxhound_fox

And Buddhists, and Wiccans, and Satanists, and other Pagans. . .

True, but I think they are in the minority. Buddha himself was probably an atheist.

Currently neither, creationism stimed as a defence from people trying to use evolution to dsiprove God and this thread(haven't read it) probably shows alot of ppl doing the same to this day. Truth is evolution doesn't disprove God and ppl who take science and combine it with Theology are not doing science, science is used to discover more about the way things work and it is also used to test them.

Honestly I do not know all the dirty game playing is clouding truth.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="FatMan1945"]Well, seeing as they both do not believe in a Deity, that usually means they are Atheists, Agnostics, or Scientoligists.

Dracargen

And Buddhists, and Wiccans, and Satanists, and other Pagans. . .

True, but I think they are in the minority. Buddha himself was probably an atheist.

And Bhuddists, wiccans, satanists, and other pagans are all a very small majority on the OT. It's not exactly a big leap of faith to assume that those two people were atheist.

[QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="Dracargen"]

[QUOTE="MattUD1"]As shown in the Memorandum opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
Dracargen

I DO think ID should be in cIass, either as a philosophy or theology or social studies subject.

I'm not sure why creationists insist on it being in the SCIENCE cIassroom when a lot of people (though not everyone) are content with having it in another cIass. I guess it's because this generation is more science-oriented and putting it in the science cIassroom would make it more appealing. . .but then that is not admitted by them, because to do so would imply that it needs to be appealed to.:?

I know. It's just a quirk I have. I consider theistic evolution to be creationism, so it's slightly annoying when people go "creationism sucks!" even though I know what type of creationism they're *usually* talking about.

Dracargen

Well, I personally avoid discussing the definition of a word like a plague, as there's no real way to ever resolve those issues... but you're welcome to do so if you really want to. :P

I don't really understand the logic there. You're treating beliefs like some kind of multiple choice test where one of our explanations has to be correct. If we don't understand how the universe was created than why grasp at straws and take the first answer that might fit? Maybe we just don't know and never will.

darkmoney52

Well, if the universe was created, something must have created it. For ease of dialog, we might as well call that thing "God". That's all I'm saying. I'm not arguing in favor of the idea that the Christian God (or any other religion's deity) is the right answer, only that something created the universe. And it seems more likely than not to me for that something to be intelligent, unless there's some sort of cosmic evolution that lead to the universe's creation.

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="FatMan1945"]

You two give atheists a bad name. Seriously, if you do not believe in a Deity, that is fine, but do not act like you are smarter than everyone else and act as though people who believe in a religion are idiots. Biology/Science/Chemistry is my favorite subject, and I know a LOT about evolution and the Big Bang theory. Yet I still Believe in Creationism. Does that make me an idiot?

To me, there is a lot of proof for Creationism, but not the conventional evidence that you can take a picture of. I also believe in Evolution because there is evidence for that also. Creationism is ridiculous without Evolution, and Evolution is ridiculous without Creationism. They work together PERFECTLY, yet Atheists and Believers are too stubborn to see.

FatMan1945

Well, seeing as they both do not believe in a Deity, that usually means they are Atheists, Agnostics, or Scientoligists.

Evolution describes how we evolved, but does not tell us how it started. That is where God comes in. Something had to start evolution, so what was it? Something had to start it? Dunno where you get that idea from. There had to be a first organism, but that doesn't necessitate a creator.

Also, Science in general points to Creationism. Energy can't be created nor destroyed, yet it HAD to be created. Something bigger than what is in this universe had to create it. That is just one basic example. Cosmological argument :( Why did it have to be created? There have been suggestions of eternal, cyclical universes. We can't know what was before the big bang. We can't even really know if there was a before the big bang. Even if matter has not always been, the notion of a creator is still not necessary.

I could be completely wrong, but so can everyone else. Nobody knows if there is a God, so noone can say for sure. I just use my knowledge and faith to determine what makes the most sense to me.

True, but I think they are in the minority. Buddha himself was probably an atheist.Dracargen

Well, if the universe was created, something must have created it. For ease of dialog, we might as well call that thing "God". That's all I'm saying. I'm not arguing in favor of the idea that the Christian God (or any other religion's deity) is the right answer, only that something created the universe. And it seems more likely than not to me for that something to be intelligent, unless there's some sort of cosmic evolution that lead to the universe's creation.

GabuEx

I think it is absurd to say that the big bang happened it just does not make any sense at allishoturface

What I don't understand is why people can't research on something before creating absurd topics such as this one. First of all evolution has nothing to to with the big bang and it has nothing to do with how life started. With that being said putting evolution and creationism in the same sentence or even comparing two makes no sense at all.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="ishoturface"]forget all the other post i did I'm just saying i dont believe in evolution in a very confusing wayishoturface

No more insulting than the You Suck touted by most religions.

[QUOTE="Devouring_One"]Can I believe in both?Dracargen

You can, but then you'll be hated by people on both sides of the fence.:|

Only when you start getting hyper-technical about your stance.

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="FatMan1945"]

You two give atheists a bad name. Seriously, if you do not believe in a Deity, that is fine, but do not act like you are smarter than everyone else and act as though people who believe in a religion are idiots. Biology/Science/Chemistry is my favorite subject, and I know a LOT about evolution and the Big Bang theory. Yet I still Believe in Creationism. Does that make me an idiot?

To me, there is a lot of proof for Creationism, but not the conventional evidence that you can take a picture of. I also believe in Evolution because there is evidence for that also. Creationism is ridiculous without Evolution, and Evolution is ridiculous without Creationism. They work together PERFECTLY, yet Atheists and Believers are too stubborn to see.

FatMan1945

Well, seeing as they both do not believe in a Deity, that usually means they are Atheists, Agnostics, or Scientoligists.

Evolution describes how we evolved, but does not tell us how it started. That is where God comes in. Something had to start evolution, so what was it? Also, Science in general points to Creationism. Energy can't be created nor destroyed, yet it HAD to be created. Something bigger than what is in this universe had to create it. That is just one basic example.

I could be completely wrong, but so can everyone else. Nobody knows if there is a God, so noone can say for sure. I just use my knowledge and faith to determine what makes the most sense to me.

That's internally inconsistent. If it can't be created, it can't be created. Your free to propose whatever "beyond the universe super-being" you like, but don't fall into "I'm right, so everyone else is wrong!" fallacy territory.

By them, I assume you are refering to Creationists/ID Theorists attempting to push the "alternative" theories (theories being the English usage as a guess). And could you try to clarify that last line? Putting Creatioism/ID in cIassrooms appeals to the more science oriented generation?
MattUD1

The current generation is more fascinated by science and scientific discoveries, and some view science as a disproof of religion. Naturally, religion can't have that, so religious people sometimes try to put their religios beliefs into the science cIassroom in order to make religion a part of what fascinates students today.

That's my theory, anyway. Like I said, it's not like a creationist will just up and admit this.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]

I know. It's just a quirk I have. I consider theistic evolution to be creationism, so it's slightly annoying when people go "creationism sucks!" even though I know what type of creationism they're *usually* talking about.

GabuEx

Well, I personally avoid discussing the definition of a word like a plague, as there's no real way to ever resolve those issues... but you're welcome to do so if you really want to. :P

I don't really understand the logic there. You're treating beliefs like some kind of multiple choice test where one of our explanations has to be correct. If we don't understand how the universe was created than why grasp at straws and take the first answer that might fit? Maybe we just don't know and never will.

darkmoney52

Well, if the universe was created, something must have created it. For ease of dialog, we might as well call that thing "God". That's all I'm saying. I'm not arguing in favor of the idea that the Christian God (or any other religion's deity) is the right answer, only that something created the universe. And it seems more likely than not to me for that something to be intelligent, unless there's some sort of cosmic evolution that lead to the universe's creation.

The existence of something does not entail the existence of a creator. Many things in nature spontaneously form. Like beaches. Should we assume there's a beach god who does nothing but creates beaches? What about clouds, should we believe that a cloud god exists who does nothing but create clouds?

Anyway, there are hypotheses on how the universe may have formed in the first place, some of the more promising ones dealing with string theory. One thing that we do know though is that matter can and does pop out of existence from nothing. Its just that antimatter also forms along with the new matter and thus they always destroy each other almost immediately upon forming.

[QUOTE="MattUD1"]By them, I assume you are refering to Creationists/ID Theorists attempting to push the "alternative" theories (theories being the English usage as a guess). And could you try to clarify that last line? Putting Creatioism/ID in cIassrooms appeals to the more science oriented generation?
Dracargen

The current generation is more fascinated by science and scientific discoveries, and some view science as a disproof of religion. Naturally, religion can't have that, so religious people sometimes try to put their religios beliefs into the science cIassroom in order to make religion a part of what fascinates students today.

That's my theory, anyway. Like I said, it's not like a creationist will just up and admit this.

The current generation is more fascinated by science and scientific discoveries, and some view science as a disproof of religion. Naturally, religion can't have that, so religious people sometimes try to put their religios beliefs into the science cIassroom in order to make religion a part of what fascinates students today.

That's my theory, anyway. Like I said, it's not like a creationist will just up and admit this.

Dracargen

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]True, but I think they are in the minority. Buddha himself was probably an atheist.foxhound_fox

http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/beliefs/atheism.htm

"As seen in the Basic Points of Buddhism, one doctrine agreed upon by all branches of modern Buddhism is that "this world is not created and ruled by a God." {1}

According to BuddhaNet, a major Buddhist website:

There is no almighty God in Buddhism. There is no one to hand out rewards or punishments on a supposedly Judgement Day. Buddhism is strictly not a religion in the context of being a faith and worship owing allegiance to a supernatural being. {2} "

Honestly, I don't really put much thought into it.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]The current generation is more fascinated by science and scientific discoveries, and some view science as a disproof of religion. Naturally, religion can't have that, so religious people sometimes try to put their religios beliefs into the science cIassroom in order to make religion a part of what fascinates students today.

That's my theory, anyway. Like I said, it's not like a creationist will just up and admit this.

foxhound_fox

I know. . . .but there are people who view it that way. This causes problems, as these people tend to be the loudest.

http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/beliefs/atheism.htm

"As seen in the Basic Points of Buddhism, one doctrine agreed upon by all branches of modern Buddhism is that "this world is not created and ruled by a God." {1}

According to BuddhaNet, a major Buddhist website:

There is no almighty God in Buddhism. There is no one to hand out rewards or punishments on a supposedly Judgement Day. Buddhism is strictly not a religion in the context of being a faith and worship owing allegiance to a supernatural being. {2} "

Dracargen

I don't want to believe evolution, but these days...it's hard to believe that science doesn't have all the answers.

In my humble opinion, those of you who don't accept evolution are simply being practical. As odd as that sounds...just think about it. Why question yourself and those around you if you can simply trust in a greater power, a power greater than anything and everything?

Religious-based answers are becoming more of a tradition...technology is taking over and opening people's eyes. But then again, some of you will say it's blinding us...we can only really wait and see if more concrete evidence will reveal it self in the future. Hopefully, in our life time.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/beliefs/atheism.htm

"As seen in the Basic Points of Buddhism, one doctrine agreed upon by all branches of modern Buddhism is that "this world is not created and ruled by a God." {1}

According to BuddhaNet, a major Buddhist website:

There is no almighty God in Buddhism. There is no one to hand out rewards or punishments on a supposedly Judgement Day. Buddhism is strictly not a religion in the context of being a faith and worship owing allegiance to a supernatural being. {2} "

foxhound_fox

Theism is the belief in a deity. If Dawkins is to be believed, you can be an atheist and believe in the supernatural.

A big if.Mr_sprinkles

Well, I look the alternative. Either the universe was created, or it has always existed. We know that the universe expanded out of a singularity via the Big Bang, but we don't know anything about where that singularity came from. One theory, as I said, is that the universe is simply an endless oscillation, where you have a singularity that blows up and makes the universe, but then gravity takes hold and pulls the universe back into a singularity. But the problem there is that science has shown that the expansion of the universe is not slowing down, but rather speeding up. Unless some other force that we don't know about gets the universe back into a singularity, it seems to me that the likeliest explanation based on current scientific evidence is that the universe had a beginning, and thus was created.

I don't want to believe evolution, but these days...it's hard to believe that science doesn't have all the answers.

In my humble opinion, those of you who don't accept evolution are simply being practical. As odd as that sounds...just think about it. Why question yourself and those around you if you can simply trust in a greater power, a power greater than anything and everything?

Religious-based answers are becoming more of a tradition...technology is taking over and opening people's eyes. But then again, some of you will say it's blinding us...we can only really wait and see if more concrete evidence will reveal it self in the future. Hopefully, in our life time.

Vympire

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm just happy to see people supporting science and fact instead of people covering their ears and pretending it isn't there. Maybe Junkie did, but where did I act like I was better than anyone?

And I'm an agnostic atheist. Similar, but different.

Bio_Spark

What I highlighted is kind of what I am talking about. Sure there is a lot of evidence, but Evolution still has a lot of holes, and while to a lot of people, Christianity doesn't (albeit Christianity is good at filling their holes with lies). What pisses me of the most though is that people actually state there beliefs as fact, and a lot of Atheists dismiss the possibility of God and never give religion a chance. I almost feel that being Atheist is the new hip thing this generation, because it is a way to rebel against your parents. I am glad that you are atleast agnostic so you know that God is still a very real possibility, but most Atheists are not.

Another thing that I HATE about the internet is that young teens learn their beliefs from the Internet, and I know this because the internet shaped my beliefs as well. I was raised a Catholic, but after going online for a few years, I became an Athiest and thought that Evolution and the big bang theory were perfect, but I finally got out into the real world and realized that while Evolution looks great on paper, it doesn't quite pan out in real life. I just hate to see the internet and people like you influence young teens to become Atheists. I do not mind if they become Atheists on their own, but do not try to influence them. I feel the same way about religious extremists trying to influence young kids to become Christians.

I am sorry if I offended you, but I just am afraid that one day religion will become instinct. While I think most religions are shaky at best, they do do a lot of good in this world, and to think that in a hundred years or so everyone may be walking around with no belief in anything and no true reason to live upsets me.

P.S. As you may be able to tell, my English is lacking severely. I have NEVER been good at sentence structures and essays, and even as an adult I still struggle with it, so just take my post at face value and try to ignore the annoying sentence structure :D.

Theism is the belief in a deity. If Dawkins is to be believed, you can be an atheist and believe in the supernatural.Dracargen

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]A big if.GabuEx

Well, I look the alternative. Either the universe was created, or it has always existed. We know that the universe expanded out of a singularity via the Big Bang, but we don't know anything about where that singularity came from. One theory, as I said, is that the universe is simply an endless oscillation, where you have a singularity that blows up and makes the universe, but then gravity takes hold and pulls the universe back into a singularity. But the problem there is that science has shown that the expansion of the universe is not slowing down, but rather speeding up. Unless some other force that we don't know about gets the universe back into a singularity, it seems to me that the likeliest explanation based on current scientific evidence is that the universe had a beginning, and thus was created.

Time began with the big bang. How could there be a cause if there was no 'before'? Cause and effect only applies within time.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]Theism is the belief in a deity. If Dawkins is to be believed, you can be an atheist and believe in the supernatural.foxhound_fox

No, that's Naturalism, which typically goes hand-in-hand with atheism, but not always.

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]A big if.GabuEx

Well, I look the alternative. Either the universe was created, or it has always existed. We know that the universe expanded out of a singularity via the Big Bang, but we don't know anything about where that singularity came from. One theory, as I said, is that the universe is simply an endless oscillation, where you have a singularity that blows up and makes the universe, but then gravity takes hold and pulls the universe back into a singularity. But the problem there is that science has shown that the expansion of the universe is not slowing down, but rather speeding up. Unless some other force that we don't know about gets the universe back into a singularity, it seems to me that the likeliest explanation based on current scientific evidence is that the universe had a beginning, and thus was created.

Like I already said, there are theories that account for the fact that the universe had a true beginning. The big crunch/big bang cycle was never a theory about how the universe formed since it didn't answer where everything came from in the first place. And there were always three hypotheses about the nature of the universe's expansion, and the big crunch one was just one of those three. I'd suggest you look into all the hypothetical causes of the universe's birth. While none of them may be correct (we're only just beginning to gain the knowledge necessary to tackle the problem) they should at least give you a good idea of the nature of the universe and why a creator is not necessary for its existence.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]A big if.gameguy6700

Well, I look the alternative. Either the universe was created, or it has always existed. We know that the universe expanded out of a singularity via the Big Bang, but we don't know anything about where that singularity came from. One theory, as I said, is that the universe is simply an endless oscillation, where you have a singularity that blows up and makes the universe, but then gravity takes hold and pulls the universe back into a singularity. But the problem there is that science has shown that the expansion of the universe is not slowing down, but rather speeding up. Unless some other force that we don't know about gets the universe back into a singularity, it seems to me that the likeliest explanation based on current scientific evidence is that the universe had a beginning, and thus was created.

Like I already said, there are theories that account for the fact that the universe had a true beginning. The big crunch/big bang cycle was never a theory about how the universe formed since it didn't answer where everything came from in the first place. And there were always three hypotheses about the nature of the universe's expansion, and the big crunch one was just one of those three. I'd suggest you look into all the hypothetical causes of the universe's birth. While none of them may be correct (we're only just beginning to gain the knowledge necessary to tackle the problem) they should at least give you a good idea of the nature of the universe and why a creator is not necessary for its existence.

if they do, it certainly is not enough to warrant belief

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]A big if.fanofazrienoch

Well, I look the alternative. Either the universe was created, or it has always existed. We know that the universe expanded out of a singularity via the Big Bang, but we don't know anything about where that singularity came from. One theory, as I said, is that the universe is simply an endless oscillation, where you have a singularity that blows up and makes the universe, but then gravity takes hold and pulls the universe back into a singularity. But the problem there is that science has shown that the expansion of the universe is not slowing down, but rather speeding up. Unless some other force that we don't know about gets the universe back into a singularity, it seems to me that the likeliest explanation based on current scientific evidence is that the universe had a beginning, and thus was created.

Like I already said, there are theories that account for the fact that the universe had a true beginning. The big crunch/big bang cycle was never a theory about how the universe formed since it didn't answer where everything came from in the first place. And there were always three hypotheses about the nature of the universe's expansion, and the big crunch one was just one of those three. I'd suggest you look into all the hypothetical causes of the universe's birth. While none of them may be correct (we're only just beginning to gain the knowledge necessary to tackle the problem) they should at least give you a good idea of the nature of the universe and why a creator is not necessary for its existence.

if they do, it certainly is not enough to warrant belief

I think it is absurd to say that the big bang happened it just does not make any sense at allishoturface

[QUOTE="Vympire"]

I don't want to believe evolution, but these days...it's hard to believe that science doesn't have all the answers.

In my humble opinion, those of you who don't accept evolution are simply being practical. As odd as that sounds...just think about it. Why question yourself and those around you if you can simply trust in a greater power, a power greater than anything and everything?

Religious-based answers are becoming more of a tradition...technology is taking over and opening people's eyes. But then again, some of you will say it's blinding us...we can only really wait and see if more concrete evidence will reveal it self in the future. Hopefully, in our life time.

MattUD1

I didn't mean that science has an answer for every question...obviously. If one is being realistic, one would lean towards the answer that doesn't involve some kind of supernatural power. The questions that have no answers shouldn't really be looked upon at all...unless you're some kind of scientist or something. If the whole world can't find the answer, it is very doubtful one of us would.

Now, you said that you feel comfortable with the knowledge you currently have and believe. Well...everything can be proven wrong, except for the simplest of things....things that common people would have no trouble experimenting on.

If you have so much faith in humankind though...you should be believing all these scientific theories, answers, and whatnot. If you do...there really is an answer for everything, be it a fact or not.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]A big if.fanofazrienoch

Well, I look the alternative. Either the universe was created, or it has always existed. We know that the universe expanded out of a singularity via the Big Bang, but we don't know anything about where that singularity came from. One theory, as I said, is that the universe is simply an endless oscillation, where you have a singularity that blows up and makes the universe, but then gravity takes hold and pulls the universe back into a singularity. But the problem there is that science has shown that the expansion of the universe is not slowing down, but rather speeding up. Unless some other force that we don't know about gets the universe back into a singularity, it seems to me that the likeliest explanation based on current scientific evidence is that the universe had a beginning, and thus was created.

Like I already said, there are theories that account for the fact that the universe had a true beginning. The big crunch/big bang cycle was never a theory about how the universe formed since it didn't answer where everything came from in the first place. And there were always three hypotheses about the nature of the universe's expansion, and the big crunch one was just one of those three. I'd suggest you look into all the hypothetical causes of the universe's birth. While none of them may be correct (we're only just beginning to gain the knowledge necessary to tackle the problem) they should at least give you a good idea of the nature of the universe and why a creator is not necessary for its existence.

if they do, it certainly is not enough to warrant belief

Thanks for parroting my last sentence:

"While none of them may be correct (we're only just beginning to gain the knowledge necessary to tackle the problem) they should at least give you a good idea of the nature of the universe and why a creator is not necessary for its existence."

How about you read next time, kay?

had a beginning therefore must have been created? Thats a bit of a logical jump. Who's to say that the universe did not simply 'occur'?

Mr_sprinkles

Well, is there anything else that is in existence but which was not, at some point, created? It seems to me that the logical jump would be to look at something with a beginning but then coming to the conclusion that it was not created.

Time began with the big bang. How could there be a cause if there was no 'before'? Cause and effect only applies within time.

Mr_sprinkles

Well, here's the thing. We know that there was a singularity that existed some thirteen-odd billion years ago. We know that it was unstable and then exploded to create our universe. Based on that, and given that the singularity existed within time (being at the beginning, at least, of our conception of time within this universe), it doesn't make any sense to me to say that the singularity was just there, causeless. Is it possible? Yes, of course it's possible, but then we run into Occam's razor, and quite frankly I don't find that to be the simplest explanation based on the number of assumptions it requires.