But anyways. I do believe in the big-bang theory, it makes the most sense for how the universe unfolded over time. But, go a few steps before that, where did matter and gravity originate from? Until it can be proven that we just sporatically and spontaneously came from NOTHING then I am going to believe that we were created by something, somewhere. Probably not on our plane of existance, but superior to our existance.
But to answer the question, more than likely the universe begun with the "big bang theory" playing out. The next question is How was the matter created that caused the big bang?
Quote:
!King_Amazon!: I talked to him while he was getting raped
[quote][16:04] jamer123: GRRR firefox just like quit on me now on internet exploder[quote]
...
[quote=!King_Amazon!]notices he's 3 inches shorter than her son and he's circumcised [quote]
How was this "Supreme Being" created that caused the creation of the gravity and matter that caused the creation of the big bang?
I love the retardism of previous posts though. For some reason people are talking as if words already existed and we just fit things into them when the truth is words were created to fit to those things. For instance, evolution is a WORD created to label the changes and adaptations of creatures to their changing enviroment. We didn't already have the word evolution and decide that it would mean something. No we had something and decided that we would put a word on it.
Also comparing evolution to creationism is a little like comparing peanut butter to bread. Sure the peanut butter can go on the bread but they are certainly not the same thing. In other terms. How does "changes and adaptations of creatures to their changing enviroment." compare to "how the universe started". Evolution is more like a explanation of why our eyes go bad from staring at the sun too long. Creation is more like an explanation, albiet a very fickle and unproven one, of how the very cosmos came to be. I fail to see how they collide exactly. Thus Jesus's previous arguements are moot at best on how evolution is untrue. However his arguements that the big bang theory are untrue are moot because of another cause all together. That cause being it has been labelled. The minute you label a circumstance it means that that circumstance is true but it may or may not explain what it does.
Simply put Scientists discovered through astrology and experiments that you could create a big bang in which you are left with living and non living matter. They said "This could be how the universe started."
Now one could argue that it's not how the universe started however you cannot say it's untrue or that it isn't a possibility when you don't provide much evidence other than people saying "I believe it's true/untrue because I prayed about it." You cannot go off of 1 of 6 billion peoples beliefs and say it's absolute truth. In fact even if all 6 billion believed it that does not mean it's the absolute truth. It simply means that 6 billion people "believe" it's the truth but who says they are right? What because there are so many on them that vehemently swear to it it's the right answer? Does this mean that if I got enough people together to swear that 2+2 was 22 it would make it absolute truth? Even though the number system does not work like that? No. Please present more evidence of your claims. Of course the difference between religion and science IS evidence.
Thus while I am a religous man I still do believe that evolution is true.
yes the big bang theory sounds nuts...and just because a scientist says something does not make it true only a therory...such as global warming...completely unproven with no hard evidence
yes the big bang theory sounds nuts...and just because a scientist says something does not make it true only a therory...such as global warming...completely unproven with no hard evidence
I nearly shit myself reading that. You should send that to the democratic party and watch them go nuts
I agree with what you said jamer. Even if it isn't true, well, it's a good enough explanation. Throughout history many people have believed in a creator. From my understanding, it wasn't until most recently that scientists have been trying to explain things.
For me how it all began has been the MOST difficult question I have ever tried to find an answer to. But in all my searches, the one answer that seemed to be the most soothing was that we dont or cant have an answer to it because we are too small to see it. I mean that in the literal sense as well. As in our ENTIRE universe maybe nothing more than an atom in a greater universe. Or as men in black put it, a marbel in some aliens bag.
The entire arguement is something I think we as humans cannot answer until we are able to literally bend space and time. Its something we ask ourselves daily regarding the galaxy, but something we cant even answer on our own planet (the chicken or the egg.)
So like I said, for me, the easiest answer to accept is that we are nothing more than a microscopic part of something bigger and that is why we cannot fathom it. We are too small to see the beginning or the end. Oh....theory btw.
Funny you should say that because that's how I feel. Like even if we explored the entire galaxy we would still have millions of others to explore and who knows what is beyond that.
If turning a blind eye to decades of child molestation is corrupt, then yes. Only when their very survival is in question do they do anything.
Catholic priests are not the only ones who have committed the horrible act of child molestation. They are fallible human beings, just like everyone else. They do, however, seem to be the most recognized for it. The reason, quite simply, is the fact that people have been trying to destroy the church through any means they can.
Child molestation over such a massive scale and over such an extended period of time would be big news ANYWHERE. One 16-year-old boy fucks a young teacher and it's news, let alone hundreds being molested in clusters.
The reason why it's so ironic is because they're supposed to not just be normal, fallible human beings. They're supposed to be speaking on behalf of God. Which reinforces the absurdity of any one group or book being the word of 'God.' They're just normal human beings and do not have things figured out more than any of us.
And the church has been trying to silence people seeking other answers to things for the longest time. Can you blame people for not liking them?
Scientists were often RUINED or KILLED for even saying that there could be a different explaination for things. For instance, saying that Earth isn't the center of the Universe. The church wouldn't even consider that they might be wrong about something, because that indicates that the Bible is wrong about something. Instead, they put people to death for simply suggesting that there was evidence that disputed what was accepted as the truth.
The church basically doesn't care about silencing the truth, it just cares about maintaining its control over the people. If the Bible says that the Earth is the center of the Universe, and science proves that that is wrong, it makes it a bit harder to believe that the Bible is the word of God. If the Bible were the word of God, you would think that it would be right about something like whether or not the Earth is the center of the Universe.
The reason why it's so ironic is because they're supposed to not just be normal, fallible human beings.
Yes, i sort of agree with you there. It is something that is more shameful for a priest to do. The other priests who hear about this happening are very hurt. It's no less than betrayel.
!King_Amazon! said:
Scientists were often RUINED or KILLED for even saying that there could be a different explaination for things
Yes. I admit that the church did go through a period of corruption. However, this only proves that the ordained priests are not God and therefore have the ability to be led astray. There has been many cases where very sinful men have joined the priesthood for the sole purpose of destroying the church from the inside. This is when catholics have to hold onto what the church is supposed to be.
!King_Amazon! said:
The church basically doesn't care about silencing the truth, it just cares about maintaining its control over the people.
They don't try to control people, not any more at least. I've never felt controlled. In the case of silencing truth, however, you are partially right. There are some churches where the clergy is so corrput that it will not even allow their own priests to speak what they believe to be truth. What men make the church out to be, and what Catholicism is essentially about are two completely different things.
They don't try to control people, not any more at least. I've never felt controlled. In the case of silencing truth, however, you are partially right. There are some churches where the clergy is so corrput that it will not even allow their own priests to speak what they believe to be truth. What men make the church out to be, and what Catholicism is essentially about are two completely different things.
Linear Mode
