Are there more stars in the Universe than there are grains of sand on the Earth?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Scientific theory is not greater than religious theory.

Yes, not better, different.

Religious theory does not apply to the physical universe because the premise of just about every religious theory is a supernatural - meaning, outside of the universe - thing. God cannot be described by the laws of physics, so no religious theory, which has at its base something completely unrelated to physics, should attempt to describe the physical universe.

Scientific theories have many different premises, but all of these premises are based on theories grounded in the physical universe. If you will notice, the Big Bang Theory does not attempt to describe anything before the Big Bang; that's unscientific and impossible.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Japher
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1) circa pre-first century BC

It's I who makes too many assumptions?

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Lorizael


Yes, not better, different.

Religious theory does not apply to the physical universe because the premise of just about every religious theory is a supernatural - meaning, outside of the universe - thing. God cannot be described by the laws of physics, so no religious theory, which has at its base something completely unrelated to physics, should attempt to describe the physical universe.

Scientific theories have many different premises, but all of these premises are based on theories grounded in the physical universe. If you will notice, the Big Bang Theory does not attempt to describe anything before the Big Bang; that's unscientific and impossible.

The great thing about religious theories is that they are never tested and therefore, you can pull anything out of your arse

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Riesstiu IV
I just think it's arrogant to claim that one way and only one way lead to creation. The universe is big and we know so little about it. I won't claim that any theory is absolutely right or wrong.

Here we go again. In the beginning was the word, and the word was pasta.

It's nice to know that my beliefs are so readily accepted without me having to go through the tedious business of backing them up. I thank you, sir.

[Krill]

Originally posted by Riesstiu IV
QFTMFT

QFYKYMFT.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Krill


QFYKYMFT.

Kentucky has nothing to do with it.

[Krill]

Indeed it does not.

[Lancer]

Not part of the known universe really.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


The great thing about religious theories is that they are never tested and therefore, you can pull anything out of your arse

What do you mean? You test me constantly. Trial and tribulation.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Scientific theories have many different premises, but all of these premises are based on theories grounded in the physical universe. If you will notice, the Big Bang Theory does not attempt to describe anything before the Big Bang; that's unscientific and impossible.

And since there's no way to test the validity of the Big Bang Theory, it's not a scientific fact.

It is no more logical to believe the universe was created in a "Big Bang" than to believe the universe was created because God willed it.

[Lancer]

Perhaps God Big Bangs out one universe after another...

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
And since there's no way to test the validity of the Big Bang Theory, it's not a scientific fact.

Hence the word theory, not fact.

It is no more logical to believe the universe was created in a "Big Bang" than to believe the universe was created because God willed it.

That's incorrect, because there is evidence to suggest that the Big Bang did, in fact, occur. There is no evidence to suggest God created the universe because you absolutely cannot make claims based on supernatural phenomenon.

[Lorizael]

Wait. Wait. The Big Bang did not create the universe, guys. The Big Bang is simply a model describing how the universe came to be in its current state.

It does not, in any way, attempt to describe the creation of existence itself.

When I said create, I meant that in the sense that the universe we know and live in today was created by the Big Bang.

We cannot "prove" that the Big Bang occurred, because we can't travel through time and all that, but we can make predictions of what parts of the universe should be like today based on the model of the Big Bang. If those predictions prove accurate, then that lends credence to the theory.

And even if the Big Bang never happened, it doesn't matter, because if the theory provides us with useful predictions about the universe around us, then it helps us learn more about it. Science is not attempting to discover the ultimate truths about the universe; it's merely trying to find better ways to describe the universe we live in.

Science does that, and the theory of the Big Bang does that as well.

[East Street Trader]

Originally posted by Lorizael Science is not attempting to discover the ultimate truths about the universe;

Why not?

[Lancer]

Well duh, they're busy chasing grants for discoveries that disprove what their competition for public funds believe.

Well ok, that's maybe 55% BS.