Born Again Christian said in one of his answers that
evolution was voodoo science and speaking of the Big Bang therory he stated "why would anyone want to unconditionaly accept an unproven guess as fact."
my question is this... isn't that the same thing as unconditionaly believing in a god as fact just for the simple reason is that god can not be proven?
2006-10-30 05:21:29 · 22 answers · asked by bgdadyp 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Voodoo science!!
That will keep me giggling for days.
2006-10-30 05:35:17 · answer #1 · answered by murkglider 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They are similar in that they both require faith. However, the big bang is at least based on some scientific evidence. The things we know point to it being true, whereas the belief in a god has no evidence. Some people call miracles and nature evidence, but these are merely things attributed to a god. They are not in any way proof for a specific god or a god at all. The big bang is the result of scientific endeavor. Someone didn't just invent the idea--it became the logical conclusion to a number of scientific observations.
2006-10-30 13:30:55 · answer #2 · answered by sogwhip 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Just shows he doesn't know scripture well. In the original Hebrew, if memory serves, Genesis begins with the earth being formed by the "sound" of God, rather than Word. Bang is a sound, isn't it?
[insert big dumb grin]
As for the voodoo comment, well. Ya can't argue with the nuts.
Those who have not experienced God really can't understand that to those of us who have God is proven. Not that I'm using this to justify this persons very silly comments. Just trying to help you see how this person might be a true believer - having actually experienced God.
2006-10-30 13:24:45 · answer #3 · answered by Max Marie, OFS 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He's framing science in the terms of his belief structure. In that sense, he is describing how he sees the world.
The difference is that any mention of Christianity being anything less than the complete, utter and only truth gets many BACs into a real tizz. On the other hand, those of us who are interested in evolutionary theory and cosmology tend to get really excited about new theories and evidence. I don't unconditionally accept the Big Bang theory as fact. It's fascinating and I used to spend hours upon hours trying to understand the evidence for and against it. That's what it's all about, seeking to clarify and better understand how the world works.
It's all about the challenge of the quest for understanding. This whole dogmatic unconditional acceptance is a fundie thing. No wonder they don't get the rest of us.
2006-10-30 13:45:42 · answer #4 · answered by The angels have the phone box. 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Here is the issue: why did the big bang happen? No theory, just fact. It just happened (what about cause and effect), or it was created (where did the creator come from). Seems like there is some room for choosing to believe in one or the other.
How did life originate? You need an immense amount of biology in place to get to a something that self-replicates and then can start natural selection, so that there is something to select.
You can believe, by faith, that there will be an answer someday from science, or that a creator started it. It is a choice, by faith.
We should respect either belief, for there are no facts. Agreed?
2006-10-30 13:38:54 · answer #5 · answered by Cogito Sum 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Worse than that, there is more evidence for the reality of a kid named Harry Potter or a detective named Sherlock Holmes than there is for god.
Imagine, after a nuclear holocaust.. some survive but the repopulation of the world has to begin from a small Australian aboriginal tribe who were in the middle of nowhere at the time of the Holocaust. They eventually spread out and discover a library, but must translate these books into their language. It's quite possible, they might assume that Harry Potter and Sherlock Holmes were very real.
2006-10-30 13:31:30 · answer #6 · answered by eantaelor 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
A report, some years ago in the New York Journal-American:
Eight of the nation’s outstanding men of science were asked to give their views on this question:
Do scientists believe in God ?
One of the eight, Wernher von Braun:
“Anything as well ordered and perfectly created as our earth and universe must have a Maker, a master designer. Anything so orderly, so perfect, so precisely balanced, so majestic as this creation …..can only be the product of a Divine Idea.
There must be a Maker; there can be no other way.”
Another of the eight, Dr. William Swann, authority on cosmic radiation:
“Viewing the universe as a whole, I cannot escape the fact that it is of intelligent design. The universe shows the same kind of efficiency of planning ….as an engineer strives to achieve, in his smaller undertakings.”
Dr. Warren Weaver, mathematician:
“Every new discovery of science is a further revelation of the order that God has built into His universe.”
Report concluded:
“From these answers, one basic concept shows up clearly:
Some Divine Power, beyond control of man, has shaped the universe.”
It seems it is more reasonable to opt for the God idea.
2006-10-30 13:34:15 · answer #7 · answered by Uncle Thesis 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes they are both a matter of faith.
Only mirco evolution is science, the other 4 types are theories and must be accepted by faith.
If you have no personal experience with Jesus, then you must take all the Bible by faith. If you have a relation with Jesus, than you only have to have faith for those things that you have not yet receive, the rest you know as truth.
2006-10-30 13:50:32 · answer #8 · answered by tim 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yep. Even though believing in a guess that obviously contradicts tons of evidence( e.g. believing the earth is a few thousand years old) is, in my opinion, totally wack. While believing in the big bang is, at worst, a little risky.
2006-10-30 13:45:33 · answer #9 · answered by yaki 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are two major belief systems with the origin of the earth/space.
One is the Creationist's viewpoint.
The other is the Evolutionists' viewpoint.
BORN AGAIN believer is merely saying that it takes more faith to believe in evolution/big-bang than it does the Biblical record.
Both must be believed by faith. (We're just putting our faith in God rather than in man.)
2006-10-30 13:30:29 · answer #10 · answered by Bobby Jim 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He says that in all his answers, as well as Darwin made a monkey out of evolutionists.
Just another case of another fundamentalist looking at only pseudo-science fundamental websites and then generalizing even those flawed views.
2006-10-30 13:28:17 · answer #11 · answered by Sage Bluestorm 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋