Quote:
Originally Posted by Strokes  I didn't mention either, I mentioned the theory of evolution and how it coincides with the "Big Bang". |
You said:
Quote:
|
the atheist theory of "The Big Bang" is completely illogical. You say that the world is nothing more than matter and natural laws, yet in what way is it possible for life itself to be able to support eachother in every way of the earth? the sun that helps the trees grow that we have oxygen? The plants that keep us healthy and grow of the water of the rain? I need to ask you, how can you belive that science and evolution was able to do this.
|
What you're talking about there is
not the Big Bang, but biology (or more accurately, ecology). That's my point. I'm not saying your questions aren't worthy of answers, just that they have nothing to do with the Big Bang, so by asking questions about ecology you're not showing that either ecology, evolution,
or the Bang Bang are illogical, either partially or "completely".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strokes That is why it goes against all religion's laws. It also is one certain way for people who don't believe in a higher purpose to collect that knowledge in order to compile more explanations for what they believe the universe is. |
Why does it go against religion's laws? Does religion outlaw seeking knowledge?
This also illustrates the difference between scientists and atheists. An atheist says God doesn't exist, and therefore couldn't create the world. That might violate a religious law. A scientist might say natural planetary formation lead to the world's existence and God is not necessary to explain it, though he might grant that it's possible that he set all the required processes in motion. That needn't violate any religious laws, particularly where they're open to interpretation (which is certainly the case with Creation. While the Bible clearly states God created the world, 'how' is not so certain).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strokes You are obviously finding yourself blindsighted to what I'm conveying in my explanations. My odd metaphor perhaps?  |
Maybe. But all I'm doing is pointing out that none of what you're saying actually addresses some of the statements you made.
You seem to be saying two things:
1) God exists and created us and the world.
2) Science's explanations are illogical and are no substitute for God.
Which is fine, if that's what you believe. Nothing I'm saying is intended to challenge (1), since I believe it's impossible to know for sure, at least today, but I can understand why people would believe it none-the-less (or refuse to believe it).
But with (2) you denied two scientific theories without showing a) an understanding of them or b) any reason to refute them.