RexRed wrote:Evolution is not a story of creation so it cannot tell us how the universe came to "exist".
*sigh* How many times do I have to correct this?
Evolution is a working theory, a story if you will, of how the species came to be. It is not a theory of how life was developed, although scientists are working towards finding out how and it ties in with Evolution.
The Big Bang Theory tells us how the Universe came to exist, but is entirely separate from Evolution.
Quote:Creation is the only science that tries to explain that the universe came to exist because of an illusive power even greater.
Creationism is not science because you cannot empirically observe or design an experiment to prove any of its propositions. In fact, Creationism falls flat on its face when you consider the fact that almost every other Creation myth in existence is equally as falsifiable and therefore equally as true as the Christian one.
Quote:Yet science has no theory for the beginning. (Except for some new string theories.)
You say science has no theory, yet you then state except for some new string theories. So, in effect, science does have theories for the beginning of the Universe. The fact that they are not finalised or complete does not matter. They exist, therefore proving your sentence "science has no theory for the beginning" absolutely wrong.
Quote:The universe is or the universe is not. I tend to think the universe is.
A meaningless sentence that has no bearing on the topic whatsoever.
Quote:Science nearly unanimously proposes we all came from some zero event.
Science proposes nothing of the sort. Only you proposed that science proposes that. You proposing it, does not make it true. Furthermore, science is a subject, a noun.
You use it so specifically, yet it is an insanely broad noun that covers an insanely broad set of subjects.
There are a large number of sciences that don't propose anything about the beginning, because they have nothing to do with how we came about. For example, robotics.
You even state below that science doesn't know what is before the Big Bang and saying there is nothing before the Big Bang is not the same thing.
Do you know what God's mind is made out of? No. Does that mean you're saying it doesn't exist? No. So why must you use the same bizarre, broken logic for what physics states about the Big Bang?
Quote:Yet science will not even speculate as to what was before zero.
Not entirely true.
Some scientists have suggested a Big Crunch, the collapse of a prior Universe to form a singularity. Stephen Hawkings tells us that Black holes have finite lives, whereupon once it is finished, the singularity bursts in a huge explosion of radiation.
From this, we can surmise that one proposal is that before the Big Bang was a Universe that collapsed in on itself.
Quote:Science says there is nothing observable before the big bang or before the beginning of the physical world.
Nothing currently observable.
Quote:So what science is inclined to have us believe is that if there is nothing physical that there can be no God before the big bang. So science has made a pretense that all things are physical.
No, that is what you would have us believe that science is inclined to have us believe.
"Scientists" would have us believe that the Universe was created through the Big Bang. Nothing more. They will have you believe, however, that we don't know what was before the Big Bang and that it could be anything.
Only atheists will assert there is no God before the Big Bang. Perhaps you are confusing the two. They certainly aren't synonymous with each other.
You make nothing but false assertions that have no logical backbone to them whatsoever. You imply things have been said when they haven't been said at all.
) questions to just stir things up is trolling.
