Why do you think this though? Not disagreeing, just wondering.
Ikr?
There's no evidence. People just came up with it to explain things. Now, in 2017, it's an excuse for wars.
Good man
Nobody is currently debating with you, I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Neither am I tbh. I guess I'm thinking it's going to start again if we keep it open.
Mind elaborating why you believe this?
So what? Just because they are different, does not mean neither are true. If I have to guess someone’s name, for example, and am presented with two possible options, does not mean neither option is false, even if one is drastically different from the other. The reason for the drastic difference between Creation “theory” (I use quotation marks because Creation is not and has never been a theory, meaning it is not and has never been observed, tested, and supported by peer-reviewed evidence. As a result, considering Creation to be a valid explanation of how the Universe came to be is an odd choice.) and The Big Bang Theory is that Creation is based on a very old book, which has been time and time again observed to be largely false in terms of how it perceives reality, and science, and The Big Bang Theory is based on countless years of research, studies, experiments, observations, tests, and peer-reviewed evidence. Also, if we take into consideration the last three sentences of your conclusion, which are “If you only believe in facts, you'll take the current Big Bang evidence and make that what you believe in. Or, alternatively, you can have faith that a God exists and he created the Earth. That's all there is to it.”, then that means you pretty much admit that having faith in a God is distanced from facts, thus distanced from reality, thus having no value in the real world. So, if something is distanced from facts, why pass it off as real?
The fact that Crystal is using theology to try and prove a point is doing nothing but discrediting that point. Theology has never been observed to have any value in reality, besides people trying to bend their rules of theology whenever it is convenient for their argument.
Oregon State University -
Having faith in an old tradition is nothing new, and there are times that faith has beaten facts. Science is almost unprovable, there's a myth about "Hard Facts." Science has disproved itself many times: just look at the atomic model, which based on the current info they had throughout history has changed and changed. Nothing can ever be true because things are constantly disproven. Just because Creation has never been tested doesn't really mean anything. What if there is a God, and he's testing us? To see our FAITH to him. Just because something has countless years of research and observation poured into it doesn't mean that automatically makes it true. For the last sentence, even if it's so detached from reality, they still have faith that God is real, and it's possible they're right. Just because Bill Nye can roast some Creationists doesn't mean they're wrong, even if the entire foundation isn't built off facts. It's built off their faith and devotion to a God they believe is real.
If it's that sort of "theory" you speak of, then it's labeled wrong. There's not enough concrete evidence to make it 100% solid. Until it is 100% proven to exist, we can still deny it's existence. End of story.
Frankly, that’s what’s science is. Constantly changing. Sure, there are things that, as I said in my previous post, aren’t likely to ever be altered, but science is all about coming up with new explanations for things. Science evolves, just like we do. If there’s a hypothesis or theory better suited to describe a phenomenon than a previous theory, the previous theory will be dismissed in favor of one that suits better. Also, your assertion that faith has beaten facts at times is logically wrong. Facts are the truth, and you can’t be more truthful than truth, right? How can you beat truth? You can’t. Faith is just that- faith. That’s why creationists can’t seem to provide scientifically valuable evidence for their stories. They only have faith in them. Also, I’m not saying that just because science has countless years of research behind it, means it’s automatically true. I’m saying scientific concepts have an extremely high concurrence with reality. We’ve been able to observe scientific concepts in the real world, and we’ve not been able to observe creationist concepts. Where did you get that Bill Nye thing from? Sure, Nye has debated creationists many times, and has won every time, but that’s what the point of a debate is.
What would you consider to be concrete evidence in this case? So far, the evidence we have for The Big Bang is infinitely better than the evidence we have (or, frankly, don’t have) of a god. Now, in fear of using the Black & White Fallacy, I won’t say that just because there is no evidence for a god’s existence that The Big Bang must have happened. That’s logically wrong. I accept that it’s possible there is another explanation for how the Universe came to be, as does science. As I said, science evolves, and its understanding of the natural world evolves with it. It would be foolish to think that lack of evidence for a god makes Big Bang Theory ultimately true, and that’s not what I’m saying. There could be another natural explanation for how our Universe began that doesn’t involve a god or The Big Bang. It would also be foolish to think that an unexplained natural phenomenon ultimately leads to a god. Just because something isn’t explained, does not imply a god was the cause of it. Big Bang Theory is considered a scientific theory because it is our best attempt so far to explain how the Universe came to be. As I said, a better suited theory would be accepted, and Big Bang would be dismissed, if such a theory is ever proposed and tested, and shown to have scientific value. Also, by what you say, it makes it seem as if every single 100% proven concept is invincible from rejection by groups of people. Evolution has been proven to occur, yet some people still deny it. Gravity has been proven to exist, yet some people still deny it. The Earth has been proven to not be flat, yet some people still think it’s flat. End of story.
