Truth, I'm sorry for getting back to this so late. I apologize in advance if any of this has already been covered. Well, you have to understand that the average person isn't a scientist and isn't going to understand reading through an entire research paper in a journal. Many of the articles you are referring to intentionally dumb concepts down and generalize them. They care more about the volume of hits on their website than the detailed accuracy of the information presented. Their job is to create riveting headlines that draw people in. Science doesn't care about that, it only cares about learning how things work. What "junk science" is out there that folks believe is true (aside from young earth creationism of course)? I highly doubt that most scientists believe that, but even if so, individual religious beliefs do not suddenly become valid because a scientist believes them. If the scientist isn't actively experimenting with this spiritual realm, it holds no more weight than me saying that I believe dragons and fairies are real. String theory is also purely based on math. There is no way to currently verify any of it, so it does not qualify as a scientific theory, it is a mathematical theory. There is a big difference. Do you know this for a fact? Reliable in terms of what? Can you link that article for me? (if you already did I will get to it soon) FYI, science does not prove "nothing comes from nothing" nor does it prove that "nothing" ever existed. Any guess you make about how the singularity formed or came together in that state is a guess. You don't know that the singularity was the beginning or that a beginning ever existed. Science cannot study anything prior to the beginning of the expansion. My point was that if energy cannot be created or destroyed, then it must point to the energy in the universe being eternal, which means it was NOT created. You referenced string theory, but if you really looking into that and it's more recent form (M-theory), it tries to explain how dimensional membrane collisions could lead to big bangs. There is simply so much we don't know at this point to assume it must have been a god. For all we know, our universe could be one of millions that are all linked and gravitationally affect one another. We simply don't know and that alone isn't enough to suggest there is a creator. You say this, but that rule goes out the window as soon as you mention god. How did god come into existence? Are you claiming god came from nothing or that god violates the laws of physics? If you can guess that god is eternal or always there, then I can guess that the universe was always there in a never ending loop of big bangs. Neither of us actually know the answer, however. It's just faulty logic to make assumptions about things that aren't fully understood yet. There is nothing definitive about that statement. With all due respect, it also says that light was created before the sun and that the stars were created after the earth, not to mention that the timeline of creation of lifeforms directly conflicts with the scientific one. In reference to the rest of the post, I'm not going to argue against your faith, you are welcome to believe that if you want, just understand that it's faith, not fact. I believe this has been officially debunked now. There is nothing scientific about that, it is based on assumptions as I demonstrated above. But how do you create what cannot be created or destroyed (energy)? Once again, there is nothing scientific about that in the least. What you are claiming has noting to do with "logical extensions of provable theories". You are relying on a big assumption. Sorry for the long post again! I just love these types of discussions and find it really hard to resist as I do believe in god, but also have my own reservations about the whole thing. I guess you could call me an agnostic theist. The weird thing about this whole thread is that Catholics are generally the more rational of the Christians. When compared to evangelicals and born agains it's like night and day, except in this thread. You aren't one of those anti evolution folks, are you?
But that jerkoff will respond " thank you for a respectful response" and then post a 20,000 word talking points bullshit reply not realizing Wilkerson Central was mocking him. _
Waiting for Untruth to answer with lalalalalalalalalalala, I can't hear you and then spurt out verbal diarrhea. Wilk said everything I said, but in an intelligent manner.
