Sir Gareth Posted October 2, 2009 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 73 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 540 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/11/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/26/1980 Author Share Posted October 2, 2009 What? Of course they develop theories. Its just a lot harder to prove because they can't re-create it. Science deals with everything after the big bang (in other words, when "time" began). Anything before that is irrelevant so they don't deal with it. Try reading a Brief History of Time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted October 2, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted October 2, 2009 ' The big bang? The original question is about the origin of life, not the origin on the universe. I didn't quote the source... it was in response to the post below. I still don't understand this. Scientists are big on "knowing" and "searching" and "finding out." Yet when it comes to where life came from, how the inanimate became a living thing - it's like they develope a "Well we can't know so we won't even try to know" attitude. What? Of course they develop theories. Its just a lot harder to prove because they can't re-create it. Science deals with everything after the big bang (in other words, when "time" began). Anything before that is irrelevant so they don't deal with it. Try reading a Brief History of Time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted October 2, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I still don't understand this. Scientists are big on "knowing" and "searching" and "finding out." Yet when it comes to where life came from, how the inanimate became a living thing - it's like they develope a "Well we can't know so we won't even try to know" attitude. I'm not sure that is entirely accurate Neb. There are many scientists working on it, they haven't thrown up their hands as you suggest and simply stated that "we can't know so we won't even try to know". Just because we don't know doesn't necessarily mean we can't know and even if we couldn't know I still think there would be numerous scientists who would try to know anyway. Most scientists that I have dealt with are more interested in the finding of answers than the knowing of answers, if that distinction makes any sense. I appreciate your reply NC. OK, I see what you mean. I still have the perception, though, that scientists and science teachers would rather avoid the topic than simply saying, "We don't know" or "We don't know yet - but we're looking into it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted October 2, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Based on several debates and discussions. I'm not outside the field of science, you know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick-Parker Posted October 2, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 200 Topics Per Day: 0.23 Content Count: 4,271 Content Per Day: 4.95 Reputation: 1,855 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/17/2021 Status: Offline Birthday: 06/03/1955 Share Posted October 2, 2009 But origin of life would have happened after the big bang, therefore it would be in the list of things that happened after time began. There was no "big bang," there was only a big "Let there be...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted October 3, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted October 3, 2009 But origin of life would have happened after the big bang, therefore it would be in the list of things that happened after time began. There was no "big bang," there was only a big "Let there be...." Is there any particular reason we should all go with your opinion and throw out all the evidence supporting the big bang? Why not accept that maybe God didn't create the universe the way we think He should have, that instead of our sunday-school images of creation He did things His own way? What we know is the cause of the start of the universe (God spoke) but not the "how". I see nothing in the bible that suggests God didn't speak the Big Bang into motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted October 3, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.10 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted October 3, 2009 But origin of life would have happened after the big bang, therefore it would be in the list of things that happened after time began. There was no "big bang," there was only a big "Let there be...." Is there any particular reason we should all go with your opinion and throw out all the evidence supporting the big bang? Why not accept that maybe God didn't create the universe the way we think He should have, that instead of our sunday-school images of creation He did things His own way? The Big Bang occurred when God spoke the universe into being...it's one and the same event. I don't get why people don't see this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted October 3, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted October 3, 2009 What we know is the cause of the start of the universe (God spoke) but not the "how". I see nothing in the bible that suggests God didn't speak the Big Bang into motion. Yay; agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick-Parker Posted October 3, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 200 Topics Per Day: 0.23 Content Count: 4,271 Content Per Day: 4.95 Reputation: 1,855 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/17/2021 Status: Offline Birthday: 06/03/1955 Share Posted October 3, 2009 But origin of life would have happened after the big bang, therefore it would be in the list of things that happened after time began. There was no "big bang," there was only a big "Let there be...." Is there any particular reason we should all go with your opinion and throw out all the evidence supporting the big bang? Why not accept that maybe God didn't create the universe the way we think He should have, that instead of our sunday-school images of creation He did things His own way? I choose to believe the Words of God over the flaky words of some sudo-scientists who can't prove their thesis any more than I can prove mine. The Holy Spirit says that God said "Let there be......" and I believe Him. And you believe in yourself. Good luck with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walksonlegs Posted October 4, 2009 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 18 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/22/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted October 4, 2009 (edited) Evolution and abiogenesis are different theories. "Evolutionists" is a name that was placed on people who want a natural explanation of our existence by religious fundies. Evolution is a fact. Abiogenesis is still in its hypothesis stage, but feel free to google it. You can also look into the Miller-Urey experiments, the Deep Sea Vent Theory, and the PANH world hypothesis. None of these have been validated, but they are an attempt to explain our natural existence rather than "god did it". I think it takes more "faith" to believe that we were created from dust rather than evolving from primates. Edited October 4, 2009 by Walksonlegs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts