The Big Bang and God

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by H-kon, Jun 4, 1999.

  1. Mike Registered Senior Member

    Evolution or Darwinian concepts, state that a living organism will evolve to it's habitat. When an animal has evolved to a specific geographical areas climate and food supplies then the natural need to evolve no longer exists. Climatic changes induce the need evolve or adapt some more, hence why the evolution of species is not linear, and some haven't changed for millions of years i.e. Crocodiles. We have as a species have evolved, but now I believe that evolutionary road for our species is at an end, simply because we no longer need to adapt to new enviroments, we adapt our surroundings to suit ourselfs.

    Without Darwinian evolution life could not exist, life couldn't adapt to climatic change and would therefor die. Creationist"and the earth is only 6000 years old" thinking is in contradiction to this which is a good reason why I'm not religeous.

    As for the missing link, we don't even have a complete catalogue of everything that is alive on this rock yet, so why be surprised when we don't know what happened 2,000,000 years ago.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. truestory Registered Senior Member

    Dear Plato,

    As usual, you are right. It is very brave to go up against God. Unwise, but brave!

    (All of the fallen angels can confirm this).

    In your opinion, are the Big Bang Theory and God mutually exclusive?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Plato Registered Senior Member


    No I don't think the big bang and god are mutually exclusive. The fact that you even bring this up merly shows the growing misunderstanding in that science and religion are two forces opposing each other. Most of the discussions on this board somehow take this assumption for granted but this is not true at all !
    What is true is that the scientific method, which says look at the universe first before you make theories, is directly opposed to the fundamentalistic view of taking the creation myths as they are recorded in the holy books or as they are passed oraly from generation to generation.
    For any religion it is a maturing catarsys if it can rid itself from its own myths and dares to face the universe as it is. You see, religions aren't based on myths but on the fundamental existential questions. These questions will be for ever out of reach of science because science only addresses measurable variables.
    I hope this kind of puts things back in their perspective.

    "If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
    Isaac Newton
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. truestory Registered Senior Member

    Thanks, Plato

    Now I understand where you are coming from.

    Have a great day!
  8. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Plato, truestory:

    I would like to interject that there is no clear-cut relationship between God and science. It is true that they are not directly opposed to one another. However, it is also true that they cannot co-exist harmoniously. Science seeks to explain in most excruciating detail everything that was, is, or will be -- through purely physical processes. In essence, it seeks to eliminate God from the on-going evolution of the universe. As scientific theories expand their spacial and temporal range, they tend to push God farther and farther out of our vicinity and back into the past. Science, by its very nature, continually encroaches on the domains of existence previously reserved for the supernatural or divine. And, as Plato alluded, in its path it tends to destroy the old myths that have been so dear, and provided so much security, to so many.

    Science and religion cannot coexist in peace, and it's mostly the fault of science. Science can only live in peace with mystery and the premise of the unknown -- but not with any descriptive theories stemming from religious sources. A postulated existence of an epistemological limit to comprehension is the only point on which science and religion can possibly touch base.

    I am; therefore I think.

    [This message has been edited by Boris (edited September 17, 1999).]

Share This Page