Why is the Big Bang theory taught in Public Schools?

[seemingly random]

This thread is creepy. Rational people and TastesLikeChicken are agreeing on the same things - freaky.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

You can probably guess from my name what I think of the OP and I'm not going to dignify his idiotic trolling and unbelievable ignorance with a proper response. Suffice it to say that BB theory is no less scientific than evolutionary theory or relativity theory and certainly does not qualify as religious.

 

[StageLeft]

Of course, that brings about an endless loop. So if you can believe that God has always existed then why can't you believe that matter, or the components of matter, always existed? Fundamentally they are identical beliefs, just different flavors.

Neither adhere to science, but God doesn't have to; science cannot break its own rules, though.

The OP is correct, the big bang had to be preceeded by something and nobody has a clue what that is/was. Science by its very nature and constraints cannot explain how the universed began.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: jman19
LOL at the ignorance in the OP. You should probably actually learn about the Big Bang Theory and the various refines to it based on empirical data rather than just assuming it is a blind belief that a big explosion made everything :roll:

It's sad how you completely mangled what I wrote into a strawman that's as easy to burn up with "you should probably learn what the big bang theory actually is.."

I've studied the Big Bang theory. I believe in a Big Bang myself. What i'm talking about is time, space and matter.

No, you asked why it is taught in schools. There are reasons why, such as empirical evidence. There is no real evidence for the gods of those religions you mentioned. I answered your question well enough.

No, you didn't. You said there was emperical evidence, but didn't say what it was.

Background radiation.

How is that evidence for space, time and matter coming into existence(without a creator)?

I'm pretty sure that's beyond the scope of Big Bang. It doesn't try to explain what started the process, but rather how that singularity grew into the universe as we know it today.

Exactly, which is why I think it is funny that Duwelon claimed he knew Big Bang Theory well. The theory doesn't say where these things came from, so to say it isn't fair to have this yet not have religion is absurd. He is comparing science to belief.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
...But throughout our text books it tells our kids that the whole universe somehow appeared, space time and all.

Now that has to be one of the most ridiculous and misleading statements I've seen recently, and I've been watching Presidential campaign ads.

The science textbooks I used (in a public school) explicitly stated that we don't know what happened before the Big Bang, and that we do not know if the Big Bang was the point of creation, or if the universe existed previously but collapsed, or something entirely different. The books stated plainly that all we know is that it is very likely that the Big Bang happened. They never once speculated on why it happened (in terms of metaphysical reasons) and they never once said anything about it being incompatible with the concept of a Creator.

ZV

 

[VoteQuimby]

I haven't read through this thread, but how do we know that the Big Bang theory wasn't caused by God?

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: VoteQuimby
I haven't read through this thread, but how do we know that the Big Bang theory wasn't caused by God?

We don't, but that's not relevant to why it is taught in schools, is it?

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: jman19
LOL at the ignorance in the OP. You should probably actually learn about the Big Bang Theory and the various refines to it based on empirical data rather than just assuming it is a blind belief that a big explosion made everything :roll:

It's sad how you completely mangled what I wrote into a strawman that's as easy to burn up with "you should probably learn what the big bang theory actually is.."

I've studied the Big Bang theory. I believe in a Big Bang myself. What i'm talking about is time, space and matter.

No, you asked why it is taught in schools. There are reasons why, such as empirical evidence. There is no real evidence for the gods of those religions you mentioned. I answered your question well enough.

No, you didn't. You said there was emperical evidence, but didn't say what it was.

This isn't science class, Torquemada. You want to know why something is taught in the science classroom, jman19 provided a reason. He is not under any obligation to explain the details of the theory to you, particularly since you posted an incredibly inflammatory thread despite clearly having no knowledge whatsoever of the topic. You call the Big Bang theory "100% religious" despite clearly detailed scientific evidence to support it. The fact that you might be too dumb, too biased or too lazy to go look for that evidence doesn't burden any of us with the responsibility of explaining it to you...simply pointing out that you might want to remove your head from your ass and try to learn something seems like a perfectly fair comment to me. Especially since you started this discussion in such an aggressively ridiculous way.

Rainsford,

So, you are claiming then that emperical evidence for the Big Bang does exist?

I'm saying it doesn't, I thought i made it perfectly clear. What you percieve to be inflammitory is your own bias clashing with my own statements, which you in your anger now won't be able to back up.

I don't need the big bang theory explained to me, so you can take your attempts to undermine my intelligence and shove em somewhere.

I am presenting a valid question about why there is such vicious hypocracy about the belief in origins. We teach our kids about one theory (at least they're honest enough to call it a theory, until they assume it is a fact 1000x in the teaching of biology).

If you don't have the integrity to debate on how the Big Bang theory, which would also need Time, Space and Matter to exist to come to the fruition that the text books teach, then don't come crying to me about it.

The Big Bang theory supposedly explains the birth of the universe, and there are some great scientific things we're observing, but none that explain the origins of what allows the birth to take place, space, time, matter, etc.

So basically you are a religious whack job that is trying to say that God created the Big Bang. Gotcha. You can't actually debate the issue and accept the evidence provided since it goes against what you were taught, so you're now attempting a round robin way of denying any evidence presented to you by say "Well what happened before that?"

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
That's no different than wondering how God came into existence. Clearly, if there must have been a creator then someone must have created God. Of course, that brings about an endless loop. So if you can believe that God has always existed then why can't you believe that matter, or the components of matter, always existed? Fundamentally they are identical beliefs, just different flavors.

i think you just proved Duwelon's point.



Duwelon is asking a metaphysical question. he has confused metaphysics with actual science and seems to think that science has given an answer for the metaphysical question. whether he's done this unintentionally or intentionally i don't know.

the fact of the matter is that science can't answer the question of what was around before the big bang, and can't really answer the question of whether the universe exists.

the difference between science and religion, though, is that science doesn't try to answer the questions it can't answer.

 

[BoomerD]

Topic Title: Why is the Big Bang theory taught in Public Schools?

Because it makes more sense than the whole "Invisible omnipotent sky fairy" thing?

Assuming that this "being" did indeed create the universe, what did he/it create it from? Oh yeah, where did he/if create it if there was nothing there to begin with? One final thing...where did this mythical being come from if there was nothing out there? (and no "out there" out there.)

Gotta love the whole "Faith man, I got faith" attitude. That does away with any need for proof, and even denies proof when it runs counter to your "beliefs."

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Of course, that brings about an endless loop. So if you can believe that God has always existed then why can't you believe that matter, or the components of matter, always existed? Fundamentally they are identical beliefs, just different flavors.

Neither adhere to science, but God doesn't have to; science cannot break its own rules, though.

The OP is correct, the big bang had to be preceeded by something and nobody has a clue what that is/was. Science by its very nature and constraints cannot explain how the universed began.

We have some theories as to what preceded the big bang and caused matter to come into existence, like Brane theory. Maybe the LHC can unlock a few more current mysteries and move us closer to answering what came before? If it does the explanation will be based on observation and evidence instead of relying on the omnipotent powers of a supernatural being. I just don't buy the whole snap of a finger or wave of a noodly appendage theory. It's way too convenient. Not to mention that there are literally hundred of such religious theories of which only one could possibly be correct and for which none have any emprical evidence to back them up whatsoever. It's not "turtles all the way down."

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It's not "turtles all the way down."

No, of course not. It's 4 elephants, then a giant star-turtle called the Great A'Tuin who swims through space...

Or am I confusing us with Discworld again?

ZV

 

[TheDoc9]

Hi op, I don't know what you're intention was with this post but as you can see that bringing up an argument based on classical religion is a mistake in the AT forums. These forums are mostly made up of liberal athiest/agnostic posters.

You'll never convince them of anything on a forum if that was your intent. It takes years to undo the bias against religion and the will to learn, just as it took years to learn the bias in public school. But if you want to inform yourself on a lot of these theorys and ways to shot them down, I would look into Christian science on google. You can also rent videos from netflix from speakers who are well versed on all of these arguments, Kent Hovind comes to mind, but he's VERY evangelical.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
As something that Science cannot possibly prove through demonstratable, observable experiments, why are the religious principals of the Big Bang theory, which virtually(or every) single biology book in High Schools and College use as their foundation for the science of cosmic evolution, still taught in Public schools?

It's crystal clear to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty that one must believe the Big Bang happened. They cannot know. It is in no way science, it is as 100% religiously based (in terms of beliefs) to believe in the big bang theory as is to believe in Jesus or Allah or Santa Clause for the kids. I'm specifically talking about Time, Space and Matter appearing.

1) Without time, there is no when.
2) Without space, there is no where.
3) Without matter, there is no what.

Somehow, the Big Bang is one of the only 100% religious ideas taught in public schools that gives the theory on how the universe came to exist, yet there is no evidience of something appearing from nothing.

My question is, why is Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Mysticism viewed as religious and cannot be used to explain cosmic evolution, or origins of life, yet the most prominent theory of which there is absoluetely no evidence that doesn't also support Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Mysticism(i think).

I think it's great we can tell the universe is expanding, but why does this prove the Big Bang and somehow disprove a creator?

Why is the Big Bang theory taught in Public Schools and then used in evolution as if the big bang were real science?

Well, 'cause Georges Lematre inventor of the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest and his Theory is perfectly acceptable to be taught in godless public schools. And finally, you'se an idiot. The Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with Evolution, they are entirely separate in their applications in science.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: TheDoc9
Hi op, I don't know what you're intention was with this post but as you can see that bringing up an argument based on classical religion is a mistake in the AT forums. These forums are mostly made up of liberal athiest/agnostic posters.

You'll never convince them of anything on a forum if that was your intent. It takes years to undo the bias against religion and the will to learn, just as it took years to learn the bias in public school. But if you want to inform yourself on a lot of these theorys and ways to shot them down, I would look into Christian science on google. You can also rent videos from netflix from speakers who are well versed on all of these arguments, Kent Hovind comes to mind, but he's VERY evangelical.

Yeah... googling will teach you how to "shoot down" these "theories." Scientific theory is not like the colloquial theory. Tons of evidence goes into backing a hypothesis before it can ever be called a scientific theory. There is plenty of evidence that there was a big bang, one being background radiation. Additionally, the big bang theory does not try to explain what there was before.

 

[Modelworks]

I do believe in a creator. There are just too many things that work together that allows life on this planet for them to be random. However I do not think God is like the religions say, some being floating above watching everything we do. If you put a scifi slant on it and really think about it. Say you are an advanced being of some sort, you come upon a planet that has possibilities so you aid it along in developing. You terraform the planet into something and play around with life. Maybe changing evolution as you see fit. Manipulating things at different times. You manage to produce man after lots of trial and error. Decide to let him grow and see what happens.

Is that creator still here ? who knows. Maybe he is taking a hands off approach and just seeing what develops. That doesn't mean he doesn't care, since we would be his creations he would probably care what happened to us, or maybe he is so disgusted with us that he just walked away shaking his head.

Can I prove any of this ? Nope, but its just as good a theory as anything else.


As for all the laughing about Genesis and the creation. Take it into context of the time it was written. Your living thousands of years ago, now write about where you came from and explain the world around you with only what you know at the time. Imagine trying to explain the big bang and all the details to someone who lived thousands of years ago.
Maybe whatever scientist learn hundreds of years from now, they will look back at us and laugh about what we thought about science now.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: TheDoc9
Hi op, I don't know what you're intention was with this post but as you can see that bringing up an argument based on classical religion is a mistake in the AT forums. These forums are mostly made up of liberal athiest/agnostic posters.

You'll never convince them of anything on a forum if that was your intent. It takes years to undo the bias against religion and the will to learn, just as it took years to learn the bias in public school. But if you want to inform yourself on a lot of these theorys and ways to shot them down, I would look into Christian science on google. You can also rent videos from netflix from speakers who are well versed on all of these arguments, Kent Hovind comes to mind, but he's VERY evangelical.

See, I knew if I kept reading I'd find something funnier and more ridiculous than the OP.

Do you honestly believe that millions of scientists around the word are all atheists because they are somehow able to understand that science and religion are two different things?

Here's a link to help explain it to you: Science vs Faith

And here's some parody to put in perspective arguing that the big bang and evolution are "just theories":

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
August 17, 2005 | Issue 41?33

KANSAS CITY, KS?As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity?which is taught to our children as a law?is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall?just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: TheDoc9
Hi op, I don't know what you're intention was with this post but as you can see that bringing up an argument based on classical religion is a mistake in the AT forums. These forums are mostly made up of liberal athiest/agnostic posters.

You'll never convince them of anything on a forum if that was your intent. It takes years to undo the bias against religion and the will to learn, just as it took years to learn the bias in public school. But if you want to inform yourself on a lot of these theorys and ways to shot them down, I would look into Christian science on google. You can also rent videos from netflix from speakers who are well versed on all of these arguments, Kent Hovind comes to mind, but he's VERY evangelical.

Your brain is definitely VERY clean.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Sigh.

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of the Big Bang, and until a better theory with observational evidence comes out, we're sticking with the Big Bang Theory

Also, it doesn't disprove the existence of a creator. Logic disproves a creator.

Sigh. Logic doesn't disprove a creator. If anything, logic implies a creator.

 

[imported_Baloo]

I can assure you, the big bang theory has never been a subject in a biology class. But the physics behind the big bang theory can be tested and observed.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Sigh.

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of the Big Bang, and until a better theory with observational evidence comes out, we're sticking with the Big Bang Theory

Also, it doesn't disprove the existence of a creator. Logic disproves a creator.

Sigh. Logic doesn't disprove a creator. If anything, logic implies a creator.

Maybe but definitely not the Magic Man in the Sky.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Sigh.

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of the Big Bang, and until a better theory with observational evidence comes out, we're sticking with the Big Bang Theory

Also, it doesn't disprove the existence of a creator. Logic disproves a creator.

Sigh. Logic doesn't disprove a creator. If anything, logic implies a creator.

Maybe but definitely not the Magic Man in the Sky.

Exactly.

FWIW, because someone doesn't believe in one of the commercialized and organized religions does not make them an atheist. I have friends/family who refer to me as such and have to correct them. Just because I don't believe in your god doesn't mean I don't believe in a god. Of course, that applies to all religions.

 

[crownjules]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Sigh. Logic doesn't disprove a creator. If anything, logic implies a creator.

No it doesn't. Logic dictates that a series of events following the laws of the universe happened over the course of a billion years to get to this point. That is all. The human mind rationalizes our non-understanding of the universe at large to fill in the gaps. This is how humans have always been - rationalizing away the unexplainable (at the time) by calling it supernatural or magic or what have you.

 

[TheDoc9]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: TheDoc9
Hi op, I don't know what you're intention was with this post but as you can see that bringing up an argument based on classical religion is a mistake in the AT forums. These forums are mostly made up of liberal athiest/agnostic posters.

You'll never convince them of anything on a forum if that was your intent. It takes years to undo the bias against religion and the will to learn, just as it took years to learn the bias in public school. But if you want to inform yourself on a lot of these theorys and ways to shot them down, I would look into Christian science on google. You can also rent videos from netflix from speakers who are well versed on all of these arguments, Kent Hovind comes to mind, but he's VERY evangelical.

See, I knew if I kept reading I'd find something funnier and more ridiculous than the OP.

Do you honestly believe that millions of scientists around the word are all atheists because they are somehow able to understand that science and religion are two different things?

Here's a link to help explain it to you: Science vs Faith

And here's some parody to put in perspective arguing that the big bang and evolution are "just theories":

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
August 17, 2005 | Issue 41?33

KANSAS CITY, KS?As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity?which is taught to our children as a law?is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall?just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

Obviously I'm in the company of those who are much more intelligent than myself, so I'll try to refute you're post as best I can, my shortcomings not withstanding.

You pick an obscure evangelical article from someone in Kansas of all places, and you use it as an example, your template for all Christians. There's no perspective here, there's you're image of how you see Christians, and you're basis for an argument on this.

I never said millions of scientists were athiests. But since you brought it up, I do believe the vocal minority are.

I know the current theory's of evolution and the origins of the universe, as well as the history (and therefore the context) in which these theory's were created. I believe it takes more faith to believe most of these ideas then to believe in a Creator.

Nothing you've shown me has done anything to prove you're case, but it has successfully stroked your ego and the ego's of those that believe as you do.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Obviously I'm in the company of those who are much more intelligent than myself, so I'll try to refute you're post as best I can, my shortcomings not withstanding. You pick an obscure evangelical article from someone in Kansas of all places, and you use it as an example, your template for all Christians. There's no perspective here, there's you're image of how you see Christians, and you're basis for an argument on this. I never said millions of scientists were athiests. But since you brought it up, I do believe the vocal minority are. I know the current theory's of evolution and the origins of the universe, as well as the history (and therefore the context) in which these theory's were created. I believe it takes more faith to believe most of these ideas then to believe in a Creator. Nothing you've shown me has done anything to prove you're case, but it has successfully stroked your ego and the ego's of those that believe as you do.

You pick an obscure evangelical article from someone in Kansas of all places, and you use it as an example, your template for all Christians. There's no perspective here, there's you're image of how you see Christians, and you're basis for an argument on this.

No he didn't. He was using an example of how "theory" can be twisted. Everything we know is a "theory" but theories have mounds of evidence supporting it. Hes not applying to everyone.
Just making a point

I know the current theory's of evolution and the origins of the universe, as well as the history (and therefore the context) in which these theory's were created. I believe it takes more faith to believe most of these ideas then to believe in a Creator.

Science- We can reverse the flow of time until 1 second from the Big Bang, at which point, general relativity and quantum physics break down. However, we are able to theorize what happened from that 1 second on. Physics predicts what happens.

Religion- God walked over the earth dark and formless.

What about faith?

And stop quoting christian scientists. Because of them, we got this.

http://www.creationmuseum.org/