[Scotty]

All the 'mathy stuff' aside, science hasn't provided for several of the key points that are absolutely crucial to the explanation of the theories of evolution and the big bang.

Let's start with the big bang:
Where did it all come from.  I did not and could not just magically appear, unless God made it so (opinion speaking)
If everything exploded from one point in space, why are the two galaxies colliding?  They should always be moving away from each other.

Evolution:
I'm going to borrow a bit for this.

The simplest known living organism has over 500 amino acids. When amino acids form, they are less than one-millionth the size of a human hair. When they form, they form with side groups of atoms. Scientist have found that all non-living amino acids form with 50% of side atoms on the right side of the acid and 50% on the left. This is true on all non-living amino acids. Living cells can ONLY contain amino acids on the left side. ALL amino acids found in every single living cell contains only left-sided amino acids. In the most favorable environment of scientific labs, this has never been duplicated. No scientist has ever created the left-handed amino acid that is critical to the formation of life. All amino acids always form with left and right sided atoms. If scientist in perfect conditions can't duplicate one single left-sided amino acid, how could the 500 necessary for life form by chance? The scientific odds of even one left-sided amino acid forming by chance is 10 to the 123rd power. In other words 1 chance in 10 followed by 123 zeros. i.e. 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

That is only one of the 500 aminos necessary for the simplest life form. 20 specific aminos are needed for the simplest cell, but 500 in order for life to sustain in itself. The odds get worse. Those 500 different types of amino acids have to 'evolve' within a fraction of a millimeter of each other just to give them the chance of uniting. It gets worse. They also have to 'by chance' evolve at the exact same moment in time in a process that scientist say takes hundreds of millions of years. Elements break down the amino acids, so timing is critical. The chances of all these resources falling into place at the exact same time with the exact needed elements at the exact same place on earth within a few millionths of a millimeter of each other are 1 to the ERROR..Calculation overflow. Sorry, my Pentium doesn't have enough memory to even write the number.

How the hell does that work?  No way chance worked with that.


I am somewhat religious, so I hold the opinion that God started it, and then left it alone.  It works for me.

[Coolhand1980]

It makes sense that the universe is expanding based on what we see, but I still think god made it happen. Just like evolution, I can see that some things fit, like surviival of the fittest and mutations, but i still think God had a hand in it. i would probably be one of those people in the poll to sau that i didn't believe in evolution if i was only given the choice of yes or no. That doesn't mean I take the Bible literally on the 6 day creation either.

[Flipside]

Galactic Collisions are possible even with a permanently expanding Universe, this one had me wondering for a while as well when I first heard about it, but it needs to be borne in mind that Gravitic Attraction is also playing a role, and that not everything is moving at the same speed, a Galaxy has a massive Gravity well, and they will pull on each other if they are close enough.

As for Amino Acids, you need to consider that there was pre-life Amino-strings, that aligned themselves to the most economical orientation before there was life, it wasn't a vast number of disparate molecules coming together, it was groups of molecules aligning themselves. Even then the odds are slim, but we are talking about probably several million fusions per day over a period of around a billion years.

[The E]

Let's start with the big bang:
Where did it all come from.  I did not and could not just magically appear, unless God made it so (opinion speaking)
If everything exploded from one point in space, why are the two galaxies colliding?  They should always be moving away from each other.

Ahem. First, the Big-Bang-theory very explicitly states that it basically kicks in shortly after the Big Bang itself, it only describes the effect, not the cause. Basically, the physicists are still working on it, which is why we have things like the LHC around. Second, look at a typical explosion. Debris is flying everywhere, and it does occasionally collide. When you throw around galaxies, they are going to collide if they come close enough to one another, since they have this little thing called gravity.

Oh, and concerning the aminoacids and the statistic impropability of them meeting exactly the right way? It's a big universe. It was bound to happen sooner or later.

[Scotty]

None of which explains where everything came from.  It cannot have come from nothing.  Then, the big-bang theory states that everything came from a single point of infinite density and temperature mass.  That said, it comes from a single point.  It does not explode in more than one direction (unlike modern explosives, which explode along their entire surface area, not a single, infinitesmal speck).  By the big bang theory, galaxies should not collide.

[Coolhand1980]

How depressing if we just turn into a heap of decomposing matter when we die. What about pascow's wager doesn't work for you scientific types?

[Polpolion]

What about pascow's wager doesn't work for you scientific types?

The fact that there is no such thing as pascow's wager.

[The E]

None of which explains where everything came from.  It cannot have come from nothing.  Then, the big-bang theory states that everything came from a single point of infinite density and temperature mass.  That said, it comes from a single point.  It does not explode in more than one direction (unlike modern explosives, which explode along their entire surface area, not a single, infinitesmal speck).  By the big bang theory, galaxies should not collide.

Congratulations. You stumbled on a deficiency in a scientific theory. Now, you have several options.
1. Ignore it.
2. Complain about it.
3. Study the subject and try to come up with a better theory.
4. Wait calmly while the people who have studied the subject work out the flaws in the theory

Option 4 is the hardest to do, admittedly. Scientific work is basically never finished and consists of constantly questioning previously established theories. This is a marked difference to the common religious model, which provides you with premade answers that are perfectly satisfactory to you^{[citation needed]}. Me, i like to figure stuff out for myself.

How depressing if we just turn into a heap of decomposing matter when we die. What about pascow's wager doesn't work for you scientific types?

Pascal's wager, you mean? To me, it doesn't mean anything. In the end, Kant's categorical imperative is more applicable to me, because i actually do not care whether there is a god or not. Unless he/she/it starts interfering with my life, that is.

[Turambar]

How depressing if we just turn into a heap of decomposing matter when we die.

Doesn't matter what's depressing and what isn't, it matters what actually happens.

Make the most of the life you have, don't just prepare for the life you probably won't.

[iamzack]

Believing in an afterlife and/or reincarnation takes some of the pressure off, Zack.

[Turambar]

Believing in an afterlife and/or reincarnation takes some of the pressure off, Zack.

Yeah, but it's all just delusion in the end.

[NGTM-1R]

Yeah, but it's all just delusion in the end.

Unproveables. They are shiney, yes?

[The E]

Believing in an afterlife and/or reincarnation takes some of the pressure off, Zack.

It also opens the door to some of the most hideous forms of psychological influence known to man. Seriously, Blow yourself up and have fun later? Be good to people because you will be rewarded AFTER you die? Repent your sins or burn in hell? I'd like to have my jam today, please.

[Flipside]

I believe in it, but that doesn't count as evidence of its existence to anyone else, I suppose that's where the line between faith and science exists, I'm fine with that, as long as people remain aware that there are boundaries between them

And, frankly, it's a theory of mine that I am in absolutely no rush whatsoever to test

[Daniel P]

Remember These topic usually don't end well. 

[Coolhand1980]

None of which explains where everything came from.  It cannot have come from nothing.  Then, the big-bang theory states that everything came from a single point of infinite density and temperature mass.  That said, it comes from a single point.  It does not explode in more than one direction (unlike modern explosives, which explode along their entire surface area, not a single, infinitesmal speck).  By the big bang theory, galaxies should not collide.

Congratulations. You stumbled on a deficiency in a scientific theory. Now, you have several options.
1. Ignore it.
2. Complain about it.
3. Study the subject and try to come up with a better theory.
4. Wait calmly while the people who have studied the subject work out the flaws in the theory

Option 4 is the hardest to do, admittedly. Scientific work is basically never finished and consists of constantly questioning previously established theories. This is a marked difference to the common religious model, which provides you with premade answers that are perfectly satisfactory to you^{[citation needed]}. Me, i like to figure stuff out for myself.

How depressing if we just turn into a heap of decomposing matter when we die. What about pascow's wager doesn't work for you scientific types?

Pascal's wager, you mean? To me, it doesn't mean anything. In the end, Kant's categorical imperative is more applicable to me, because i actually do not care whether there is a god or not. Unless he/she/it starts interfering with my life, that is.

oops my bad, it's been awhile        
What if there really is a god and you have to earn your way to heaven by your conduct in life, but you only know this is certain upon your death, by which it's too late to make your life acceptable for heaven? As opposed to dying and your gone for eternity. If there's even a lisht chance that there is a heaven, isn't it wise to live your life in order to make it there as opposed to planning on becomming nothing when you die?

[iamzack]

Believing in an afterlife and/or reincarnation takes some of the pressure off, Zack.

It also opens the door to some of the most hideous forms of psychological influence known to man. Seriously, Blow yourself up and have fun later? Be good to people because you will be rewarded AFTER you die? Repent your sins or burn in hell? I'd like to have my jam today, please.

Arguably, the people that believe *that* stuff were ****ed up anyway.

What about pascow's wager doesn't work for you scientific types?

Pascal's Wager only works if there is only one religion which damns everyone who is not part of that religion. Being Christian will put you in hell if it turns out the Muzzies are right. In fact, Being Catholic when the Baptists are right will put you in hell. Etc.

It is not a coin flip. It is a die with so many sides it is effectively a sphere.

[iamzack]

Believing in an afterlife and/or reincarnation takes some of the pressure off, Zack.

Yeah, but it's all just delusion in the end.

So what? The whole point of placebo is that delusions can have very real effects. Prayer can bring a person a lot of peace, even if it turns out god isn't real. If it's real to you, then it doesn't matter what is real objectively.

[The E]

oops my bad, it's been awhile        
What if there really is a god and you have to earn your way to heaven by your conduct in life, but you only know this is certain upon your death, by which it's too late to make your life acceptable for heaven? As opposed to dying and your gone for eternity. If there's even a lisht chance that there is a heaven, isn't it wise to live your life in order to make it there?

Well, read about the categorical imperative one day. As long as i adhere to its rules, i should be in the target zone for some heavenly goodness after my death. I do not have a problem with there not being an afterlife. To sum it up, my plan is, basically,
1. Get Born
2. Live
3. Die
4. Improvise

Point 1 is accomplished, currently working on 2.

[Coolhand1980]

Believing in an afterlife and/or reincarnation takes some of the pressure off, Zack.

Yeah, but it's all just delusion in the end.

So scientists are wasting their lives trying to prove to us dellusional religious nuts that we are wasting our lives chasing after the great delusion of an afterlife?