Being offended by a Christian

The difference is the scientist uses the theory as a basis for research which may of may not provide absolute proof that the theory was correct. If the theory is proved to be incorrect then it is discarded or modified. In contrast, the religious cling on to whatever they believe to be true and ignore all evidence that tends to disprove what they believe even going as far as extreme torture and killing to suppress any divergant ideas. (see the posts above) And for your information, even though there is still the word "theory" in The theory of evolution, biologists have been able to make direct observations of evolutionary processes in action. So it not actually still a theory, though I'm sure that the creationists would like to think of it as such.

Yet, the theory still hasn't been proven. Observations do not prove a theory no matter how hard you try to argue it. The very fact that it is not a scientific law proves that the theory still can be disproved. Who knows in a 100 years people in the future maybe laughing at the big bang theory as we are now about the earth revolving around the sun. All theories start out as beliefs. The scientist has to believe that something is possible before he takes the first step in the scientific process. So in some ways science mirrors religion. The only difference is science deals with the tangible and religion deals with the intangible.

The fact that they have the word "theory" in their names does not mean that they are not scientific proof. A theory is something that has scientific proof behind it, and can not be disproven. Having a theory means it's open to any scientist in that field to verify, challenge, or falsify it. But, over and over again with the research done towards the concepts of the Big Bang or the Theory of Evolution, they have found more and more pieces that support the theory, rather then falsify it. The big bang was seen as simply crazy when it was first discovered, through the proof that was found showing that everything in the universe is moving away from eachother at fast speeds, but as more and more research has happened, it's been shown over and over again to be the most logical direction to these events. Same with evolution, we've found so many fossils and divisions of life that support the concept. Now, if some day, there is an idea that has more scientific backing then evolution or the big bang, while all the evidence we have found goes along with it perfectly, then we won't even look at those theories anymore, and we'll go towards the new ones. The theory of Gravity is also a theory, although it is absolutely proven that it exists, that it holds everything together, and even the speeds and power that it has dependent on the mass of the objects, but, since we may find something that works better someday, it is still proposed as a theory.

Take for instance Giordano Bruno who was burnt at the stake by the Catholic Church for saying that the Sun was just a star in 1600. In 2000 the Catholic Church got around to apologize for killing Bruno. Even though that Cardinal Angelo Sodano defend the Church by saying "that the Inquisitors had the desire to preserve freedom and promote the common good and did everything possible to save his life by trying to make him recant."

Actually the dogma of the Catholic church asserted that the earth and all the planets and stars revolved around the earth and anyone who asserted that the earth and planets revolved around the sun, was treated as a heretic. I'm aware of at least one man who was burned at the stake for contradicting the church in this matter. The fact of the matter is, in it's blind adherence to dogma and the belief that "if it's not in the bible, it's not true/heretical/its the work of the devil" (take your pick), the christian church held back scientific progress for more than a thousand years by actively opposing anything that went against the accepted dogma of the church.

And how come in the early parts of Genesis in the bible, it says that the Earth began before the sun, and that plants grew before the sun? The bible has so many problems after how far we've gotten in science, so how can someone with such great knowledge in science, still have such faith in a book like the bible? Don't the two have too many problems with eachother to intermix both of them?

Actually, the first known person to come up with the concept that the world is round (first known person is probably long after someone actually came up with it...) was Pythagoras, around 550BC. The book of Genesis even implies that the world is flat.

I think that science far outweighs it's negatives with positives. It's thanks to science that you have your computer, electricity, a refrigerator, a car, a TV, a house, sanitation, healthcare, good clothing, easy access to everything you need... Science has given us everything that we have around us... even the parts that science didn't make, like the earth and the sky and weather and everything, science has given us a way better understanding of then we could have possibly had from just guessing, or writing religious text. Even with religious text, it's thanks to science hat we can print it off for anyone to have their own copy of, or access it online, or get to whatever religious center we want. And yes, it was science that made bombs and weapons, but religion has always been a massive factor in getting the people to go to war. Without science, people would still go to war, only they'd be using sticks and stones rather then WMDs and such. And, without science, we wouldn't be able to use our own land as effectively as we do, further pushing our need to take over what others have. Science seems to have much more positive factors then negative ones.

That was something I was questioning. It wasn't the psychiatrist that was offended by the pieces, it was the people I was with. They were offended that he twists science to go along with his own concepts. He was so amazed by the wonders of our universe, being an astronomer, that he simply came to the conclusion that there must be a God, from more of a gut feeling he had. This simply is not science, so why twist the two together?

Science is the one who made this world crazy. Pollution everywhere due to the products of technology and science made technology possible. Now, will all of these happen without science? Did religion made bombs and weapons of mass destruction? I repeat neither wins of the two and it is only necessary that they control the other.

True, there are lots of Catholic scholars out there. And they could've won the debate.

If it had been a Catholic, why would that have mattered?

I think that the mind-set of the University students was already opposed to the concepts the Christian astronomer, because, once the questions from the audience began, 9/10 of the people with questions were showing how his ideas had huge gaps, and how he should be open to more possibilities. I think this would have happened in any situation along these lines, no matter how much the Christian side knew their faith. Its like I was saying, knowing their faith is knowing a book that is thousands of years old, and seeing how far science has gone from then, the two simply do not match up.

The fact you say you can not prove your beliefs because it copmes from within speaks for itself. Also you still accepting another persons words for most scientific proof. Charaltans have always exsisted and in fact thrive in todays society. But you make the best choice belief in your self is amongst the best trait in modern days.

But, this "truth" they got from a man-made text that was written long before the obvious, repeatedly proven science of today. To know something is real, you have to be able to test it, over and over, and get the same results every time. We don't have any kind of tests to show that the bible is true, it continuously has faults.

The biggest piece of evidence that life could have started in an "organic soup" is from the Miller-Urey experiments, and many many more that came after them. It's been found that, if given similar conditions to a young earth, Amino acids, which are the building blocks of protein, which are the building blocks of life, can be easily formed. The Miller-Urey experiment was water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen (the early elements on earth) put together in 2 connected flasks. The water would be heated on the bottom of one flask, and rise to the top, where electricity would shoot across the top, like lightning. Then, the water would cool, condense, and go into the second flask, slowly moving back to the first to be re-heated. After just one week of this test, 10-15% of the carbon (from the methane) had formed into organic compounds. This test has been done so many times since the 50s, with many variations, but has always shown to make organic compounds.

"to know something is real, you have to be able to test it, over and over, and get the same results every time" Well said. Now, could you please refer me to the evidence, experiments that scientists can reproduce again and again, that life started in an organic soup, as postulated in many a scientific journal, and taught as absolute truth in science class?

The atheist said far less then the Christian scientist. Actually, in the questions from the audience segment, there was only one Christian who went up to talk, but she more ranted both parties down through holy scripture, and didn't exactly have a question or valid argument for either side. It happening at a University made the ratio of skeptics, agnostics and atheists far greater then Christians. Out of the 20 question I heard, only one had a Christian viewpoint, and thats the one I mentioned.

Thank you for answering my questions.

The debate was in the direction of the existence or non-existence of God. The Christian astronomer brought up many facts, showing the extremes of how the universe works, saying that it must have been created by a divine creator. The Agnostic side was a Doctor of Psychiatry, showing how much we've changed our views over the course of humanity, and how everytime we find a new direction, it makes far more sense, and has much less problems to it. The people I was with were offended how the Christian Astronomer was simply just pushing towards God as the answer, rather then studying and testing to try and find the next level of what did it.

Ok, then lets go with the sun, moon and stars being created, isn't actually them being created, just viable to the earth. Without the sun shining on them, photosynthetic plants can not exist, and the bible directly mentions seeding fruit on that second day. If the atmosphere was light enough for the fruits to grow, then the sun should be seen, long before that 3rd day. And, the bible does say that the earth is flat. The biggest thing showing that is the use of the word "firmament" for the atmosphere, which means "dome". This would mean that the earth is flat, and the atmosphere is round, and they meet in the corners. Firmament was often used to describe how people would beat brass to turn it into a dome, for helmets and pots and such. Many parts of the bible refer to the sky as a firmament built with great craftsmanship, saying how god made the solid, outside atmosphere by beating a giant round dome with a flat bottom. Then, in spots like Daniel 4:10-11, Matthew 4:8 and Revelation 1:7 mention how when something is high in the air, it can view the entire earth, only possible from a flat earth. However, the spherical earth, like I mentioned earlier, was found in Greece around 500BC, from there on, it was always agreed upon through their schooling, but still, the newer bible chapters still say how it's flat, with a domed atmosphere. Even Isaiah saying circle leads in the direction of a flat earth, with a round dome overtop of it.

I'm glad you brought up this part that I had questioned, because it's always been a piece that I've been wondering about. It simply does not make sense. It starts with saying that, in the beginning, God made light. Well, lets consider that as the big bang, or whatever beginning the universe might have had. On the second day, it was making earth, creating plants, seeds, trees, fruit, all vegetation. Then, on the third day is where it leads to confusion. It says that this is where the sun, the moon, and the stars were created, all for the purpose of people knowing the seasons, days and years. How can you have plants (including fruits, which evolved from animals eating the best ones, the most) before you had the sun? How can you have light, before the sun? How come the moon and the sun are made at the same time? And how come the stars were made just for the purpose of telling the seasons? If the sky was actually made just for telling the seasons, why wouldn't it be the original idea of just holes in the sky, with massive light behind it all? Then, on the next day, it says, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.". Now, you could say that when it says birds, they mean dinosaurs, which came before mammals, but the first dinosaurs were not flying ones. The first flying dinosaurs started in the late triassic period, which did not evolve to birds, but rather, went extinct. The order it gives to evolution is wrong... And I mean, this is just the first Page of the bible. With the science of today showing how wrong this whole system is, how can you bypass some parts, and say how true the other parts are?

As mentioned previously, it is clear from what we can deduce from scientific experiments and from what Genesis implies, that the heavenly bodies, stars, galaxies, our sun etc etc, were in existence long before the 3rd creative day. (or time period, because obviously, 24 hours would be insufficient time to do this) But from the perspective of an observer on earth, had there been one to jot this all down, the light before that time would have been diffuse, visible, such as on a cloudy day, but the luminaries themselves, though in existence, would not be visible to an earthbound observer until the atmosphere cleared. This changed and luminaries "came to be" in the sense that they were now visible and made it possible for future inhabitants to use them to measure time. Oh, and incidentally, the scriptures do NOT say the earth was flat. Isaiah refers to the "circle' or "sphere" of the earth.