Katian Wolf
Xiam
Nothing? Well, that's just retarded. We don't
know what existed before the Big Bang, and it could be equally possible that the singularity was caused by a
Big Crunch - the collapse of a prior universe, in a never-ending cycle of cosmic rebirth. Of course, then you could go into various other theories about black holes, multiverses, M-theory... and it gets really crazy from there.
So yeah... maybe you should try a little harder.
And no, science
doesn't have all the answers. Science doesn't
claim to have all the answers. And hell, many answers usually just bring new questions. Because that's how humans are. They're naturally curious creatures, and science is another method by which they
seek answers. It's not some Grand Source of Wisdom, the Almighty Science. It's a ******** system of learning.
Oh finally someone I agree with. I agree suddenly we're supposed to know the answer to how our universe started when we barely know how it works in the first place? Jesus if we ever figure it out it will be after several Singularities. Honestly the best we can do is keep learning and not rely on some old prejudiced belief system.
Which is the beauty of science, of course - if it becomes outdated, they throw it the ******** out.
This, of course,
can be hard to do, so the new model has to have all its s**t straight before they can even go, "Whoa, okay, you've got a good point." I mean, hell,
nobody likes to be wrong, am I right? So you gotta come about it in a very intelligent, convincing manner.
Which, unfortunately, Creationists fail to do. They have absolutely nothing to back up their claims, except with the Bible. That'd be like trying to argue history with an old classroom textbook that still considers Piltdown Man a legitimate find.
What's more, the
topic of Creationists' book is all wrong. It's a collection of mythology, history, folklore, and law of a nomadic-turned-settled tribe in the Middle East circa a couple thousand years ago. It's not a book of science, it's a book of culture and tradition. Which admittedly can be
useful in certain realms of science - anthropologists or historians, for instance, would consider it vital to understand that particular tribe, or the cultures that derived from it - but over time the importance upon mankind
has become diluted, especially the promises of the immediate End of Days were not, in fact, that immediate. Also with time, we have begun to rely upon our senses and reason rather than the priesthood (though perhaps we have developed a new priesthood of PhD's and figureheads of the field). So yeah... it's a bit hard to come by.
And for me, at least, it seems absurd to follow one culture's traditions, but no others. As if somehow their deity is bigger, better, more legitimate than the others. Which I see no evidence of beyond their word - which is, considering the rest of their unfounded claims, not so convincing.
That's not to say the Abrahamic faith does not have purpose or meaning. It has a
lot of meaning, just as every other faith has meaning. But we can't expect any single viewpoint to tell the whole picture. In fact, I've found that studying multiple viewpoints actually enlarges, and
clarifies, the greater picture. And I've known people who have learned these things, and it actually
strengthened their faith. What's more, they've got a more open mind to others' opinions, which is particularly great.
So I'm all for that.
