{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/13/2016 11:43:06 AM
7
Yet when religion answers try answer with,"God." When asked for proof,"The Bible and faith." Science has facts to back up claims, religion doesn't.
English
-
To be honest, some scientific theories require just as much faith as religion.
-
Yet those scientific theories have facts to back them up. With religion, they don't have facts.
-
Did you not consider what I said? The Big Bang Theory has about the same amount of proof as magical fairy sky people.
-
The Big Bang theory has more proof than I magical person flying in the sky. The Big Bang theory has factual evidence while God only has the bible. An the bile doesn't have credible sources.
-
It really doesn't though. Einstein first predicted that the universe was expanding at an accelerated rate. Then Edwin Hubble created his famous deep space telescope that first provided the first empirical evidence that the universe is expanding. As telescopes improve and we can see further farther and farther, we are also looking back in time. The universe has been expanding and cooling. It only makes sense that rewinding the clock, the universe started at a single point.
-
But what started that single point? We cannot possibly know. Perhaps if we build a telescope the size of Jupiter on one end of the universe and pointed at the other end we'd know, but that seems unlikely and fantastical, and did I mention ridiculously expensive? If humans do figure out the inner workings of the universe, it won't be in our lifetime. Until there is undeniable evidence, I will not devote my myself to any religion or science.
-
The Big Bang is an explanation for an observed process. That's it. It is not proclaiming to know how or why the process started. If something started it, where did that something come from? It's a never ending, and just because it is a never ending question doesn't mean we should fight against the validity of actual verifiable observations.
