What are your reasons for believing whatever you may believe about Christianity?

[Daswiruch]

I agree with what Fillipe said, but he's using the word theory wrong in the context of science. A scientific theory explains something that is proven. (I.E. The theory of relativity, the theory of evolution, the theory of a heliocentric solar system) The word I believe he was looking for is hypothesis.

law is proven, not theory
iirc

[Ad Bot]

[Filipe]

I agree with what Fillipe said, but he's using the word theory wrong in the context of science. A scientific theory explains something that is proven. (I.E. The theory of relativity, the theory of evolution, the theory of a heliocentric solar system) The word I believe he was looking for is hypothesis.

fixed, thanks

[Wesley Williams]

That is scientifically impossible because the Big Bang created time itself.

Doesn't the Big Bang require time to bang? I thought it did but I could be wrong.

Oh and things are getting a little confusing, so maybe we should define time. I'll give it a go:
time: the progression of the universe as observed through motion

I agree with you Filipe, but still find it fun to discuss these things in a purely academic environment. The problem is when people lack tolerance and believe only they can be right.

A scientific theory explains something that is proven.

A theory provides an explanation for something observable that is supported by experiments (which can be replicated to produce the same result). It is not necessarily "proven" (e.g. the theory of relativity, evolution...).

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
-Wikipedia

[Red Spy]

law is proven, not theory
iirc

In terms of science, a "theory" is above a "law"
"Theory" in a scientific context has a different meaning from everyday usage

[Wesley Williams]

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31068/can-a-scientific-theory-ever-be-absolutely-proven
A scientific law is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved.

[Daswiruch]

In terms of science, a "theory" is above a "law"
"Theory" in a scientific context has a different meaning from everyday usage

thanks for the info, pardner
didn't know

[Red Spy]

Doesn't the Big Bang require time to bang? I thought it did but I could be wrong.

I think the answer is no.
But don't quote me on that.

[Lego lad]

Doesn't the Big Bang require time to bang?

yes its a giant clock that bangs when it hits twelve

[Wesley Williams]

yes its a giant clock that bangs when it hits twelve

But how do we determine that the Big Bang clock has 12 hands? Why didn't it have 11 or 13?

Stephen Hawking says the Big Bang starts time. So then the Big Bang occurred without the existence of motion? Basically since there was something there (a lot of something in a very small space for some unknown reason) it banged and started time?

[otto-san]

pretty sure in a scientific context, time is understood to be the secondary "axis" relating to space

therefore when space came to exist, so did time.

But how do we determine that the Big Bang clock has 12 hands? Why didn't it have 11 or 13?

it's FIGURATIVE LANJIJ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Red Spy]

But how do we determine that the Big Bang clock has 12 hands? Why didn't it have 11 or 13?

Stephen Hawking says the Big Bang starts time. So then the Big Bang occurred without the existence of motion? Basically since there was something there (a lot of something in a very small space for some unknown reason) it banged and started time?

1) Because humans like 3 and multiples of 3 for some odd reason.
2)Not really sure how to respond to that
3)Yes

[Wesley Williams]

pretty sure in a scientific context, time is understood to be the secondary "axis" relating to space

therefore when space came to exist, so did time.

That's understandable. So then it really just comes down to the question of how there was even a singularity/matter in the first place.

And the universe said, "let there be a singularity", and there was a singularity.
Granted, this article says the Big Bang does not start with a singularity.

[Red Spy]

And the universe said, "let there be a singularity", and there was a singularity.

Someone make that a bumper sticker

[Frequency]

1) Because humans like 3 and multiples of 3 for some odd reason.

I can vouch for this. 3 and its multiples are my favorite numbers

[SeventhSandwich]

The cruel irony is that my roommate is a physicist.

My relatives are fundamentalist Christians. Not seeing the irony here.

The Big Bang
1) How did matter exist before the Big Bang so as to start it?
2) How did the matter have some kind of motion to start the Big Bang if time did not yet exist?
   a) If time is infinite, how is there a present?

1) The current theory doesn't postulate what happened before the Big Bang. I don't think it argues that matter 'started' the big bang either, so to speak.
2) I'm not sure exactly what you're asking on this one, but the reason why the universe expanded rapidly is because of fundamental forces.

Also, time is definitely not infinite. The age of the universe is estimated to be 13.82 billion years, which is clearly finite. If you're talking about time being infinitely divisible, it's not. As far as we know, Planck time is pretty much the smallest unit of meaningful time.

Evolution/Origin of Life
1) It has been proven that amino acids could arise from conditions on the early earth, but the probability of RNA and other cellular structures forming is incredibly small.
2) When an organism develops a new organ, it will be a long, slow process. Each mutation must take the organ in the correct direction for it to eventually function properly in a beneficial manner. During the evolution of this new organ, the developing organ does not provide any advantage to the creature (in fact, a half-baked organ could be viewed as a disadvantage) and thus natural selection would not help in its development.
3) Why have we not observed any cases of evolution on a scale larger than microevolution? Shouldn't we be seeing some branch of a species in a transitional stage?

1) When you have a self-replicating structure, only the mutations/variations that are meaningful get passed on. Creationists often drop this ridiculous argument where they compare the human genome to a slot machine, but that's not how it works. The 'useless' combinations of genes are avoided by natural selection.
2) That's not even true. There's fossils and living organisms that have primordial forms of eyes. Unsurprisingly, these rudimentary eye-like structures are advantageous, since they exist in populations. For example, the nautilus.

The whole 'evolution of the eye' creationism argument has been addressed by scientists for decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

3) You don't see evolution progress in real-time because it's an incredibly slow process. There are no such things as 'transitional organisms', so you don't see those either.

Creationism
1) God is not observable.

Definitely not observable. If you live your life trying to find conclusive evidence for his existence, you'll leave disappointed.