Theories of origins without God that people come up with are laughably dumb.

It was fine to beleive until proof was given otherwise. Now, we know otherwise because of satellites and curvature tests.

And what exactly did this research find?

1: there's evidence for both sides

2: what evidence would you collect to support having a flood?

3: do we know what that common ancestor was to the slightest degree?

4: that's fine; I believe in that too

5: God could've increased the population.

6: exaggeration exists

7: Pangaea

8: they didn't have to. Dinos could've existed outside of the fairly small area humans populated at the time of the flood.

9: never heard of that before interesting tidbit.

1: the Bible is not a timeline from the beginning of the universe to the end of it. There are many gaps in the timeline, leaving me to believe that it is completely possible for theism and an earth older than 6,000 to exist.

2: based on my "could be millions of years" theory, the sediment could be deep underground.

3: I've never actually asked what evidence there was of common ancestry. All I can think of is similar ways that animals function.

5: to wipe sin off the earth. Animals did not have sin, and Noah was the best God had.

6: I don't think it's literal.

7: would human remains last long enough to be able to date back 250 million years?

What proof? It's called a "theory" for a reason. We don't even know if black holes exist! It's just a "theory."

Please show me where the 'big bang theory' has been tested scientifically, reproduced under controlled conditions, etc. What you have here, is a hypothesis that happens to fit the tiny fraction of evidence available. In other words, an educated guess based on next to no information.

There's a lot of confirmation bias in your "evidence", particularly where evolution is concerned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Think for yourself. Don't be sheep.

"...like saying pilots go up in airplanes..."

No, it isn't anything remotely like saying that.

"...scientifically tested under controlled conditions..." "...results analyzed to get a better understanding of the first moments after the Big Bang..."

Do you even hear yourself? "Let's do an experiment to help us understand the relationship between particle physics and our unfounded assumptions."

"...scientific method and peer review process go a long way to weed..."

Not when your 'peers' all have the same bias. If the scientific method was used, the so-called 'theory' of Evolution would have been tossed out long ago. But no, they keep making up imaginary phenomena to keep the thing alive, and dreaming up fanciful ways to make all the empirical contradictions not be contradictory. God forbid you might have to consider the remote possibility that an intelligence might be responsible (pun intended).

"...I do think for myself. I don't let any text, sacred or otherwise..."

Well, I'm very glad to hear you say that. Because all you've done so far, is regurgitate the same scientific sacred cows that every other evangelical atheist does.

"...money is on the..." "...any day of the week..."

So you're saying that 0.001% proof is better than 0.000% proof? Okay, I can accept that. I on the other hand, require somewhat more than 0.001% before I accept anything as axiomatic.

No, but I don't have to.

Because I'm not the one suggesting ID is hard science, implied fact, or by some misapplication of the Holmesian fallacy, the only valid answer.

I'd like to point out the equal production of matter and antimatter in those particle collision tests. According to the big bang hypothesis, the universe should be equal parts matter and antimatter, but it clearly is not.

When antimatter contacts matter, both become energy. If there are equal parts of matter and antimatter, the universe should be all energy.
Furthermore, the scientific community believe in "dark matter," a theoretical substance that they 1. haven't proven to exist, 2. have never detected, and 3. theorize to be necessary for this galaxy (and possibly the universe) to exist.
Hmmm, Something not yet proven to exist, undetectable through physical means, and holding everything together. Where have I heard such a theory before?

Scientists claim dark matter must exist because its existence is necessary for the galaxy to hold together. In other words, it needs to exist because it needs to exist. That's why I say dark matter is bogus, scientifically speaking.

My point is we make a lot of stuff up about the universe that we can't prove is real. We can't prove if there's more galaxies besides our own. Our proximity to Andromeda tells us that there's more solar systems, but perhaps the universe is just that. We know that atoms exist because very high powered microscopes can see them, but a lot of the times, our theories are just that: theories. We don't know if they're real or not because our only proof is it works in an equation we can't prove. Somebody once tried to use an equation to determine the amount of planets in our galaxy that are in the "goldilocks zone." He found out that there were only 2 or 3 from the equation. However, how did he prove the equation? Most of science is a "probably" or "maybe" with very small amounts of "definitely." If you ask me, that's just as batshit crazy as beleiving in a magic sky fairy who we also can usually not prove.

Evidence? Research? What did I just get done saying? We can't prove shit. Neither side can. All that we have is a couple books, some equations, equipment that we think should work, and a bunch of experiences and experiments on good old Terra firma. We have no way to take a picture of the black hole in the center of the universe. Just as there's no way to take a picture of God. I don't care what you believe, just don't try to think that your beleif is more rational than other beleifs and I'll do the same.

You're right. It's more rational to beleive in something that has a bit of evidence than none at all. However, let me ask you this: when you die, are you ever punished for beleiving? No! If there's no afterlife or your beleif is wrong, you're treated the same as everybody else. However, if your beleif happens to be right, you'll be rewarded. It may be a fairly small chance, but it's a chance. However, atheism completely gives up the chance of an eternal reward. Either you're right and there is no afterlife, in which case you're treated the same as everybody else, or you're wrong and you go to some kind of hell. Either way, the afterlife is 100% shit for an atheist, while a theist has a bit of hope. Again, beleive what you want to beleive, but I find it more logical to beleive in a God.

I don't know if Pascal's Wager could (or should) be considered rational in this context. I think Occam's Razor applies better.

To O_M I would say this; The Big Bang 'theory' is about as good an explanation of how the universe began as any other. But frankly, so is Intelligent Design. Any "facts" or "evidence" that support the former, do so only because they have been interpreted that way, because there is a demonstrable, fundamental terror among the scientific community over any interpretation that might lead anyone to consider a creator intelligence as a real possibility. Acknowledging the possibility that your naturalist theory might be wrong does NOT follow that 'God' is your only alternative. There is simply not enough information available.

The difference between those two top contending origin theories (there *are* others) is this; No one who believes in a creator intelligence should suggest that such belief is 'science' or 'fact' or even supported by physical or empirical evidence (it does have the advantage of not being *contradicted* by the evidence, but that isn't the same thing). Anyone who does so, is no more "rational" that someone calling the Big Bang or Evolution a "fact" supported by "science". This is where we have a contention.

I'm not saying it's more or less rational to believe in a scientifically unsupported creator intelligence versus drinking whatever is in that Dixie Cup that guy in the lab coat handed you. But you are. We may yet find empirical evidence out there in the cosmos that confirms either one, and put this debate to rest once and for all. Until we do, your beliefs are not 'more rational' than mine.

Exactly

Theories of origins with God are just as uninformed, right? We're all in the dark for now. ) :

First off, a timeless being has no origin.
Second off, we believe His motivations are revealed through human conscience (despite it being marred by sin), through the Bible (despite it being often misinterpreted), and ultimately through the life of Jesus of Nazareth (Who was God Himself, and thus fully revealed the personality and desires of God).

Personally, I think that science is only the start of wisdom and understanding but not the end all be all. There is still plenty of mystery and weirdness in this universe that cannot understand, and I'm fine with that, the world needs a little mystery to keep things interesting.. Sometimes the riddle is more interesting than the answer.

The closest theories speculate that the singularity was a collapsed universe from previously. But it's a theory; not a belief authoritatively handed down from others. Science is not a committed belief that people have faith in, it's speculated possibilities that aren't proven, but are showing the best in humanity's quest to understand surroundings. The point is not absolute knowledge, it's the search. Some people prefer to have absolutes, it makes them comfortable; others prefer to try and comprehend inevitable change. Things ARE relative, regardless of what one's beliefs, or values say.

I have to be relatively smart when I think 'I better go see what the hell Octavia has gotten into now...' XD

Well, thanks. :) Every-once-in-a-while by brain engages sufficiently enough that what's in my head gets down on paper, so to speak. Also what happened in my reply to James3v6. Batting 2-for-2 so far this week. :D

If morality is "relative" than this fine. The naturalistic materialistic worldview(s) have no way to account for "universal" or "species wide" morality.

It's not an issue of morality being relative, it's an issue of morality being subjective. With Jesus' teachings, Christianity went from an Old Testament judgmental God who favored his chosen people and their collective moral standing to a New Testament loving God where what was important was each individual's relationship to the creator. Most conservative Christians fall under the category of Old Testament theology; morals are absolute and all must abide for the greater good. Most fail to follow the teachings of Christ, finding in their neighbors entities to try and control instead of fellow beings who are to be cherished as individuals. There is no universal morality, there is only the relationship between a person and their deity. That, and the relatively of the scientific method (not 'materialistic' but empirical), which exists in reality regardless of one's faith, put the lie to the conservative worldview, which is not Christian. Or at least not the Christianity Jesus taught. More people are hurt by conservative values than by any objective relativity.

As in: where are all the daughters sold into slavery under certain divinely prescribed rules in modern society? :D

XD

Conservative Christians attacking conservative Muslims for the same primitive methods their own religion once prescribed.

rules/laws =/= morality

1. Moral Law - The laws I personally want because they say things I like (e.g gays bad)
2. Civil Law - The laws that I know aren't useful in daily life
3. Ceremonial Law - Like the moral law, but inconvenient because bacon is yummy.

If you're going to keep the Mitzvot of the Torah, keep all of it and stop cherrypicking. Those distinctions aren't found anywhere in the Tanakh.

Socrates, even a philosopher should define his words, if they are not unambiguous!

How do you define "God"? That's one of the most ambiguous words I know! (I could enumerate of couple of "definitions" or "meanings" here, but I refrain from it).

Okay, I see from your follow-up comment that my first reply was off-track to what you were getting at, and it looks like I assumed the wrong thing. I'm sorry.

If I think of an answer to your question about defining God, I'll try to come back and write it here (though I doubt I'll be able to).

I give you a hint. Being socrates, you should be able to understand ancient Greek. Read John 1,1 ((Bible, New Testament) in the o r i g i n a l Greek (no translation, they are all rubbish). There is a definition of God that could help you (mathematically speaking: a bijection). If you are unable to, let me know, and I'll assist you in translating and explaining.