Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
The rational view is that the universe was created one way or another, and that no human knows or understands how.
|
Well, no, not necessarily. Being created suggests a creator and there's no evidence of a creator, despite what creationists claim. There was something before the big bang, and it was likely a singularity of some sort, which predated time and space. Because it existed "before" time, you don't need to worry about "well what created that?". It's actually neat.
Anyway, because we don't know something yet, like the precise happenings of the big bang, does not mean we'll never know, in fact it seems we're getting closer. I won't say that we absolutely will know, but it's not necessarily unknowable, after all we know things now that were considered unknowable in the past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
It is equally unknown if their is a God who is the Creator,
|
This is where science and religion part ways. Scientifically, there's no accounting for a creator so the idea is simply moot. Religiously, though, there's a role for the creator that has nothing to do with evidence or science, it's supernatural. This is where the issue of creationism has all sorts of problems, as it's taking the unscientific and trying to apply it to science. It'd be like applying general relativity to the book of Genesis. It makes no sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
or if everything we are in an accident of chaos. To believe that humans evolved from single cell organisms is as credible as the earth being 6000 years old... both are unknowable an human science is but a weak and myopic fumbling in the dark.
|
You're incorrect. There's overwhelming evidence that complex life developed from simply life in the past over a long period of time through mutation and adaptation. Whether or not you find it credible doesn't matter. The evidence is there and it's been verified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
The evolutionalist believes that the nature of truth is affected by their own comprehension of it.
|
There's no such thing as an "evolutionist". It's a made-up word to try and make it seem like science is broken down into denominations like religion. That's not how it works, at least with the theory of evolution.
And evolution is independently verifiable. It can be verified independent of any human bias because of the scientific method. The "nature" of evolution is not affected by the scientist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
Religion shows us that man is part of something larger than himself, that the earth revolves around the sun
The pathological scientist will tell us that all of the stars and all of creation revolves around himself, and sneer at anyone who questions his "scientific proof"
|
This is also wrong. Scientists don't sneer, and religious people think that the creator of the universe has a personal relationship with them. In trying to paint scientists as self-important, you skip the fact that it's actually the opposite.