Originally posted by jake1997
And we do just that, when we consider the Big Bang .
Inflation Theory, which is the more modern working of the theory that's called the big bang, is a testable scientific theory. Its not simply
accepted because it 'sounds good'. Its accepted so long as the evidence supports it.
It seems that you can only guess at how your universe was created
Inflation Theory is hardly a 'guess'.
while we have an eyewitness account.
If Inflation Theory is a guess, then you are just guessing that you have an eyewitness account.
But under careful, un-biased scrutiny, the Bible passess every historical test.
It fails utterly on the matter of the creation of the earth and the origns of species of animals. It also states that there are 'kinds' of animals,
'kinds' has no biological reality. Its definitly not a good scientific document (of course, I wouldn't require it to be), and its not much of an
historical document either.
Global flood killed dinosaurs.
But there is no evidence that any global flood occured, and the order to the fossil record contradicts any of it having been laid down by a flood.
The geology and the paleontology contradict there having been a flood. And there are some serious problems with the physics of the flood, such as
where the water came and went. THere is definitly not enough water on or in the planet to cover everything up to the himalayas, and I don't think its
reasonable to suppose that the mountains of the world were formed in the last few thousand years with people walking around.
Just as likely as a meteor
There are a number of evidences that support the meteor/asteroid theory. One is a global layer of iridium (in concentrations that only occur in
space). Another is evidence for massive wildfires all across the planet at roughly the same time. Another is the pressence of spherules of glass and
'shocked quartz' mixed in with teh iridium layer, which tend to only form in large impacts, such as they've been observed to have occured with
meteorites. And there is also strong evidence for a very large impact crator around the yucatan with the correct age for the event.
As for testing our theory?
haha, take a look at the mountains and tell me they're not real?
Think of it this way, science requires that theories be potentiall refutable. There are conditions and results that, if they existed, could refute
darwin's theory of evolution. Infact, thats how scientists design new experiments, by essentially trying to disprove theories and hypotheses. What
can possibly disprove that god made the universe? Nothing, he's god. Any evidence can be accomodated by the idea that god made everything.
But perhaps this is not too relevant for you, since you stated at the begining that science and religion are (rather obviously) different sorts of