so the question is "why"

[ollagram88]

i'm always amazed at how much science has accomplished in understanding our universe.

the one thing that i never could get an answer to, however, is WHY - why does does this universe exist? (or universes, depending on what you fancy).

i'm looking at the big picture here. one might ask, why are we here? well, billions of years of moving particles, evolution, ideal conditions, and the constants that make life possible tell us how we got here, and by that alone, the question of why can be considered irrelevant.

i'm not interested in the how, however, and it doesn't even have to concern life (because as science would like to tell us, we're pretty insignificant). i'm not asking how the universe functions. i don't care that it's possible for non-carbon based lifeforms to exist provided our universe was fine-tuned differently.

i'm asking WHY. why we have physical laws. why there exists matter. why the big bang(s) had to occur. why all that is, is?

is science just not there yet? if so, what can we guess based on our current knowledge? what does science and philosophy have to say about this? i don't want to insert God if God is not necessary to answer this question.

[muhammad rasullah]

Asking why asserts that there is a why -- a goal held by some absolute sentience. As none has been evidenced, supported or observed, the question of why is a question based on an assumption which without support, must be logically assumed to be false. A question based on a false assumption is not a good question.

Before asking "why", one must decide whether there is sufficient cause to believe there is a why. In this instance, it appears there is no such cause.

If there is a why for everything else why wouldn't it be a why for this? Your presupposition that there isn't a why is just like someone else saying there is evidence for a why.

There might be a 'why', but science does not attempt to answer it. How/when/when/where are the questions it attempts to answer.

Again this is the problem with science because even though it attempts to answer the question of how it fails in this instance about the universe in which we live. By not answering the why question science can never have the answer to this question of how the universe came into existence. Because the only answer comes from the why which science refuses to recognize. I bet if I do a line of questioning with this particular subject it will end up in an I don't know answer. Just by asking how!

[Goat]

Asking why asserts that there is a why -- a goal held by some absolute sentience. As none has been evidenced, supported or observed, the question of why is a question based on an assumption which without support, must be logically assumed to be false. A question based on a false assumption is not a good question.

Before asking "why", one must decide whether there is sufficient cause to believe there is a why. In this instance, it appears there is no such cause.

If there is a why for everything else why wouldn't it be a why for this? Your presupposition that there isn't a why is just like someone else saying there is evidence for a why.

There might be a 'why', but science does not attempt to answer it. How/when/when/where are the questions it attempts to answer.

Again this is the problem with science because even though it attempts to answer the question of how it fails in this instance about the universe in which we live. By not answering the why question science can never have the answer to this question of how the universe came into existence. Because the only answer comes from the why which science refuses to recognize. I bet if I do a line of questioning with this particular subject it will end up in an I don't know answer. Just by asking how!

Well.. it does better than religion.. which says 'God did it', without evidence. without reason. without thought. Science is a tool.. and does not care for WHY. THat is the realm of philosophers, and religion, and honestly.. some religions do a very bad job at that. Christianity and Islam come to mind. WHY's have to come from one's self... and it is only rationalized by religion.

When it comes to the origin of the universe.. the religions that try to answer that just push off the answer one level.. and actually don't answer anything.

[ken1burton]

Science’s answer for the Universe is that all the Matter the Universe contains (While believing that 9/10ths is still unknown) occupied a space smaller then an Atom, and Exploded, into what we now see as an expanding Universe.

But the WHY it exploded?, And the answer for WHY it did not explode before that moment?, has not been answered by Science. WHY that much matter was in that small space? Also, Not answered.

Why it took the Form it did, Not answered, Why there seems to be stars older then when they dated the Explosion taking place, also not answered.

The Big Bang is a theory. Which really is just based on an Expanding Universe, Which means at one time something got it expanding, and it has to be a tremendous force. So they took COMPRESSION to be that force. Then took it to the EXTREME EXTREME, and got everything in a space so small, that you would need an very powerfull electron Microscope to even begin to see it. (Good thing it did not explode when someone was looking at it)

To Suggest that Science can answer the “Why our Universe exists?�, and Why this planet is capable of sustaining life? as we know it here, and Why humans exist? being capable to even ask such question. Sounds like an Atheist cop-out. When they do not wish to know the Answer, Then Suggest that Science can provide an answer. Seeing how reliable they are with the Big Bang theory.

Or is that the “Microscopic Big Bang Theory?�

Some of the really big dump trucks have huge coil springs on the back wheels, Why not take a Billion of them, Compress them under a Thimble, and test the theory out? If that sounds Stupid, I agree, But that is the basis for the Big Bang THEORY.

As far as God creating the Universe? Scripture does not really say that. God uses Similitudes, He likens the Throne to the Sun, The establishment of the throne to the Moon, The Stars to signs, So all the signs or prophecies come to pass, and He likens it to all the stars falling to the Earth.

He likens Jesus to all things cursed, So the star Wormwood falls to the Earth, That is the Third angel sounding, that is Sunrise to noon, The Time Jesus was judged, or the Sign of the Judgment Falling on Jesus.

Amos 5:7 Ye who turn judgment to wormwood, and leave off righteousness in the earth,

So God likens His words like as a fire (Jeremiah 23:29) so the Earth is destroyed by fire, as Jesus died on the Cross. When Resurrected, We have a New Earth.

Jeremiah 4:23 shows a EARTH void and without form, That is the Dead Body of Christ and it is the Beginning of our new world the day of the Cross.

Jeremiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

The Heavens had no light, for the Light of the World just descended into hell.

You need to really uphold how great Science is, If you are an Atheist that is. For what else is there for them? Can they come up with WHY mankind exists? If you care to believe something crawled out of the water. And started growing legs. Works for a tadpole.

If it is OK to insult God and Jesus, Then it is OK to insult unbelief also. Or at least to poke a little fun and see if they run back into the water and the legs revert back to fins? You don’t think they will just evolve as Atheists with a thick shell like a crab, do you?

Ken

[Thought Criminal]

Science’s answer for the Universe is that all the Matter the Universe contains (While believing that 9/10ths is still unknown) occupied a space smaller then an Atom, and Exploded, into what we now see as an expanding Universe.

That is, to be frank, a rather sloppy attempt at summarizing Big Bang theory.

But the WHY it exploded?, And the answer for WHY it did not explode before that moment?, has not been answered by Science. WHY that much matter was in that small space? Also, Not answered.

It didn't "explode before than moment" because the BB is the first moment, hence there is no "before". Also, there was no "matter" as such. There weren't even particles until a while later, when things cooled down enough for them to form.

Why it took the Form it did, Not answered, Why there seems to be stars older then when they dated the Explosion taking place, also not answered.

There are no stars that are older than the BB. You're confused.

The Big Bang is a theory. Which really is just based on an Expanding Universe, Which means at one time something got it expanding, and it has to be a tremendous force. So they took COMPRESSION to be that force. Then took it to the EXTREME EXTREME, and got everything in a space so small, that you would need an very powerfull electron Microscope to even begin to see it. (Good thing it did not explode when someone was looking at it)

In science, "theory" means something much more solid and tested than it does in casual conversation. In particular, Big Bang theory makes some very specific, novel predictions about such thing as cosmic background radiation, and they've been tested to great accuracy. As a result, it is the dominant theory, since it explains the data better than anything else we have.

Anyhow, it should be obvious from what I said earlier, but there is no "before" the BB where someone stood around and compressed things. For that matter, you seem to have no understanding of the scales involved. At the first moment, the entire universe fit into an area of Planck length, which is much smaller than any particle. An electron microscope would be about as useful as trying to image bacteria by lobbing bowling bowls at them.

To Suggest that Science can answer the “Why our Universe exists?�, and Why this planet is capable of sustaining life? as we know it here, and Why humans exist? being capable to even ask such question. Sounds like an Atheist cop-out. When they do not wish to know the Answer, Then Suggest that Science can provide an answer. Seeing how reliable they are with the Big Bang theory.

So far, science is the only source of answers that fit the data. Religion makes many wild claims, but not only are they unsupported, they offer no net explanatory value. Everytime you try to explain something with goddidit, you need to first explain something much larger and more complex: God.

Or is that the “Microscopic Big Bang Theory?�

Huh?

Some of the really big dump trucks have huge coil springs on the back wheels, Why not take a Billion of them, Compress them under a Thimble, and test the theory out? If that sounds Stupid, I agree, But that is the basis for the Big Bang THEORY.

It is stupid, because it's based on your mistaken conception of the BB.

As far as God creating the Universe? Scripture does not really say that. God uses Similitudes, He likens the Throne to the Sun, The establishment of the throne to the Moon, The Stars to signs, So all the signs or prophecies come to pass, and He likens it to all the stars falling to the Earth.

Does this mean anything? Sorry, but I don't have my poetic language to plain English dictionary handy.

He likens Jesus to all things cursed, So the star Wormwood falls to the Earth, That is the Third angel sounding, that is Sunrise to noon, The Time Jesus was judged, or the Sign of the Judgment Falling on Jesus.

Amos 5:7 Ye who turn judgment to wormwood, and leave off righteousness in the earth,

So God likens His words like as a fire (Jeremiah 23:29) so the Earth is destroyed by fire, as Jesus died on the Cross. When Resurrected, We have a New Earth.

Jeremiah 4:23 shows a EARTH void and without form, That is the Dead Body of Christ and it is the Beginning of our new world the day of the Cross.

Jeremiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

The Heavens had no light, for the Light of the World just descended into hell.

*blink*

You do realize this means absolutely nothing to me, right?

You need to really uphold how great Science is, If you are an Atheist that is. For what else is there for them? Can they come up with WHY mankind exists? If you care to believe something crawled out of the water. And started growing legs. Works for a tadpole.

Yes, poor atheists, stuck with the truth instead of your religious delusion. How will we cope?

Actually, legs evolved while these creatures still lived in the water. It turns out that legs are quite useful if you're moving around on the sea floor, and in shallow water.

If it is OK to insult God and Jesus, Then it is OK to insult unbelief also. Or at least to poke a little fun and see if they run back into the water and the legs revert back to fins? You don’t think they will just evolve as Atheists with a thick shell like a crab, do you?

It is logically impossible for me to insult God or Jesus since I don't believe that either of them ever existed. I can insult you, but that's pointless.

Instead, I point out that your belief makes no sense. If you take this simple fact as an insult, so be it.

On a side note, if you did a little bit of research into English grammar, you might be surprised at how many words aren't normally capitalized. Check it out sometime.

TC

[byofrcs]

......<rants>......

The facts are that the big bang is supported by the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). The shape and form of the expansion is embodied in the anisotropy (uneven). It is only in the past couple of years (say the WMAP Satellite results in 2003) that the CMB anisotropy has really got some good evidence. The Planck Surveyor (to be launched later this year) should provide better data.

I think that science is doing quite well with providing solid evidence for the big bang and the form it took.

Your antithesis towards science to me appears to insult the many men and women who dedicate their lives to advance our knowledge on the culturally important topic of the creation. I know that it psychologically helps to demean other people to bolster your insecurities but you probably should just blog your feelings rather than using a debate site as an outlet. We have to listen to you here whereas on a blog we can just ignore you.

Life of earth is a hard one, but we know that organic chemicals form in space, on earth and in labs. This is an easy experiment anyone can make so the question is the precise steps from organic compounds to replicating molecules to replicating cells. Given it's only been 140 years since DNA was even isolated and 50 years since it's structure was identified and 30 years since sequencing started, and only TWO MONTHS ago the first individual woman's genome was sequenced (verses 2000 YEARS of Christianity), science is doing well despite the delays.

You want an answer to why mankind exists and it's only 8 weeks that humans have sequenced a full woman - which if I remember rightly is where all of man comes out from.

Talk about impatient for answers ! No wonder the trustworthy but methodical approach of science doesn't live up to your standards.

To answer why in the form of an infinite regress is a fallacy. Equally we can ask Why God ?, Why did God do 'x' ?. The only way you can answer is through the fallacy of special pleading that God needs no explanation of why.

So Ken I claim that your impatience with the results of science is feeding your attempt here one of presenting a fallacy of infinite regress fallacy and special pleading. Perhaps if you got a subscription to say TheNewScientist magazine you may get a less jaundice view of what's happening ? (I am unrelated to TheNewScientist Magazine in any way and make no profit in any way from mentioning this magazine).

[JoeyKnothead]

It does seem as those with the least knowledge of science tend to disagree or outright refuse to accept the proofs it offers. Of course my knowledge of the Bible is lacking, but it offers no way to question it.

Science does not have all the answers, it never will. As soon as it answers one question it raises a hundred others. But it keeps searching.

The Bible claims to have all the answers (to hear fundies tell it). The problem though is it doesn't answer the questions of science, only the questions of men, if you will. Does the Bible tell us the chemical structure of DNA? No. It only tells us God made it. End of story. Quit asking questions that throw the Bible into doubt.

The arguments proposed so far are of the 'science can't answer it so God did it' variety. The Bible/Koran offers a tale in which you can find comfort, and hide from the questions of science. So please, throw down your science books, and read this one. Read this book that condemns knowledge, that stunts intellectual growth, that provides cover for bronze age ideology.

If science is unable to answer a question, it still does not prove a god or gods did it. When you can PROVE god did something, then we can think about discarding the advancements of science.

[ken1burton]

Thought Criminal.

OH? The Big bang started time also? There was no BEFORE the Big Bang. Sloppy attempt? What would you list your answer as?

That comes out to this: All this matter exists in a timeless tiny tiny space. With all that compressions but nothing compressed it. Nothing brought it into existence. So like Einstein first thought (wrong) that the Universe always was, This tiny compressed mass must have always existed, But in a timeless state waiting for the big bang to start time and allow all that pressure to be released?

You do not believe there is a God and you do believe this story of time beginning at the big Bang? With nothing whatsoever happening before it? Good thing evolution evolved an imagination. The expansion of the Universe did not take that much of a stretch as your story did.

With time starting at the Big Bang, Then “Timelessness� must be a possibility. Maybe tomorrow at noon? Better go down to the corner, and tell everyone. But without the Robe, Sandals, and staff.

There were not even particles till later when THINGS cooled down? WHAT THINGS cooled down? What are you saying now? That nothing exploded? That empty space exploded into an expanding Universe? Even Science does not go that route.

What exploded? Was it all the matter which started expanding? Was it all the energy equal to all the mass and energy we now see? Or maybe someone’s bubble got popped?

You better check again, Science is dating stars OLDER then the Big Bang. And you mention the Bible has CONTRADICTIONS? Which the older stars makes the Big Bang Theory questionable.

When you say the Big Bang theory explains the data better then anything else WE (Atheists) have. That is what you mean, is it not?

The Entire Universe fit into an area of planck length? OH? You have an entire Universe to start with in timeless? Would that be Space, or does space not exist yet either seeing someone tied time and space together?

Science is the only source of answers which fit the data? Cute, and the Data? An expanding Universe. Science makes some very specific, novel predictions about such things as cosmic background radiation? Did they really?

Did they not find out that FIRST, There was Background radiation coming from everywhere in the sky? Which no one predicted before Ma Bell picked it up while testing a powerful listening device for a communication satellite.

Then searching this out to find out why the galaxies are not equally scattered, Then come up with an uneven Big Bang explosion. If that is really what causes the radiation?

First they find something, Then come up with an answer for it, They did not predict the background radiation, then prove it was there. Science seems to work quite well with HINDSIGHT. OH? There is a laser coming out of a Black Hole, Well this is WHY.

God using similitudes means this: God speaks over your head. Like Cosmic Background Radiation. God is speaking to mankind from everywhere. But your listening device is not powerful enough to pick it up over your own talking, So I suggest this:

Psalms 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.

The CUTE part is the “Still waters� is the people as waters, and the dead as Still waters. So when you are STILL, You will know God.

Psalms 22:27 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.

Psalms 23:2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.

That is why “He restoreth My Soul� follows “He leadeth Me beside the still waters.� I am sure Science knew that already.

Scripture might mean nothing to you, Better check with Science and see if every word you read or even look upon is recorded in your brain, Even if you did not wish for it to be there and be retained? So I guess you have a brain which is working against you not learning Scripture, Now WHO would design such a thing?

NOW? How should I interpret “SIMPLE FACT� You pointed out, your SIMPLE FACT.� I have to agree with you, You did indeed point out your SIMPLE FACT.

You mean I use Capitals when I should not? I thought it was “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God, Grammar comes later.� I am just a messenger, I do not have to be smart. I just try to pass on the messages. Being intelligent was not on the employment application God gave me to fill out.

I get the impression you do have to be intelligent to be an Atheist. I am not sure where or from who this impression came from? Maybe God told me.


Byofrcs.

On a blog you could just ignore me? I already told this to Thought Criminal, And he did it for awhile, I do not know why he stopped, maybe he is backslide. There is an IGNORE button under everyone’s post (not your own, Though some might be better off to ignore themselves) which allows all that person’s post to not show up on your computer.

So you can ignore me here the same as on a blog. You did mention CREATION, You got that one right.

This is not a DEBATE site for me, This is for DEBATING Christianity and religion, It would be more of a SUPPORT site for me.

BAD MATH: only been 140 years since DNA was even isolated, Then you apply this to “Verse 2,000 years of Christianity.� Isn’t that comparing Apples to Oranges?

DNA has been around for quite a few years. And Science is only working with it. Science FOUND IT already existed. Science is Finding what exists. Then tries to figure out how it works. Science has cloned a sheep. Great, Now make a creature from Scratch. Not using anything to copy from. Science tries too hard to duplicate life, Try building life without any copyright infringements.

It is not like God took Science 101 to learn how to create.

What would I do with a subscription to TheNewScientist magazine? Look at the pictures? Maybe find some little article that might be slightly understanding? Finding many Articles which I would not agree with as far as Title Concept.

God knows I search for answers to this Universe, and what it contains. I also have no problem with the designer sharing what He knows. But on a level I can at least understand. And Big Bang, does not compute. It does not answer anything. It is a cop-out for how the Universe started expanding which an Atheist can accept. Skipping over a lot of points which need to be addressed.

Ken

[Thought Criminal]

Thought Criminal.

OH? The Big bang started time also? There was no BEFORE the Big Bang. Sloppy attempt? What would you list your answer as?

That comes out to this: All this matter exists in a timeless tiny tiny space. With all that compressions but nothing compressed it. Nothing brought it into existence. So like Einstein first thought (wrong) that the Universe always was, This tiny compressed mass must have always existed, But in a timeless state waiting for the big bang to start time and allow all that pressure to be released?

You do not believe there is a God and you do believe this story of time beginning at the big Bang? With nothing whatsoever happening before it? Good thing evolution evolved an imagination. The expansion of the Universe did not take that much of a stretch as your story did.

With time starting at the Big Bang, Then “Timelessness� must be a possibility. Maybe tomorrow at noon? Better go down to the corner, and tell everyone. But without the Robe, Sandals, and staff.

There were not even particles till later when THINGS cooled down? WHAT THINGS cooled down? What are you saying now? That nothing exploded? That empty space exploded into an expanding Universe? Even Science does not go that route.

What exploded? Was it all the matter which started expanding? Was it all the energy equal to all the mass and energy we now see? Or maybe someone’s bubble got popped?

You better check again, Science is dating stars OLDER then the Big Bang. And you mention the Bible has CONTRADICTIONS? Which the older stars makes the Big Bang Theory questionable.

When you say the Big Bang theory explains the data better then anything else WE (Atheists) have. That is what you mean, is it not?

The Entire Universe fit into an area of planck length? OH? You have an entire Universe to start with in timeless? Would that be Space, or does space not exist yet either seeing someone tied time and space together?

Science is the only source of answers which fit the data? Cute, and the Data? An expanding Universe. Science makes some very specific, novel predictions about such things as cosmic background radiation? Did they really?

Did they not find out that FIRST, There was Background radiation coming from everywhere in the sky? Which no one predicted before Ma Bell picked it up while testing a powerful listening device for a communication satellite.

Then searching this out to find out why the galaxies are not equally scattered, Then come up with an uneven Big Bang explosion. If that is really what causes the radiation?

First they find something, Then come up with an answer for it, They did not predict the background radiation, then prove it was there. Science seems to work quite well with HINDSIGHT. OH? There is a laser coming out of a Black Hole, Well this is WHY.

God using similitudes means this: God speaks over your head. Like Cosmic Background Radiation. God is speaking to mankind from everywhere. But your listening device is not powerful enough to pick it up over your own talking, So I suggest this:

Psalms 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.

The CUTE part is the “Still waters� is the people as waters, and the dead as Still waters. So when you are STILL, You will know God.

Psalms 22:27 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.

Psalms 23:2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.

That is why “He restoreth My Soul� follows “He leadeth Me beside the still waters.� I am sure Science knew that already.

Scripture might mean nothing to you, Better check with Science and see if every word you read or even look upon is recorded in your brain, Even if you did not wish for it to be there and be retained? So I guess you have a brain which is working against you not learning Scripture, Now WHO would design such a thing?

NOW? How should I interpret “SIMPLE FACT� You pointed out, your SIMPLE FACT.� I have to agree with you, You did indeed point out your SIMPLE FACT.

You mean I use Capitals when I should not? I thought it was “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God, Grammar comes later.� I am just a messenger, I do not have to be smart. I just try to pass on the messages. Being intelligent was not on the employment application God gave me to fill out.

I get the impression you do have to be intelligent to be an Atheist. I am not sure where or from who this impression came from? Maybe God told me.

You don't seem to have anything approaching an argument here. Rather, you are parading your ignorance of and hostility towards science, as if your refusal to believe the evidence would sway anyone.

TC

[bernee51]

Thought Criminal.

OH? The Big bang started time also? There was no BEFORE the Big Bang. Sloppy attempt? What would you list your answer as?

That comes out to this: All this matter exists in a timeless tiny tiny space. With all that compressions but nothing compressed it. Nothing brought it into existence. So like Einstein first thought (wrong) that the Universe always was, This tiny compressed mass must have always existed, But in a timeless state waiting for the big bang to start time and allow all that pressure to be released?

Not quite. Time is a human concept that only exists as such. In effect the universe is timeless in that it isw eternal. The BB and subsequent observations are merely a blip in an eternal 'being'.

You do not believe there is a God and you do believe this story of time beginning at the big Bang? With nothing whatsoever happening before it?

'Nothing' happening 'before' is an observation reliant on this illusion of time.

There were not even particles till later when THINGS cooled down? WHAT THINGS cooled down?

Sub atomic particles.

What are you saying now? That nothing exploded? That empty space exploded into an expanding Universe? Even Science does not go that route.

The 'explosion' is a metaphor.

You better check again, Science is dating stars OLDER then the Big Bang.

Som references to back up this assertion would bne appreciated.

When you say the Big Bang theory explains the data better then anything else WE (Atheists) have. That is what you mean, is it not?

I think he means 'science'.

God using similitudes means this: God speaks over your head.

But apparently not over yours. Why is that?

[JoeyKnothead]

OH? The Big bang started time also? There was no BEFORE the Big Bang. Sloppy attempt? What would you list your answer as?

While scientific evidence leads to the big band, you would rather believe an untestable God theory would lead to the universe?

That comes out to this: All this matter exists in a timeless tiny tiny space. With all that compressions but nothing compressed it. Nothing brought it into existence. So like Einstein first thought (wrong) that the Universe always was, This tiny compressed mass must have always existed, But in a timeless state waiting for the big bang to start time and allow all that pressure to be released?

How is this theory, which has been tested, really any different than "God always was"?

You do not believe there is a God and you do believe this story of time beginning at the big Bang? With nothing whatsoever happening before it? Good thing evolution evolved an imagination. The expansion of the Universe did not take that much of a stretch as your story did.

We can see the universe expanding, what we can't see is God.

You better check again, Science is dating stars OLDER then the Big Bang. And you mention the Bible has CONTRADICTIONS? Which the older stars makes the Big Bang Theory questionable.

Is this what they teach at the creation museum?

God using similitudes means this: God speaks over your head. Like Cosmic Background Radiation. God is speaking to mankind from everywhere. But your listening device is not powerful enough to pick it up over your own talking, So I suggest this:

Science using facts means this: Science speaks over your head. Wishing to insert God into scientific data does not prove God. When you are able to offer proof of God, then science will surely take note. Science is speaking to mankind from laboratories throughout the world, but your reasoning device is not powerful enough to pick it up over your own unprovable beliefs.

...preaching...preaching...preaching

Amen brother, pass the collection plate!

Scripture might mean nothing to you, Better check with Science and see if every word you read or even look upon is recorded in your brain, Even if you did not wish for it to be there and be retained? So I guess you have a brain which is working against you not learning Scripture, Now WHO would design such a thing?

Seems as if science means nothing to you, better check your Bible and see if the Earth is still flat.

Why would God bother with man's interpretation of his word, when he could just as easily impart this knowledge into our brains at birth, as you suggest? Seems you have a brain which is unwilling to accept the tested proofs of science, instead dogmatically adhering to a book which is wrought with error. Now who would design such a scenario? I don't know, could it be...Satan?

NOW? How should I interpret “SIMPLE FACT� You pointed out, your SIMPLE FACT.� I have to agree with you, You did indeed point out your SIMPLE FACT.

Regardless of the complexity of the fact, I find it amusing you would still reject a simple one.

I am just a messenger, I do not have to be smart. I just try to pass on the messages. Being intelligent was not on the employment application God gave me to fill out.

It is not like God took Science 101 to learn how to create.

Indeed, it would seem he didn't.

What would I do with a subscription to TheNewScientist magazine? Look at the pictures? Maybe find some little article that might be slightly understanding? Finding many Articles which I would not agree with as far as Title Concept.

"Maybe find some little article that might be slightly understanding?" Does this mean you find scientific concepts difficult? It would surely explain what I've read so far. Do it man! Take the slightly understanding and build on it!

"Finding many articles which I would not agree with as far as Title Concept." Uh, are you saying you wouldn't bother reading them because you fear they would contradict your beliefs?

God knows I search for answers to this Universe, and what it contains. I also have no problem with the designer sharing what He knows. But on a level I can at least understand. And Big Bang, does not compute. It does not answer anything. It is a cop-out for how the Universe started expanding which an Atheist can accept. Skipping over a lot of points which need to be addressed.

"But on a level I can at least understand."

Wow.