Fallout Studios Forums

well i was exaggerating a bit about the big bang, i know of course that it didnt create the whole universe, but where did the giant ball of matter come from? why did it explode? how did an explosion form whole planets comprised of different materials with different atmosphere conditions?

Quote

by saying i am creationist doesnt mean i buy into that, people who say that are just ignorant extremists. just because i am a conservative creationist does not mean i dont believe in ideas that science presents (for example, i believe that god made it so that animals can adapt to their enviroments)

Quote

i also question the fact that it is even possible for lightning stiking a puddle to create life in the first place. a scientist said he recreated the circumstances and created life, but it was later proven that he modified the test to get those results

 umm not dachamp, on 2 May 2009, 20:30, said:

Well I believe that some of these are what science is trying to prove now. (LHC, anyone?) But the last question IS explained in the big bang theory. IIRC, when the big bang occurred, it created the universe, but it was basically just a monstrous cloud of hydrogen. But some of this hydrogen gravitated into a single point, sucking in more and more and becoming denser. This is the formation of the universe's earliest stars. Through fusion, stars create heavier elements and release energy. So the (abridged) version of the formation of the universe is something like this: when two hydrogen atoms join together through fusion, you get helium, so on and so forth till you have all the elements. When a star dies, these elements are released, and the process starts all over again. Some new stars are born out of the ashes of the old, and some of the newly created matter also gravitates together to create planets. Obviously this is quite a dumbed-down version of it, but you get the point. (I hope my science is correct on this, but maybe someone can explain it better.)

Anyway, at the topic, I was raised Lutheran but now that I'm on my own I've become agnostic. I actually don't care either way if we were all created by a God or random chance, as long as people don't try to push their religion onto me.
Edited by Sicarius, 03 May 2009 - 03:39.

 umm not dachamp, on 2 May 2009, 22:30, said:

Dachamp I highly recommend reading the book "A Short History of Nearly Everything" as its explanation of what we think about the Big Bang is quite possibly the clearest I've ever read. I'm not saying it will convert you, but it will probably remove any misconceptions about said theory.

I am a firm believer in evolution and the big bang theory, even tho I am christian.

So am I...the fact is that people believe in stereotypes (like that we believe that the world is 5000 years old...I am a christian for 15 years and I have not seen this statement anywhere in my religion)

 TehKiller, on 3 May 2009, 7:02, said:

It's because going through the generations, you get to Abraham as roughly at 3000BC or something like that. But you're right, it's not explicitly stated.

You get to Abraham who is the father of the Hebrews...so what does Abraham have to do with the start of the world?

but that is for some other discussion

Hey, don't shoot the messenger! I was just giving the usual argument for this dilemma.

i know a lot of christians (a lot of them are even catholics, including myself), and i don't know any who are THAT ignorant

 umm not dachamp, on 3 May 2009, 20:59, said:

Calm down, I don't think anyone in here ever stated that Christians stereotypically are like that, nor that you are one like that. There ARE however religious fundamentalists who take everything literally and try to prove that the world is only 5000 years old.

I'm a Roman Catholic by document, an atheist by heart (I have read several books on Hinduism, Abrahamic and Buddhist religions, so I concluded that religion is unecessary, belief in one's perception of good and evil is.)

 Revan, on 3 May 2009, 21:11, said:

Well, we can't disprove that God created the world 5000 years ago either (in a state as if it were as old as science says) - she's freaking GOD. It's like A Wizard Did It on speed.

 Revan, on 3 May 2009, 22:11, said:

Care to be more specific? As this is really the first time I ever hear about those kind of groups

 TehKiller, on 4 May 2009, 10:27, said:

http://forum.cncrene...showtopic=31233 Says it all really. I've met numerous versions of people like this across the world, and they're all almost exactly the same as this family, if a little more open.

Anyone care to recall the WACO incident?

i dont like it when people blame christianity for terrible things like that, but i think it is mostly because christianity is larger than a lot of the religeons, so we are stuck with more of the crazies

plus it has so many sects that people are pretty much free to twist the bible however they please

 AJ, on 4 May 2009, 10:40, said:

Not really what asked for...a single person who didnt even claimed the "5000" is not a group claiming that.

 umm not dachamp, on 4 May 2009, 23:55, said:

Agreed. Actually people seem to be taking sects as serious followers of christianity while they have almost nothing in common (except for the Bible which they twisted to their favor completely)

So it's ok to blame Muslim Extremists for deviant acts of religious war but not Christians? Christians have been part of many numerous and atrocious acts over the centurys. And currently. It's best you realise that everyone is capable of horrible things in the name of a God and be done with it.

I don't think that's his point, Wizard - rather saying that just as Islamic Extremists are denounced by most Muslims, Christian extremists are denounced by most Christians.
Edited by Alias, 05 May 2009 - 09:37.

 umm not dachamp, on 4 May 2009, 23:55, said:

In reply

 Wizard, on 5 May 2009, 10:16, said:

Might make more sense looking at it like this. Extreme sects/cults/followings that cause harm or do not follow the doctrine of tolerance (which, without checking, I believe is enshrined in all religions) should be shunned and denounced by all "main stream" religions. But not forgetting that most religions, have, in their own time, been on some form of crusade against other groups. In those situations, you can't call everyone crazies.
Edited by Wizard, 05 May 2009 - 09:51.

Thing is that religion is used by extremist as an excuse for their actions

At what point does an extremist become mainstream is my point. Religion is an excuse used by all religious people for their actions. I am simply saying that there have been times in the past when it has been the mainstream, of more than just Christianity, that have done terrible things, that it isn't simply right to say that Christianity has it's fair share of crazies, when the non-crazies have been part of the problem before.

well if you are looking at, for example, the inquisition, that is a VERY good example of corrupt people in power twisting the bible how they please.

and you could not blame that on the Christian beliefs, i think that was more a problem with how much power the church itself had at the time
Edited by umm not dachamp, 05 May 2009 - 14:44.

 umm not dachamp, on 5 May 2009, 15:42, said:

It is almost impossible to separate Christianity from the churches that prescribe to Christianity. Let's look at this another way. Christians believe in Jesus Christ and that he died for their sins, Muslims believe in Allah and his Prophet Mohammad. They do not believe, fundamentally, that they must wage war on each other, or that the other is the devil. However, when people who share the ultimate common belief carry out acts in the name of their religion, it is not the religion that carries out these acts, it is the people. So when someone with Christian or Islamic beliefs act like this we associate it with that religion and it's beliefs, rightly or wrongly.
Edited by Wizard, 05 May 2009 - 15:02.

 umm not dachamp, on 5 May 2009, 14:42, said:

Why should the Inquisition ( and/or the church at that time) be any less Christian as what we have today? It is a matter of interpretation, after all.