Geogia Lawmaker: Big Bang Theory, Evolution "Lies from the Pit of Hell" (weddings, living)

[Onthemove2014]

From my understanding the Big Bang theory didn't create matter out of "nothing". Matter/energy was compressed into a very small spot expanded due to chemical reactions or gravity implosion.

[10 feet tall]

Originally Posted by DentalFloss

I say the existence of an afterlife, of which I happen to believe in...

I'm curious. Why do you believe in an afterlife at all? There doesn't seem to be evidence to support that. The most likely explanation seems to be that when you die, your neurons stop firing, heart stops beating, and you just don't exist anymore other than matter decaying and transforming to some other state. Why believe anything other than that (unless you just want to)?

[DentalFloss]

Originally Posted by 10 feet tall

I'm curious. Why do you believe in an afterlife at all? There doesn't seem to be evidence to support that.

On that we disagree. There are tens of thousands of NDE reports, each of which is admittedly anecdotal, but when you look at the big picture, there emerges a trend that is only possible to ignore by putting ones head in the sand. Combine that with tales of reincarnation where the supposed past lives are investigated, and details found to be accurate that the child making the claim could not possibly have known. Combine that with my own personal experience in deep meditation.

And finally, combine all of the above with the revelation that our universe is most likely a simulation of some kind, as shown by quantum mechanics, the only possible conclusion is that our consciousness exists independently from our body, and therefore the death of the body is meaningless to the existence of the consciousness.

[chalvey]

Afterlife exists says top brain surgeon - Telegraph

[arjay57]

I don't have any problem with the theory of an "afterlife" or some sort of ongoing consciousness. However, I don't see what that has to do with the Big Bang, evolution or the notion that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

[10 feet tall]

Originally Posted by arjay57

I don't have any problem with the theory of an "afterlife" or some sort of ongoing consciousness. However, I don't see what that has to do with the Big Bang, evolution or the notion that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

It is somewhat off-topic, but it gets to the core of belief in general. One person believes this or that, another believes this or that other thing. Some people will bash the Christian perspective as being ignorant while still believing their own thing about the afterlife which seems to be based on just as much speculation.

[Adric]

In all fairness, the majority of Christians don't actually think that the Earth is 6,000 years old. They realize that the book of Genesis is largely metaphorical and meant to be taken as a spiritual guide and not literally.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by 10 feet tall

It is somewhat off-topic, but it gets to the core of belief in general. One person believes this or that, another believes this or that other thing. Some people will bash the Christian perspective as being ignorant while still believing their own thing about the afterlife which seems to be based on just as much speculation.

I don't bash the Christian perspective in the least and in fact consider myself part of it.

However I don't believe the Christian perspective has anything to do with rejecting science. In my opinion they fit together just fine.

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by arjay57

I don't bash the Christian perspective in the least and in fact consider myself part of it.

However I don't believe the Christian perspective has anything to do with rejecting science. In my opinion they fit together just fine.

I agree with you. I've never quite understood why some folks believe that science nullifies God or vice-a-versa. If we begin with the concept that, in some manner, God is ultimately behind the creation of the universe, and, therefore, set in motion the development of our brains, then why would He endow us with the ability of scientific inquiry only to fool us with scientific evidence that would indicate He had nothing to do with it???? Just doesn't make sense to me.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by Adric

In all fairness, the majority of Christians don't actually think that the Earth is 6,000 years old. They realize that the book of Genesis is largely metaphorical and meant to be taken as a spiritual guide and not literally.

And there are those that find a meeting place between the two. I can literally read Genesis and see several things that can be interpreted to show that at least time as we measure it today cannot be reapplied to the Genesis creation account.

1) The gap between the first two verses in Genesis. Gen 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth. Verse 2 says "and the earth was formless and void and darkness was over the face of the deep....

Is this time between these two intial verses of the entire Bible occuring on the same day? Or are there eons between the two? We don't really know, even us that are pretty much believers in the authenticity and truthfulness of the bible, but also realize that words are subject to shades of meanings and different meanings and interpretations.

2) The sun was not put in place until the 4th day. The 24 hour day is measured by one revolution of the earth. How is this the same 24 hours we measure today if the framework of the solar system has not been established?

I have met some very credible Christian scholars and scientists that espouse a literal 6 day creation and a young earth. I have no problem with that whatsoever if that is what it actually was. I also don't have a problem if it was a much longer time period or if there was some form of earth that did exist prior to the Genesis creation account as the gap between the first two verses indicate.

What I do have a problem with is any discussion of this topic leading to name calling and general bashing of anyone with a Judeo/Christian background and therefore cutting out the ability to have an enlightened discussion of how science and theology are connected. People that use science to silence a Christian viewpoint are just as polarizing and destructive (if not moreso) than anything this politician has done with his statements.