How do you think the planets were created?

Im a HUGE science freak, so I went with the Big Bang theory, although yes, I believe it gives the most evidence, it doesn't answer all my questions, its just that one has more evidence (that I have seen) that helps me believe in it.

That said, I wouldn't dismiss God creating any of what we know, or something else happaning, its just Im one of those awful people that need to see/have evidence before I believe something :lol:

But yeah, as I was a twit and didn't actually notice the 'Other' option (don't ask how I missed it, its late here :lol:) I picked 'Big Bang'

~xJemmax~
 
I picked religious. :) To me, God created the world, and everything around. I base this on faith and my own beliefs.

However, I rely strongly on physical evidence, so the 'Big Bang' is something I believe as well. I'm kind of a science nerd, and the way things came to be by a series of evolutionary events and random occurrences fascinates me. Faith and science go hand-in-hand with me, and I've always found it's good (for myself) keep an open mind concerning science and religion. So I never discount anything. :)
 
I put religious. I believe in God and him being creator of all things. Having studied science to a higher degree I am aware of the evidence of the big bang-but just throwing this out there, could God have made and controlled the Big Bang?I got some ideas on that-feel free to PM about it...quite happy to discuss my beliefs and my theory and stuff
 
Ok, I think I should post again to state my opinion, because my last post was more...not on topic (sorry mods). As I said, I picked religious, and like Geni said, I base that on faith. I believe in God and believe that he created the unvierse. And I'm also I bit of a science nerd, I mean, I wanted to be a scientist for most of my life (though I don't think I'll get the marks). And when we did this is biology last year, it made for an interesting discussion (and for some reason, a subsequent, more detailed discussion in Legal Studies). Everyone in the class was able to state their views, and we had a good talk about it. Of course, we didn't really get anywhere, but it was still a good class. I think we're lucky here in Australia we're were not taught the one side of things. In science, we learn about all the theories, not just the scientific one.

And since I am a science nerd, I do find science very interesting, and I don't discount anything. Though in my own mind, I'd rather rely on faith than science, but that doesn't mean that science and religion have to be mutually exclusive. There is still a lot we don't know about life and the universe, and science provides some much needed answers.
 
I voted for the Big Bang theory.

I'm an atheist. I do not believe in any gods or follow any religion. I don't understand the physics behind the Big Bang theory either. However, it does attempt to explain the creation of the universe based of observable data.

To my mind, believing that a god created the universe takes the wonder out of everything. To observe, to learn, to try and understand, knowing that every new thing you learn reveals myriad other things you do not know - that is wondrous nature of science. Then again, I know people who would argue the opposite, that science takes the wonder from life.

So, each to their own. In the end it doesn't really matter so long as people don't try and enforce their beliefs (or "non-beliefs") on others. Bill and Ted said it best: "Be excellent to one another!" :D
 
*twitches at the word random* :p
anyhoos, while personally not believing in any kind of deity i dont see why both cant co-exist if you have ideas about both. there is absolutely nothing contradictory about thinking the way things are came to be by the scientific processess but are guided by somthing else. its when people shoot down one idea based soley on their belief in the other that bothers me.
like i said, science can only take us so far back in time. before that there is no way of knowing what went on and what caused things to happen before everything began. investigations into any kind of creator or supernatural entity are by definition not science, so i dont know what youd call it or that it can even be done. somethings are better left unknown, and this could be one of them.
 
^^^You discussed the Big Bang theory in Biology? Interesting.

It's actually a tricky topic then, isn't it? You can believe in the Big Bang, but also believe God created the Big Bang, so therefore you choose...?
 
wait, in biology? :confused: isnt it physics? theres no 'biology' for 11 billion years til the first cell shows up :lol: ah well, whatever works for schools i guess
 
allmaple said:
no youre fine :p saying 'theory' is ok because it is, saying 'just a theory' gives out the misconception that it could be wrong, hasnt been proven etc. no one says gravity is just a theory now do they? ;) i go into convulsions whenever i hear 'evolution is just a theory' :lol:
Click to expand...

I assume it is me you're talking to, which is fine. I say 'just a theory' in regards to the second part of your post -- as long as there dispute, its a theory. Also, the Big Crunch, the different models that all support the Big Bang, and the fact that no knowledge is absolute also contributes to the phrasing of 'just a theory'.

Anyway, I figure that this also shows respect to the other theories and beliefs out there, because the last thing I want to do is offend someone because we differ in opinions.
 
I picked "big bang" because I don't believe in God, but I always wonder what was before that Big Bang.

Anyways, we talked about lots of this Big Bang/Religious theory in Geography and Biology classes as well in Upper Secondary School and the teacher said that many relgious biology/geography people have managed actually to fit in theories and believe in both.

Just like here has been said.
 
i think theres still confusion on a scientific theory, popular opinion has no bearing on the validity of a theory. if there is an untested idea (like the big crunch, which so far is likely not to happen) its only a hypothesis. but when there is research and evidence to support it as being true, its a theory. and a law in science is something different all together. also, new knowledge doesnt always make old knowledge obsolete, you can build on a theory as you learn more.
its also important to note where the dispute comes from. are the physicists and mathmeticians who do the research in doubt of the big bang? no. are other people? sure. but their opinion doesnt really matter. they dont do research in the field and arent really qualified to question it.
theres no dispute really that the universe has been expanding, cooling, and becoming less dense. its just whether this was some spontaneaous event or at the hands of some divine entity that can never be answered.
 
scientific theory

noun
a theory that explains scientific observations
Click to expand...

It's as simple as that. All observations have so far indicated a Big Bang. I'm quite sure that this is, in fact, what happened. We're arguing the same point. I'm aware it doesn't matter if no one else in the world believes it to be true, or if everyone in the world believes it to be true. What we know now could very well change in years to come (should I remind you of when we 'knew' the Earth was flat? Or when we 'knew' everything rotated around Earth?).

I'm not presumptuous enough to assume that everything published in our textbooks and encyclopaedias are true.

I would also like to say that I believe this argument has little relevance to the topic at hand. If anyone wants to continue, please PM me. I'm always happy to discuss matters of science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top