I will ignore the slightly insulting OP's usage of "archaic" and other words that imply belief in a religion to be silly, old fashioned, or otherwise odd.
I just have two things to say:
- Science never PROVES anything. This is a common misusage/misconception.
- If you wish to believe in the Big Bang Theory or other creation theories that don't rely on a devine being, explain to me where the very first object in the universe came from. They say the Big Bang started from a very small amount of elements that began moving extremely rapidly in a dense state. Well, what about where those elements came from? They had to come from somewhere, correct? Just a little philosophical conundrum.
the simple fact that we even discuss the big bang theory is due to that science has proven a lot of things to that point. Things that could not be accepted in other times, but they turned out to be true. and some were only proven because people stood up to their believes. and these things gradually became accepted as truth and fact and it was the religions who had to give way to knowledge.
it was never the other way around, and i doubt it ever will be.
otherwise the sun would still revolve around earth in the center of the universe and we would still be scared to sail over the edge.
or do you beleive these are theories too?
What I said was a fact.
Science does not PROVE anything. Yet you just used the words "proof, proven, prove" a lot in that response. Science can NEVER ever prove anything to 100% certainty and all educated scientists themselves know and accept this as fact.
It was never religion that claimed we were the center of the universe or that the earth was flat, it was the people's intelligence and Science at those points in time. So yes, those are/were theories and they have since evolved into what we understand today. Theories gain evidence to either support or refute their claims, but they never ever irrefutably prove anything. I was merely trying to emphasize that fact.
Also, I have avoided making my personal beliefs known up to this point, but I will divulge now. What I believe is a combination of both Scientific theories and God for the explanation of creation. There is no reason a god could not have used events such as the big bang or evolution to create the universe as it is today. The Bible intentionally leaves things up for interpretation, I feel. Such as when it says that God created the heavens and the earth, and created the earth in 6 days. But what is a "day" to an all powerful being that exists beyond time itself and has no essence of "time"? Millions of years forming the earth could be a blink of an eye to this being. He/She could very well have used volcanic eruptions, slow erosion, and evolution of species over millions of years to form what we have now. Time is merely a concept that we humans created. There is no reason one cannot believe in both Scientific theories such as the Big Bang/Evolution and in a higher power. But that's just my own personal beliefs from not accepting everything that was thrown at me at face value and making my own informed decisions on the topics.
Now, that is interesting, because if nobody can ever prove anything, why even use a universal creator to justify what is written in the bible?
by your definition the bible cannot be used as a source of anything at all, and every educated person should be aware of that fact or does that not go both ways?
--That is why it is called "Faith" :) I never once said the Bible or a divine creator has been fully proven or any variation thereof.
And what makes you say religion never claimed we were the center of the universe? are you not familiar with the story of Galileo Galilei?
After 1610, when he began publicly supporting the heliocentric view, which placed the Sun at the centre of the universe, he met with bitter opposition from some philosophers and clerics, and two of the latter eventually denounced him to the Roman Inquisition early in 1615. In February 1616, although he had been cleared of any offence, the Catholic Church nevertheless condemned heliocentrism as "false and contrary to Scripture", and Galileo was warned to abandon his support for it—which he promised to do. When he later defended his views in his most famous work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.
--Ahh, Catholics. They tend to create their own set of rules/guidelines that were not ever mentioned or even supported in the Bible. It happens sometimes with Christian denominations which is why I am non-denominational. The leaders of such denominations are power hungry as any human is and abuse that power just as often as anyone else does in a position of power, but I digress. There is no actual supporting evidence in scripture that claims the Earth is the center of the universe, the sun revolves around the earth, it is flat, etc. There is only flawed interpretations made by people of early time periods that lacked the Scientific knowledge that we have today.
so you claim there is no definitive proof that the earth is revolving about the sun?
--No, I claim that Science does not "PROVE" anything, merely, "Everything observed thus far is consistent with". But you are reading way too far into my comment about Science not proving anything. For more information, though, you can look here:
Or google it yourself. There is plenty of information out there and sound reasoning for it.