Who said the entire science of astronomy is incorrect?
Talk about a fallacious response.
Look, this is easy. Early astronomers thought the sun revolved around the earth, right?
Then they got better instrumentation and came to a different conclusion, right?
So does that mean that today's "scientific" conclusions are representative of the origin of the Universe?
No, it doesn't. They may be, they may not be.
Scientists often say that the theory is a "best" guess, but it is still a guess.
What I find amusing is how the so called "scientists" present their belief systems (yes, taking a theory to be true without ability to verify it is a belief system) just as dogmatically as theists do, and get just as angry and emotional as fundamentalist theists when they are challenged.
Scientists, real scientists that I have had interactions with are actually quite humble about their work, with little ego and attachment to their findings, and I have found them always careful to understand that what they are presenting that is speculative in nature, i.e. theories like big bang, are just that speculative.
They have no need to try to replace faith, nor attack faith, as it is not an issue, nor a factor in their work. They work within the boundaries of their discipline, and remain uninvolved in anything that extends beyond the limitations of their work.
Those who embrace the the theories of science with strong emotional faith and attachment to the human mind's creations, are not being scientific at all, just masquerading themselves as such. They are seeking a replacement for God, because they have made a decision not to have faith in God.
Again, my experience, but I have found real scientists very curious about many things, including the possibility of God's existence. They remain Agnostic, which means very open to something new which has not yet come to their mind or direct experiences.
Talk about a fallacious response.
Look, this is easy. Early astronomers thought the sun revolved around the earth, right?
Then they got better instrumentation and came to a different conclusion, right?
So does that mean that today's "scientific" conclusions are representative of the origin of the Universe?
No, it doesn't. They may be, they may not be.
Scientists often say that the theory is a "best" guess, but it is still a guess.
What I find amusing is how the so called "scientists" present their belief systems (yes, taking a theory to be true without ability to verify it is a belief system) just as dogmatically as theists do, and get just as angry and emotional as fundamentalist theists when they are challenged.
Scientists, real scientists that I have had interactions with are actually quite humble about their work, with little ego and attachment to their findings, and I have found them always careful to understand that what they are presenting that is speculative in nature, i.e. theories like big bang, are just that speculative.
They have no need to try to replace faith, nor attack faith, as it is not an issue, nor a factor in their work. They work within the boundaries of their discipline, and remain uninvolved in anything that extends beyond the limitations of their work.
Those who embrace the the theories of science with strong emotional faith and attachment to the human mind's creations, are not being scientific at all, just masquerading themselves as such. They are seeking a replacement for God, because they have made a decision not to have faith in God.
Again, my experience, but I have found real scientists very curious about many things, including the possibility of God's existence. They remain Agnostic, which means very open to something new which has not yet come to their mind or direct experiences.
