[QUOTE=chalsall;350167]Get used to it....[/QUOTE]

Oh I realize that.

Atheism alone puts one in harms way. Add the
refusal to believe in scientific creationism,
and one has the perfect formula for
intellectual semi-isolation. (Semi only because
there are others who reject scientific creationism,
whether or not they are atheists.)

[QUOTE=davar55;350205]Oh I realize that.

Atheism alone puts one in harms way. Add the
refusal to believe in scientific creationism,
and one has the perfect formula for
intellectual semi-isolation. (Semi only because
there are others who reject scientific creationism,
whether or not they are atheists.)[/QUOTE]Scientific cosmological theory and "scientific creationism" have very little overlap. It is true that a scientist may strive to apply the scientific method to any idea, but did you mean specifically applying science to The Bible?
[QUOTE]Creation science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science‎
Creation science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of ...[/QUOTE][QUOTE]Scientific Creationism and Error - The Talk.Origins Archive
[url]www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html‎[/url]
'Scientific' creationism differs from conventional science in numerous and substantial ways. One obvious difference is the way scientists and creationists deal ...[/QUOTE][QUOTE]
cre·a·tion·ism Noun /krēˈāSHəˌnizəm/
The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution
Web definitions

the literal belief in the account of Creation given in the Book of Genesis; "creationism denies the theory of evolution of species"
[url]http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=creationism[/url]

n. The (false) belief that large, innovative software designs can be completely specified in advance and then painlessly magicked out of the void by the normal efforts of a team of normally talented programmers. ...
[url]http://www.davidenglish.com/jar.html[/url]
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;350246]Scientific cosmological theory and "scientific creationism" have very little overlap. It is true that a scientist may strive to apply the scientific method to any idea, but did you mean specifically applying science to The Bible?[/QUOTE]

No, I was simply pointing to the metaphorical similarity between
the creationism (genesis) description of the start of the universe
(god made light from a void) and the supposedly scientific and
different big bang (it all started with a dense singularity that
for some reason exploded or expanded).

Both refer to a start-point in time. I challenge that on basics.

[QUOTE=davar55;350561]No, I was simply pointing to the metaphorical similarity between
the creationism (genesis) description of the start of the universe
(god made light from a void) and the supposedly scientific and
different big bang (it all started with a dense singularity that
for some reason exploded or expanded).

Both refer to a start-point in time. I challenge that on basics.[/QUOTE]
Speaking of basics, hot off the presses (released [strike]today[/strike] four days ago) is a 5:20 video on them:
Science, Religion, and the Big Bang
by minutephysics
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3MWRvLndzs[/url]
[YOUTUBE]q3MWRvLndzs[/YOUTUBE]

[QUOTE=davar55;350165]The thread hijacking detour occurred because I
inadvertently claaimed the universe has always
existed. Since Creationism and Big BAng agree
that this is not true, I stand contradicted by
both the religious and scientific viewpoints.[/QUOTE]

I forgot to add:

When religion and science agree, the science must be wrong too.

The Bible and science agree on at least one point ' there was a man, named Jesus'. beyond that, i'm not sure.
But that sound like a great start for a joke.

[QUOTE=firejuggler;352037]The Bible and science agree on at least one point ' there was a man, named Jesus'. beyond that, i'm not sure.
But that sound like a great start for a joke.[/QUOTE]

I have known a number of guys named "Jesus", though it would probably be pronounced [U]hay soos'[/U]. I was unaware of any scientific backing for the existence of a particular, biblical Haysoos.

[QUOTE=davar55;352035]When religion and science agree, the science must be wrong too.[/QUOTE]

No.

Why would you assume that?

Statistically, there was at least one man named Jesus at the time.
(And yes, this is trolling)

[QUOTE=firejuggler;352045]Statistically, there was at least one man named Jesus at the time.[/QUOTE]

Well, technically, there might have been zero.

And there is a non-zero probability that someone is lying....

[QUOTE=davar55;352035]I forgot to add:

When religion and science agree, the science must be wrong too.[/QUOTE]
This is illogical.

Suppose you have two clocks: one still, and the other one working.
They will agree, quite regularly. And (under a simplifying condition that the working clock shows adequately right time*), at these time points when they agree, both clocks will be right. What you are saying is that at these time points, both clocks will be wrong.

______________
*under a simplifying condition that we are not splitting hairs here with syllogisms like "the right time simply doesn't exist -- no matter how accurately you will set the clock, it will be off [I]all[/I] the time, in absolute terms". Adequately right = within a reasonable [TEX]\eps[/TEX], with both the value and its error limits known.