But I’d have thought about it a lot less, I’d be unaware there are as many of us as there are, and I’d be a lot less active.

I feel I must respond to this advice. I did not give a point of view on the creation of life, rather I was expressing my point of view on the creation of the universe itself.

Apologies. The creation of life is an event that would have of course followed the creation of the Universe. I was over-generalizing to show the callowness of using a simple subjective description for a recondite event. My comment was directed more towards brycey.

Nicholas said:

If someone were to claim that cartons of milk kept appearing in their fridge, completely out of thin air, I’m sure most people would be a bit skeptical. Similarly (but to a greater degree), I am skeptical of the sheer mass, energy, fundamental fabric, time and rational laws of this universe simply popping into existence from nowhere.

“Popping into existence from nowhere” is again, an over-simplification that will of course take away validity to the theory – much like using the term chance - particularly when you preface it (greater degree otherwise) with a comparison as inane as cartons of milk appearing in a fridge. These are all creationist comparisons and arguments that offer no insight or evidence to even fall into the category of analogy.

There is evidence of an expanding universe, there are myriads of scientists who offer that evidence in debate to help quantify the theory. So far, it’s the best theory we have to work with because of that evidence. Perhaps one day we may find something better or expand on the findings, that’s what science does, it’s ever-learning. We won’t, however, move forward with backward thinking, using ancient scripture and a creator as a way of trying disprove the theory.

Gravity is only a theory and there is still much about it that isn’t understood, but you accept that theory without question. Is that because there is no mention in Genesis of god creating gravity on day three after he finished with the herb yielding seed?

Nicholas said:

I have heard the arguments of brane theory, that how this universe was simply the collateral spin-off of two ‘parent universes’ colliding in higher dimensional space – thus the big bang. However, I find this thinking flawed because it assumes an eternal ‘multiverse’. (if it does not then the question of original creation is as unanswered as ever)

Regardless whether you think it’s flawed or not is irrelevant, because it’s your opinion. In my opinion, the flying spaghetti monster is the creator and supreme ruler of the Universe, but in science, my opinion doesn’t matter. Unless you can provide the slightest bit of evidence that can be scrutinized and put through the scientific method, as the Big Bang theory has been and continues to be, your opinion is as valid as mine.

Don’t give a “point of view” on the creation of life, particularly if you’re going to sully it by using the word “chance” to discredit it.

I feel I must respond to this advice. I did not give a point of view on the creation of life, rather I was expressing my point of view on the creation of the universe itself.

If someone were to claim that cartons of milk kept appearing in their fridge, completely out of thin air, I’m sure most people would be a bit skeptical. Similarly (but to a greater degree), I am skeptical of the sheer mass, energy, fundamental fabric, time and rational laws of this universe simply popping into existence from nowhere.
I have heard the arguments of brane theory, that how this universe was simply the collateral spin-off of two ‘parent universes’ colliding in higher dimensional space – thus the big bang. However, I find this thinking flawed because it assumes an eternal ‘multiverse’. (if it does not then the question of original creation is as unanswered as ever)

If this ‘multiverse’ is eternal then it will have experienced an infinite amount of time, thus experiencing an infinite amount of entropic decay. Why look at our own universe, all the mass in it is slowly evaporating away as stray photons, given enough time, it will be a sea of photons with lonely wandering black holes interspersed (and thats just one FINITE universe lifetime).

I would also respond to J Myers’ comment about calling comments stupid and such. Please, genuinely, tell me why. I would love to hear your opinion. (also I think a more general case is that peoples’ beliefs and behaviours span a wide spectrum ^_^)