Don’t believe me? Go to a meeting of notable scientists discussing a controversial idea.

bizarre fake dichotomy

Agreed, it’s fake. The real dichotomy is science explains, God exists (but doesn’t explain)

but he couldn’t be bothered to spell it all out to Moses during their interview on a mountaintop, well, I guess he had his reasons.

Like who was there to record the interview or was it the biblical case that when Moses opens his mouth the “BullRushes”?

Religion, or at least revealed monotheistic religion, is not primarily concerned with physical cosmology in any case.

So a supernatural being didn’t create the universe?

science is not an absolute knowledge system, it’s just an updating of what we think we might know at any given moment, It’s always just our best guess until it is ‘proven’ otherwise.

Best guess indeed. Like the theory of gravity? The apples drop off and fly upwards tomorrow? E=MC2 will be E=MC tomorrow?

the mounting evidence showed that the universe really was created 6,000 years ago,

So the methods, validity, and scope of multiple verifiable independent methods of carbon dating that show fossils to be tens/hundreds of millions of years old will all be proven wrong? Our Milky way Galaxy is only 6,000 light years or less in diameter instead of 100,000 light years (let alone the universe FFS)?

Would all the religion-bothering anti-science types embrace that cosmological research, or would they try to negate it, on any grounds they could find?

You betcha–right now as we speak.

Shorter j_p_z: I’m hoping all the major immutable scientifically discovered constants of this universe will be proven wrong.

Besides, science is not an absolute knowledge system, it’s just an updating of what we think we might know at any given moment, until it is ‘proven’ otherwise. It’s always just our best guess until we get a better one. Remember how in the 18th century, folks thought that Newton had finally got it all figured out? Oh well…

Here’s a thought experiment: what if, way down the road in scientific research, our best models of the universe started to indicate to us that post-quantum physics had engineered a vast epistemological illusion on us, and the mounting evidence showed that the universe really was created 6,000 years ago, and that its design was proving to be more and more ‘intelligent’ in its nature? Would all the religion-denying pro-science types embrace that research, or would they try to negate it, on any grounds they could find?

so let’s say that everything happened all by itself… nothing made everything!… yeah, that’s better!

It’s difficult for non-scientists like myself to understand, but it seems that quantum theory has been applied to cosmological models and found to have contributed significantly to our understanding.

It’s hard, it’s difficult but simply repeating the mantra “Goddidit” is a cop out and a sign of intellectual weakness to anyone with a modicum of appreciation for science. Remember, the “Goddidit” folk once believed the sun rotated around the earth until science put them to rights (well except for some even today for whom science is an “enemy.”) The difference between science and theology is we re-write or update the science text books when a theory is proven deficient.

Science is rapidly pushing back the frontiers of ignorance, what exactly is theology doing? (Hint: nothing except to reinforce the idea that ignorance and superstition is a virtue)

http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/cosmo.htm#Inflation

Quantum [theory–but predictions at the sub-atomic so accurate that it’s like calculating the accuracy of the distance between cities to a hair’s diameter) uncertainty allows the temporary creation of bubbles of energy, or pairs of particles (such as electron-positron pairs) out of nothing, provided that they disappear in a short time. The less energy is involved, the longer the bubble can exist. Curiously, the energy in a gravitational field is negative, while the energy locked up in matter is positive. If the Universe is exactly flat , then as Tryon pointed out the two numbers cancel out, and the overall energy of the Universe is precisely zero. In that case, the quantum rules allow it to last forever. If you find this mind-blowing, you are in good company. George Gamow told in his book My World Line (Viking, New York, reprinted 1970) how he was having a conversation with Albert Einstein while walking through Princeton in the 1940s. Gamow casually mentioned that one of his colleagues had pointed out to him that according to Einstein’s equations a star could be created out of nothing at all, because its negative gravitational energy precisely cancels out its positive mass energy. “Einstein stopped in his tracks,” says Gamow, “and, since we were crossing a street, several cars had to stop to avoid running us down”.

j_p_z: We don’t. Hmm. That gives me an idea to pass on to our American space enthusiast friends. Forget about renaming the TPF the “Ronald Reagan Space Telescope” to get Republicans to fund it - just call it an interstellar surveillance satellite!

just don’t call it science, and don’t tell me your faith is better than someone else’s.

It is science and it is rather better than your ridiculous childlike belief that the earth is only 6,000 years or the literal truth of the scribblings of ancient middle eastern goat-herders.

i agree… just don’t call it science, and don’t tell me your faith is better than someone else’s.

Unless you can prove God created your computer, Jeep Liberty, house and Dulux Federation Green, well yes.

so let me get this straight… God couldn’t have done it because we don’t want to believe in God, so let’s say that everything happened all by itself… nothing made everything!… yeah, that’s better!

Apparently though his aftersales warranties aren’t much chop.