i feel that darkhand just made a good reply for me.
we dont know our physical current world as well as we should. we know enough about the past to get us by, we should be concentrating on figuring out what is here currently, while keeping a closer eye on where it is that we are going vs where it was that everything began. there is nothing wrong with learning the history of things, but seriously, we've past the realm of history when it comes to this stupid debate. its nothing but beliefs and theories. neither of which can actually be proven. you may have evidence that shows evolution was possible, but you don't have definitive proof. but, going deeper than that, you'll never find actual physical evidence about the big bang. the evidence would be hundreds of billions of years gone.
i have not watched the video so im not sure what all they covered, but im sure we all are in agreement that the creationist cannot actually be proven bc it is based on faith. period.
i have been reading a good bit on the big bang, and they are now claiming that if they focus the satellites in one direction for a long enough time, then, theoretically you would actually be able to see the big bang. or something to that affect. i dont buy it one little bit. if it were true, what are the chances of them actually aiming it in the exact right spot to see that? doubt its even worth calculating to such a low number. if the universe has been expanding since the big bang, then you would have to have that camera pointed in that direction for a very very long time to catch light from that long ago. which also makes me wonder: if the big bang was the origination of everything, then that "light" or signature would be at the absolute edge of the universe, not the center, since it was the first thing to happen. it would make sense that it would be the furthest point outward. and if it is in the center, who is to say that the universe has been expanding in straight directions and that it hasnt developed currents that push everything around and make it appear that everything is expanding when, in fact it is only moving around. we dont have the technology to get out far enough to actually see these things, debating about it now is a waste of time. he'll, we just recently had our first item exit our solar system...we think, apparently whether its actually out is up for debate too, bc we dont actually know where the line is.
my big problem with creationists is that they keep focusing on this age of earth thing in years. actual calendar years. thats where i believe they are going wrong and losing a lot of people that would otherwise believe their theories. our current definition of "years" only exists here and now. hasnt always been that way. a year when the earth was first created could have been the equivalent of 50000 years by our current standards. humans have the problem of believing that the universe is dictated by our definition of time. time only exists on earth, because we've created it. time is man made.
so yes, the earth could in fact only be 6000 "years" old, but not by current standards.
then the issue i see with the big bang, is that i feel it confirms the existence of god. where did this "energy" come from that made the universe? if we are talking about true beginnings, then you have to explain where that originated. to which a creationist could reply: "there's god right there, at that point is where god stated 'let there be light'" boom. big bang. god. all together, everybody can hug now.
my views are much simpler: the universe has always been. its infinitely large, and infinitely small. there is no beginning or end. personally, i dont care where humans actually came from, i just care about where we are going. and where we are going, currently, doesnt look so good. so i think people should stop talking about yesterdays weather, and instead worry about tomorrows challenges.
/rant.