agree or disagree: the davinci code, the big bang theory and the evolution theory are a big lies?
832165
I agree 100% The Da Vinci Code  does not travel with me everywhere i go or nor do i sleep with it under my pillow at night like i do the Bible and i know who has my back and it is not The Da Vinci Code, The big bang, or Evolution
586516
No, the big bang is not  pseudoscience. It is the best theory going for how scientists think the world works.\n\nPseudoscience would be like believing in something by faith alone with no proof at all, and no way to disprove it.
419185
I always find it interesting how people assume that science and religion are irreconcilable.  It is possible to believe in both and it is possible that God does exist and that the big bang theory is what created the earth.  Many creationists approach the creation theory from a fundamentalist perspective.  The Bible is full of metaphors and figurative language.  It is not necessarily meant to be taken literally.  Perhaps God provided the catalyst for the big bang making both creationism and science accurate.  Just a theory.
116109
Mythbuster's "science" is a bunch of hooey.\nCiting that as evidence for or against something is not a very convincing argument.
913342
The same reason we heard FDR bombed Pearl Harbor, fake moon landing, Holocaust was a hoax, Mafia and/or Castro killed JFK, Area 51 reverse engineering of Roswell UFO, and that fossils were a conspiracy propagated by paleontologists.  There's always the feeble minded that will believe anything.  Look at the high percentage of the world (80%) who take as gospel the idea of a supernatural entity without a shred of evidence.
1032997
Yes of course they are! They and the suckers they mislead. \nThe brilliance of the charlatans of our day can be seen in the postings of many of their followers to yahoo answers. These charlatans have convinced the ignorant that not only is their opinion just as good as the opinion of experts (people who have spent their entire life studying a subject) it's actually better, because it's not based on unapproachable 'egghead' stuff, but on a child-like faith in sweet Jesus that even an idiot can have.  \nCrooks like Stroebel and Hovind are lying to this crowd and they mostly know it too. \nJust one example of this is their treatment of radioactive dating. When creationists say that dinosaur bones have been found that radio-carbon date to a few thousand years old, this leads their readers to assume that the dinosaur bones are only a few thousand years old, but surely the creationist know that carbon14 has a half-life of only of 5730 years. Potassium-argon dating is used to date anything over a million years old, and using that dating method, dinosaur bones date from between 140 and 65 million years. The creationists must know a simple fact like that. They complain about the unreliability of radioactive dating methods but see no problem with setting their clocks to standards based on radioactive decay. It's extremely reliable as a method of setting chronology.\nThere is a vast array of intertwining evidence that supports evolution, and the extremely old age of the universe and of the earth. Fields as diverse as biology, chemistry, geology, geography, nuclear physics, and astronomy, have given humans a wonderfully coherent and comprehensive picture of the universe we live in, of what it used to be like, and of what it most probably will be like in the future. It is a picture based on theories with not just great, but astonishing, predictive power. \nCreation science proves nothing, does not explain existing evidence, and has astonishingly poor predictive power. This is why no one at all, except Christian Fundamentalists, believes in creationism. \nUnfortunately creationists sound impressive to the ignorant and the gullible, and the English speaking world has both these types in abundance.
668430
ive read a few of them. they are good books for entertainment. but of course you shouldnt believe what it says. thats just the opinion of the authors veiw of what will happen. the holy bible is the only book anyone should believe.
18930
There have been alternative theories throughout history.  I believe most astronomers now accept the Big Bang theory as best fitting the known facts. Your question about a multiplicity of Big Bangfs is a good one: perhaps the biggest cosmological debate about the nature of the universe is whether the universe will expand forever, or whether it will ultimately contract again into a state similar to just prior to the Big Bang.  Of those who think it will contract, many believe that it then will repeat a Big Bang process, so that the universe will proceed on a Bang, expansion, contraction, Bang  . . . pattern forever.\n\nI've included a link to one website that provides answers to basic astronomical questions, in a range from beginning to more advanced.
519225
I don't like the fact that some people are reading it as fact when it is fiction. The man who wrote it(Dan Brown) was charged with plagiarism. I haven't cracked the book but know someone who is reading it but aren't taken in by it's lies. I find it just as abusurd as the supposed "book of judas."  \n\nHere is one of the lies of this book and the truthfull answers to it.\n\nThe Da Vince Code says...\nIn 325 the council of Nicea decided by vote to make Jesus divine. "Until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet." It was a close vote at that.  P.233\n\nFACT:\nThe council, of which we have the historical writings and decisions, had mothing to do with the divinity of Jesus. They were didscssuin Arius, who had begun teaching that Jesus was not eternally co-existent with the father but was divine, The discussion was around whether Jesus was eternally co-existant with the father not wherether Jesus was divine. The close vote.... was almost 300  to  2. WE WOULD call that a landslide in today's English. Consider these Verses.\n\nMatt 16:16  Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son fo the living God" NKJV\n\nMark 15:39  So when the centurion, who stood oppostie Him, saw that He cried out like this and breathed His last, he said,"Truly this Man was the Son of God!"\n\nLuke 4:41   And demons also came out of many, crying out and saying. "You are the Christ, the Son of God!?\n\nJohn 10:33  The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God."\n\nJohn 20:28  And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"\n\nThe Da Vinci Code says...\nThe church demonized the sacred feminine and the goddess by reaching teh concept of original sin, "whereby Eve tasted the apple and caused the downfall of the human race." P238\n\nFACT:\nThe Bible actually blames Adam much more that Eve and nowhere does the Bible mention an apple, merely fruit.\n\n! Cor 15:21-22  For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.  22.  For as in Adam all\ndie, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.\n\nRom 5:12 Therefore, just through one man sin intered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-\n\nSo if they read the Bible they will see that the Da Vince Code is a joke. The fact that it is a novel: n. a fictious prose narritive of considerable length... fictious: adj. \n1. created or assumed for the sake of concealment; false.\n2. of or consisting of fiction; created by the imagination.\n\nThese definitons came from Websters Dictionary not something I made up.
372332
The Bible is a collection of stories, that may or may not be true, that are intended not only to recollect historical accounts that were hard to understand, but to provide roll models and insight into your own decisions and their consequences. It is rather too much to base your ENTIRE life upon these stories; they should be not only taken with a grain of salt, but followed for their moral insight. Whether or not they were true are henceforth irrelevent.\n\nI already know that Creationists are going to attack this response and call me an atheist because I have Darwinist viewpoints. This is what I say to them: you are hypocrites to question the motives of God, or anything of the sort. If God is going to put a bunch of lies in a book, NOBODY can stop him. Not that I think they are lies, at least, not all of them, but any scientific arguments should carried out without any discourse over religious beliefs of ANY kind.
1153218
You are Right, Evolution is true.\n\nThose who dont just happen to take references from their Holy Books to seriously. We must all understand that these Holy Books are a matter of faith and should not be involved in the studies of Science. \nScience on the other hand is hard cold truth. The truth in Science is always backed by facts and numbers.
693099
You raise a good point, about what standard we use to determine credibility.\n\nThe problem with the Da Vinci Code is that Dan Brown is basically saying, "Okay, here's a novel for you, but I'm basing it on facts." He begins his novel, with a page titled "Fact" in which he says: "The Priory of Sion--a European secret society founded in 1099--is a real organization. In 1975 Paris's[sic] Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo Da Vinci..." The problem with that statement of fact, is that it's absolutely not true.\n\nThe Priory of Sion was founded in 1956 and the list of members a complete fabrication. You can go and research the Priory of Sion online(and I think the wikpedia has a good starting point)and discover for yourself that the claims Dan Brown makes in his book are false.\n\nI don't think there is any solid extra-biblical information that Jesus had children with Mary Magdalene or anyone else. I have to admit that there is a personal bias here, because I think Jesus was fully God and fully man. I think he channelled his sexual desires into an immense love for everyone. We as mere humans are not capable of that kind of love. That's just my personal opinion there.\n\nAlso, if Jesus was fully God, how is it possible for God to love just one woman?\n\nNow, if he's just man then there are no theological problems with him getting married and having children and if he's just a man, then we'd be stupid to follow him too.\n\nI don't care if people want to see the movie or read the book. I read the book and didn't think it was well written. It contained laughable dialogue and situations. Especially the dialogue between Sophie and Langdon. But they need to realize it's fiction! Of course, if people want to read a novel and see a movie and believe that it's true, then that's their problem, I suppose.\n\nIn regards to the Bible, Christians who are inquisitive do wonder about bias, error and fiction. That's what Bible study is for. There are mountains of books on the Bible, with differing viewpoints. As the movie tagline says, "Seek The Truth".
864347
You already answered it with your question, it's a theory. There are a lot of theories but that don't make any of them right, science is constantly changing as they figure out whats wrong and right.\n\nThis is a wait and see thing but don't put any belief into it til science has figured out what is truth and what isn't or your going to be all screwed up with weird idea's.
620552
Bible is Fact.\nDa Vinci Code is Fiction.\nBible presents itself as Fact.\nDa Vinci Code presents itself as Fiction.\nBible author says the book is Fact.\nDa Vinci Code author says the book is Fiction.\n\n'nough said.
1016992
Well, I think so.  I'm a biologist who accepts the fact that evolution occurred, but I don't use that to try to prove that God doesn't exist.  I'm also a born-again Christian who doesn't doubt a single word in the Bible.  Evolution is nothing.  I frankly don't see what the big deal about it is.  The real enemy is Materialism- those pseudoscientists who think the physical universe is all that exists.  That's not the same thing as evolultion.  One can still believe in God and simply think evolution was a tool He used at times.  But you can't be a Materialist and still believe in God at all.  People should understand that they're disputing about a worldview, not about facts.
541263
The theory of the big bang doesn't explain things before it. But usually it's believed that before the creation of the universe there was energy concentrated or concentrating to the critic point where it blasted and spreaded through universe. The Big Bang theory is'nt the only theory about the creation of the universe, only the most accepted, you could find very interesting and different ideas. I don't like religious answers because their principal argument is faith and since faith can't be proven or refuted, I don't think it can be used as a valid argument, sounds tautologic for me (in logic, tautology is an statement that is ever true).
1029286
It's astonishing how many people think the DaVinci Code is a real story.\n\nNo, it's just fiction. There's no such office at Harvard (or anywhere else) as that of religious symbology. What a waste of a PhD's mind that office would be, don't you think?\n\nThe Priory of Scion was invented in the 1960s as a bizarre way for some unemployed French 20-somethings to get elected to office.\n\nThe Rosicrucians were a similar "joke" order as no one has verified whether this order actually exists.\n\nThe stories reflected in the gnostic gospels (ie, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Jesus) are apochryphal at best, having been dated several hundred years after the commonly-accepted time of Christ's life on earth.\n\nMerely because someone says or writes somethign doesn't make it true, and the denial of that thing does not constitute a conspiracy.\n\nBesides, there are no monks in Opus Dei. Albinos perhaps, but no monks. It's mostly an order of married persons.