Accoring to who though? EUROPEANS lived in a "time before" we understood this but Hinduism speaks of planets in a way that matches today's understanding. The pyramids reflect the true motion of the cosmos.
Anyways.. If Science actually answers these questions then I will have to sit down but to believe in the miracle of science enough to give it credit for things it has not done yet is yet another form of Dogma
I wrote like a whole long post earlier. Feel free to disagree with other things I wrote. You don't like how I type "G-d". Got it.
Before hindu or egyptian civilizations. Or are you saying this info was always well known? Just... in your opinion. Do you think the fact that the Earth travels around the sun is intuitive?
Ok friend. I made this point to someone earlier on here, I think it was VMR/Esposito:
I know what you are referring to, you know what you are trying to convey. You are thinking of the concept as you type it, and I'm thinking of the concept as I read it. Leaving out one letter in a language that is at most 1000 years old in order not to offend God, while using a loophole to communicate the very concept of God as a means to "trick" the almighty into thinking you are showing proper respect is something a child would do.
Basically, you followed all the rules of communication using language, and you think that by omitting a letter you can use a loophole to fool the supposed creator of existence.
Nothing is intuative. If a man can use math to determine the motion of the heavens today he can do it 10,000 years ago. So as soon as he had the tools it was within his grasp.
I can't fool G-d cause I am G-d. It's like your finger being able to trick you. The typing of the word G-d is so unimportant to anything that matters. Argue with me about something intelligent.
But that's what I'm asking. Before we had the tools, do you think man would be foolish for thinking where we lived was stationary, yes or no? Using our senses alone, does it make sense that the planet rotates?
Yes people thought the world was stationary and flat in the past.
Let me stop your argument before you say "same thing as dark energy". Not even. Dark energy makes up most of the Universe but we can't detect it at all. That means Dark energy is right here where we are but completely invisible to every instrument in existence. Maybe, but they gotta find SOMETHING before we call it science.
As far a biogenesis: we have every substance and condition available to us now as on the early Earth. We can splice spider DNA into corn but we can't make biogenesis work. Seems like we'd be able to if it was a random event driven by pure chemistry.
Big Bang is some other sh't. All matter and energy comes out of nowhere... maybe they will have the techniques to investigate that claim but this is just impossible based on today's Science.
So to use your flat Earth analogy: not being able to re-create life in the lab isn't like man BEFORE telescopes trying to figure out Earth's motion, it's more like having everything you'd need (math, telescopes etc) but still not being able to prove the Sun was the center.
One, you don't know my argument at all. You've completely managed to avoid answering my question several times now, so maybe I can make my point more clearer:
My initial response was directed towards your statement "[Simple atoms] being random is a cute thought but it makes more sense that they are designed to do what they do like a lego brick." My point was it's foolish to say something "makes more sense", because you have no way to determine whether or not what "makes sense" to YOU is actually the truth. I'm not interested if something seems like it was designed in your opinion, I'm interested in whether or not the evidence has demonstrated that it was. At this point we don't entirely know, because it is COMPLETELY POSSIBLE that in fact this came about without any supernatural guidance. The laws of the universe guided events which lead to where we are today, but there's certainly no way to justify saying a god did it.
And you're partially wrong. Although we can't recreate the exact conditions on early Earth that led to abiogenesis, we can create the building blocks of life in a lab using the simple elements needed.
My one and only point is that science has no answer for the most important questions of existence. It's not that science is lacking at this point in history, it's that reality defies what science supposes. Always will (last sentence was editorial on my part).
We think there should be dark matter and energy all around but there isnt. We think we should be able to mix amino acids and make life but we can't. We think we'll find the graviton in a particle accerator but we can't.
It has no human feelings (anger for instance? Anger at who? Knowing and BEING everything allows for no surprises and no reason to be angry.