Apr 26, 2012 -- 11:59AM, Ken wrote:

Apr 26, 2012 -- 9:21AM, vansdad wrote:

Apr 25, 2012 -- 2:17PM, Ken wrote:

The Big Bang theory doesn't actually say that the Big Bang was the beginning of everything. All it says is that the mass-energy composing the observable universe expanded from a very hot, compressed state.

I see no pressing reason to believe anything about how the universe began or whether or not it had a beginning. We don't know, we don't need to know, and we won't find out until the physicists do.

For sure we do not know and possibly never will in this world.  Lots of things are possible so there is no one who can say "that is stupid" or "that doesn't make sence", etc.

If somebody claims, for example, that a giant supernatural goose hatched the universe from a giant supernatural egg, I can certainly say "That's stupid." And I will.

Well it's a good thing I'm not saying that.

Apr 30, 2012 -- 2:22PM, vansdad wrote:

My beliefs are irrelevant.  I'm merely pointing out the fact that;  How everything came into existance is all theory.  There is no 100% proof of any of it, whether it's always been here as some believe or it was created by a Creator or if somehow it just appeared.  So what makes one thoey better or more accurate than another.  The Big Bang is an easy theory for people to put into their own words;  Everthing expanded from a single source and has been expanding ever since.  But no one knows haw it got here to expand from a single source.  And some copy and paste theories they cannot even expalin so what good is that.  Anyway the point is how can one be better than another.  Scientific proof cannot say how it got here only what happened since its been here.  So there it is...

First, you need to understand what a scientific theory is. It isn't just a hypothesis... some speculative idea.  It is a unifying explanation for the data. The Theory of Gravity is "just a theory." The Germ Theory of Disease is "just a theory."

Second, there is a big difference between "nothing is 100% proven" and "All beliefs are equally 'good.'" While science never IS 100% proven (in fact, it isn't intended to be), the scientific method is an extremely rigorous means of testing theories. As a result, theories derived by the scientific theory are far better confirmed (and far more likely to be accurate) than some random belief off the street. So that's what makes scientific theories "better."

You are right to say that no one is sure what triggered the Big Bang... why it happened in the first place. That's an area where science is at the bleeding edge, developing ideas and trying to find ways to test them. Maybe they'll eventually come up with a testable theory, maybe they won't and it will be forever a mystery.

But here's the important thing to understand: whether science EVER finds an explanation for the origin of the Big Bang or not, that has nothing to do with whether a Creator God is behind it. Science is totally silent on whether God exists, and whether He had anything to do with ANYTHING.

With the exception of a few cranks, the (pro-evolution) posters on this site understand that. While many of us are atheists, we're fine if you want to believe that God was "behind" the Big Bang. What we AREN'T fine with is people trying to teach that in the public schools, or base public policy on it. Or -- even worse -- try to eliminate or denigrate good, well-substantiated science because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Because that is 99% percent of what happens on this forum.

So basically, I think you're attacking a strawman. No one (at least that I've seen) is getting mocked for wanting to believe that God is behind the Big Bang.

Vansdad:

"There is no 100% proof of any of it,"

Maybe you cvan give us an example of something in science that you think does have "100% proof"?

Apr 30, 2012 -- 3:20PM, wohali wrote:

Vansdad:

"There is no 100% proof of any of it,"

Maybe you cvan give us an example of something in science that you think does have "100% proof"?

How about electrons make electricity.