So what you call "evidence" is what you have faith in... So you are now a member of the "evidence" religion... ...and apparently part of the "evidence" is some supposed big explosion... Too ridiculous... "Then that makes you stupid." Ohhhh yes, you are so schhhhmart...
No, evidence isn't what I have faith in, evidence is what I have belief in. And there's no need for quotations around evidence, I'm not using the word in some deceptive sense. Do you even know what faith means? Let me help you: Faith is belief without supporting evidence. So it doesn't make sense to talk about "faith in evidence" when faith, by definition, is devoid of evidence. There is no "evidence" religion. Seriously you can't just randomly combine words and expect to make a meaningful communication. This is very revealing of you, and very sad. No the Big Bang theory isn't part of the evidence. The Big Bang theory is derived from the evidence. The Big Bang theory, like every other scientific theory, was created to explain evidence. Science doesn't throw away verified evidence. Science throws away theories that no longer adequately explain the evidence. The Big Bang theory is still explaining the history of the universe until something better comes along. Theism. on the other hand, never throws anything away, which explains for example why there are two contradicting creation stories in the Book of Genesis. Agreed, most theisms and other faith-based beliefs are too ridiculous by far.
Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory? Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observationsâ¦.For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observationsâ¦.You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."4 In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.5 Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.6 Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950. Big Bang Theory - What About God? Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the question, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe had a beginning. Was God the "First Cause"? We won't attempt to answer that question in this short article. http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
Well crafted article here, by a renowned scientist... http://www.leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/docs/bigbang.html
A subsite of http://www.allaboutgod.com/ Here's a crazy thought. How about posting on the Big Bang theory from an actual science site (one without theism)? Or is that too much of a challenge for you? Btw your attempt to discredit the Big Bang theory is pointless. Not only am I not nor anybody else I know "committed" to the Big Bang theory (like every other scientific theory, it's a tool, not a religion) but you can't refute the evidence it's based on. I don't know how many times I have to say that theories are useful until they aren't, then they are discarded. If you don't like the name "Big Bang theory", feel free to use some other name. It won't change the fact that science is not a religion, no matter how many times you shout it or hold your breath until you turn blue. It doesn't hurt the credibility of science one bit, but it does play hell on your own credibility.
The article is written by a scientist, where he quotes other scientists and their work...it is written for the layperson, much like Hawkings book was written for laypersons... You are not actually claiming you are a published scholastic scientist, or could explain the math of a big bang theory to a class of cosmology students? Too freaking funny for words... You have swallowed science hook, line and sinker, simply because you are not qualified to truly render an opinion on the work of scientists. You are not one of their peers, you are a blind follower of the scientists and their papers, and if you would stop to think about it...you are really not any different than a follower of any other religion where the followers are dependent of some prophet or minister to put into simple terms what the respective concepts are. No, science is not a religion...but you and people like you have made science into your own religion to supplant your need for something to believe in. You have perverted the real purpose of science to rationalize your conclusion of non God...not from any work of science but rather from a blind hatred of organized religion and the stupidity of the follower mentality...which you display spades with your misrepresentation of real science. That's human nature, you simply and for some inexplicable reason refuse to admit the truth to yourself that you don't know, and can't know, and live in an imaginary world that thinks science can possible know what is beyond the scope of science... Great scientists are not afraid to admit the truth of their ignorance, so why don't you follow their lead and admit to yourself that you need a some kind of a God in your life as much as theists do, even if your chosen God and chosen disciples is the work of those you truly don't understand and that you have not done the math on...to render you unqualified to mention anything close to a qualified scientific opinion any more than a parrot could understand Shakespeare by repeating the sonnets of Shakespeare from trained repetition.... "The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.]" You can build your religion on if there is no God, and others can build their religion on if there is a God, but both are just iffffffing around the truth that neither one knows... Both parties are just acting upon faith, which is what makes the atheist like you just as religious as a theist... At least the theist who professes ignorance and nothing but a humble faith in God is intellectually honest, whereas the blind follower of something he doesn't really understand intellectually or lacks the command of yet claims some superiority over the theist, is as dishonest as one can be...
Yes, you are. I'm sorry you're so stupid (it's well past the point of excusing your nonsense as ignorance) but that's your problem. Science is taught in high school. Where I came from, it was taught in elementary school as well. You are suggesting that only professional scientists are qualified to discuss or even understand anything at all about science. Let me guess: when you get a paper cut, you rush to the emergency room instead of learning how to apply antiseptic and a band-aid yourself, because you don't have a medical degree. Too funny indeed. Why are you so hung up on the Big Bang theory? Do you think discrediting it will make your God theory more plausible? Now *that* is truly funny.
It's been made abundently clear in this thread, the rational used for a deity creator god is as usual, based only in ludicrous arguments of absurdly contradicting statements. So far.... no religion is religion no belief is belief no knowledge is knowledge no god is god The only other aspect according to the religious, appears to be - lack of understanding means, err well..., no lack of understanding. God did it. Surprised why people find no reason to accept any of that, true to form, the theist argument is a meaningless; having no reason - is ... having a different reason. Unthinkingly (the appropriate hallmark for faith in an invisible friend), a theist will call people fool, because their whole argument which relies on them actually being absurd, is ....yes that's right... not absurd.
+1 Then there's this: "Man creates a theory to explain something because there is no evidence to explain that something." The science community refers to that 'something' that needs explaining as evidence. I guess to theists, it's just 'something'. And theories and 'evidence' are somehow competing to explain it.