tevans9129;n45092 said:
Great, then all you must do for me to accept your view is to explain where and how, space, matter, energy and time came into existence, using "actual scientific data" can you do that?
Explaining those things, has absolutely nothing do with you rejecting what we CAN explain!
Did I say that it did or, are you just trying to spin or deflect? In essence, what I said was if you could explain, with logical verifiable evidence, where space, matter, energy and time came from, I would accept your views, is that not what I said?
In addition, would you quote me ever rejecting anything that you can explain with empirical evidence? Hypothesis, theories, speculation, conjecture is not empirical evidence and I do not much care how you got there, it still is not a provable fact.
BTW, you did not answer the question as it was asked, did you?
That's the real problem right there. Just because we don't have answers to the 'big questions', does not mean we don't what what we can know at this point.
I agree, that is the real problem, you cannot answer the “big questions” which means that your answers to the little questions cannot answer the “big question”. I can certainly agree with that and glad to see you admit the obvious.
Why do you insist in rejected we reject what we can, and do know, and have tons of evidence to support! Why?
I do not and I challenge you to quote me saying that I do. I will accept everything you can present with empirical evidence, can you do that?
Is it because you fear changing how you think about God from what you're comfortable with within your religious communities? I believe that is so.
Good try….not really because I do not fear the infallible, inerrant, inspired word of God which is my “religious community” and I can read all of scripture just as it is written that defends my doctrine, can you do that? We both know the answer to that question, don’t we?
I have taken the liberty to quote a short article on the BB theory. I have also bolded some words for attention. What I would like, if you are up to it, is for you to highlight all of the assertions that are presented in the article as something that can be proven, will you do that? BTW, this is not from a “creationist” page.
Origins of the Universe
The
most popular theory of our universe's origin centers on a cosmic cataclysm unmatched in all of history—the big bang. This
theory was born of the observation that other
galaxies are moving away from our own at great speed, in all directions,
as if they had all been propelled by an ancient explosive force.
WHAT IS THE BIG BANG THEORY?
Before the
big bang,
scientists believe the entire vastness of the observable universe, including all of its matter and radiation, was compressed into a hot, dense mass just a few millimeters across. This nearly incomprehensible state
is theorized to have existed for just a fraction of the first second of time.
Big bang proponents
suggest that some 10 billion to 20 billion years ago, a massive blast allowed all the universe's known matter and energy—even space and time themselves—to spring from
some ancient and unknown type of energy.
The
theory maintains that, in the instant—a trillion-trillionth of a second—after the big bang, the universe expanded with incomprehensible speed from its pebble-size origin to astronomical scope. Expansion has
apparently continued, but much more slowly, over the ensuing billions of years.
Scientists can't be sure exactly how the universe evolved after the big bang.
Many believe that as time passed and matter cooled, more diverse kinds of atoms began to form, and they eventually condensed into the stars and galaxies of our present universe.
ORIGINS OF THE THEORY
A Belgian priest named
Georges Lemaître first suggested the big bang theory in the 1920s when he theorized that the universe began from a single primordial atom. The idea subsequently received major boosts by Edwin Hubble's observations that galaxies are speeding away from us in all directions, and from the discovery of cosmic microwave radiation by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson.
The glow of cosmic microwave background radiation, which is found throughout the universe,
is thought to be a tangible remnant of leftover light from the big bang. The radiation is akin to that used to transmit TV signals via antennas. But it is the oldest radiation known and
may hold many secrets about the universe's earliest moments.
The big bang theory
leaves several major questions unanswered. One is the original cause of the big bang itself. Several answers have been proposed to address this fundamental question, but
none has been proven—and even adequately testing them has proven to be a formidable challenge.
The Origins of the Universe
And people promote this as “science” proving the BB….really? Well, at least the author of this article seems to be honest and does not try to present something as a fact when it cannot be done.