Nanotech:

Uncle_Spike:

Nanotech:

So just how did the earth come into existance? If from the "Big Bang" what caused the "Big Bang"?

What caused your "creator" Nano? Once again you expect a much higher standard of proof from others than you are willing to give yourself.

So you can't answer the question. That's what I thought.

I'm perfectly willing to provide an answer that meets the same level of proof you can give with yours Nano. As I have asked before, just clarify the rules first. If it is allowed to just simply declare God can exist and have happened without a cause or explaination then why must one be provided for the big bang?

Nanotech:

So you can't answer the question either.

If you mean 'what caused the Big Bang,' then no, I can't. I don't know what caused it. I don't know that there necessarily was a cause. It's being studied, and I'm okay with not knowing in the meantime.

Since your religion merely posits a creator, this shifts the 'what caused' argument to the creator without explaining anything, and so I rightly dismiss it.

Uncle_Spike:

Nanotech:

Uncle_Spike:

Nanotech:

So just how did the earth come into existance? If from the "Big Bang" what caused the "Big Bang"?

What caused your "creator" Nano? Once again you expect a much higher standard of proof from others than you are willing to give yourself.

So you can't answer the question. That's what I thought.

I'm perfectly willing to provide an answer that meets the same level of proof you can give with yours Nano. As I have asked before, just clarify the rules first. If it is allowed to just simply declare God can exist and have happened without a cause or explaination then why must one be provided for the big bang?

Whoa there guy, I thought you said that science was based on facts and not just belief like religion? So what are the facts?

Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket.

Isn't that what you do ? It just happens to be the 'Biblical basket' .

Your initial statement was 'IF it was the Big Bang, then what caused the Big Bang?'

First, that is not the only current model it is just one of the more popular ones and no one here that I have seen is claiming it as a proven fact nor is anyone claiming all facts are known at this time (except for Religion that is..which does claim to already have all the answers). Until the model is determined a cause will remain in the realm of speculation, and quite possibly even then. However, even with that said part of a definitive answer can be given in the sense that since Space and Time as we know and understand it did not exist prior to the singularity, there would not be a prior cause as people generally are using the term since "prior" didn't exist.

For an explaination of how space and time are effected by singularities I would suggest reading the work of Stephen Hawking.

"So just how did the earth come into existance?"

Planets form as the result of gravitational accretion from elemental or 'dust' particles which remained in orbit following the formation of the star or protostar they orbit.

I'm guessing that they love DNA evidence when it convicts a criminal in court, too. Alas, when you start picking and choosing what science you'll accept, you only end up looking like a fool...

WHo said that fingerprints arren't a unique form of indentification? Could you link us to that?

You clearly DON'T trust science, despite your false claim, because you consistently attack and lie about how it works and the conclusion it reaches.

Not convincing...

What caused him to create Earth? What process of his use brought the Earth into being? HOW did he do it, IOW?

You answer some questions for a change...

It's YOU that can't answer. You were asked questions about what you expect in the way of proof of your God's creation of the Earth, and in reply pose questions about the Big Bang in lieu of answers. Then you ignore posters when they do the same to you.

Totally dishonest, as always...another liar for Christ.

So just how did the earth come into existance? If from the "Big Bang" what caused the "Big Bang"?

******************************­******************************­***

Brahmo, of course.

"Whoa there guy, I thought you said that science was based on facts and not just belief like religion?"

>>Which of course is why science 's default position is "We lack sufficient observations to allow us to derive a credible explanation at this time" while religion's default position is "It must all have happened by magic, at the direction of my invisible friend--you know, the one with all the neat superpowers".

Science is to be trusted, scientist are to be questioned.

******************************­******************************­**********

Of course scientists are to be questioned. In fact, the way which science has usually progressed IS by 'questioning' the findings of earlier scientists and thus bringing us new knowledge and new information.

But -- HERE'S the big difference -- a *credible* scientist does not go into a research project with pre-supposed notions of what the findings *ought to be* -- and just designing his work in a way to *confirm* those pre-supposed notions. That defeats the whole purpose of research......

On the other hand, the problem with religious fundamentalists is that they cling to these pre-supposed notions from their own favorite holy book -- and will only believe the findings that support those notions, and try to reject the rest as "well, those findings must be wrong because they don't agree with MY scriptures, so there !!!!!"

JGC:

"Whoa there guy, I thought you said that science was based on facts and not just belief like religion?"

>>Which of course is why science 's default position is "We lack sufficient observations to allow us to derive a credible explanation at this time" while religion's default position is "It must all have happened by magic, at the direction of my invisible friend--you know, the one with all the neat superpowers".

"We lack sufficient observations to allow us to derive a credible explanation at this time"

Finally an honest answer. We don't know.

Why your ilk insist on tieing such things to religion is beyond me.

Finally an honest answer. We don't know.

What do you mean "finally." That is the answer we have given consistently. Science is more about the search for answers than about having the answers.