tjcerveza:

Just as I thought. You guys have no clue how life started either. You just can't admit it.

You asked a couple of questions, and both were tangential to the topic at hand, but I'll try to answer them.

1) what came before the Big Bang? No idea. Maybe an astrophysicist could give some answer, but my understanding is that they simply don't know. The bang effectively erased any detectible trace of what was before, and we really don't have even a dominant hypothesis about the universe, past present or future.

2) Evolved from what? How did life start? That one we also aren't sure about, but we have some good guesses. We know that life on Earth evolved from a common bacterial ancestor that existed billions of years ago. Before that ... the guess is that biotic life evolved from the pre-biotic primordial soup. Somehow, a self-replicating macromolecule was formed in the soup. The current thinking is that this macromolecule was probably a ribozyme. Some of our oldest and most important genes code for RNA-based enzymes, in addition to protein ones, so the idea that RNA was the original enzymatic material seems plausible. Over time, with the advent of a world full of RNases that degrade RNA, those sequences would have been selected out of the living genetic record, so it's a tough one to prove conclusively, but right now it's the best hypothesis we have.

As for arrogance of scientists, I don't agree that believing in a hypothesis is necessarily arrogant. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it is the result of a scientist's potent understanding and intuition in a particular field of research. It's hard to tell the difference though, sometimes.