Evolution

[keithprosser3]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 1132 by kenblogton]

kenblogton replied:
A God who exists in time and space and is corporal would be physical. But the physical does not begin until the dense singularity and big bang. Therefore God cannot be physical.
1. No one knows (as has been said to you many times here) what was before the singularity. This is the equivalent, is it not, of saying, "I'm guessing, 'cuz I really don't know". A guess is not a feasible answer. A feasible answer in this case, would be admitting "I don't know." Guessing that a supernatural source explains everything is a leap away from logic, not towards it.

As a side query, why is it hard to believe that nature may have no beginning, but not god?

A God who can create the remarkably complex and wonderfully crafted physical universe must be very wise and powerful, wouldn't you agree?
-kenblogton

2. If there were a shred of evidence, I might. But since there isn't, no. Besides, given what transpires naturally in this world (through no fault of man), I find it hard to fathom how anyone could believe in a benevolent god (disease, birth defects, natural disasters, cancer, etc). But that is besides the point. You have yet to argue successfully how god is the most feasible answer.

How is your argument more logically sound then saying "I don't know"? Or of the Ancient Greeks blaming Poseidon for the tides? They guessed too.

1. Science says there was nothing before the big bang; see http://www.ask.com/question/what-do-mos ... e-big-bang, http://space.about.com/od/astronomybasi ... iverse.htm, http://www.nature.com/news/theoretical- ... me-1.13613, http://www.deepastronomy.com/what-cause ... -bang.html, http://www.universetoday.com/51887/define-entropy/
Nature has a beginning: the dense singularity followed by the big bang, as explained at the 5 above-cited websites.
God cannot have a beginning, or you get into an infinite regress. What caused the entity that caused the entity... that caused God.

2. The solid evidence for God is in the existence of the universe. Since it began 13.7 billion years ago, we cannot say it always was, and since Science tells us things do not spontaneously arise, it must have had a cause. I know of no better cause than God, as previously stated.
I don't know is an honest answer, but for the genuine inquirer, as an answer to the cause of the universe, it begs the question.
Because "bad things" happen, one of the common reasons I've discovered that atheists disbelieve in God is because they say "A good God would not allow that." The worst things that happen, war and famine and mass exterminations, are caused by humans, not God. As free-will moral agents, we are free to choose to do good or evil, and humankind reaps the consequences of those choices; many choose evil; God is not some cosmic cop preventing evil and only allowing good, otherwise, we would be robots.
kenblogton

[Inigo Montoya]

Kenblogton wrote:

God cannot have a beginning, or you get into an infinite regress

And we're done. Thanks for playing.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 1137 by kenblogton]

"Beginning" is a misnomer, it implies a transition.
The no boundary hypothesis that advocates that time only extends finitely into the past (that I support) explains this in its name. No boundary.

There wasn't a "no time" period and then a "time period", because that transition would be temporal. It would mean there was a "time before time".

This is why - as I've said before - I don't object to the hypothesis that time "begun" (scare-quotes) at the big bang - I object to the word beginning or origin.

It is a semantic point, but an arguably important point, that the Universe did always exist, because there isn't a time in which the Universe doesn't exist. Even if there was a "time before time"/"time outside time", that would not be requisite for existing "always". In other words, the Universe and time has (by definition) always existed for 13.7 bln years.


It seems an important objection to point out that there isn't a "no time" period nor a "no space" place in which God could create the Universe.

If God is to create the Universe, then cause does not precede effect. If cause does not precede effect, a first cause is not necessary to explain the Universe. (Not that I think it is in the first place)

[Peter]

[Replying to post 1132 by kenblogton]

kenblogton replied:
A God who exists in time and space and is corporal would be physical. But the physical does not begin until the dense singularity and big bang. Therefore God cannot be physical.
1. No one knows (as has been said to you many times here) what was before the singularity. This is the equivalent, is it not, of saying, "I'm guessing, 'cuz I really don't know". A guess is not a feasible answer. A feasible answer in this case, would be admitting "I don't know." Guessing that a supernatural source explains everything is a leap away from logic, not towards it.

As a side query, why is it hard to believe that nature may have no beginning, but not god?

A God who can create the remarkably complex and wonderfully crafted physical universe must be very wise and powerful, wouldn't you agree?
-kenblogton

2. If there were a shred of evidence, I might. But since there isn't, no. Besides, given what transpires naturally in this world (through no fault of man), I find it hard to fathom how anyone could believe in a benevolent god (disease, birth defects, natural disasters, cancer, etc). But that is besides the point. You have yet to argue successfully how god is the most feasible answer.

How is your argument more logically sound then saying "I don't know"? Or of the Ancient Greeks blaming Poseidon for the tides? They guessed too.

1. Science says there was nothing before the big bang;

Ken, for the love of God will you please stop asserting that nonsense? Science knows nothing about "before" the big bang! It's all speculation at this point.

2. The solid evidence for God is in the existence of the universe.

The existence of the universe is evidence for the existence of the universe. That's it! Since we don't know what caused the big bang or even if it required a cause it's impossible say what the big bang is evidence for.

Now, I totally understand that you really, really want to find some evidence for your personal god that will justify your belief but you still have to play by the rules. You can't just make stuff up and call it solid evidence.

[arian]

[Replying to post 1132 by kenblogton]

kenblogton replied:
A God who exists in time and space and is corporal would be physical. But the physical does not begin until the dense singularity and big bang. Therefore God cannot be physical.
1. No one knows (as has been said to you many times here) what was before the singularity. This is the equivalent, is it not, of saying, "I'm guessing, 'cuz I really don't know". A guess is not a feasible answer. A feasible answer in this case, would be admitting "I don't know." Guessing that a supernatural source explains everything is a leap away from logic, not towards it.

As a side query, why is it hard to believe that nature may have no beginning, but not god?

A God who can create the remarkably complex and wonderfully crafted physical universe must be very wise and powerful, wouldn't you agree?
-kenblogton

2. If there were a shred of evidence, I might. But since there isn't, no. Besides, given what transpires naturally in this world (through no fault of man), I find it hard to fathom how anyone could believe in a benevolent god (disease, birth defects, natural disasters, cancer, etc). But that is besides the point. You have yet to argue successfully how god is the most feasible answer.

How is your argument more logically sound then saying "I don't know"? Or of the Ancient Greeks blaming Poseidon for the tides? They guessed too.

1. Science says there was nothing before the big bang;

Ken, for the love of God will you please stop asserting that nonsense? Science knows nothing about "before" the big bang! It's all speculation at this point.

2. The solid evidence for God is in the existence of the universe.

The existence of the universe is evidence for the existence of the universe.

And an 'unobserved/unevidenced Big-bang' claimed happened 13.75 billion years ago is the evidence for, .. what?

Oh yea, .. for the Big-bang Theory, correct?

That's it! Since we don't know what caused the big bang or even if it required a cause it's impossible say what the big bang is evidence for.

The Big-bang theory is the evidence for the Big-bang theory, just as the complicated well designed universe is evidence for a Creator.

Now, I totally understand that you really, really want to find some evidence for your personal god that will justify your belief but you still have to play by the rules. You can't just make stuff up and call it solid evidence.

You guys do it all the time, like the Big-bang Evolution theory, it's a fact, .. it happened when one of these trillions of 'whatever that it was' you observe here in this universe today, silently imploded. Talking about making stuff up?

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 1132 by kenblogton]

kenblogton replied:
A God who exists in time and space and is corporal would be physical. But the physical does not begin until the dense singularity and big bang. Therefore God cannot be physical.
1. No one knows (as has been said to you many times here) what was before the singularity. This is the equivalent, is it not, of saying, "I'm guessing, 'cuz I really don't know". A guess is not a feasible answer. A feasible answer in this case, would be admitting "I don't know." Guessing that a supernatural source explains everything is a leap away from logic, not towards it.

As a side query, why is it hard to believe that nature may have no beginning, but not god?

A God who can create the remarkably complex and wonderfully crafted physical universe must be very wise and powerful, wouldn't you agree?
-kenblogton

2. If there were a shred of evidence, I might. But since there isn't, no. Besides, given what transpires naturally in this world (through no fault of man), I find it hard to fathom how anyone could believe in a benevolent god (disease, birth defects, natural disasters, cancer, etc). But that is besides the point. You have yet to argue successfully how god is the most feasible answer.

How is your argument more logically sound then saying "I don't know"? Or of the Ancient Greeks blaming Poseidon for the tides? They guessed too.

1. Science says there was nothing before the big bang;

Ken, for the love of God will you please stop asserting that nonsense? Science knows nothing about "before" the big bang! It's all speculation at this point.

2. The solid evidence for God is in the existence of the universe.

The existence of the universe is evidence for the existence of the universe.

And an 'unobserved/unevidenced Big-bang' claimed happened 13.75 billion years ago is the evidence for, .. what?

Oh yea, .. for the Big-bang Theory, correct?

That's it! Since we don't know what caused the big bang or even if it required a cause it's impossible say what the big bang is evidence for.

The Big-bang theory is the evidence for the Big-bang theory, just as the complicated well designed universe is evidence for a Creator.

Now, I totally understand that you really, really want to find some evidence for your personal god that will justify your belief but you still have to play by the rules. You can't just make stuff up and call it solid evidence.

You guys do it all the time, like the Big-bang Evolution theory, it's a fact, .. it happened when one of these trillions of 'whatever that it was' you observe here in this universe today, silently imploded. Talking about making stuff up?

Arian, your intentionally misstated and misrepresented offerings in the science forum get old quickly. It is painfully obvious you're not a physicist or a biologist by any stretch of the imagination. In countless posts you represent an ignorant summation of both the theory of evolution and the inflation model of the universe. There is no 'Big Bang Evolution theory.' All you seem capable of on this site, like countless others, is to take half-baked arguments based on woefully misunderst

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 1132 by kenblogton]

kenblogton replied:
A God who exists in time and space and is corporal would be physical. But the physical does not begin until the dense singularity and big bang. Therefore God cannot be physical.
1. No one knows (as has been said to you many times here) what was before the singularity. This is the equivalent, is it not, of saying, "I'm guessing, 'cuz I really don't know". A guess is not a feasible answer. A feasible answer in this case, would be admitting "I don't know." Guessing that a supernatural source explains everything is a leap away from logic, not towards it.

As a side query, why is it hard to believe that nature may have no beginning, but not god?

A God who can create the remarkably complex and wonderfully crafted physical universe must be very wise and powerful, wouldn't you agree?
-kenblogton

2. If there were a shred of evidence, I might. But since there isn't, no. Besides, given what transpires naturally in this world (through no fault of man), I find it hard to fathom how anyone could believe in a benevolent god (disease, birth defects, natural disasters, cancer, etc). But that is besides the point. You have yet to argue successfully how god is the most feasible answer.

How is your argument more logically sound then saying "I don't know"? Or of the Ancient Greeks blaming Poseidon for the tides? They guessed too.

1. Science says there was nothing before the big bang;

Ken, for the love of God will you please stop asserting that nonsense? Science knows nothing about "before" the big bang! It's all speculation at this point.

2. The solid evidence for God is in the existence of the universe.

The existence of the universe is evidence for the existence of the universe.

And an 'unobserved/unevidenced Big-bang' claimed happened 13.75 billion years ago is the evidence for, .. what?

Oh yea, .. for the Big-bang Theory, correct?

That's it! Since we don't know what caused the big bang or even if it required a cause it's impossible say what the big bang is evidence for.

The Big-bang theory is the evidence for the Big-bang theory, just as the complicated well designed universe is evidence for a Creator.

Now, I totally understand that you really, really want to find some evidence for your personal god that will justify your belief but you still have to play by the rules. You can't just make stuff up and call it solid evidence.

You guys do it all the time, like the Big-bang Evolution theory, it's a fact, .. it happened when one of these trillions of 'whatever that it was' you observe here in this universe today, silently imploded. Talking about making stuff up?

Arian, your intentionally misstated and misrepresented offerings in the science forum get old quickly. It is painfully obvious you're not a physicist or a biologist by any stretch of the imagination. In countless posts you represent an ignorant summation of both the theory of evolution and the inflation model of the universe. There is no 'Big Bang Evolution theory.' All you seem capable of on this site, like countless others, is attacking positions you don't understand and worse, thinking they somehow validate your own ideas of a given god construct.

Its not original, it's not accurate, it isn't honest and it's boring.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 1140 by Peter]
kenblogton said: 1. Science says there was nothing before the big bang;
Peter replied: Ken, for the love of God will you please stop asserting that nonsense? Science knows nothing about "before" the big bang! It's all speculation at this point.
kenblogton replied: Here's some of what Science says about before the big bang:
1. At http://www.deepastronomy.com/what-cause ... -bang.html, it says in part: "'What Caused the Big Bang?' Any answer to this problem must begin with a key realization: both time and space are contained within the universe and came into existence only AFTER the Big Bang occurred. The cause of the universe must not include them, they are not available to us. It must come from outside our experience."
kenblogton commented: in other words, there was no space or time [or matter or energy] - in other words, nothing physical before the big bang.
2. At http://www.nature.com/news/theoretical- ... me-1.13613, it says in part: Many researchers believe that physics will not be complete until it can explain not just the behaviour of space and time, but where these entities come from.
kenblogton commented: in other words, there was no space or time [or matter or energy] - in other words, nothing physical before the big bang.
3. At http://www.ask.com/question/what-do-mos ... e-big-bang, it says Many scientist believe that nothing existed before the Big Bang, that is just happened and nothing happened before it. There is really no way to know for sure if anything did happen or exist before. and Scientists know nothing about what happened before the Big Bang. and A scientist friend of mine tried (largely in vain) to explain this to me once. Whilst various theories abound, a widely accepted answer is that there was no "before the Big Bang.
kenblogton commented: in other words, there was no space or time [or matter or energy] - in other words, nothing physical before the big bang.
4. At http://space.about.com/od/astronomybasi ... iverse.htm, it says in part: In 1959 a survey was conducted of scientists across America concerning their understanding of the physical sciences. One particular question asked What is your concept of the age of the Universe? More than two thirds of the scientists polled responded that there was no origin of the Universe. They believed that the Universe was eternal. Then five years later, in 1964, radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a microwave signal buried in their data. They attempted to filter out the signal, assuming that it was merely unwanted noise. However, they soon realized what the signal actually was; they had inadvertently discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). The CMB had been predicted by a theory that few believed at the time called the Big Bang. This discovery was the first evidence that the Universe had a beginning. Once it was understood that the Universe had a beginning, scientists began to ask how did it come into existence, and what existed before it? Most scientists now believe that the answer to the first part of the question is that the Universe sprang into existence from a singularity -- a term physicists use to describe regions of space that defy the laws of physics. We know very little about singularities, but we believe that others probably exist in the cores of black holes. The second part of the question, as to what existed before the Big Bang, has scientists baffled. By definition, nothing existed prior to the beginning, but that fact creates more questions than answers. For instance, if nothing existed prior to the Big Bang, what caused the singularity to be created in the first place? Once the singularity was created (however it happened), it began to expand through a process called inflation. The Universe went from very small, very dense, and very hot to the cool expanse that we see today."
kenblogton commented: in other words, there was no space or time or matter or energy - in other words, nothing physical before the big bang.
5. 1. At http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sa ... ol1005.htm, it says in part: "7. The end of the beginning
a. In terms of big bang cosmology, four fundamental features describe the early universe:
i. singularity
ii. inflation
iii. cooling
iv. inhomogeneity
b. These four features lead directly through existing physical forces (though not correspondingly) to six fundamental requirements for the existence of life.
i. mass
ii. energy
iii. space
iv. time
v. atoms
vi. complexity
c. The logic:
i. Mass, energy, space, and time are all consequences of inflation from singularity.
ii. Matter as we know it came about upon cooling.
iii. The inhomogeneities present in the early universe are at the root of the complexity necessary for the existence of life. Particularly, the gravitational collapse of clouds of matter around inhomogeneities led to the formation of galaxies, stars, solar systems, and planets. Solar systems and planets allowed the formation and aggregation of complex carbon based molecules and other materials that form the basis for life.
kenblogton commented: in other words, there was no space or time or matter or energy - in other words, nothing physical before the big bang.
Do you get the message Peter: there was nothing physical before the big bang.

kenblogton said: 2. The solid evidence for God is in the existence of the universe.
Peter replied: The existence of the universe is evidence for the existence of the universe. That's it! Since we don't know what caused the big bang or even if it required a cause it's impossible say what the big bang is evidence for.
Now, I totally understand that you really, really want to find some evidence for your personal god that will justify your belief but you still have to play by the rules. You can't just make stuff up and call it solid evidence.
kenblogton replied: If you've read the above, you know:
1. I don't know is an honest answer as to what caused the physical universe to come into existence.
2. The coming into existence of the physical universe was caused. It did not always exist and it did not spontaneously arise.
3. A non-physical God is a possible cause and you have none better. Logic tells us the cause must be non-physical, since the physical BEGINS with the dense singularity-big bang. Pejorative statements are a tacit admission of an inherent weakness in your position.
kenblogton

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 1140 by Peter]
kenblogton said: 1. Science says there was nothing before the big bang;
Peter replied: Ken, for the love of God will you please stop asserting that nonsense? Science knows nothing about "before" the big bang! It's all speculation at this point.
kenblogton replied: Here's some of what Science says about before the big bang:
1. At http://www.deepastronomy.com/what-cause ... -bang.html, it says in part: "'What Caused the Big Bang?' Any answer to this problem must begin with a key realization: both time and space are contained within the universe and came into existence only AFTER the Big Bang occurred. The cause of the universe must not include them, they are not available to us. It must come from outside our experience."
kenblogton commented: in other words, there was no space or time [or matter or energy] - in other words, nothing physical before the big bang.

... Now you've stooped to a personal blog, of all places, for "what science says"?

"time came into existence after the big bang occurred"
False, "after" refers to a passage of time.
There was no time, and so there cannot be such a passage.

To rephrase what you said:
"The big bang occurred before time existed"
Before time?

2. At http://www.nature.com/news/theoretical- ... me-1.13613, it says in part: Many researchers believe that physics will not be complete until it can explain not just the behaviour of space and time, but where these entities come from.
kenblogton commented: in other words, there was no space or time [or matter or energy] - in other words, nothing physical before the big bang.

1) Many researchers believe
2) "Where these entities come from" assumes they have an origin which is not only presumptuous but logically fallacious.
"Where space comes from" would be a location or region in space. An origin is not self-sourced, because that is not an origin.
It's like saying "When time comes from"

3. At http://www.ask.com/question/what-do-mos ... e-big-bang, it says Many scientist believe that nothing existed before the Big Bang, that is just happened and nothing happened before it. There is really no way to know for sure if anything did happen or exist before. and Scientists know nothing about what happened before the Big Bang. and A scientist friend of mine tried (largely in vain) to explain this to me once. Whilst various theories abound, a widely accepted answer is that there was no "before the Big Bang.
kenblogton commented: in other words, there was no space or time [or matter or energy] - in other words, nothing physical before the big bang.

1) ask.com is your source
2) believe
3) All of the quotes said "nothing before the big bang". Do you know what the people you're quoting mean? They mean that there isn't such a thing as "before the big bang". They don't say "nothing physical before the big bang", that creates a dichotomy implying there could have been non-physical before.
In other words, the people you're quoting are also saying "no non-physical before the big bang". If you plan on using these quotes again, please mention this as well.


Additionally, the second quote seems to serve no purpose. If anything "There is no way to know for sure" and "know nothing about what happened" just undermines your argument.

4. At http://space.about.com/od/astronomybasi ... iverse.htm, it says in part: In 1959 a survey was conducted of scientists across America concerning their understanding of the physical sciences. One particular question asked What is your concept of the age of the Universe? More than two thirds of the scientists polled responded that there was no origin of the Universe. They believed that the Universe was eternal. Then five years later, in 1964, radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a microwave signal buried in their data. They attempted to filter out the signal, assuming that it was merely unwanted noise. However, they soon realized what the signal actually was; they had inadvertently discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). The CMB had been predicted by a theory that few believed at the time called the Big Bang. This discovery was the first evidence that the Universe had a beginning. Once it was understood that the Universe had a beginning, scientists began to ask how did it come into existence, and what existed before it? Most scientists now believe that the answer to the first part of the question is that the Universe sprang into existence from a singularity -- a term physicists use to describe regions of space that defy the laws of physics. We know very little about singularities, but we believe that others probably exist in the cores of black holes. The second part of the question, as to what existed before the Big Bang, has scientists baffled. By definition, nothing existed prior to the beginning, but that fact creates more questions than answers. For instance, if nothing existed prior to the Big Bang, what caused the singularity to be created in the first place? Once the singularity was created (however it happened), it began to expand through a process called inflation. The Universe went from very small, very dense, and very hot to the cool expanse that we see today."
kenblogton commented: in other words, there was no space or time or matter or energy - in other words, nothing physical before the big bang.

Are you sure you read this?

5. 1. At http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sa ... ol1005.htm, it says in part: "7. The end of the beginning
a. In terms of big bang cosmology, four fundamental features describe the early universe:
i. singularity
ii. inflation
iii. cooling
iv. inhomogeneity
b. These four features lead directly through existing physical forces (though not correspondingly) to six fundamental requirements for the existence of life.
i. mass
ii. energy
iii. space
iv. time
v. atoms
vi. complexity
c. The logic:
i. Mass, energy, space, and time are all consequences of inflation from singularity.
ii. Matter as we know it came about upon cooling.
iii. The inhomogeneities present in the early universe are at the root of the complexity necessary for the existence of life. Particularly, the gravitational collapse of clouds of matter around inhomogeneities led to the formation of galaxies, stars, solar systems, and planets. Solar systems and planets allowed the formation and aggregation of complex carbon based molecules and other materials that form the basis for life.
kenblogton commented: in other words, there was no space or time or matter or energy - in other words, nothing physical before the big bang.
Do you get the message Peter: there was nothing physical before the big bang.

You're the one who doesn't get the message, read your quotes again.
(Unless you think "this leads to the requirement of time for life" means "time and space begin with the big bang")

kenblogton said: 2. The solid evidence for God is in the existence of the universe.
Peter replied: The existence of the universe is evidence for the existence of the universe. That's it! Since we don't know what caused the big bang or even if it required a cause it's impossible say what the big bang is evidence for.
Now, I totally understand that you really, really want to find some evidence for your personal god that will justify your belief but you still have to play by the rules. You can't just make stuff up and call it solid evidence.
kenblogton replied: If you've read the above, you know:
1. I don't know is an honest answer as to what caused the physical universe to come into existence.
2. The coming into existence of the physical universe was caused. It did not always exist and it did not spontaneously arise.
3. A non-physical God is a possible cause and you have none better. Logic tells us the cause must be non-physical, since the physical BEGINS with the dense singularity-big bang. Pejorative statements are a tacit admission of an inherent weakness in your position.
kenblogton

2. is not an honest statement.
Trivially the Universe (at the very least, time) has always existed because There isn't a time when time does not exist.

Yes, this is a finite length of time according to most cosmologists (with an end point at or approaching the big bang), but this still means that the Universe always existed.

Why does it have to be caused? Even if you want to maintain "personal intuition demands it" in spite of lack of grounding, personal intuition also maintains that cause occurs before effect. Yet a cause cannot precede the beginning of time.

3. When you say "A non-physical God is a possible cause" you mean "A non-physical God is a plausible cause".
I of course dispute that any cause is plausible let alone possible.

[arian]

Arian, your intentionally misstated and misrepresented offerings in the science forum get old quickly.

Just point out my misstated and misrepresented offerings, and if I am wrong, I will accept it. But keep telling me I misstated and misrepresented something and having explained my stand/view a few hundred times, yes it does get old.

Remember what you guys keep saying regarding dozens of questions we Creationist point out and which you cannot answer, and you say that an acceptable answer for now is "We don't know"? What does that mean? Does that mean that if we Creationists know, it is not acceptable because "You Don't Know"?
Could the reason; "You Don't Know" be that you just refuse to accept obvious answers because it doesn't go well with your religion?

What you define as my misstated and misrepresented offerings are actually a summery of your BB Evolution theory, as a "misstated and misrepresented explanation of the existence of our universe, and biological life as we see it and observe it through science."
Now since the Universe is a working model, anyone, that is any genius to a fool could come up with a hypothesis how it came about, .. ANYONE. If you create paradox after paradox, or just make up some complex sci-fientific distractions for your explanations, hey, who cares? It's not like it will change the way the Universe is, right? And if you are wrong; "Hey, we already admitted We don't know!"

And sorry to say to you Evolutionary scientific geniuses, but "We don't know, .. It happened because it happens" is not an acceptable scientific answer, .. unless of course you are a Big-bang Evolutionary scientist/believer, which I am NOT.

It is painfully obvious you're not a physicist or a biologist by any stretch of the imagination.

I never said I was, but I can reason, and after reading different Big-bang Evolutionary concepts, it became painfully obvious that something dubious made these genius physicists, and biologist come up with the so called 'supporting evidence for Big-bang Evolution'. Some Divine influence if you will. I have already exhausted some of these here and in other posts.

May I ask if you are a Biologist or a Physicist?

In countless posts you represent an ignorant summation of both the theory of evolution and the inflation model of the universe.

You mean "I reveal" the ignorant summation of both the theory of evolution and the inflation model of the universe.

There is no 'Big Bang Evolution theory.'

Unfortunately, .. there is. So the best we Creationist can do is to reveal the devious 'intent' behind this religion and its ideologies and doctrines.

All you seem capable of on this site, like countless others, is attacking positions you don't understand and worse, thinking they somehow validate your own ideas of a given god construct.

I humbly ask you, or any layman or scientist here to present to me a 'concept', any concept on any level, .. even if I never heard of it before, which is just about every scientific concept I have debated on this here most precious 'Debating Christianity and Religion Forum' and see if I don't understand?

How about the "Twin Paradox", .. or "Theory of Relativity", .. or how about "Schrodinger's cat", .. or "The Double-Slit Experiment"? How about the difference between the god or gods you understand vs. our Creator mentioned in the Bible? Do you understand the concept of the difference between the brain and the mind? How about the concept of 'nothing', or 'time'?

Its not original, it's not accurate, it isn't honest and it's boring.

I know, I know like, .. evolution monkey to man, no, not monkey to man, but ape to man, .. wait, no since man is still an ape, no, .. wait; 'man is man, ape is man, monkey is not man, .. aahh! .. you just don't understand arian, monkey was always monkey and man was always man, and if a monkey would ever change into a man it would prove evolution wrong! Oh, boy, ... then you have the big-bang, no big bang but a silent inflation, no inflation but expansion that evolved into the universe we see today, .. wait, it didn't evolve but, .. but, .. oh you just don't understand this either arian, because you are boring.