Quote:
|
And you should know that for something to be considered scientifically valid, it has to be observable and reproducable. The Big Bang theory is neither. It's not like evolution theories that are observable by forcing selection. The Big Bang, as well as the Big Crunch are 2 theories that cannot be proven (not even close in fact). Do you disagree with that?
|
As I noted above,
nothing in science is ever proven. Your question is invalid.
And as troutman and others have posted, there is ample empirical evidence to support the big bang theory.
Quote:
|
the Big Bang does not have enough evidence to be considered science fact
|
Again, there's no such thing as "science fact". By your standard, atomic theory and quantum mechanics would also be unacceptable, since we can't observe the interaction of electrons and other sub-atomic particles directly.
Quote:
|
even NASA agrees, yet you don't for some reason
|
I'd like to know who wrote that quotation you posted from the NASA website. Was it a scientifically-trained astrophysicist, or was it an administrator appointed by the Bush administration? It certainly doesn't sound like something a scientist would say; it very much sounds like something a Bush flunkie who doesn't want to offend the Religious Right would say.
Quote:
|
Despite this, it is generally accepted. That is faith my friend.
|
It most certainly is not "faith". Scientists are prepared to very quickly abandon the big bang theory if a better alternative model emerges that is supported with empirical evidence.