Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
There's tons of evidence for the big bang, the fingers-in-the-ears-la-la-la argument doesn't work.
And of course the big bang theory doesn't address where the matter and energy came from, because it doesn't try.
Do you have any idea how silly you look when arguing this way? Why do you think it makes any sense at all wen you complain a theory doesn't answer a question that it never attempts to answer?
|
Ahh... what passes for Science now days! Once upon a time something had to be observable to be considered fact. Today you can come up with a theory and if you can observe a few circumstances that could add weight to the hypothesis then your theory is anointed as truth. The observable fact that the universe appears to be moving away from a common origin could be seen as circumstantial evidence for the existence of a Creator but, instead scientist use it as proof for the big bang. If it isn't evidence for one it shouldn't be used as evidence for the other.
The "big bang theory" to quote you is just that: a theory. The reason why it doesn't try to answer where the material came from necessary for the hypothesis is it doesn't have an answer. Imagine that! It's like someone come up with a theory how a chocolate cake was formed without any help from a creator and without any idea where the ingredients came from.