real life wrote:timberlandko wrote:RexRed wrote:So what came first, God or the big bang?
That's an absolutely meaningless question, Rex, and further confirmation of your ignorance of science and your slavery to superstition - there is empirical, reproduceable, independently verifiable, quantifiable, multiply cross-corroborated evidence for the "Big Bang" - such a phenomenon is consistent with observation, known scientific law and theory, and the math works. No deistic construct is supportable through the same methodology.
Empirical? Really -- observed by whom?
Reproduceable? Has it been -- or is that something that is being planned (with your assist, no doubt)?
Independently verifiable? Really -- a second observer? Who?
Quantifiable? You're guessing --again. Without knowing your starting point, you are simply guessing at what was in between then and now.
You're flaunting your position's inherent ignorance. Empirically observed, quantified and recorded by astronomers and cosmologists from Copernicus, Tycho, Keppler, and Gallileo through the teams today directing radiometric astronomical research and deep space probes such as the Voyagers, confirmed and independently verified by physicists and mathemeticians. While surprises and amazing discoveries are the stuff of such research, what has been found and verified - over the past half millenia - is wholly consistent with, matches theoretical predictions developed through, does not in any way contraindicate but rather reinforces and further develops, The Big Bang Theory. The confirmatory observations continue to build, becoming ever more precise and detailed with technology's advance, and, at the very end, the math works, all the way back to the Planck Horizon - a phenomenon observed and confirmed, a phenomenon predicate upon the emergence and expansion of the universe from a dimensionless point singularity some 14 BYA, give or take a few hundred Million years. You can refuse to understand and/or accept that, but you can't change the facts that the observations are consistent with the theory's predictions, that the math works, and that apart from details of particular specific, as-yet-not-conclusively-determined mechanics, there is no counter theory endorsed by any but a very few, generally dubiously credentialled, contrarians outside the overwhelming consensus of legitimate scholars and researchers accreditted, credentialed, and active in the fields of study at discussion.
