Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Only someone with no understanding of the basics of space-time would ask the question as "where said singularity came from".

real, I don't have a need to cherry-pick from that link; I believe all of it. On the other hand, you have a problem with BB, so you're the one that needs to cherry-pick and challenge what it says. I'm sure I'm not the only one who wishes to see your challenges to that article.

Here's the link again - to make it "easy" for you. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

are you aware, rl, of some of the evidence that has been forwarded that is consistant with a BB?

So which version of the BB do you support, CI?

Was/is the universe 'eternal'? Or did it 'come into being' at the BB?

1) What is the Big Bang theory?
a) Common misconceptions about the Big Bang
In most popularized science sources, BBT is often described with something like "The universe came into being due to the explosion of a point in which all matter was concentrated." Not surprisingly, this is probably the standard impression which most people have of the theory. Occasionally, one even hears "In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded."

There are several misconceptions hidden in these statements:

---The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.

---BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like.

---The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space.

The famous cosmologist P. J. E. Peebles stated this succinctly in the January 2001 edition of Scientific American (the whole issue was about cosmology and is worth reading!): "That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began." (p. 44). The March 2005 issue also contained an excellent article pointing out and correcting many of the usual misconceptions about BBT.

In reality, some BBers think that the universe came into being at the BB --- or they may , as your link details, think that the universe is essentially eternal, having 'come into being' at NO point.

These are essentially philosophical differences and are supported by inferences drawn largely from circumstantial evidence; since neither side has empirical (i.e. scientific) evidence of what actually took place eons ago, since there was nobody there to observe it.

real life wrote:

These are essentially philosophical differences and are supported by inferences drawn largely from circumstantial evidence; since neither side has empirical (i.e. scientific) evidence of what actually took place eons ago, since there was nobody there to observe it.

You always get hung up on observation. Observation of an event is not required to prove (scientifically) an event. Only observation of the evidence is required.

real life wrote:

In reality, some BBers think that the universe came into being at the BB --- or they may , as your link details, think that the universe is essentially eternal, having 'come into being' at NO point.

Actually that's called the Steady State theory (the eternal one).

I can observe a burned out car by the side of the road. But if I didn't observe the event itself, the car is circumstantial evidence. I need more evidence to say how it got that way.

Objects in the universe are observed to move away from each other, but to say conclusively that it is due to an 'explosion' is an inference. The evidence itself is circumstantial.

Chumly wrote:

Only someone with no understanding of the basics of space-time would ask the question as "where said singularity came from".

For lack of a better way to phrase it, there it is.

Human language cannot well describe a 'time before' there was no 'Time', (and hence no 'before').

Likewise, there is not adequate language to describe 'where' something was if there was no 'where', i.e. Space did not exist.

So, if you'd like to furnish empirical evidence that the hypothetical singularity did not exist 'until' the BB, and the nature of the 'where' that it came from, go for it, Chumly.

Otherwise, you're simply defending a guess (the BB) with another guess (there was no Space/Time).

Alright, show how CMBR could ONLY have come from an explosion of a 'singularity' which existed 'before' the universe did.

As I posted on another thread.
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon -- it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flys back to its flock to claim victory."