(December 16, 2009 at 2:36 pm)Tiberius Wrote: So from your point of view, the science behind the Big Bang is useless, because we can't observe the Big Bang at all. Forget the effects, the evidence of universal expansion, blue and red shift, the spinning of the galaxies, etc, etc. We can't observe the Big Bang, therefore we can't say anything about it.
Evidence is what we need, and evidence is what we have. In the same way we can conclude that Pluto is in orbit (even though we've yet to see it complete one), we can conclude that solar systems form in a certain way, because we have seen them form at different stages, and we can make predictions from this data.
You also failed to answer any of my questions. You say that we have seen solar systems form at different stages by looking at the millions of solar systems out there which are at different stages of formation. I question how you know that the millions of solar systems out there are at different stages of the same kind of formation. You counter with a restatement of what you said in the first place like that should settle the issue or answer the question and bring up a bunch of things that have nothing to do with the questions I asked relative to the formation of our solar system. Why not just answer the questions or reasonably explain how or why my questions are unreasonable to begin with?
