God vs Big Bang- Are either correct?

[sswhateverlove]

If you say you started first with physical observation, and then arrived at the conclusion that a massive invisible being must be behind what you've observed, you're a liar. You see, Creationism is not science. It's an insult to science-- a complete inversion of the right way of forming ideas about the world.
[/quote]

I never said anything of the sort. I get that most people who want to debate you are theists, but I am not. I am not a Creationist. I'm a skeptic. I'm skeptical of religion and I'm skeptical of many of the claims of science, not because I think their inherently wrong, but because I think those making the claims may be missing some very important variables when making claims about reality.

You keep wanting to present me as a religious fundamentalist, theist, creationist, which is not true. I find it interesting that when I made assumptions about atheist perspective, everyone wanted to hang me, but you're clearly claiming I have an opinion that I do not have and that's acceptable? Double standard anyone?

---

Most scientists would disagree with you. That's why their assertions are called "theories".
http://www.stats.org/faq_vs.htm

That article is addressing "public health professionals and pharmaceutical companies." Soft science it is much harder to prove causation. In hard science, like physics and chemistry, it is the expectation.

Now your really starting to sound like an ID troll when your going to use the non-science definition of theory.

It was a stat example that discussed how in order to claim causation, you have to be really sure you've controlled for all the possible variables.

My argument is that things like "dark matter" and "dark energy" (if we are to assume they are "things") are possible variables that would have to be considered before confirming causation with regard to many of the claims being made about our reality, how we experience it, and how it came to be.