The Big Bang is evidence for the existence of the supernatural

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

It must be noted the distinction between normal (operational) science, and origins or historical science. Normal (operational) science deals only with repeatable observable processes in the present, while origins science helps us to make educated guesses about origins in the past.

Yeah about this 'historical science' thing... no. If it is what you say it is, then it can never be rightfully be called sciecne because 'educated guesses' cannot make testable predictions unless it's also based on something substantive.

We are talking about evolution, a theory that tries to tell us what happened in an unseen, unobservable, unrepeatable past. The fact that someone invents a natural "explanation" for something that is unseen, unobserved — and hence unscientific — does not mean that that explanation has any basis in reality. Without supporting evidence, it is a mere suggestion, a speculation. The fact that someone can devise a natural explanation in the context of this "theory", which makes unscientific claims about a hidden past, says nothing about the truth.

Actually, it's readily apparent in the past because of everything we've dug up from the ground, revelations in genetics, observations both in laboratory conditions, observations 'on the field' in nature, and nature has readily preserved fossils and a genetic code markers that date all the way back to the beginning of life on this planet billions of years ago.
Below is a link of observed evolution, a few of which actually resulted in species that were no longer compatible with its parent species.
Observed speciation (evolution) of a multiple species
The amount of evidence is favor of the sort of evolution that scientists speak of is utterly undeniable.

Fine. Lets cite some literate scientists then.

A fat lot of good that your link provided. All of them are out of context and the first one from Stephen Hawking already allowed me to point out that he doesn't seriously believe that the Universe was created at the big bang. All of them are clearly only saying the same thing with only slight variations of the same theme - "the universe began" ... "the universe began" ... "the universe began". As you note, I didn't argue with this summation because none of them say anything about the universe having been created at the moment of the big bang. Our universe certainly began at the big bang, as I've been saying, but only because everyone you've quoted understands that our ability to garner information about the universe can only go back to the big bang and not prior, so Hawking mentioned, the universe essentially began at the big bang.
None of those quotes has anything about the 4 x 10^69 joules of energy of everything that currently exists in the universe with energy was created at the same time the big bang happened. It's entirely an acknowledgement of our inability to obseve events prior to the big bang.

For example you cannot PROVE gravity will always be consistent at all times. You can only observe that it’s consistently true every time. Nearly all scientific laws are based on inductive reasoning. All of science rests on an assumption that the universe is orderly, logical and mathematical based on fixed discoverable laws.You cannot PROVE this. (You can’t prove that the sun will come up tomorrow morning either.) You literally have to take it on faith. In fact most people don’t know that outside the science circle is a philosophy circle. Science is based on philosophical assumptions that you cannot scientifically prove. Actually, the scientific method cannot prove, it can only infer.(Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe which obeys fixed, discoverable laws - and because of those laws, He would not have to constantly tinker with it in order for it to operate.)

I never made the attempt to prove anything was consistent 100% of the time. I even explicitly mentioned that in my last post. I can say, however, with a great deal of certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow at a specific time. Still, no, what's happening with the fact that I'm predicting the sun will rise tomorrow is relying on centuries of knowledge of solar and lunar cycles and the laws that have been observed to govern the earth, sun, and moon that make these repeatable predictions possible.
I'm very well aware that, for whatever reason, the sun may not rise tomorrow as the earth's rotation could stop, the sun could suddenly halt its nuclear fusion at its core, the earth could be flung out of the sun's orbit, or some other horrible catastrophe and all that can stop. That's the nature of predicting the future. Still, I can say with a great deal of certainty that it's likely the sun will rise tomorrow just as it has for billions of years of earth's history, all the above doomsday scenarios are extremely unlikely, and that the natural laws have been consistent with continued observation. There isn't a lick of blind faith that's at all necessary to make future or past predictions based on the science done today.

I've not said, it would be more simple. I said the only rational deduction is, if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. From absolutely nothing, nothing derives.

It's a rational deduction based on faulty information and assumptions without the benefit of evidence that produces the false dilemma that you've presented to me. The faulty assumptions include things like how the universe MUST have begun or how the universe MUST be either eternal or finite, beginning at the big bang. Niether of those things are provable or even knowable with current methods of gleaning information about the universe's origins because we can only look back in time to a point during the big bang.

Its enough that he aknowledges that the universe had a beginning. The rest is his personal opinion. Nothing more.

He certainly does. It's interesting that you can pick and choose what his personal opinion is and distinguish between his professional opinion in what is clearly a professional paper. I wasn't aware that scientists, particularly those as well known and in the spotlight as he is, can get away with putting personal opinions of things in his professional work.

sprang into existence. What does that mean to you ?

... no. No it doesn't. Not when he also utterly confirms the point I've made in his overall paper. Otherwise, you're just picking and choosing small, out-of-context quotes that allow you to think that certain people are acknowledging your worldview when they so very clearly disagree with you.

and how do you know, this clearly isnt the case anymore ???

I've read books and papers by two of those individudals (Hawking and Penrose) precisely on this topic. Niether of them say that the universe was created at the moment of the big bang. Penrose in particular has gone on about the string theory's method of creating universes, which has clear implications on events prior to the big bang. I'll give you a hint - an eternal hyperintelligence isn't involved at all.
While I'm unaware of George Ellis' work and I've not seen any literature of his findings in the realm of astrophysics, I would find it difficult to believe that, if he were an physicist as Penrose and Hawking are, that he would disagree with them in the matter of the beginning of the universe.

Dr. Ken Ring published a paper in the Journal of Near-Death Studies (Summer, 1993) concerning near-death experiencers who, while out of their bodies, witness real events that occur far away from their dead body. The important aspect to this phenomenon is that these events seen far away are later verified to be true. Experiencers not only witness events from great distances, but they have been documented to hear conversations between people at the same events. Conversations such as these have also verified to be true. An even more fascinating phenomenon occurs when the experiencer actually appears in spirit to someone, usually a loved one, during their NDE and it is verified to be true by the experiencer and the loved one. It is evidence such as this, if scientifically controlled, that can provide absolute scientific proof that consciousness can exist outside of the body. A scientifically controlled NDE that can be repeated which provides such evidence would be the scientific discovery of all time. However, science does not yet have the exact tools to accomplish this. But, science is coming very, very close. This kind of evidence and others provide very strong circumstantial evidence for the survival of consciousness.

I don't have the time or energy to dubunk everything you've thrown at me in your links because we're talking hours of time just to drudge up all the information I'd need, but I'll attempt to cover what I can in a cogent manner.

First off, it's readily apparent that your link isn't one to a scientific paper. This person's website where he's releasing his information: http://www.near-death.com/index.html is clearly a religious leaning website which also means that it's not a scientific place for papers to be peer-reviewed. Their entire viewpoint is scewed to a certain perspective that's unacceptable in scientific fields.

Second, he provides no evidence whatsoever of the conciousness actually vacating the body that can't also be proven simply by actions on the brain. Things like knowing what's going on during surgury isn't unusual. Some patients are even known to completely awaken during a surgery despite whatever anesthetics the patient might be under. It's not too much of a stretch to also believe that an out-of-body experience, brought on by the brain surgery, which seems to be in many of these examples, was brought on by having that clustesr of nerves in the brain stimulated while also being at least somewhat awake during surgery and listening in to what was going on with the brain filling in details where necessary.
I've yet to see 'evidence' that isn't some variation on things happening above or readily differientiated between neural activity and any supernatural explanation.

If you want to impress anyone with this information, get an example of a completely sensory-deprived patient who cannot sense anything outside of a deprievation tank. Then get two people to converse in another room that is specified to the individudal in the tank. Induce an out-of-body experience in that person and have him or her describe the individuals in the designated room and reiterate what they're discussing.
Instead, the 'proof' is easily explainable by the brain simply not being 'dead' and watching and listening to things going on around him or her during this OOB expeirence. The thing about the events in which people experience things farther away is that, assuming for example, it's out of the hospital for a brain cancer patient, is that it's easily 'guessed and 'verified' by simplying finding someone, somewhere that matches the description stated by the patient, assuming that the patient didn't somehow witness it without remembering (such as by looking out a window) or some other explanation.

Still, the point of all this is that no, there really isn't a whole lot here that can't be explained by the brain simply acting up. This has even been proven in a laboratory multiple times that people can have an out of body experience with a natural causation.

you can call evolution science. But macro evolution has not been proven true until today.....

It's been proven ever since the archeoptrix was uncovered as the link between dinosaurs and birds. This was done in Darwin's own lifetime. I can't even describe to you about the libraries and museums full of evidence of this very thing but what I can tell you is that the people working in this field are far more aware of the vast completeness of the fossil record dating all the way back to the beginning of life on this planet that hasn't made its way to popular media or even any one particular library or museum. This information, however, is largely available in places like this:
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subject...tion.shtml
This:
http://www.earthlife.net/mammals/evolution.html
This:
http://www.biology-online.org/10/13_early_mammals.htm
This:
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/137/1/243
This:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/pdf_extract/267/5198/637
This:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/4523440
This:
http://www.praize.com/members/cforumsatt...lution.pdf

... and that's just what I dug up on a google search. The first few being on a standard search and the remainder done with a focus on scholarly papers concenring evolution of early mammals.
The scholarly papers brought 363 thousand hits on that specific topic, not to mention what you can find on evolutionary biology in libraries and museums. The best you've gotten for me is 'creationwiki' and 'heavenforums' and other websites that have nothing to do with science, everything to do with attempting to use any method they can with proving a heavily biased viewpoint, and nothing to do with truth.

has evolution adequately explained enough within its biological framework? The answers for many is no! Even if it could, does it make such stories that the evolutionists make factual? No! Because science cannot deal with the past outside human experience and there is no way of verifying what happened in that past. Without verification, we can speculate and give "explanations", but they have no truth value. The circumstantial evidence paraded as unambiguously pointing to evolution is not so unambiguous.
Also the things explained by evolution, a good number of them, if not all of them, can be explained from another framework other than the theory of evolution, i.e. research into creation science.

Creation science isn't. There's nothing scientific about it. There's zero evidence for it and no testable predictions that can be gleaned from it.
Evolution is a theory designed to explain the process of speciation over time. The current fossil record supports this, as does biology, genetics, and probably a few things I'm forgetting offhand. To say this hasn't been verified is a massive exercise in ignorance over an undeniable fact that is now the basis of many forms of science including medicine and biology.
One of the most probable methods, for example, of bringing dinosaurs back from the dead involve finding a species of bird and reverse-engineering its genetic code by shutting off the newest genetic markers and changes in the DNA until the species it was millions of years ago is again reformed. This is far more probable than finding its DNA in the wild and mixing it with modern species (such as a frog, done in Jurassic Park) and the result would be far more accurate using the exact same method of finding out that you're related to other people, which can go as far back as the early human ancestors in Africa (as far as I know) and europe in some cases, since it's apparently become recent that europeans have a not-insignificant amount of DNA from Neanderthals. This is done entirely through genetics, though the fossil record allows us to paint early human migration matters over the course of our history prior to known civilizations and thus historical accounts.
Things like this very article (click here).
Things like that are embedded in our very genetic code and it almost reads literally like a book, if you understand its language. When you do, you can see far into our own history, made very complete with the readily apparent and overabundant fossil record of human evolution over time.

These are things that are readily apparent assuming you're not reading into the heavily biased viewpoint of creationism.

Its up to you to show me, the dilemma presented is false. Can you ? If not, why do you not aknowledge i might be right, there are no more options ? are you being honest ?

As a matter of fact, I have. Just not in the manner in which you specifically instructed. For that, you'll have to go back and re-read my original post concerning this topic.

@ Adrian:
To be fair to nogodaloud, he didn't say that X was true because someone said it, I believe he was making the point that these people agree with is position.

@ Lastpoet:
Awesome. Awesome to the MAX... and thank you.