The Big Bang is evidence for the existence of the supernatural

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

But these are what historical sciences do. And they are called science. The Big Bang for example cannot be proven to have happened. Its a conclusion based on the evidence we have on hand. Nevertheless, its a guess, it happend, as the current most accepted theory shows it did.

We're sure it happened because that's where all of the evidence points. That's how we know for the exact same reason that if we find a bloody knife in someone's back with the fingerprints of a specific jilted lover, we can conclude with a great deal of certainty that someone at a specific moment in time, based on evidence, that the jilted lover murdered the poor sap with the knife in the back.
The same sort of science goes into finding out things during the past. There's no guessing involved so much as following where the evidence of that time leads us. That's why we can only 'see' back to a certain point. It also means that scientists are using evidence to conclude with a great deal of certainty over something specific happening in the past.

Speciation is NOT Macro-evolution. If you want to prove Macro-evolution, you need to show, how animals developed new features, like feathers, new limbs etc. This has not been demonstrated so far. So Macro-evolution remains a theory. At best.

That's nice that you think that, but again, the evidence is overwhelmingly against you. All of these things have been already found, catagorized, labelled, studied, and written about at some length by evolutionary biologists, archeologists, etc etc etc from around the world for well over a century and a half with a great deal of accuracy.
So, despite what you may think, you're still wrong that it hasn't been proven.

More to a related point, I'm interested in how you can think micro-evolution can happen but macro-evolution can't, considering that there's no distinction between the two except the amount of time available. Microevolution happens over short time scales but macroevolution is the same thing, but with significantly more time allowed to happen. Proving one exists is the same as proving hte other exists since they're both the same thing.

The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing.

Theorems by Hawking and Penrose show that as long as the universe is governed by general relativity, the existence of an initial singularity-or beginning-is inevitable, and that it's impossible to pass through a singularity to a subsequent state. And there's no known physics that could reverse a contracting universe and suddenly make it bounce before it hits the singularity. The whole theory was simply a theoretical abstraction. Physics never supported it.

Oh please. I've actually read articles by both of those phyiscists and neither of them postulate what you just said. Utter nonsense.

You can speculate about a oscillating universe, but these theories have gone out of consideration because of the implications, which make these hypotheses very unlikely.

You know, you've been stating things like this over and over again when I've already made clear and with a great deal of scientific backing that BS like this just isn't true. The only thing I'm not sure of right now is whether or not you've simply retreated to repeating talking points based on the kool-aid you've been drinking off the creationist/christian websites or if you're deliberately attempting to mislead me into believing you because you say them.
Even if an oscillating universe is less likely than other postulations, the possibility hasn't been ruled out based on certain evidence-backed theories and even if that specific model is proven completely wrong, there is certainly other possibilities that can exist both in theory and others that haven't even been considered yet.

but you can try to provide another possible scenario. What else is left, if we include the possibility of a eternal universe in some form, and a universe, which came to be a finite time ago,at the Big Bang, from absolutely nothing ? Either the universe is finite, or its not. Thats all we have. I am wondering, why you try to attack this statement, if its plainly clear and logical.

A clear and logical statement does not absolutely imply that either option must be correct.
The only honest answer, as I've told you numerous times with evident backing, is that we don't know. No one does. So any attempt to provide such an answer, no matter how logical, is ultimately irrelevant because no answer can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

String theory is also pure speculation, without any evidence whatsoever to backup these models.

String theory, just like any other hypothosis that hasn't been answered yet, is of course supported by evidence. Specially all evidence on the topic of quantum phyiscs and astrophysics and everything in between. It's one of several attempts to explain the nature of the universe. It's favored among physicists because it very well unifies all known physics but its predictions haven't been proven experimentally yet.

As such, it is much more than a guess. It's a guess based on literally the entire body of scientific evidence from virtually all fields of physics. As such, the reason the theory exists is because the evidence we have point to this as enormously possibile as an account to unify all physics.

As such, you're absolutely wrong. It is not 'mere speculation.' It's a scientific hypothosis with a great deal of evident backing, similarly to many other theories based on the same evidence. All are equally possible until experimentation is done to prove one thing over another and a theory goes from hypothosis to theory - just like many other theories that have undergone the same process, like the heliocentric solar system.

wrong. I cited :

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivi...et_NDE.htm

Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands
Pim van Lommel, Ruud van Wees, Vincent Meyers, Ingrid Elfferich

... okay, fair enough. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as I may have clicked on the wrong link.
... skimming through the paper, I see no ties with any supernatural event. No attempt is made to explain the reason behind these NDEs and I have no reason whatsoever to believe this at all refutes my position on the matter.

As to your link with heavenforums, stop it. It's annoying, clearly biased (and thus their 'conclusions' are skewed toward the desire to find a specific answer), and therefore utterly irrelevant.

>snipped for space<
So she not only heard what was said to her, but she understood, and complied with the researchers’ requests to think about specific activities like playing tennis and walking across a room.

And what is this supposed to prove? If anything, all this tells me is that the parts of the patient's brain that recognizes words wasn't as dead as the rest of the patient's brain. It's very interesting, but I don't see how it proves conciousness outside of the body.

that is not a proven fact.

It doesn't at all surprise me that you share the position that theists and creationists have in which they can say that they can be convinced if enough proof were only uncovered. Yet, in all the time since the archeoptrix was uncovered, the proof has been piling up, and this goalpost has been becoming increasingly demanding. Still, it only proves that there are certain people win which no amount of evidence is proof.
We have a complete fossil record connecting humans to the animal kingdom. It was even proven that human beings are a kind of ape species even before Darwin penned his book and we've been a species of apes ever since with only more and more confirmation evidence to back this up.

"Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question.

That's not even a question that anyone has attempted to answer. That's not even how evolution works, and no amount of biased ignorance from people who blatantly reject evolution despite the demonsterable evidence to the contrary that you can quote is going to be capable of proving otherwise.
Evolution - micro and macro, as you call it - is the basis of several forms of science to the point that the 101 classes of these branches of science are required to teach it to know anything about these subjects. It's a fundemental part of nature that's been proven with every archeological find for centuries, every new detail we uncover from the genome of any living or sometimes unliving creature (such as RNA, viruses, and proteins).

My point is that you can reject the science behind it all you want and there are certainly creationists who agree with you. I don't doubt that. My point is that your viewpoint does not represent any kind of credible scientific viewpoint.

So where is the evidence through genetics, that we have a common ancestor, with all animals ?

... I'm starting to think that you really aren't reading my posts.
As I said in the last post, it's the same way we can prove that we're related to our family can show how much or how little we are related to, say chimpanzees, the hippopotomus, a red oak tree, a paramecium, and Kevin Bacon. Genetics not only can determine from what degree to which two subjects are related but also by looking at the similar and different genes (with knowledge of what these things do) and active and inactive genes we can determine how we're related.
For example, I can determine quite easily that a human is far more in common as well as the ways that a human is related to a cat simply by using this method. Having fossils also can confirm this as can genetics confirm fossils toward this end.

So yes, there is evidence. Mountains of it.

in a 2003 paper Dr. Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin showed that that the exact same issues of entropy that plagued earlier cyclic models still plagued Steinhardt and Turok’s model and that while it was possible for the cyclic model to be eternal into the future, it had to have a definitive beginning in the past.

Two things. First, once more, heavenforums and all the links I've managed to see once I got there is not science. At best, it's a rational arguement based on no evidence.

Second, even in the wikipedia article acknowledges that despite some difficulties with certain cyclic models, others and more modern versions do not have as many difficulties. Still, 'less likely' does not mean 'unlikely' - it simply means that other models are believed to be more likely given current data, but none of the possibilities, including some cyclic models, are ruled out as distinct possibilities with firm footing in the science that it is concerned with.