The Big Bang is evidence for the existence of the supernatural

[NoGodaloud ?]

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.

And based on the same reasoning, i conclude with a great deal of certainty, God exists.
The very existence of our universe, its beginning, the fine-tuning of the laws of nature, the constants of physics, and the initial conditions of the universe, the contained specific and complex information in DNA, the complexity of a cell and its irreducible complexity, human consciousness and ability of speech and thinkink, its consciousness of morality, and the bible do let me conclude with a great deal of certainty, God exists. Where is the difference ?

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.

Show me the proof then.

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.

then you should have no difficulty to show you are right. Please show me. Bring examples.

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.[/quote]

That was not ME saying this. That was THEM. Show me wrong.

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.

a amazing faith you have..... amazing.....in naturalism. however, you reject theism at ANY cost as probable rational explanation. Why ?

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.

your evasion is evident.

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.

Last December ('05), physicists held the 23rd Solvay Conference in Brussels, Belgium. Amongst the many topics covered in the conference was the subject matter of string theory. This theory combines the apparently irreconcilable domains of quantum physics and relativity. David Gross a Nobel Laureate made some startling statements about the state of physics including: "We don't know what we are talking about" whilst referring to string theory as well as "The state of physics today is like it was when we were mystified by radioactivity."

Coming from a scientist with establishment credentials this is a damning statement about the state of current theoretical models and most notably string theory.The end result of string theory is that we know less and less and are becoming more and more confused. Of course, the argument could be made that further investigations will yield more relevant data whereby we will tweak the model to an eventual perfecting of our understanding of it. Or perhaps 'We don't know what we are talking about.'

great evidence you have.....

... 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.

of course. Its a scientific paper...... dualism is clearly evidenced. Does not see it, who does not want to.

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.

thats my personal virtual library. As long as i cite secular scientists, what matters, if my website is biased? How about you ? your bias is obvious too......

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.

http://worldview3.50webs.com/naturalism.html

The first proposition we've listed for naturalism states that "Matter/Energy is all there is for eternity,..." and if this is true, then the totality of man is only matter. If there is some degree of consciousness and thought in the brain of man, that thinking is still only a result of matter's properties. Why would these "thoughts" produced by matter (the chemical brain of man) correspond to the truth of reality? Matter has no known interest in truth. Why should chemicals be able to distinguish illusion from reality, since there is no rational and purposive cause for the existence of man or his mind,? ...Of course, naturalists may appeal to scientific inquiry and the laws of logical thought. But this begs the question, because it is the chemical brain which is "thinking" and using the scientific method and the laws of thought ...all of which might still be an illusion, and not reality. C.S.Lewis quotes Prof. Haldane as saying, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms" ("Miracles", p.18). This may be like the motion of atoms to create "thoughts" in a computer ...what is to determine whether those computer "thoughts" are true or not? If naturalism is right, and matter is all there is, then even our "thoughts" about thinking and the brain and everything else may be nothing but illusion.

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.

then you should try to explain, how our ability to speak, and to think, has evolved..... good luck.

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.

it seems you forgot were the answer came from :

Patterson, Colin [late Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London

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).

Show the evidence. Baseless assertions wont do it to convince me.

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.

The viewpoint isn't scientific in any case. Its just a viewpoint. Creationists just interprete the scientific discoveries in a different way.

... I'm starting to think that you really aren't reading my posts.

i am reading them. What you are doing so far, is just throwing around baseless assertions. Please start to present the evidence.

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.

Present the evidence. Where is it ?

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.

Present a scientific paper to back up your claims.

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.

So Guth and Vilenkin are not scientists, just because cited at my forum ? and what they say, isnt science neither ? i think i am starting wasting my time......

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.

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

The oscillating model appears to be physically impossible. For all the talk about such models, the fact seems to be that they are only theoretically, but not physically possible. As the late Professor Tinsley of Yale explains, in oscillating models "even though the mathematics say that the universe oscillates, there is no known physics to reverse the collapse and bounce back to a new expansion. The physics seems to say that those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, then end."[22] In order for the oscillating model to be correct, it would seem that the known laws of physics would have to be revised. (ii) The oscillating model seems to be observationally untenable. Two facts of observational astronomy appear to run contrary to the oscillating model. First, the observed homogeneity of matter distribution throughout the universe seems unaccountable on an oscillating model. During the contraction phase of such a model, black holes begin to gobble up surrounding matter, resulting in an inhomogeneous distribution of matter. But there is no known mechanism to "iron out" these inhomogeneities during the ensuing expansion phase. Thus, the homogeneity of matter observed throughout the universe would remain unexplained. Second, the density of the universe appears to be insufficient for the re-contraction of the universe. For the oscillating model to be even possible, it is necessary that the universe be sufficiently dense such that gravity can overcome the force of the expansion and pull the universe back together again. However, according to the best estimates, if one takes into account both luminous matter and non-luminous matter (found in galactic halos) as well as any possible contribution of neutrino particles to total mass, the universe is still only about one-half that needed for re-contraction