The Big Bang is evidence for the existence of the supernatural

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Where is the difference ?

Evidence. Proof. Evolution/big bang/science has it. "Creation science' does not.

Show me the proof then.

I HAVE been showing you proof. The fact that you've apparently chosen to ignore the scientific papers showing results of scientists posting about these topics has apaprently done nothing to dispel these icipid requests.
Aside from showing you scientific reports, pointing you toward museums and libraries that'll most certainly have far more information than you need on evolution, human and otherwise, then aside from getting research funding myself, doing twenty or more years of research, and video recording and sending you all of the results, what more do you honestly want me to do?

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

I'm telling you that either you're misquoting them, bring them out of context, or blatantly falsifying what they're saying. You certainly have gone to zero lengths to at least prove that what you say they said is written somewhere.
I've read several books and articles from both of those physicists and you're telling me the opposite thing that they've written about.
Since I'm sure I'm going to get slammed by 'which books' - I'll point to the one's I've read:
The Universe in a Nutshell by Stephan Hawking
The Nature of Space and Time by Stephan Hawking and Roger Penrose
The Grand Design by Stephan Hawking and Mlodinow Leonard
I've also read this book by Brian Greene on the nature of space-time

I've been reading books like tihs since I was in Jr. High School and there are probably a good deal more than I'm forgetting about that I've read. So, I think I know what I'm talking about when I say that your quote-mined and out-of-context quotes that you did not provide a link for or even have you pointed me in the right direction of where these individuals stated these things gives me enough authority to say that no you're absolutely wrong. They either didn't say those things or they did but in a context that means something different than what you think it means.

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

Evidence. Proof. Science has it. Creationism and theism do not.

your evasion is evident.

I haven't evaded anything. I've given you your answer. I've already stated it more than twice.

Last December ('05), physicists held the 23rd Solvay Conference in Brussels, Belgium....

... okay?
I never attempted to prove string theory, so I don't know what you attempted to prove here.
String Theory is a unification of all physics-related sciences related to things big and small from the atom to the super-cluster. There's plenty of evidence that forms the basis of which string theory is postulated among other possible theories as well.
Which does mean that string theory has not been proven and hasn't been for some time. However, that does NOT mean someone just guessed it and now they're trying to prove it. That's not how science works.

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

What evidence for dualism? Where in that paper is it?

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......

I have a bias, such that it is, against using imagination in place of fact. Fantasy in place of truth. And religion in place of science.
Your website has an agenda, like all creationist, religious, and biased websites. They do not go where the evidence leads them, they make a conclusion and attempt to find evidence to support it. That's the difference between theism and science. That's why science is consistent and can make contributions to society in a meaningful manner.
This process has led to evolution, big bang, heliocentrism of the solar system, a round earth, gravity, computers, the steam engine, and just about everything else you can think of.
This is why alchemy and astrology are not science and chemistry and astronomy are.
This is why evolution is taught in high school biology.
This is why relativity is widely 'believed' to be true.
This is why we think the earth is 4.54 billion years old instead of 6010 years old.

I do not choose my own facts. They are not a choice. My bias, such as you call it, is because I have chosen to reject fantasy in place of science. Replacing making up my own answers for discovering the answers that I can prove to others and can be proven to me.
The reason I choose to have a bias toward proof, evidence, testibility, and science, is because it provides me with answers that change only with new evidence and not a change of opinion or delusion.

That is why in a contest of facts, science will eventually bring us again to the moon, to the stars, and unlock the secrets of our past and our future while religion will still quibble over who is going to hell and who isn't, who doeserves god's wrath and who doesn't, and how many virgins I get in the afterlife for killing as many people as I can when I blow myself up.

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

That's nice to see what a christian website decides to think about what is and is not a worldview. If I wanted to buy into what religious websites thinks, I'd go to conservapedia to be told that atheism is a disease that causes me to perform abortions on every pregnant woman I see and gradually become hitler or that Einstein's theory of relativity is the cause for moral relativism and is wrong because of Jesus performing 'action at a distance.'
Once more you've provided me with nonsense.

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

Human Speech (articles):

The Evolution of Human Speech
MIT: No Easy Answers for the Evolution of Human Speech
(The above article explains that the process was complex - not that it did't happen or whatever ID nonsense you're likely to retort with.)
The Origin of Speech
Evolution of Human Speech

Human Speech (Books):
Eve Spoke: Human Language and Human Evolution
On the Evolution of Human Speech
The Human Speech Sounds
Strickburger's Evolution 4th Edition
(The above is actually a textbook concerning evolution in general. I do not know if it is a high school or a college textbook, but I find it more likely to be the latter given the presentation of the content and the book is far more specific than a textbook you'd get for a biology class. Still, it covers human evolution.)
On the Evolution of Human Behavior: The Arguement from Animals to Man
Mirror Neurons and the Evolution of Brain and Language
The Evolutoin of the Chinese Language: As Examplifying the Origin and Growth of Human Speech

The Evolution of the Human Mind (Articles):

Humans: THe Mind's Big Bang
Evolutoin and Human Origins
The Evolution of the Human Brain
Evolution of the Human Mind
THe Origins of the Human Mind: Insights from Brain Imaging and Evolution

The Evolution of the Human Mind (Books):

Evolution of the Huma Mind: Modularity, Language, and Meta-Cognition
Kludge: The Haphazard Evolution of the Human Mind
On the Origin of the Human Mind
Cosmic Conciousness: A Study of the Evolution of the Human Mind
The Evolution of Mind: Fundemental Questions and Controversies

And for the Bonus: Animal Language (Books and Articles):

Animal Talk: Breaking the Codes of Animal Language
Animal Language Institute
Website featuring published papers and books that have evidently been peer reviewed
Animals: Animal Language
Animal Cognition

Everything above has their own cited sources, studies, scientifically peer reviewed, or have plenty of evidence to back up their claims or some combination of all of the above. Not one like that you've shown me that supports any claim you've made has even one of qualifiers.
That's just what I can search for on google as I sit here on this computer, it doesn't include the mountains of work done that has been published in libraries, library articles, museums, professional papers, news/web/digital articles, book stores (barnes and noble, college, etc), etc. etc. etc.

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

And?

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

It's not necessary for me to convince you. I've told you where you can find the evidence. I've shown you many articles and books on the topic just from google searches. You can find all of the infomormation you'll ever need on the topic simply by looking for it. I've even given it to you as much as I can from here.
I've no need to convince you. I've given you the evidence and whether or not you choose to accept it is irrelevant. I've proven that the evidence is quite overwhelmingly in favor of evolution by pointing to you the people who have studied it from the articles they write about it.

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

You've made that point quite evident. They certainly do.

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

Baseless means my assertions have niether merit nor evident backing. I can reasonably say that I've proven the opposite case over the course of this discussion.

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.

Genetic Similarity of Intestinal Spirochetes from Humans and Various Animal Species
Functional and Comparative Genomics Fact Sheet
Mouse in Science: Why Mice?
Ask a Biologist: Human DNA vs. Other Species
Human Genetics: Problems and Approaches (Page 607)

The second to last one I suppose technically isn't a scientific paper, but it's still someone asking a biologist a relevant question, but that's at least four.

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......

They're not scientists because instead of getting their work peer-reviewed by other scientists and putting their work up to scrutiny, they've decided to allow a biased viewpoint to intercede on any scientific supposition they propose, which prevents anything they do from being anything like science.
It's not 'just because' they submitted their work to your website, it's because they've confused belief with fact and evidence.

The oscillating model appears to be physically impossible.

That's nice. So you've managed to find someone who supports the cosmological arguement with all the same zero evidence supporting his position. Swell.