The Big Bang is evidence for the existence of the supernatural

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

there is no proof in historical sciences.

Well, what you call 'historical science' has more going for it than any theory you've presented in response.

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.

You HAVE supporting evidence. Mountains of it. Your ability to accept it in lieu of whatever fantasy you've concocted is not required.

ok. You want to discuss the evolution theory ?

You know what? whatever. Don't answer. I've already proven my point beyond a reasonable doubt.
You've already proven that no matter what I show you, no matter how much science and positive proof that I have to back up my claims, you're doing nothing but demanding that I keep doing more.

I've already proven that your cosmological arguement is bunk.
I've provided numerous scientific papers backed with scientific study in support of evolution and all of the sciences that have been brought up in this discussion.
The scant few secular scientists you've managed to drudge up against me have only supported me when I've brought them into their proper context.

All you've managed to provide me with are links to people who make things up and pass it as science because you seem to have the preconcieved notion that making things up and trying to find evidence for it is the same thing is scientific research.

It's not the same thing. Science goes where the evidence points and changes its theories with new evidence. Theism uses evidence to prove a preconcieved point and discards evidence that don't point in that direction. Theism has no evidence in support of any of its supernatural claims. Not one of any of the so called creation scientists you've showed me can even be publishd in scientific circles precisely because of this reason and thus you haven't even provided anything to counter any of the overwhelming evidence for the big bang, evolution, or any of the other topics that have been brought up.

This entire thread has been about the big bang being evidence for the supernatural. I've already thoroughly debunked this notion and you've given me nothing to scientificially counter any of my statements or whatever proofs I've provided.

at the webpages, where you find the quotes, you will find the source mentioned. That will be your tool to prove me wrong.

When you provide for me a link to an actual scientific paper, I'll address it.

Ok. Pick just one quote of mine, and show me, how i misleaded you.

Both of your prior quotes from Hawking and from... yahoo answers or whatever it was. You quoted both of them but the context of neither one supported any theological implications of a supernatural origin. Hawking even specifically refuted that point.

So, where is your claimed evidence, if Nobel Laureate David Ross admits openly they don't not even know what they are talking about......

Missed my point entirely... no matter. Then provide evidence that he is speaking for every physicist who has ever acknowledged and/or works with string theory. You've managed to grab one guy at a physics conference who says 'I don't know what the F we're doing" and the amusing thing is that you think this completely invalidates the entire idea.
Sorry, things don't really work like that. That's why I'm not really taking this particular arguement seriously.

Since you still haven't bothered to show me where you got the quote, I can't even confirm if it isn't BS or not like your other religious-laden "science" links.

But you have made the assertion there is evidence to back it up. Please show the evidence.

What evidence is going to satisfy you? I don't mean to this particular response, but over any of the topics? I've provided you with link after link to legitimately scientific papers with all the results of decades of study and those papers themselves reference other works from researchers on the same topic.

i have shown you some already.

No you haven't. You've provided a link to the entire paper and basically said "here. this proves blah."

And you want me make believe, you don't have one, too ?

Beyond simply proving my point and dispelling ignorance that I see, no. Don't mistake my ferverant attempts to dispel your false ideas about what science is and is not to be attempting to prove something that cannot be proven.

no doubt science does. I love science.

You clearly only acknowledge parts of science and not others. Like many other theists, you've discarded any science that seems to disprove whatever superstitians you hold dear.
That's why 'creation science' isn't. That's why they've chosen to ignore almost all of the science that has to do with astronomy, archeology, biology, medicine, genetics, and numerous other fields because they rely heavily on evolution and a cosmology that does not agree with the accounts of the bible or whatever other superstitions regarding the birth of humanity and existence.

Which had based through some of the greatest scientists of all time, which were theists. Just a list , you might change a littlebit your pressupositions.

Some of them certainly were as many of them still are. The point is irrelevant.

and what do these have to do with theism ?

If you would stop responding to every. single. sentence.
You might see an overall point.

Who told you i choose fantasy over science ?

The entire premise of this thread and all of your statements against evolution and what you call 'historical science.'

please don't mix up things. First : i am not a muslim. Secondly, the sectrets science has unlocked have been shown in complete accordance with the bible.

The bible states that the universe was created in six days, adam and eve were birthed from dirt, animals can talk, humans can come back from the dead, the earth is flat and has a giant dome over it which cracked to let the water in to cause Noah's flood, bushes that happen to have been lit on fire can talk to people, people can be transformed into salt, and all the animals that exist now were there within the first six days of creation.
No. Science has refuted anything in the bible that matters. Genesis is just the blatantly obvious one.

throwing me a number of links will not add absolutely nothing to this debate. start with just one paper, which can be read online , and we go over it.

Oh, for crying out loud. Then pick one and go with it. I don't care which one.

As a authority, you should open your ears, and hear what he has to say about the issue. he has proven you wrong. Archeopterix was just a early bird. Nothing more.

And he's wrong.

And thats what its all about. Different viewpoints based on the same scientific knowledge. Thats why creationism isnt less scientific than macro evolution. Both are based on faith and belief. Both just represent a different world view.

Evolution has proof in genetic markers, archeological finds from all around the world, modern day evidence from observation both in nature and in laboratory conditions.
Creation science has NOTHING. All of the above is repeatable, testable, and there's mountains of evidence in the fossil record and genetic codes of all living things to support the conclusion that things have evolved over time in accordance with speciation.
Simply put, you are equating belief and fact as the same thing. You are wrong and I have given you several scientific papers AND a readable textbook on evolution to further my point.

You have nothing.

I am wondering why you do not know the difference between operational science, and historical science, and its implications, even if i mentioned ready......

The only difference between those two sciences is that to actually believe that rubbish, you have to chose to ignore the overwhelming amont of historical evidence in support of the theories espoused in modern understanding in past events - that being evolution and the beginnings of the universe.
It's as if I walked into a murder scene, made up the conclusion, and ignored all of the evidence because it is 'unprovable', 'untestible', and whatever else you've mentioned.

Despite this being very clearly not the case, one can only conclude that your attempt to put a label on self-ignorance is utter rubbish.