edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,883
- 1,830
Again you are trying to jump ahead to question 2 without admitting that "something," which is commonly called the Big Bang, happened to leave the microwave remnant that we can measure today.No, it's not "there MAY have been" there WAS something, and that "something" is called the Big Bang, for want of a better name. Since you will not accept the measured microwave evidence as proof of anything, then there is no point of trying to go further. You doggedly want to cling to your premise that science is faith based and no amount of evidence will ever change your mind. Why try to answer your second question if you won't accept the answer to your first question!!!!!Because it still doesn't explain how it actually came into existence.
that evidence shows that there may have been something but it doesnt show how it came to be.
Im not trying to prove or disprove either side here im just trying to get past the conception that the big bang theorists run on as much faith as the creationists.
thats simply not true ed. Not true at all.
there is no empirical proof of how the matter that caused what is theorized to be the big bang came to be into such a state to allow for the big bang.
You just dont have an answer and instead of admitting you must have some faith to believe in the big bang you want to try to insult me for asking about the proof in the first place.
Let me try out your technique:
Good thing scientists aren't like you or we would still believe the scientific "proof" that the earth was flat.
Your first question was how does science know that a Big Bang happened.
When you admit that it does not take faith to know that a Big Bang happened, I'll move on to question 2, but not before.