Try googling cosmic microwave background for a demonstration that big bang is not taken on faith. CMB was a prediction of big bang theory.
Something curious going on here. Some creationists assert that big bang theory is a triumph of religious science, that proves that God exists. Other creationists deride it as unscientific. Both groups cannot be right. (in fact neither group is right)
Someone suggested that and I skimmed a bit on it. yes, background radiation...have proof what it's related to? Perhaps a second big bang that had the same effect? Just for comparison purposes.
Something curious going on here. Some creationists assert that big bang theory is a triumph of religious science, that proves that God exists. Other creationists deride it as unscientific. Both groups cannot be right. (in fact neither group is right)
That does address the real question...what caused the big bang, and where did the matter involved in it come from? Matter does not spontaneously spring into existence from nothing...at least not in a way science can possibly test. So one is left with the conclusion that something is eternal...either matter or a creator. Unless the big bang has undergone some serious revisions (which is not outside of the realm of possibility...it seems to get revised fairly often...except in our textbooks) then considering the models of the big bang tracked back for an infinite amount of time before the big bang the whole model unravels.
>>>Try googling cosmic microwave background for a demonstration that big bang is not taken on faith. CMB was a prediction of big bang theory.<<<
There are some documented inconsistencies in the predictions of CMB, in red shift, and even in visual observations.
>>>Something curious going on here. Some creationists assert that big bang theory is a triumph of religious science, that proves that God exists. Other creationists deride it as unscientific. Both groups cannot be right. (in fact neither group is right)<<<
I am not a creationist; merely a skeptic of loud science.