Replies

But you can. The Big Bang Theory predicts, among other things, that there should be a residual background radiation of such-and-such a temperature. This prediction was made long before astronomers were able to measure such things, but when they could, low and behold the background radiation was there just as forecasted.

I know about the 2.7 degrees K and how it is suppose to prove everything. Do you believe that a cosmological formula really yields that answer? Do you understand the science as well as some people here understand snow. Understanding or not understanding what they say proves nothing, I know. But you are hanging your hat on something that is as untangible to you as God is to me.

Do you believe that a cosmological formula really yields that answer?

There is no "cosmological formula." The astronomers in question wanted to determine why, no matter where you look in the sky, galaxies appear to be moving away from us. It was as if all the galaxies originated in one spot and were blasted out from that spot. Well, astrophysicists worked out the conditions that would have prevailed if such an event had occurred and what we could expect to see now if this were the case. Now that we know about the background radiation, we can see that the predictions match up nicely with the observations, so the Big Bang is a quite viable theory. Now, if someone comes along with a new theory that covers not only what the Big Bang covers, but makes predictions that can be tested and confirmed it will supplant the Big Bang as the theory of the origins of the universe. At the moment, though, while a number of hypotheses appear promising, none have panned out -- yet. Until they do, we work with what we have.

But you are hanging your hat on something that is as untangible to you as God is to me.

But he isn't. He knows that he could (with proper education and sufficient funding) construct a machine to detect the evidence of the background radiation. (or at least, he can find the people who can do so reliably and verifiably) It would not then be untangible. However, he could never construct the machine to detect God.

The same logic applies to evolution: he can examine the fossils and the circumstances of their discovery, the geologic records, the dating methods, the DNA evidence, and he could recreate the experiments illustrating the genetic commonalities between species that evolution predicts should be closely related. He can observe the natural world with his own faculties and assess the evidence on his own. All this any of us could do to see the evidence for evolution - but where is the similar evidence for creation? (other than in a single uncorroborated, non-peer reviewed, very old text of uncertain authorship)