I forget as well.
What is the scientific evidence that the singularity existed? That it popped into existence all on its own out of nowhere from nothing for no reason?
What is the scientific evidence that it existed for an indeterminate amount of time (even though time didn't exist) before it expanded for that unknown reason? What is the scientific explanation of why it expanded when it did; what was the mechanism that triggered the expansion?
What is the scientific evidence to support virtually any aspect of cosmology? String Theory?
What is the scientific explanation for where the natural laws of the universe came from? How did they set themselves up? Why are they stable?
What is the scientific explanation for why scientists demand rigorous standards of proof from creationists/IDers for things that they don't apply to themselves?
No one in science demands proof. Just evidence. And above all, a theory or hypothesis that suggests lines of research.
In case you haven’t noticed, string theory isn’t accepted as even a theory, since no one can say how it can be tested. It has the status of a conjecture. Same for conjectures about why physical constants are what they are.
Can you site a high school textbook that treats string theory or multiverses as anything more than conjectures? Title, publication date, page?
Metmom...those kinds of questions must be studiously avoided by Darwinists, otherwise they may start doubt.
It's interesting, now that you mention it. I'm currently reading Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, which I've been thoroughly enjoying, despite the obvious cosmological assumptions that he is forced to make to be consistent with himself. One thing I do find disconcerting, however, is the number of times he has basically asserted something about black holes, grand unification theory, W+ particles, or what have you, and then stated in the very next sentence that we can't actually investigate the claims he has put forth, and won't be for the foreseeable million years or so.