Replies

You have laid out a hypothesis using terms such as "imagine" and "there may exist." This is a hypothesis. This is not proof it happened.Cause isn't necessary in any case. There are demonstrably uncaused events in the universe as it exists today. But the real point is that philosophically, the very idea of causality is subordinate to the notions of space and time, which are physical things that themselves are subordinate to the Big Bang. Demanding that the Big Bang have a cause puts the cart way before the horse.
Cause most certainly is necessary. You do not observe things that just were. Things have beginning. Demanding to know the cause of the big bang demands the evolutionist to put his money where his mouth is. You are expecting us to buy a whole load of causes, but demanding that we reject reason when causation gets to the original point. Your theory is in the beginning was the big bang which caused time. It also caused molten matter. Which caused life. Which caused infinately complex creatures such as man with infinately complex parts such as eyeballs. Excuse if I am a bit incredulous. Nobody observed the big bang. Nobody has observed macroevolution. You have variations within species but all of the same kind. You don't have a plant turning into an animal or a horse turning into a kitty cat. Over a 140 years after Darwin and a zillion scientists with a ton of funding later, the best science can come up with are a handful of disputed examples of transitional species. You never see something replicating out of its kind (horse to cat, plant to animal). You only have what Creationists acknowledge- microevolution (variation within species or kind) not macroevolution (huge change of kind to kind).

Your theory is in the beginning was the big bang which caused time. It also caused molten matter. Which caused life. Which caused infinately complex creatures such as man with infinately complex parts such as eyeballs. Excuse if I am a bit incredulous.

I see: So any theory about who invented baseball must also explain how the universe got started!

Nobody has observed macroevolution. You have variations within species but all of the same kind. You don't have a plant turning into an animal or a horse turning into a kitty cat.

Hey, guess what? I agree with you! I, an evolutionist, don't believe an animal has ever turned into a plant (or vice-versa), nor has an animal ever turned into a different kind of animal.

The transitions from one kingdom or family or genus to another took many, many, many, many generations to happen. And I'll bet even transitions from one species to another happened over much more than a single generation.

Cause most certainly is necessary.
Except for the Judeo-Christian God.

You do not observe things that just were.
Except for the Judeo-Christian God.

Things have beginning.
Except for the Judeo-Christian God.

... Which caused infinately complex creatures such as man with infinately complex parts such as eyeballs.

I'd have written off your misspelling as a typo had you not done it twice... In one sentence. Is it possible to have an "infinitely complex" part of a larger "infinitely complex" organism? I'm sure Star Trek tackled this conundrum at at some point, but I can't seem to wrap my brain around it right now. And btw, your claim that man and/or his eyeballs are somehow "infinitely complex" means absolutely nothing if you don't define how or why something is, "infinitely complex."

Nobody observed the big bang. Nobody has observed macroevolution.

Or the murder of Niclole Brown Simpson. So?

You don't have a plant turning into an animal or a horse turning into a kitty cat.

You are correct. Congratulations. Horses have never "turned into" a kitty cat. Perhaps Sigfried or Roy would beg to differ, but I won't.

the best science can come up with are a handful of disputed examples of transitional species.

Disputed by whom? A fractionally tiny band of American christian bible literalists? Trust me, you are not on their radar. A "handful?" You must have the palm capacity of a small city.

You only have what Creationists acknowledge- microevolution (variation within species or kind) not macroevolution (huge change of kind to kind).

Please define "kind." If you save lots of pennies, they add up to dollars and those dollars add up to hundreds of dollars. Think about it and good night.

This is a hypothesis.

No, it's a theory. It makes extensively detailed, quantitative predictions that have been tested and borne out in every particular by observation.

This is not proof it happened.

That's true. It's not logically possible to prove any theory by observation. All you can ever do is test its predictions, and the best you can ever say is that it has passed all of its tests. That is the case with the Big Bang.

Demanding to know the cause of the big bang demands the evolutionist to put his money where his mouth is.

Please try again to digest what I posted. At the Big Bang time (as we define it) folds back upon itself; all possible directions point towards the future. Causes, by definition, are necessarily prior to effects. At the instant of the Big Bang, there's mathematically no such "prior" time. It's actually very simple.

Excuse if I am a bit incredulous.

I excuse you on the grounds of your ignorance. These things do sound incredible to someone who is unfamiliar with the evidence. Fortunately, that is correctible to someone with an open mind.

You don't have a plant turning into an animal or a horse turning into a kitty cat.

And it's a good thing, too, because such an event would utterly refute the entire edifice of evolution. Anyone with the most cursory understanding of evolution understands this.