Normally, when I get into Internet "debates" I like to cite 3rd party sources... for example the argument says "XYZ is the most American car", I'll point out who funded this piece of research, and what factor (like sales #'s) they've included to get a desired result.
Obviously that data doesn't exist for who/what/how created the universe; for either side. One side will admit that faith is a requirement, another responds
But a fly in this ointment is that the best "science" can do is provide a
theory. And with the passage of time, many of those theories no longer provide any more than
laughter or are we still expecting this?
Frankly, why must it even be a big-bang? Just because it sounds cooler than "gradual sizzle"?
Steve's giving you the nice side of a belief in God. I could do that as well, but that leads to "religion is a crutch, it's for the feeble minded, George Carlin was a Prophet, etc." talk.
So I'll just stick to my "big-bang fairy tale is a load of agenda-driven manure that explains nothing" argument and leave religion for another day.
Definition of scientific method
- principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
That last step is going to be a problem don't you think? I can put a virus under a microscope and demonstrate that Clorox makes the wigglers stop moving, but it will be a ***** to create a mini-universe in a test tube.
That means no one gets to call "science" until they can demonstrate their hypotheses. Or are we just skipping the hard steps now?
Well, I guess we often do.