ICANT writes:
As you have pointed out the Bible is old and Archaeology is a study of old things.
It is a quality they share, yes, but it isn't quite the entire picture. For instance: I just wrote today that I became the ruler of the world. Investigation of that writing isn't the same as the investigation of current events; the distinction should be clear.
ICANT writes:
Let me get this straight. You are changing my questions to read:
Are you claiming to have scientific evidence (enough to convince you) how the universe began to exist? yes/no
Are you claiming to have scientific evidence (enough to convince you) how life on earth began to exist? yes/no
Then answer yes to those two questions.
Then say no you do not have scientific evidence how the universe or life began to exist.
If that is not what you mean please make corrections as needed.
The correction is in that last part: I am saying "no, we do not have scientific "proof" how the universe or life began to exist." This is because what you are asking for is probably impossible, and not something that science can provide. Furthermore the entire question is irrelevant; just because we don't completely understand the process does not mean that your concept is correct. In fact, an incomplete understanding can indicate fairly well that you are wrong.
ICANT writes:
The MBR was not discovered until 1964. So your facts are a little out of kelter.
Irrelevant, in fact it supports the theory because observations matched the predictions of the theory. If the observations matched your theory better then it would be accepted over the current one... Oh wait, you don't *have* any observations that support your theory!
ICANT writes:
The Bible is the only book that addresses T=0.
Now you are just pulling things out of your rear. Not that it is unusual behavior mind you, but it bears pointing out.
ICANT writes:
Genesis 1:1 says: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth".
The "Book of I Just Made This Up" says "In the beginning Dubble Bubble Gum created the heaven and the earth". Can you give any reason other than "The Bible is older" that my version isn't just as good? Heck, it is even better given that we can tell that Dubble Bubble actually exists.
ICANT writes:
Science actually says as you go backward in time you reach a place the math will not work and tell you anything. Therefore there is 'no thing' there.
No, this is wrong. Again you make the mistake of thinking that math makes things true, or that your understanding of something is integral to its existence. In essence this stems from the childlike concept that if you close your eyes the world ceases to exist. This seems to be a manner in which you consistently err.
Our math DESCRIBES reality, it does not make reality. Most of our formulas have a range of situations over which they provide accurate results, beyond which are required other methods. If you go back far enough our math that describes the current state of things starts giving silly answers, if it works at all. This does NOT mean that "there is 'no thing' there", it means that our descriptions need to be modified.
It would be wonderful if we could come up with Grand Unification Theory, a formula that works in all situations and provides accurate results in all... but we are not there.
ICANT writes:
What is the scientific answer to how the universe began? "We don't know."
No, that isn't the scientific answer. The answer is: "We have lots and lots of data, and many ideas. The currently accepted one is the Big Bang Theory, and research is ongoing to either support or replace it. Check back for more updates!"
Your answer is: "I have a book here that says vague stuff, and I make up details as I see fit. It must be true because the book is really old, and I am convinced!"
ICANT writes:
...but you don't have one shread of evidence of the facts of exactly how the universe began to exist.
Really, so you are claiming that all of the math that gets so close to your much-parroted "T=0" isn't based on any data at all? Is that what you are claiming?
mike the wiz writes:
Rest-assured, I have thought it all through, as per usual.
ICANT writes:
If I don't know the answer what am I supposed to say I don't know.