It is a fact that if you use General Relativity to "rewind" the history of the Universe then you will get to a singularity. The Big Bang itself is solid scientific fact. If, therefore, you want to use the word "singularity" to refer to the earliest state of the universe (which is a loose usage but seems to be often done) it makes sense.
Paul, don't get ICANT started on GR. Seriously. Don't. Take a peek at the Big Bang thread that recently closed if you don't believe me.
NJ. It seems Dr. A, Percy and Paul have pointed out a number of your errors in the past couple of days. I especially like Percy's response to this...
Even supposing that was the case, why is that evolutionists are allowed to dismiss Haeckle, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Archaeoraptor, Peppered moths etc, for the demonstrable frauds they are, and get to say that those stains do not speak for the majority?
and Dr. A's response to this:
The disparity is what I was trying to distinguish. Reason being, it was basically said that the ID movement is about pushing Christianity in schools. But that isn't true ...
What say you, NJ?
And as for this ...
If you get to say that ID is pushing Christianity ...
Let's take another peek at Dembski, shall we?
This leads Dembski to conclude that “Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory.”
Conservatives, Darwin & Design: An Exchange by William A. Dembski | Articles | First Things
And what about this tidbit from Moose?
Indeed, in Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe concedes that there is enough evidence to support the Darwinian conclusion that all species, including human beings, arose from a common ancestor by descent with modification by natural selection. But he maintains that one kind of biological system cannot be explained by Darwin’s theory-namely, any system that is “irreducibly complex.”
Hmmm?
™ Version 4.2