Three brief general observations:
(1) Having come here from a site which hosts a (much) more boistrous debate about creationism, I find the overall decorum of this site quite refreshing.
(2) Nevertheless I find here the same distressing tendency in some participants to argue obsessively about topics they evidently know little about. (The initial post is a case in point.) Aside from its value as burlesque this practice leads to some tedious exchanges.
(3) I find it hard to join a thread that's been in progress for so long - at least hard to do so constructively. Nevertheless, I'll try with apologies in advance if my comments are reduntant or trivial.
Two specific comments:
(1) Regarding evidence for the Big Bang, the observations that support this theory are among the most dramatic ever made in the history of science. I saw two of them mentioned: the expansion of the Universe and the related CMBR. I didn't see (but may have missed) a third powerful confirmation: the relative abundances of H and He, which the BBT (and not much else) predicts very nicely.
(2) Creationists find it irresistable to claim (without proof!) that something can't come from nothing. I've seen the remark at least once on this thread. However, as I understand it, one of the many beautiful aspects of inflation theory is that it allows the (negative) gravitational potential of the Universe to exactly counter-balance its (positive) mass-energy, producing a Universe with zero total energy. (Viola: nothing from nothing!)
Finally, to the many subscribers on this thread who know more about these subjects than I do, I'm more than happy to learn!
This message has been edited by skylar, 04-17-2006 04:02 AM
"When cherished ideas lie in ruins at your feet, Nature is challenging you to look at the world anew."
Bruce Balick & Adam Frank - SciAm, July, 2004