Big Bang, Theory or Fact?

Thanks for the encouragement. It's heard to defend your beliefs when it seems like everyone is against you.

Never forget that you could maybe be either right or wrong so it is wise to be as humble as you can be.

on your query about the "big bang" and it's validity a good place to start is TOM VAN FLANDERN'S book DARK MATTER MISSING PLANETS & NEW COMETS you can find this book i believe at his web site ,tvf@metaresearch.org, also another good book is by HALTON ARP the book is called SEEING RED,this book can be gotten at the web site of INFINITE ENERGY the web site is www.infinite-energy.com,this book is,at least i found it to be, fairly technical,so have at least a decent dictionary with you!!but it sure was a great read and a big eye opener for me.there is also a book by STEVEN RADO (i have not read this book yet but i have ordered it) it's along the same lines as the others i have already mentioned,alternative theories from the big bang.STEVEN'S web site is www.aethro-kinematics.com there are actually a fair number of people kicking around some pretty good ideas out there, and there based on some very solid evidence. i myself never did believe in the "big bang" it just never sat right with me.don't forget about "cold fusion"either which you will find more information on it at the INFINITE ENERGY site there are some interesting implications to cosmology in this.so grab some of these books have fun and keep an open!!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I tried that link again with another computer and I was able to view it. Thanks for pointing that out.

I'll try looking around on the web.

Personally, I view creation as the logical alternative to the Big Bang. A common misperception is that those who accept evolution base their view on fact, while those who reject it are acting only on faith. However, as this site and many others demonstrate, there are many people out there who are scientists and are very knowledgeable and still reject evolution.

Therefore, it is not science vs. faith, but science vs. science and the faith of the big bang vs. the faith of creation.

I have tried multiple times to explain this to my teacher, but she does not understand. Any suggestions?

Thanks.
Peter

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Creation? Creation is not science, cause it involves mysteries, or actors outside of time and space, or the supernatural.

Evolution is a fact, not a hypothese.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I tried that link again with another computer and I was able to view it. Thanks for pointing that out.

I'll try looking around on the web.

Personally, I view creation as the logical alternative to the Big Bang. A common misperception is that those who accept evolution base their view on fact, while those who reject it are acting only on faith. However, as this site and many others demonstrate, there are many people out there who are scientists and are very knowledgeable and still reject evolution.

Therefore, it is not science vs. faith, but science vs. science and the faith of the big bang vs. the faith of creation.

I have tried multiple times to explain this to my teacher, but she does not understand. Any suggestions?

Thanks.
Peter

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Creation? Creation is not science, cause it involves mysteries, or actors outside of time and space, or the supernatural.

Evolution is a fact, not a hypothese.


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

heusdens

agreed, religious meanings have no place in science period, end of story.

the problem with evolution and the reason that it is so easy to pull a part is that, we have to rely on past findings, which are used to support the present,and that past evidence that we need to help prove the theory is long gone.i think that evolution could perhaps be the hardest theory to prove because of this.