[Polpolion]

Very few of whom would agree with your conclusions.

They don't have to. I bet that there's plenty of scientists who don't agree wiht some of your conclusions or another. That is irrelevant.
I agree with theirs - that is relevant.

Wait, what?

[General Battuta]

Guys, remember how to argue with Trashman: just ignore him. Otherwise everything will get unpleasant again and he'll be upset.

[karajorma]

They don't have to. I bet that there's plenty of scientists who don't agree wiht some of your conclusions or another. That is irrelevant.
I agree with theirs - that is relevant.

Wait, what?

Doublespeak.

The irony is he doesn't agree with their conclusions at all. He's doing the classic creationist trick of cherry-picking from scientific discourse in order to  claim that he has people who agree with his conclusion. It's rather pathetic really.

Suppose I put 5 different denominations of Christians in one room and ask them to discuss the nature of God. At the end I write down the best arguments I heard disproving each others beliefs and then use them to support the fact that there is no God and say that I can find Christians who support my view. Everyone would know it was a load of bollocks since the actual conclusion all 5 Christians would have is that there is a God.

Similarly Trashman is using arguments from physicists about the Big Bang to claim that there wasn't one and that his conclusions are supported. It's nonsense but he seems to believe he won't get called out on it.

When I say wrong I mean not right.
You admit it yourself that the big Crunch theory is not proven right, and things standing as they are now, it is wrong.
Some future scientific discoveries or breaktroughs that might change things are irrelevant at this time.
For now, according to current calculations, the universe will not come back together.

And you're going even further into proving you know nothing about the subject if you're claiming that the Big Crunch was proved not right. Big Crunch and Heat Death are two possible scenarios for the universe. You seem to believe that Big Crunch losing favour was some huge example that Big Bang theory is incorrect. It means nothing of the sort.

Furthermore the Big Crunch is a possible scenario regarding the end of the universe not the beginning. Proving that the universe will not end in a crunch does absolutely nothing to help you refute the Big Bang. In fact bringing it up at all only proves you haven't understood the theory at the simplest 5 minutes in Wikipedia level.

Feel free to prove your ignorance further by trying to claim that the evidence you've mentioned about the universe expanding has any relevance to how it started though. I could use a laugh.

[Nuclear1]

This is going to end badly.

Very, very badly.

[Mefustae]

This is going to end badly.

Very, very badly.

*Pulls up deckchair*

*Tosses nuclear1 a beer*

[karajorma]

I'll be selling commemorative T-shirts later.

[terran_emperor]

I'm gonna join ya. I wish i hadnt started this Avalanche of a discussion flow.

[redsniper]

in b4, during, and after religious flame fest.

Also, the US invented everything. All claims otherwise are lies and disinformation.

[TrashMan]

This is going to end badly.

Very, very badly.

Nope. Alltough I see Kaj is trying to lead it that way by throwing underhanded insults and hoping to irk me into a rash response, thus earning a ban.
How dissapointing. Pathetic really.

I'll make this simple.
No Kaj, I don't have a p.h.d. in physics, and even if I did I would be just one out of god knows how many scientists.

I did however have long discussions about such stuff with the greatest scientists I know (multiple p.h.d.'s, works as one of the project heads at CERN) and over the course of months we dvelwed deep into the beginning of the universe bit.
I forgot a whole of lot details from those discussions by now, but my beliefs about this issue were formed in no small part by those very informative discussions.

The Wiki being the base for your thoughts doesn't spur my confidence in you either.
I suck at explaining myself very good, so I'll just drop it. It's easier.

Either way, the Big Bang is scientific problem because of the eternal questions - How? Why? What happened before?

[Polpolion]

I'll just drop it. It's easier.

Either way, the Big Bang is scientific problem because of the eternal questions - How? Why? What happened before?

Wait, what?

[Daniel P]

What really happen before the universe created. And what started the universe at the first place.

It just not go Poof the universe created. 

[Nuclear1]

No, it didn't just go poof.

Creationism by this one you call God is false.  Here I will spread the wisdom of the one true deity:

Boreded Ceiling Cat makinkgz Urf n stuffs
1 Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem.
2 Da Urfs no had shapez An haded dark face, An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz.
3 At start, no has lyte. An Ceiling Cat sayz, i can haz lite? An lite wuz.4 An Ceiling Cat sawed teh lite, to seez stuffs, An splitted teh lite from dark but taht wuz ok cuz kittehs can see in teh dark An not tripz over nethin.5 An Ceiling Cat sayed light Day An dark no Day. It were FURST!!!1
6 An Ceiling Cat sayed, im in ur waterz makin a ceiling. But he no yet make a ur. An he maded a hole in teh Ceiling.7 An Ceiling Cat doed teh skiez with waterz down An waterz up. It happen.8 An Ceiling Cat sayed, i can has teh firmmint wich iz funny bibel naim 4 ceiling, so wuz teh twoth day.
9 An Ceiling Cat gotted all teh waterz in ur base, An Ceiling Cat hadz dry placez cuz kittehs DO NOT WANT get wet.10 An Ceiling Cat called no waterz urth and waters oshun. Iz good.
11 An Ceiling Cat sayed, DO WANT grass! so tehr wuz seedz An stufs, An fruitzors An vegbatels. An a Corm. It happen.12 An Ceiling Cat sawed that weedz ish good, so, letz there be weedz.13 An so teh threeth day jazzhands.
14 An Ceiling Cat sayed, i can has lightz in the skiez for splittin day An no day.15 It happen, lights everwear, like christmass, srsly.16 An Ceiling Cat doeth two grate lightz, teh most big for day, teh other for no day.17 An Ceiling Cat screw tehm on skiez, with big nails An stuff, to lite teh Urfs.18 An tehy rulez day An night. Ceiling Cat sawed. Iz good.19 An so teh furth day w00t.
20 An Ceiling Cat sayed, waterz bring me phishes, An burds, so kittehs can eat dem. But Ceiling Cat no eated dem.21 An Ceiling Cat maed big fishies An see monstrs, which wuz like big cows, except they no mood, An other stuffs dat mooves, An Ceiling Cat sawed iz good.22 An Ceiling Cat sed O hai, make bebehs kthx. An dont worry i wont watch u secksy, i not that kynd uf kitteh.23 An so teh...fith day. Ceiling Cat taek a wile 2 cawnt.
24 An Ceiling Cat sayed, i can has MOAR living stuff, mooes, An creepie tings, An otehr aminals. It happen so tehre.25 An Ceiling Cat doed moar living stuff, mooes, An creepies, An otehr animuls, An did not eated tehm.
26 An Ceiling Cat sayed, letz us do peeps like uz, becuz we ish teh qte, An let min p0wnz0r becuz tehy has can openers.
27 So Ceiling Cat createded teh peeps taht waz like him, can has can openers he maed tehm, min An womin wuz maeded, but he did not eated tehm.
28 An Ceiling Cat sed them O hai maek bebehs kthx, An p0wn teh waterz, no waterz An teh firmmint, An evry stufs.
29 An Ceiling Cat sayed, Beholdt, the Urfs, I has it, An I has not eated it.30 For evry createded stufs tehre are the fuudz, to the burdies, teh creepiez, An teh mooes, so tehre. It happen. Iz good.
31 An Ceiling Cat sayed, Beholdt, teh good enouf for releaze as version 0.8a. kthxbai.

[Daniel P]

The Big Bang theory is flawed. How Did the universe started, What happen before. This topic is wide open.

Any one got answers to the Big bang theory.

[Nuclear1]

I already 'splained to you that Ceiling Cat creaytud the unifers, and it will end with the Big NOM.

[Scuddie]

...

Lolcats is neither funny nor cute.  Stop it.

[Nuclear1]

I banish joo, minion of Basement Cat!

[peterv]

Correct but to accept either one you have to accept logic (and the knowledge that comes from logic) as the ultimate measure.

Nope. You only have to accept logic as the best we've come up with so far.

Science it self doesn't in all occations (i refer particulary to the quantum theory).

Where?

This is another confusing matter so let me rephrase my point:
As long as logic is not a perfect tool yet we can ceep our minds open to it's expantions. Quantum theory and quantum theory's logic came out off experiments that contradicted the logic we had by then and i am sure that you are aware off them.

Now, as for the beliefs's matter, i'll put it this way:
Supposing that, a year ago, i decleared that it would be possible somewere in the w.w.w. to be a community whit high skills and able to create the best space combat simulator ever for free. I asure you i would hear many logical arguments that would prove logicaly that this is nothing but an optimist's dream. So now i'm dreaming and i'm not writing that it is at least inapproptiate to use logical arguments against beliefs if you can not prove them wrong beyond doubts.

[Colonol Dekker]

My first topic split has yielded a stereotypical religion debate.
 
<Borat>hi 5 anyone?</Borat>

[terran_emperor]

THread Split required. Or thread Locked

[Nuclear1]

A thread split from a split thread?