Fairytale?

[Loudmouth]

I'm not and I know that the "theory" does not say that BUT AS YOU KNOW for it to have occured it would have had to have had the right components to come together and no one seems to know where those components came from.

Then why do you say "such as a big bang that happened from things that came from nothing"? Did you know it was a lie when you said it?

Of course, it goes without saying that they don't even know for sure if the BBT was how it happened, either, but by faith they believe it!

I accept the BB model as the best model because it fits the evidence. My acceptance is tentative. I don't know that the BB occurred as physicists theorize, but they don't claim to know either. They do know that what we observe fits the BB model, such as the characteristics of the cosmic microwave background.

What do you have to offer? Stories and magic. Sorry, but I will go with the facts.

AND you don't seem to mind projecting your beliefs on everyone, so I figure "what's good for the goose is good for the gander", and I'll probably continue as long as you do.[/COLOR]

What beliefs am I projecting on others?

Oh, I know now that they are not saying that "nothing" evolved, just that no one seems to know where the "first" something came from. There had to be a beginning now didn't there?

There was a first replicator, but instead of making up stories scientists state "I don't know exactly what the first replicator looked like nor do I know how it came about". This is much better than making up stories and pretending that it was done with magic.

No one is making up stories.

The Earth and Universe were not made in 6 days, so someone had to make that up.

God exists whether you can see Him or not. Denial won't make it any less real.

Prove it. Evidence please.

But that is exactly what you are telling them when you deny the existence of a Creator. "We just poofed here out of nothing."

I don't know how the universe started, but I do have a pretty good idea of how it developed from there. I don't know how the first organism came about, but I am pretty sure how it changed from there. Why am I pretty sure? Because of evidence and not some made up story.

You might as well tell them you don't love them either, because you can't see love, therefore, by your standards it must not exist.

You shouldn't have to tell them. Your actions, which they can see, are the evidence of your feelings towards others.

So do you, but you won't admit. You think because you don't call it God or deity then it is more true. Go figure, yourself. At least my beliefs have intelligence behind it.

Do what? I don't know how the universe came about, pre-Big Bang. No one does. However, you feel the need to claim that you do know, and it was done by magic. Why is that?

No, because intelligence says so.

Limited human intelligence?

You are the one who accepts the proclamations of the pulpits of atheism.

No I don't. Again, stop projecting your beliefs onto others. Just because you accept things as true for no other reason than somebody writing them down does not mean that I do the same.

The only reason that we can fly today is because they copied the design of the Creator and put it to good use. No one came up with the design on their own.

What creator? Evidence please.

 

[Split Rock]

I watched my dad, throug the magic of a number of small almost imperceptible strokes turn from an active, intelligent, vibrant man to a semi-zombie who could barely put together a coherent sentence and then who could only answer in single-word responses.

Was his "spirit" injured?

Was the doctor spending too much time looking for underlying causes in the brain when he should have been looking at dad's "spirit-o-graph"?

Sorry to hear about your dad.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Sorry to hear about your dad.

Thanks.

It happened years ago. He lived like that for about 9 years. He recently passed away. I had done my "mourning" years before. The person who was my dad hadn't been around for a long time.

Hanging out in the nursing home where he stayed was a shocking reminder that there isn't an "us" that is some disembodied soul. I saw humans who were completely different from who they were when they were vital and in their prime.

I saw people whose brains were decaying and who were little more than semi-conscious items in wheel chairs.

I obviously don't believe in a soul, and I saw plenty of evidence that if a soul exists it sure is intimately linked in with neural activity and if you damage the neurons enough you can see a person become a completely other being.

If souls exist and can function outside the body, there must be a warehouse somewhere where they sit around waiting for the body to die because these souls were not the ones they started out with.

 

[NailsII]

God is supernatural for whom all things are possible.

Quite handy when no credible evidence exists to corroborate the claims of the religious factions, which generally disagree with each other.

Evolution is natural and as such, in order to explain the origin of man in particular and life in general, it requires a very vivid imagination, a ton of assumptions and a denial of common sense.

As no doubt you have already encountered, or soon will, some would argue the converse of this argument.
As religious doctrine is generally untestable, not supported by facts or observation, it is logical to assume that it is indeed your faith which requires a very vivid imagination, a ton of assumptions and a denial of common sense.

If by macro-evolution you mean variation within an obvious kind then yes, it has been observed, if you mean variation within an obvious kind to the point of producing an obviously different kind then no it has never been observed.

Sorry, but this is not strictly true.
I suggest you look at the Arctic turn, and the phenomena of a circular species (or speciation event).
Classical 'macro-evolution' (and i dislike the term, to be honest) is merely the accumulation of a series of 'micro-evolution' events. The later is easily observable, the former can be drawn from scientific evidence found in DNA or fossil records.

 

[Inan3]

How do you know this? Are you actually acquainted with spirits that think and love and communicate with you?

Yes, as a matter of fact I am. I'm talking with you aren't I? God is also a Spirit.

What about all those neurons that when severely damaged result in dramatic changes in personality and in some cases a loss of conscience? Or just general changes in the person.

I watched my dad, throug the magic of a number of small almost imperceptible strokes turn from an active, intelligent, vibrant man to a semi-zombie who could barely put together a coherent sentence and then who could only answer in single-word responses.

Was his "spirit" injured?

Was the doctor spending too much time looking for underlying causes in the brain when he should have been looking at dad's "spirit-o-graph"?

No, his body was injured. Our bodies are vehicles of communication and presently limited because of the fall. Our new bodies will be not be limited and more in tune with the spirit world.

http://breadsite.org/as002901.htm

 

[Vene]

Yes, as a matter of fact I am. I'm talking with you aren't I? God is also a Spirit.http://breadsite.org/as002901.htm

You're a spirit? What definition of spirit are you using?

 

[NailsII]

I'm really sorry Inan but you are in serious need of a reality check.
You are again posting on matters you have admitted limited knowledge of, and are attempting to square the circle using assumptions based on stone-age teachings that have been handed down from generation to generation before finally being commited to text.

The fall of man is an assumption based on the assumption that we were genetically perfect in the first place.
There is no evidence to support these claims, and a mountain of evidence that directly contradicts them.

I fear I have to point out that a continuation down this road of enquiry may lea to embaressment on your behalf, and I do not want to see that happen (again).

remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and so far you have demonstrated no evidence at all.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I'm not and I know that the "theory" does not say that BUT AS YOU KNOW for it to have occured it would have had to have had the right components to come together and no one seems to know where those components came from.

Tell us why, again, if we don't know where the original energy came from in the universe and you don't know where God came from, why one is preferable to the other? Or why one is obviously more true than the other?

AND you don't seem to mind projecting your beliefs on everyone, so I figure "what's good for the goose is good for the gander", and I'll probably continue as long as you do.

Does Loudmouth do this to everyone? I hadn't noticed. I do know you have a strong track record of accusing everyone who disagrees with you of twisting your words or putting words into your mouth.

It sounds all sortsa "paranoid". Indeed if everyone who ever disagrees with you is actively trying to twist your words maybe you should just put it in your tagline so you don't have to spend so much time telling others how they are projecting other meanings onto you.

I don't care what the other poster said or not, even if the other poster said something that was a projection I'd more likely believe it wasn't simply because you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of this.

just that no one seems to know where the "first" something came from. There had to be a beginning now didn't there?

Abiogenesis is not "something from nothing" any more than gypsum rock forming out of sea water evaporation is "something from nothing".

The Big Bang, who knows? Scientists aren't making up anything, they simply don't know. Some scientists "blue-sky" and guess what might be there, but they don't carve into stone and forcefeed it to children as dogma to be disproven.

No one is making up stories. God exists whether you can see Him or not. Denial won't make it any less real.

The concerted effort of humanity over several millenia have never proven that a single god of any sort actually exists. That's why it is called faith. And it also explains why we have a zillion different gods available for the choosing.

Real? Huh. As long as it doesn't matter what you believe I suppose that's OK.

But that is exactly what you are telling them when you deny the existence of a Creator. "We just poofed here out of nothing."

As a scientist we are allowed to say "we don't know". As a religious person you are much more limited in your options. You pretty much better know.

You might as well tell them you don't love them either, because you can't see love, therefore, by your standards it must not exist.

C'mon, you've been around enough to know how weak that argument is. Surely this was hashed out back in junior high discussions, right? Right?

So do you, but you won't admit. You think because you don't call it God or deity then it is more true. Go figure, yourself. At least my beliefs have intelligence behind it.

Let's compare science and religion on this topic:

Science: We simply don't know, nor may we be able to know what was around before the Big Bang other than the singularity from which the Big Bang blossomed.

Religion: We not only KNOW all about God but we know what He wants! We know all about everything because God told us through his intermediaries, a group of unknown bronze age court scribes! And what's better, we know that this is the only rational and good belief to have!

No, because intelligence says so. You are the one who accepts the proclamations of the pulpits of atheism.

You must be proud of that turn of phrase.

You should have guilded the lilly a bit with "Proclamations from the pulpits of the prophets of atheism", maybe next time.

"Announcements from the alter of atheism"?

The only reason that we can fly today is because they copied the design of the Creator and put it to good use.

"Tweet tweet".

No one came up with the design on their own.

Take that Bernoulli!

The intelligence was already there, and that's all science can do today is discover the already created design,

You don't work with patents much do ya? I spend about 25% of my work week dealing with patent issues.

It's fun to see how others are making something new from other stuff.

and try to figure it all out. There is no new thing under the sun

But that won't keep us from continuing to make stuff for you. You're welcome.

and the only reason we can even discover these things is because we are made in His image with intelligence.

Does God have a primate brain too??? Is he curious about stuff?

If we are made like God with god-like intelligence, where do we get curiosity form? Surely God isn't "curious" about anything.

Just because He is infinitly kind to us and His awesome greatness, power and wisdom has been shown to us and is in us to a degree. Don't destroy all that He has for you by cutting Him out of your life. That's not wise nor intelligent.

I'll tell you what isn't wise or intelligent: living in absolute horror of doing, saying or thinking the wrong thing because an unproven invisible being might be out there listening and keeping score, ready to mark me out of the "Book o' The Lamb" and consign me to eternal torment. THAT seemed a bit too much for me to bear.

And considering he was doing such a good job of hiding form me, I have to wonder how much he wanted me to know about him. Infinite kindness or not, I sure felt like he wasn't returning any calls.

So I had to cut it out of my life.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Yes, as a matter of fact I am. I'm talking with you aren't I?

No, I'm a Turing machine. Programmed to twist your words. It's a pretty simple algorithm that involves putting the word "not" in front of everything you type.

No, his body was injured. Our bodies are vehicles of communication and presently limited because of the fall. Our new bodies will be not be limited and more in tune with the spirit world.

http://breadsite.org/as002901.htm

Interesting story. Not a verifiable miracle. I especially liked this part:

This is true. My mother they say was just over medicated and that was the reason for such a quick recovery.

But you and I all know that our great Lord was to be given all the credit due.

So no matter what they were told, it was always going to be prayer. Regardless of the real underlying science.

God works in such mysterious ways. Thankfully he allows the doctors to occasionally look like they are doing something!

Oh well. I'm happy for that person. Their loved one came through it. My dad had good days early on. One day he could write his name, the next he'd be unable to begin to know how to spell or use a pen, then a day later he could write again.

That's one of the ways they knew it wasn't Alzheimers because apparently, among other things, Alzheimers presents as a steady one-way decrease in function. TIA's and strokes can cause reversals, or so I seem to recall. I'm not an expert on this and I might have oversimplified this a bit.

But still it wasn't prayer that revealed this kind of information. It was hard scientific work. Still a lot to be done on this. And certainly God doesn't provide any useful information in the lab.

So, if prayer made these people feel good, that's good. I'm glad we had doctors available for my dad.

 

[Inan3]

Then why do you say "such as a big bang that happened from things that came from nothing"? Did you know it was a lie when you said it?.

I knew it was what you "believe" that in the beginning there was nothing and then there was something. "We don't know how it happened or where it came from but we accept it." As you have quite unclearly stated below. My emphasis is on the part that the BB came from ?????

I accept the BB model as the best model because it fits the evidence. My acceptance is tentative. I don't know that the BB occurred as physicists theorize, but they don't claim to know either. They do know that what we observe fits the BB model, such as the characteristics of the cosmic microwave background.

What evidence??? If there was evidence then you would know it occured. It would no longer be tentative. You accept it because it fits the evidence but you don't know if occured???? Hello? Physicists theorize, but they don't claim to know either??? So why is it taught. And why bother to accept it if it's only tentative especially since it's unknown????? Sounds like the "Theory of Grasping for Straws to Hide the Real Issue that We Must Deny the Existence of a Creator at All Costs to Man's Intelligence".

What do you have to offer? Stories and magic. Sorry, but I will go with the facts.

Facts??? As you stated above there are no facts to go with. "Don't know means" "don't know."

What beliefs am I projecting on others?

The belief that it all happened from nothing. That's magic and that's why you confuse a Creator who you can't see with the naked eye with magic because you think if you can't see it, it isn't there but that is not always the case.

There was a first replicator, but instead of making up stories scientists state "I don't know exactly what the first replicator looked like nor do I know how it came about". This is much better than making up stories and pretending that it was done with magic.

First Replicator?? Another science fiction movie. "The Case of the First Replicator."

The Earth and Universe were not made in 6 days, so someone had to make that up.

I don't know if they were created in 6 days but I know that Genesis 1 is correct. Why did someone have to make that up? Is that how it's done in your circles?

Prove it. Evidence please.

Prove the "First Replicator" Evidence please.

I don't know how the universe started, but I do have a pretty good idea of how it developed from there. I don't know how the first organism came about, but I am pretty sure how it changed from there. Why am I pretty sure? Because of evidence and not some made up story.

In the beginning God created the heavens and earth.

You shouldn't have to tell them. Your actions, which they can see, are the evidence of your feelings towards others.

Tell me something I don't know, but are you saying you never tell you kids you love them or your wife?? I suggest you do it now and then because I know they will like hearing it.

Do what? I don't know how the universe came about, pre-Big Bang. No one does. However, you feel the need to claim that you do know, and it was done by magic. Why is that?

Because God tells us how it happened and we shouldn't ignore it. It's just plain dumb to do so.

Limited human intelligence?

Yep, even limited human intelligence is enough to recognize that there is an intelligence behind all of creation.

No I don't. Again, stop projecting your beliefs onto others. Just because you accept things as true for no other reason than somebody writing them down does not mean that I do the same.

You just said above that you did!!! You accept what no one knows because others theorize who don't know, either.

What creator? Evidence please.

What first replicator? Evidence please.

 

[Inan3]

So no matter what they were told, it was always going to be prayer. Regardless of the real underlying science.

Or we could say, that no matter what they were told, it was always going to be medicine regardless of the evidence of a real underlying miracle.

So, if prayer made these people feel good, that's good. I'm glad we had doctors available for my dad.

I am too.

 

[Inan3]

[/color]

I'll tell you what isn't wise or intelligent: living in absolute horror of doing, saying or thinking the wrong thing because an unproven invisible being might be out there listening and keeping score, ready to mark me out of the "Book o' The Lamb" and consign me to eternal torment. THAT seemed a bit too much for me to bear.

I agree because that is not how God is. That is only how religion has made Him.

And considering he was doing such a good job of hiding form me, I have to wonder how much he wanted me to know about him. Infinite kindness or not, I sure felt like he wasn't returning any calls.

God has heard every one of your calls and the calls of every other person that has ever called on Him and He will never forget any prayer or request or cry that has been made to Him. Why do you think you are here and I am here. This is no coincidence. This is God answering your calls. You may cut Him off but He will not cut you off until there is no more time. He knows your hurts and anger and yet He still loves you and will continue to reach out to you trying to reconcile you to Him and give you the desires of your heart.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

What evidence??? If there was evidence then you would know it occured. It would no longer be tentative. You accept it because it fits the evidence but you don't know if occured???? Hello? Physicists theorize, but they don't claim to know either??? So why is it taught. And why bother to accept it if it's only tentative especially since it's unknown????? Sounds like the "Theory of Grasping for Straws to Hide the Real Issue that We Must Deny the Existence of a Creator at All Costs to Man's Intelligence".

Two things:

1) Scientific theories are abstractions of reality. They are never 100% perfect (as my economics prof loved to say, "all theories are wrong"), but are the "best estimates" based on available data. As such, they are provisional, subject to limitations and could end up being changed if new data comes to the table.

2) The BB theory is not about denying God or a creator. It's simply an abstraction about the state of the very early universe. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Inan3]

I'm really sorry Inan but you are in serious need of a reality check.
You are again posting on matters you have admitted limited knowledge of, and are attempting to square the circle using assumptions based on stone-age teachings that have been handed down from generation to generation before finally being commited to text..

Oh, kind sir, please do tell me of what you speak! Perhaps I should first put on a befitting garment for this flogging.

The fall of man is an assumption based on the assumption that we were genetically perfect in the first place.
There is no evidence to support these claims, and a mountain of evidence that directly contradicts them.

And where is thy mountain, oh man?

I fear I have to point out that a continuation down this road of enquiry may lea to embaressment on your behalf, and I do not want to see that happen (again).

For this I thank you kindly, but I am unaware of such embarassment on my end? Though it may be imagined by others. I am not embarassed by by what I do not know. I am not embarassed by what I do know. And I am not embarassed by what others know more than I. And while I find all of that here, I also, am aware that I know more than others on some issues, which also, does not embarass me.

remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and so far you have demonstrated no evidence at all.

And on this matter that I have been discussing no evidence has been demonstrated to me, either. Would you not agree? No, of course, you wouldn't. But that's ok. No problem here.

 

[Inan3]

Two things:

1) Scientific theories are abstractions of reality. They are never 100% perfect (as my economics prof loved to say, "all theories are wrong"), but are the "best estimates" based on available data. As such, they are provisional, subject to limitations and could end up being changed if new data comes to the table.

2) The BB theory is not about denying God or a creator. It's simply an abstraction about the state of the very early universe. Nothing more, nothing less.

Thanks Pete, very nicely put. It's not the BB theory that I am saying denys the existence of God. It is the contradiction and resistence to the beliefs of others that makes me say that. As far as I can see I am accused of doing the same thing that my accusers are doing. I put my faith in God Whom I cannot see and yet, that has changed my life in an instance, which for me is great evidence, enough to give my life to it. But when I say this, I am accused of believing in magic because they say they don't "see" with their physical eyes any evidence and yet, in science they do this very thing all the time but it's okay for them and not for me. That is my only contention, that they will not admit that they do it with as much as I do. I don't really expect them to admit this, though. It's just the nature of the beast so to speak.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

As far as I can see I am accused of doing the same thing that my accusers are doing. I put my faith in God Whom I cannot see and yet, that has changed my life in an instance, which for me is great evidence, enough to give my life to it. But when I say this, I am accused of believing in magic because they say they don't "see" with their physical eyes any evidence and yet, in science they do this very thing all the time but it's okay for them and not for me. That is my only contention, that they will not admit that they do it with as much as I do.

There is a difference, however. I spent a few years debating in GA, so I have gained an appreciation for the difference between evidence for personal spiritual belief and evidence for scientific theories.

The difference is one of subjectivity versus objectivity. The evidence for the BB theory is objective. That means that you or I or anyone else can observe it. Note that "observe" in this case can refer to any manner of instrumentation; obviously it doesn't all depend on literal seeing. However, the evidence (and Big Bang model) itself is independent of any given person.

OTOH, evidence for personal spiritual belief is just that: personal. As a result, nobody can observe one person's evidence for their own spiritual belief. In your own case, you indicated that God changed your life. Well, that's great for you, but for the rest of us, we can't experience that. Quite literally, it's like asking someone to directly experience what someone else is thinking and feeling. It's impossible. At best, all we can do is take your word for it.

That's the difference.

 

[Inan3]

There is a difference, however. I spent a few years debating in GA, so I have gained an appreciation for the difference between evidence for personal spiritual belief and evidence for scientific theories.

The difference is one of subjectivity versus objectivity. The evidence for the BB theory is objective. That means that you or I or anyone else can observe it. Note that "observe" in this case can refer to any manner of instrumentation; obviously it doesn't all depend on literal seeing. However, the evidence (and Big Bang model) itself is independent of any given person.

OTOH, evidence for personal spiritual belief is just that: personal. As a result, nobody can observe one person's evidence for their own spiritual belief. In your own case, you indicated that God changed your life. Well, that's great for you, but for the rest of us, we can't experience that. Quite literally, it's like asking someone to directly experience what someone else is thinking and feeling. It's impossible. At best, all we can do is take your word for it.

That's the difference.

That is all well and good, but evidences in a persons life can be seen by those who are exposed to those persons. Healings and miracles can be seen by others. Dramatic changes in a persons life can be seen by others. God's presence can be felt.

When asked to believe in evolution, I have NEVER been shown actual evidence. I have had to rely on the word of others. As a matter of fact, I would ask you have you ever actually seen the evidence that you believe in?

And one more question...where does it say that everything has to line up with scientific evidence to be real? It is not difficult for me to understand that there is a physical as well as a spiritual realm. Why is it so difficult for others? It's all a choice and depending upon how you are looking at it one is a rational as the other.

 

[Vene]

Ok, I can provide some evidence of evolution.
How about the evolution of the horse?
Fossils have been found and reconstructed. One key part of their skeleton that can be observed is the number of toes. In the older fossils more toes are present, but as they get closer and closer to the modern day the number of toes decrease. Instead the individual toes grow thicker and eventually form the hooves. I can't speak for others, but I know that I sometimes forget that other people haven't learned as much biology (and science in general) that I have. (not that there isn't a lot that I haven't learned yet)

 

[Pete Harcoff]

That is all well and good, but evidences in a persons life can be seen by those who are exposed to those persons. Healings and miracles can be seen by others. Dramatic changes in a persons life can be seen by others. God's presence can be felt.

People do change and dramatic changes can be observed. But this doesn't necessarily mean that divine intervention was the cause.

Likewise, from what I've seen of the evidence for so-called miracles, I have to see anything particularly compelling. A lot of the time they rely on personal ancedotes, which again, comes down to subjectivity.

As for God's presence, again that's entirely subjective. Case in point, I have a book about Pagan beliefs which details people's own experiences with Neo-Paganism. In once instance, a woman gives a description of how she felt the a goddess 'prescence'. Do you believe there is a Neo-Pagan goddess?

When asked to believe in evolution, I have NEVER been shown actual evidence. I have had to rely on the word of others.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. What do you think it is you are not being shown? What do you expect to be seeing? Especially given that there are limitations to this whole "Internet" communication thing.

I wonder if it's also a case of maybe not recognizing evidence when you see it. One of the things I've noticed about deal with scientific theories, is there is a pre-requisite of background knowledge needed before one can always regonize the evidence. In the case of evolution, you first need to fully understand what the Theory of Evolution is. And it helps to have other knowledge of biology too (genetics, anatomy, etc).

Out of curiosity, how much of a background in biology do you have? Have you educated yourself on what evolution is and how it relates to the other bio-sciences? And would you recognize evidence for evolution if you saw it?

As a matter of fact, I would ask you have you ever actually seen the evidence that you believe in?

Depends on how you define it I suppose. I have read quite a number of scientific papers on the subject and looked at the data they present. I have also seen real-world fossils for what it's worth.

However, I'm not a scientist myself, therefore I don't work with this stuff. I guess this raises another point. Your average lay person isn't going to work directly with a lot of this stuff. Instead, it is reported on (i.e. published) by the scientists that work directly with it.

But, here is the key. Anyone can still go into those fields and look at the evidence for themselves. The evidence is still "person independent". Logistically, it might be difficult for everyone to do that (i.e. getting a science degree, working in a lab, and so on). But it's not like you have an individual scientist experiencing something at the exclusion of everyone else.

And one more question...where does it say that everything has to line up with scientific evidence to be real? It is not difficult for me to understand that there is a physical as well as a spiritual realm. Why is it so difficult for others? It's all a choice and depending upon how you are looking at it one is a rational as the other.

It doesn't. But science can only deal with the natural; that is, science can only deal with that that can be tested. Once you get away from that, you are into philosophy and not science any more. Nothing wrong with that, but those are two different avenues of knowledge.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What is "magic"

Magick is any event that occurs at least partially due to an individual willing it to be so. Such individuals include deities, and since a miracle is a deity 'willing' an event to be so, miracles are a form of magick (just to cover my bases).

is to say that everything came from nothing, such as a big bang that happened from things that came from nothing

Not quite. The BB didn't occur from anything, let alone things that cam from nothing (at least, in the most popular model; there are other scientific models that propost a cyclic temporal universe, or a multiverse, or an m-brane-collusion-universe universe, or...).

In any case, 'something from nothing' is not a significant problem to physics, despite what the more archaic theologians say.

and then evolved into the the most incredible designed beings that even the greatest of all scientists, geniouses, superbrains on this earth, all working together, cannot figure out. They keep saying but we're getting close. We're only a few billion years away from knowing...

I'm not sure what you're referring to here: we are confident as to how the modern observable universe formed after the BB, we are extremely confident as to how the solar system and the Earth formed (and what they looked like from the inception of their formation), and we are nigh-on 100% certain as to how life formed and subsequently developed into the biodiversity we see today.
So to repeat myself, I don't really know what "the the (sic) most incredible designed beings" you refer to are.

I dare say you wouldn't tell your kids that's what happened to the car you drive or the computer you use, or the appliances that are around your home and work, so why would you tell them you believe that those who invented these things, and those creatures that do amazing feats, etc. were all made that way.

... what?

One day a big bang just happened from what we don't know and where it came from we don't know, we think it came from nothing. ...... Now THAT is "magical", THAT is mythical.

Compared to: "MAGIC MAN DUNNIT!"
Emboldened for seriousness. Seriouscat frowns

You know if you really would let yourself think about it that there is no way it could have happened that way. That way of thinking is the only fairytale on this thread.

Please, oh God please, demonstrate how the BB could not have happend.

The only way that ANY of this can be true is by the intelligent design of a higher Being than you or I. Denial won't make it any less real.

Again, please please please demonstrate this.

Inan3, the last three points are in dire need of answering:

• How is the entire of cosmology equal in probability to "MAGIC MAN DUNNIT!"?
• Why could the Big Bang not have happened?
• Why could the only solution to the origin of humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe, be "MAGIC MAN!"?

Huh?