From: "Robert Comer" 

> Scientists hypothesize, then try to test those hypotheses, discarding
> and refining as experimental data refutes or confirms them.

I do have a science degree.....  For me science is purely to explain what
happened (and to be amazed by it), religion is to explain why and to fill
in the places that science can't.

>Big Bang
> theory is in the mainstream of cosmological thought today because many
> of its predictions have been found to be accurate, a la the discovery
> of the cosmic background radiation.

No argument with me there.  It also has some problems. (like the lack of
mass needed, and the ever increasing expansion.)

It's just trying to explain what we can observe.

> I don't see how it could be otherwise, but that's a religious
> statement, not scientific.

Yep, it's a religious question for now, who knows about the future.

> Would what truly be necessary?

That the Universe was God, it's just as possible to reconcile without that condition.

> You don't question the IQ of our hypothetical Designer?  Really?

Really.

> All part of God's plan, my son  .

Exactly! 

> Exactly my point.   Saying that there had to be a first universe is
> simply projecting your corporeal prejudice onto something that may or
> may not be subject to it.

Yep, but looking at this universe, Science shows that it is true. (that
there's a beginning and an end to everything.)  All this speculation on an
a neverending universe is just that, there's no true science to explain it.

> I'm not in the scientific community, I'm in Barktopus .

Truw, which is even more odd to admit something like that!

--
Bob Comer


"John Cuccia"  wrote in message
news:263cn1dp0jni6r3ephpkp7hu7geafsd2k2{at}4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 00:26:51 -0500, "Robert Comer"
>  wrote:


--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5