You responded to the OP not by impeaching his facts or logic, but because he had not submitted his theory to peer review. I pointed out that that was an appeal to authority---a logical fallacy. You then denied that appealing to peer review to determine whether something was true or not is a fallacious way of thinking (even though it is). You then falsely accused me of misrepresenting the scientific method even though that was not the subject of your original post or any of my responses. You then accused me of overlooking or downplaying "actual evidence (genetics, fossil record...upon which theory is built) even though neither your response or any of my replies had anything to do with discussing genetics or the fossil record. Then you deny the obvious---that the big bang theory implies a "beginning" just as Genesis explicitly states a beginning. You think this concordance between Biblical religion and science is wrong because science has nothing to say about conditions prior to expansion but then go on to discuss scientific theories which attempt to account for the beginning of the Universe, such as whether it is cyclic or expanding within a greater system (in other words, you try to have your cake and eat it too). In short you admit science does indeed have something to say about conditions before the big bang, even though what it says is rather feeble. The salient point is that science now says the Universe had a discrete beginning. Genesis says the same thing. As far as science not dealing with gods, demons, goblins, etc., this is just you employing yet another pejorative strawman in a feeble attempt to avoid discussing facts and logic. Science and logic deal with inferences to the best explanation. This is the logic Darwin employed and it is the method Darwin's critics have employed to show that his theory is not likely to be true.
You are still misrepresenting what I say.
The big bang is considered to the beginning of the universe, I did say it isn't. but it has not been established that this was the beginning of time.
In other words, there may have been time before the BB, the universe may be cyclic, an endless series of big bangs and big crunches or colliding brands, etc, or the universe may be an expanding bubble within a larger system, multiverse. In which case the beginning of the universe, the big bang, is the beginning of the universe in its current form or its current cycle....but not the beginning of time or existence of something, a singularty, a multiverse, quantum fluctuations, etc.
Nobody knows.
I said all of this, but you prefer your own version. Which appears to be typical of your tactics.
