Donal wrote:

I believe that one of my three options is currently "in vogue" with
the scienticic community.

Is that the same as saying that those hypotheses that don't agree with the
fashionable one have been falsified?


Furthermore, scientists will produce
evidence, backed up by observation, to prove that their theory is
correct.

Are there other scientists that will produce different evidence to prove
that *their* theory is correct?


So I think that the question *can* be answered in terms
that are generally acceptable.

You can tell someone that the sun is warm, and prove it by standing them in
the sun to feel its warmth. If I tell somone that god made the universe, how
do I show him or make him experience it? Ditto for a big bang or a cyclical
thing that has always been.

The universe is big.

Really big.

Honest, I'm not kidding.

We're sitting here on our speck of molten iron, throwing radio stations into
space, while we shoot around in something that is flabbergastingly huge. I'm
a little skeptical of the notion that we've acquired enough data to go
making proclamations of how it all began, or whether it did or didn't begin
at all.


--
Wally
www.forthsailing.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

Wally wrote:

Donal wrote:


I believe that one of my three options is currently "in vogue" with
the scienticic community.


Is that the same as saying that those hypotheses that don't agree with the
fashionable one have been falsified?



Furthermore, scientists will produce
evidence, backed up by observation, to prove that their theory is
correct.


Are there other scientists that will produce different evidence to prove
that *their* theory is correct?



So I think that the question *can* be answered in terms
that are generally acceptable.


You can tell someone that the sun is warm, and prove it by standing them in
the sun to feel its warmth. If I tell somone that god made the universe, how
do I show him or make him experience it? Ditto for a big bang or a cyclical
thing that has always been.

The universe is big.

Really big.

Honest, I'm not kidding.

We're sitting here on our speck of molten iron, throwing radio stations into
space, while we shoot around in something that is flabbergastingly huge. I'm
a little skeptical of the notion that we've acquired enough data to go
making proclamations of how it all began, or whether it did or didn't begin
at all.


Well of course it doesn't exist. We all know that.

Cheers

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:

I believe that one of my three options is currently "in vogue" with
the scienticic community.

Is that the same as saying that those hypotheses that don't agree with the
fashionable one have been falsified?

No!!

I was suggesting that the idea that the Universe appeared as the result of a
spontaneous incident was generally accepted by the scientific community.




Furthermore, scientists will produce
evidence, backed up by observation, to prove that their theory is
correct.

Are there other scientists that will produce different evidence to prove
that *their* theory is correct?

Probably... but their voices are not heard.



So I think that the question *can* be answered in terms
that are generally acceptable.

You can tell someone that the sun is warm, and prove it by standing them
in
the sun to feel its warmth. If I tell somone that god made the universe,
how
do I show him or make him experience it? Ditto for a big bang or a
cyclical
thing that has always been.

The universe is big.

Really big.

Honest, I'm not kidding.

We're sitting here on our speck of molten iron, throwing radio stations
into
space, while we shoot around in something that is flabbergastingly huge.
I'm
a little skeptical of the notion that we've acquired enough data to go
making proclamations of how it all began, or whether it did or didn't
begin
at all.



I don't disagree with you.



Regards


Donal
--