He could work at CNN.
Steele admitted during a lawsuit deposition that he used internet searches and unverified information to support details he had gathered about a web company mentioned in the dossier, according to select pages of his deposition transcript that a federal court unsealed this week.
But Steele limited his answers about how he verified information about the web companies who claimed they were defamed. He would not explain, for instance, what else he did or sources he used to verify information in the dossier about Webzilla, its parent company XBT and their Russian founder Aleksej Gubarev, who were named in the dossier. He did not have to describe during the deposition all the steps he took to collect or check the information because of terms set by the court.
But he could talk about web searches — and how he didn’t realize one article he found in his research was a submission from a “random person,” as an attorney pointed out, rather than a news report.
Typical liberal lies.
What an awful human being.
I’m surprised you would criticize Steele, since you make unverified claims every day.
Nord,
We’ve played your awful false accusation game before and you always look foolish.
One, accurate, in context quote is all I ask?
The earth is 6000 years old.
And you have made all sorts of unsubstantiated claims about me, yet have never met, nor talked to me personally.
Nord,
Again, you got quote wrong.
So you are shaming my Christianity? Why?
Try being less hostile to Christian Faith.
Tolerance. Live your tolerance like you do more than talk about it.
k:
Nope, the quote is entirely accurate. But I feel generous today, so tell us all again; how old is the earth?
I’m not hostile to anyone’s faith, just to dishonesty and untruthfulness.
And since we have never met, and probably never will, it is completely disingenuous of you to make any comment on how tolerant I am.
Nord,
The exact quote is:
“I believe the earth is between 6,000-10,000 years old.”
If you are going to shame me, please conduct your public shaming with the correct facts.
In our debate between Big Bang and Creation, as a “smart guy” never answered the science of my simple question: Where did all the material leading up to Big Bang come from?
You refuse to answer because the answer requires faith.
Don’t shame faith of others when you are too dishonest to admit your own faith.
I am against public shaming of honest faith. Are you?
k:
That is your fall back quote after Kremer made a fool of himself. Be honest with yourself. It may save you later,
Facts, by definition, are correct. Only a fan of k. conway would make such a foolish statement.
We didn’t have a debate, you gave a lecture. I presented facts, you called me names. You really need to work on that memory…
Honest faith ? If you say so.
1.) Kremer did not make a fool of himself. He was a faithful Christian and you should stop shaming him.
2.) You still did not answer the simple question: “Where did all the material leading up to Big Bang come from?”
Come on, smart guy, science must have an answer….
I am honest because I admit my Christian Faith.
You are dishonest, because you have faith in your godless theory, but fail to admit it.
Don’t shame others for their open faith when you are too ashamed to produce any answers for your godless faith.
Seems very hypocritical on your part.
1). Sure he did, “The earth is 6000 years old. That’s a fact”.
2). Pure energy and sub atomic particles. See the works of Einstein, Hubble, et al. Energy can be converted to matter, and back again, as long as the laws of conservation are followed..
Nord
Where did pure energy and sub atomic particles come from?
I’d say it’s magic, but that is your schtick.
But we could play this game forever. Unless you can deal with higher level physics and math you probably aren’t really interested. You just want to get you way. Believe whatever you want.
Nord,
That is not science.
We have already got to the point where scientists are just guessing about where the material came from pre Big Bang. Your belief in those guesses are pure faith.
So you eithere have your own faith, which is very questionable based on guessing.
OR
You have to have the unscientific conviction that everything can come from nothing. Even the most die hard atheist scientists are not saying that “faith” is possible.
So please stop making fun of faith of others. the only 2 scenarios you can possibly believe is requires tremendous “faith”.
You are free to choose the cold, empty faith, with no eternal hope, but stop shaming the rest of us with citizenship in heaven through faith in Jesus.
I just ask you be honest to admit what you believe in requires a lot of faith.
That’s all.
I am honest about what I believe.
And you don’t get to make the rules……
Nord,
But you do?
Again, what you explained about where pre Big Bang material came from is not science, but faith.
Why does a cold, empty, despairing, faith get to make the “rules”?
All that science and evidence that got us to the Big Bang, you question that, too? Or just the last bit where we’re still learning?
jjf,
The Big Bang is not “science”, it is “theory”, or “guessing”.
If you cannot explain how everything comes from nothing?
OR
where all the material leading up to the Big Bang came from?
If you claim Big Bang is science where we still have to learn the pre-Big Bang material origin…don’t you have “faith” whether you think the guess is divine, or something else? It certainly is not “science” either way.
All you have is “faith” to rely on.
Stop shaming others who are open and honest about their faith.
Shaming should be reserved for people like yourself who are completely dishonest, and hidden, about their faith…because those people feel “faith” is a dirty word for some reaseon.
Again, are you questioning all the science that got us to the idea of a Big Bang? Or just that question at the start?
Can you explain why the Earth is only a few thousand years old?
k:
And what is your “theory” ? Any evidence to lead you to that theory, or just a re-hash of pre-christian tales and practices?
jjf:
Great post ! Thanks for the enlightenment.
I love The Big Bang Theory. That Sheldon really cracks me up!
Jjf, Nord,
You both have admitted science cannot explain why everything can come from nothing or where the pre Big Bang material came from?
Your version requires faith to work.
There is no denying that because the guesswork is just that, guesswork.
I only ask for honesty about your faith.
Why can’t either of you be honest?
Still shaming Christians about Creation?
Sorry k, but you are wrong on a couple fronts. I believe that smart guys like Einstein, Hubble, Cooper, et al have got it figured out. They just can’t convince deniers like you that science can explain what you can’t. That will probably always be the case, at least as long as folks use religion to explain thinks they choose not to understand.
If you think the math involved in quantum physics is “guesswork”, then that explains why you struggled so mightily in school.
And scientists (nor me) aren’t shaming anyone about creation, just pointing out that there is a more plausible, evidence based explanation.
Nord,
Einstein, Cooper, Hubble, etc, have never explained how everything came from nothing or where the pre-Big Bang material came from.
So either, you are arguing you are not qualified to articulate their “science” from the begining, or you have faith there is science explaining this simple question.
Even in the case of the ignorance of your inability to articulate…that still requires faith on your part!
Be honest.
that is all I ask.
The reason this question so utterly DESTROYS you is because the greatest minds in history have not been able to answer it. Those that follow this unproven theory as science are really evangelists trying to preach the faith in the theory.
Be nice to those with different faith because your faith is showing, even when you deny it.
I like this explanation.
“The Big Bang could’ve occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there,” said astrophysicist Alex Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley. “With the laws of physics, you can get universes.”
In the very weird world of quantum mechanics, which describes action on a subatomic scale, random fluctuations can produce matter and energy out of nothingness. And this can lead to very big things indeed, researchers say.
“Quantum mechanical fluctuations can produce the cosmos,” said panelist Seth Shostak, a senior astronomer at the non-profit Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute. “If you would just, in this room, just twist time and space the right way, you might create an entirely new universe. It’s not clear you could get into that universe, but you would create it.”
“So it could be that this universe is merely the science fair project of a kid in another universe,” Shostak added. “I don’t know how that affects your theological leanings, but it is something to consider.”
Filippenko stressed that such statements are not attacks on the existence of God. Saying the Big Bang — a massive expansion 13.7 billion years ago that blew space up like a gigantic balloon — could have occurred without God is a far cry from saying that God doesn’t exist, he said.
“I don’t think you can use science to either prove or disprove the existence of God,” Filippenko said.
If we’re after the ultimate origin of everything, however, invoking the laws of physics doesn’t quite do the trick. It may get us one step closer, but it doesn’t take us all the way, Filippenko said.
“The question, then, is, ‘Why are there laws of physics?'” he said. “And you could say, ‘Well, that required a divine creator, who created these laws of physics and the spark that led from the laws of physics to these universes, maybe more than one.'”
But that answer just continues to kick the can down the road, because you still need to explain where the divine creator came from. The process leads to a never-ending chain that always leaves you short of the ultimate answer, Filippenko said.
The origin of the laws of physics remains a mystery for now, he added, one that we may never be able to solve.
“The ‘divine spark’ was whatever produced the laws of physics,” Filippenko said. “And I don’t know what produced that divine spark. So let’s just leave it at the laws of physics.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.space.com/amp/16281-big-bang-god-intervention-science.html
Pat,
All guesswork.
None of it is explaination using “science”.
It is all faith.
Christianity answers the question of the Divine Creator. He had no beginning. He has no ending.
Your “science” quotes are all blind mice scratching in the dark, trying to explain the beauty of the world in their purposeful spiritual blindness.
You are welcome to follow the blind mice, but after your little display, you can no longer deny the faith you rely on in the Big Bang theory.
Frankly, your “smarty pants” explaination why you cannot answer my simple science question, really crystalized how badly you do rely on faith and unobjective emotions to believe in the “Big Bang”.
Kevin,
And what is your simple science question again, please?
Pat,
“Where did all the material leading up to the Big Bang come from?”
(I am fine if you take the incredible faith (non-scientific) position that everything can come from nothing.)
Kevin, what you’re doing is called “God of the Gaps.”
jjf,
No kidding.
Which requires “faith” to complete the “scientific” logic…
And the gap keeps moving…
jjf,
Why does “unknown science” have to bridge the gap?
You clearly admit science has no clue where the material leading up to the Big Bang came from.
Dawkins was a partisan atheist who claims the “gap” is a fallacy. The problem is he says some unknown, yet undiscovered science will fill the “gap”.
If to blame the unknown on “God” is a fallacy, why is it not a fallacy to blame the unknown on “accident”, “no god”, or the nothingness hypothesis? Dawkins has “faith” that scienece will discover an answer OTHER than divinity.
It still is “faith”, no matter how you slice it, even if it is cold and empty.
Ope, excuse me, you’re standing on some of my science that used to be a gap.
Jjf,
Still not seeing the science.
I see a lot of faith in what the unknown could possibly be, but guessing and speculating is not science.
Kevin asked, “Where did all the material leading up to the Big Bang come from?”
I don’t know. What are your thoughts?
“Still not seeing the science”.
And how would you understand “the science” if you saw it? Do you dispute the math and findings of such giants as Einstein, Hubble, Cooper, et al, or do you dispute the conclusions? In a peer reviewed scientific article, those disputing the conclusions would provide evidence that shows the something other than what the authors did. Would you please provide some of your evidence that contradicts the current theory on the Big Bang? That is how it works out in the real world. You just can’t make stuff up and try to bully folks into believing you. I eagerly await your response.
Pat,
I don’t know either because I dismiss the theory as crackpot faith, pretending to be science.
Like asking me to visit unicorn land and asking me to theorize what the unicorns eat.
Nord,
I can’t refute if you provide no evidence where all the material leading up to Big Bang came from.
I guess we could try to figure out which facts Kevin believes and why, and then point to something he can’t yet explain, and we can claim that everything he believes must be wrong.
Jjf,
I can explain my Christianity.
You can’t explain your Big Bang Faith.
k:
Sure you can. It happens all the time in the world of science. It is called peer review, and often leads to yet even more knowledge. Take a quick look at the work of Cooper and Hofstetter (Cooper is the lead author) and tell us all what you think about their ground breaking work. Should be a piece of cake for a smart guy like you….
jjf:
The problem with your suggestion is that k only believes in things he made up. There is no way for us to comprehend the workings of that great mind.
Kevin answerer, “I don’t know either because I dismiss the theory as crackpot faith, pretending to be science.”
And, for me, I find that perfectly acceptable for you, personally, to have that viewpoint. There are people who believe the earth is flat. I also find that acceptable for them, personally, to believe that.
Love the quote from Bonhoeffer:
” How wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know”.
Pat,
I’m glad we agree the Big Bang theorists are in same level as flat earthers.
No place for either crackpot cosmology in public school.
Nord,
You do a lot of obsessive focusing on me.
Why cant’t you just answer the question with all this evidence you claim to have?
You throw a lot of big names out there, but never explain where everything leading up to Big Bang came from.
Even Dawkins can’t explain it. All he claims is: it must not be God…with no proof of what it is.
Kevin said, “I’m glad we agree the Big Bang theorists are in same level as flat earthers.”
You are sadly mistaken that I said Big Bang theorist were on the same level as flat earthers.
Kevin’s God is hiding in the gaps. He doesn’t see God in what man has deciphered.
jjf,
Great, but that does not demonstate any “science” to my simple little question.
Why are both of you ashamed of your faith?
Maybe try a new faith if you are ashamed.
Ashamed of what faith? That I have true faith that Jumbo’s is far superior to Dairy Queen?
k:
Nope, I focus on the truth. You should try it.
And I’m not ashamed of anything. Well, maybe voting for Nixon in 72.
Nord,
Then what is the “truth” in your faith?
Where did all the material leading up to the Big Bang come from?
Evidence only please.
Not guess work or faith.
Kevin,
Were you picked on as a child?
k:
I mentioned a number of folks that have done all sorts or work on the subject. So did others on this thread. If you are unwilling or too lazy to peruse those works then it would be pointless for me to expound on the subject, as you wouldn’t believe anything anybody said. If you can contradict the math, and the laws of physics used by those good researchers, great, a breakthrough in the making ! You will be famous, rich, and respected.
Nord,
That was not science or evidence.
That was akin to you demanding evidence for Creation and me pointing to the Bible.
You would not stand for that.
I can save you time. Science has NOT answered this question. As you see above, it requires a lot of faith to complete the theory. What you have faith in, exactly, is still unclear.
I was hoping you could clear it up for me with the evidence.
Very disappointing.
k:
Could you provide you personal definitions for the words “science”, and “evidence”. It seems we have reached an impasse here, perhaps because we aren’t communicating well. I have always had suspicions that English isn’t your native tongue, so maybe we can get someone to interpret..
Nord,
Same exact way you use it when you toss those terms at me.
What is so hard?
You’ve told me to go out and find the “evidence”, but you have not pointed to it.
Just referring to “math” and “physics” in general does not answer the simple question.
“but you have not pointed to it”.
Yup, I sure did. No get off your lazy tush and do some research. Or is the language barrier still an issue?
Nord,
If the “science” is so evident, just point to it.
I told you, it does not exist. Pat demonstrated that in spades above with his eloquent quotes from several scientists.
You say the evidence exists.
Point to it.
Kevin said, “Pat demonstrated that in spades above with his eloquent quotes”
But originally said, “Your “science” quotes are all blind mice scratching in the dark,”
And the went on to say, “ your “smarty pants” explaination”
So what are they, Kevin? “Smarty pants explanations”, “blind mice scratching in the dark”, or, “eloquent quotes”?
k:
I did. We all gave you numerous sources, references, etc. to check. (see above). I can lead the horse to water, but I can’t make him drink. Sticking your head in the sand doesn’t make you smarter, or more credible. It just plugs up your ears with sand.
Pat,
I am saying you quoted multiple sources, and they are all all guesswork with multiple points of view in answer to the simple question.
How can it be “science” if there is little agreement with no evidence?
Nord,
You still have not found the water.
I am shocked by your lack of transparency.
I am transparent and honest.
k:
And another case where we disagree. No surprise. Let us all know when you have even a scintilla of evidence of:
creation theory
6000 YO earth
communists=fascists
Thanks
Nord,
I abide by a differnet covenant than you do. I live by faith in Jesus.
You live by “evidence”.
I abide by the covenant I live by.
Your covenant of “evidence” falls apart by my simple question: “where did all the material leading up to the Big Bang come from?”
I apologize for obliterating your covenant so openly, but you have been snarky toward me about creation for sometime.
I had to show you that your covenant is really “faith”, not “evidence”.
My hope was that you would be honest about it objectively, not emotionally, like a scientist would be.
I guess I had too much optimism.
Kevin said, “I am saying you quoted multiple sources, and they are all all guesswork with multiple points of view in answer to the simple question.”
No, that’s not what you said. You said they were, “Smarty pants explanations”, “blind mice scratching in the dark”, and went on to call them, “eloquent quotes”?
Pat,
Why can’t they be all 3?
They are all eloquent in relation to their basic guesswok on their point of view.
They are all “smarty pants” answers to a very pointed question. Some tease divinity, some don’t. It is the arrogance on the multiple point of views, without evidence, that fascinates me.
In the end, they are all blind mice scratching for meaning they cannot understand in their spiritual blindness.
What shocks me is, Nord still thinks there is only one answer to my simple question, AFTER you pointed out mutiple, conflicting answers, with your post, which was by no means exhaustive on the many viewpoints toward my question.
It is simple, the scientific community has found the point where “faith” must play a roll in their “theory”.
Otherwise, their theory, falls apart by every objective standard.
(unless you can rationally argue, everything can come from nothing.)
Maybe Kevin’s trying to tell us he believes in all the other science except for the part that science hasn’t figured out yet. Well, that and climate change. Well, that and all that evolution stuff. And the part where they deciphered all the nuances of sex and gender.
jjf,
None of those issues you list are “science”, they are all corruption of good, honest, objective, science.
If science hasn’t “figured it out yet”, but yet you still believe in, or guess about the unknown, isn’t that called “faith”?
It certainly is NOT “objective evidence”.
Kevin,
I guess it’s anything you want it to be.
And like I’ve previously said, I find that perfectly acceptable for you personally.
Please note, the article I shared says:
Filippenko stressed that such statements are not attacks on the existence of God. Saying the Big Bang — a massive expansion 13.7 billion years ago that blew space up like a gigantic balloon — could have occurred without God is a far cry from saying that God doesn’t exist, he said.
“I don’t think you can use science to either prove or disprove the existence of God,” Filippenko said.
Pat and jjf:
No doubt about it, k wants to call the shots. The rest of us sentient beings just have to fall in line and shut up. Maybe it is part of my becoming of age in the late 60’s that makes me question that sort of authoritarianism, or maybe because I am by nature a curious person.
k:
Take a look at the recent work by Cooper, and Cooper and Hofstetter. It sure wouldn’t hurt you to try and understand, would it? Or is the acquisition of knowledge forbidden by your religion?
Pat,
The fact that scientists are divided on subject of divinity in relation to my simple question, shows the lack of evidence that really exists to support the events that led to the “Big Bang”.
Lack of divinity, really leaves the God rejecting scientist in the objective, evidence bind that everything can generate from nothing, which defies all logic of matter, and the perfect fine tuning of the universe.
What you have in the “Big Bang” is a controversial, divisive, faith, at best.
I am only looking for objective honesty about how much faith plays a part in this theory that is yet unproven in logic.
I was hoping for more objective honesty from all you science fanboys.
Again, my fault for having optimism about honesty to the scientific method.
Nord,
Why don’t you summarize all 3 in a way that answers my question.
An articulate guy like you should be able to do that easily.
As I demonstrated, it was actually a man of faith who looked at the evidence and came up with the Big Bang.
Me? I don’t fret about any of the edges of science. I’m eager to hear about new ideas and new evidence and the ways to tie it all together. I also know there’s always another edge of the unknown just beyond whatever was most recently nailed down. It’s always exciting.
Kevin,
We’re you picked on as a child? Just curious.
jjf,
The “man of faith” undermined his Christianity by causing others to be led astray.
If Genesis 3 is void, so is our hope in Christ. If Fall into sin did not happen, then Christ as our redeemer from sin is unneccessary.
A “man of faith” cannot void the central foundation of Christianity, and still be a “man of faith” in Christ.
He can be a “man of faith” in cold, empty, things, but he is no longer a Christian by undermining the central foundation of Jesus as redeemer from sin.
At least we acknowledge you are still clinging to a “faith”, albeit a faith that leaves you empty inside.
Pat,
Not really.
Only harassed today by godless liberals who are offended by the fact I proudly proclaim young earth Creationism, and are really offended when I dare point out the arrogance of their godless faith.
…but I take it in stride in grace, despite all the ridiculous, vicious, personal attacks.
k:
I have summarized scientific articles for you in the past, but you dismiss them without reading the summary. And you will never, ever learn anything if you have others do your work for you. That approach may have gotten you to where you are now, but folks will get a sense of that inherent laziness and won’t take you seriously.
But thanks for the “articulate guy” compliment. You finally came to the right conclusion.
Kevin,
So you were. That’s a shame.
Just do you know, I support your personal religious faith in Creationism, just as I support others faithful personal religious beliefs, as well as those with no specific religious beliefs. I should preface that statement with clarifying that when I speak of religious beliefs, I speak of the traditional interpretation of what a religion is. Not in the abstract interpretation.
PAt,
C’mon now. Godless religious beliefs should be held out for similar disdain…I mean equal 2nd class treatment reserved for Christians.
Nord,
You linked to nothing on this subject.
You flailed your arms wildly and mumbled something about “math” and “physics”, without answering the simple question.
Pat acknowledges there is no solid, good, consistent, answer….why can’t you?
>but folks will get a sense of that inherent laziness and won’t take you seriously.
Everyone pay attention, the master has spoken from years of experience. Leroy Potato Head.
Kevin says, “Pat acknowledges there is no solid, good, consistent, answer…”
I’m assuming you mean to your simple/not so simple question. I can only acknowledge what I know, and there is much I don’t. That’s why I defer to those more educated in such matters.
k:
You can look up their work on your own, or is that too much work for you?
Nord,
If you can’t articulate your faith, why do you expect others to pay attention to it as serious thought?
k:
Make up your mind. Articulate or not ? Is your noggin always so conflicted?
What the hell are you talking about?
I’ve been begging for an answer to the question:
“Where did all material leading up to Big Bang come from?”
Just be honest about your faith, that is all I am asking.
Or do you find the concept of “Faith” so repugnant, so beneath you in your intolerance, that you can never admit you have faith in something? If so, that is a horrible way to live.
Now, now, potty mouth won’t get you any smarter.
And I, and others, have pointed you toward your own enlightenment. If you choose not to do your own work, there isn’t much anybody can do to get you up to speed. The acquisition of knowledge is a process. You will have to engage and get involved. Those choices are yours to make. Good luck.
Wow.
The arrogance without even pointing to the answer you are arrogant about.
Is that your “superpower”?
We have to come up with a nickname.
Kevin, the answer is “We do not yet know.” But we know what came out of it. I bet there’s even a few people who could give a deeper answer than that.
Jjf,
That is correct “science” answer.
This means it is still an unproven theory when it comes to origin of universe, not proven science.
To act like this unproven theory operates on anything other than “faith” about what led up to the BiG Bang is very arrogant.
I’m fine with anyone discussing their faith in this arena.
I cannot stand the dishonesty this is settled science and it does not require faith to believe. That is just unobjectively dishonest to actual science.
The BBT isn’t just one thing. It’s a pile. It’s a pile of facts, a pile of explanations, and there’s explanations all the way down. And there will be more explanations, and more refinements, as the years go by. Are you complaining about the process, or the piles of interlocking facts and explanations?
And when we might ask “Where did God come from?” – let me guess, you have a book written by some fellows that explains it all with evidence and detail, right, and we can stop right there?
Jjf,
I live by a different covenant: Christian Faith. God has no beginning, no ending.
Anyone subscribing to BBT should be living by the covenant of “evidence”, not guesswork, facts nor in evidence, or faith. But yet that is exactly what BBT disciples do in answer to my question.
BBT disciples walk around in arrogance like their covenant has solved the origin of the universe, when all the have is a lot of faith, and precious little evidence. In fact, when considering the fine tuning of the universe, BBT theorists have a lot of faith in ignoring the evidence by believing random explosion can produce such fine tuning.
BBT people can preach whatever they want, I just detest the total arrogance that they live up to their covenant of “evidence” when all they do is really live by faith and their own religion.
I am just asking for objective honesty to the covenant the science fanboys claim to have.
That’s all.
Well, the scientists do need evidence. You don’t. You want them to follow your position?
jjf,
As a Christian, yes, I would want them to follow Christianity in the light of eternity.
However, scientists are free to follow their own covenant outside Christianity to eternal consequence. My only beef here is, scientists should stick to their covenant of “evidence” before labeling guesswork and faith as “science”, otherwise scientists are not living up to the standard they set for themselves. Honesty to the standard science has set is my point.
I can forward the the Creation account as the orgin of life/universe because I live by faith. I am being true to the covenant I live by.
Scientists cannot forward BBT because they live by “evidence”. It is clear there is no evidence to account for/explain the material leading up to the Big Bang. It takes faith to forward this thoery. Since scientitsts do not live by faith, they should not be putting this out there, UNLESS there is a disclaimer it is not science, but faith. There is no other conclusion, objectively speaking.
Honesty in presentation is all I ask.
Your point doesn’t make much sense, though. Scientists know there are things they do not yet understand. They’re not making claims about that. They have plenty of evidence for other phenomena, including everything just after the BB. It’s not faith. They’re not believing in something without evidence. They know they do not yet know.
jjf,
They are making claims about the orgin of the universe. If the material leading up to the BB is unknown, then all we have is an unproven theory/hypothesis.
To turn it into proven science is using faith.
Really? You make the rules about science now? They have an endless bunch of interlocking observations of fact, and explanations. You just don’t like what it means for your particular interpretation of your religion. It’s not about their science or their methods. It’s not even about the other religions and religious people who’ve reconciled themselves to facts.