But implicit in your above statement is the assumption that the science did discover something correctly about nature. I will say it is a completely false assumption. Or in other words science did not discover anything. Do not confuse science with technology or engineering. Technology came before science. Science is never the foundation of technology. Technology deals with the objects of nature, science does not. Science starts with hypotheses, postulates, or assumptions. We must separate physics from engineering, medicine from mind, natural selection from creation, etc.

Kepler’s law is physics; it completely and utterly failed in GPS. There is no ellipse in nature; there is not even a straight line in nature, because all objects in the universe are continuously moving. Thus Newton’s first law is wrong.

It has been found that placebo medicine has cured all diseases. It has also been found that placebo surgery works. Thus it is the mind that cures everything. And since doctors cannot prove why and how placebo cures, therefore doctors cannot also explain why medicine effect is nothing but placebo effect. For more details take a look at https://www.academia.edu/38590496/A_COMPARISON_OF_MODERN_SCIENCE_WITH_VEDIC_SCIENCE

quote: 'assumption that there will always be something that science cannot explain. ' - then how come atheists still don't have any answers for that? i always hear them: 'give us more time, at least a billion years, and we have nice answers for you'...

atheists say that the universe' origin is unknown, then what the hell is the big bang theory? you mean that it is no longer viable explanation? or 'give us more time, at least a billion years, and we have nice answers for you'...

atheists say that vestigial organs numbered hundreds in the human body, but most of the claims are already crap.. i wonder why atheists don't study these vestigial organs? are they afraid that there are no vestigial organs? if so, then evolution is dead in the water.

theists never say :'give us more time, at least a billion years, and we have nice answers for you'...! we simply do science to prove that vestigial organs never exist

i did present my point already, that energy that is guided produce important and meaningful outcome, while energy that is unguided produce disastrous effects. i think i should be the one who will question you!

On your first paragraph, granted. It is the widespread professional opinion confirmed by observation and reason. On the other hand, your apparent dismissal of it is the opinion of a single person with no expertise in the subject. You don't have a theory or even a hypothesis.

I don't disagree with your second paragraph. What is your point?

quote: 'it is a scientific conclusion that is widely accepted by virtually all scientists and most theists, including the Catholic Church' -- it is just a widespread opinions of scientists and even most christians, nevertheless, it is just a theory. it is not repeatable and never observed.

you missed my point about energy. when an atomi bomb bombed 2 japanese cities, the caused by this energy was very enormous, very destructive, because the energy was not 'guided', it was 'blind'... when i make miniature models, my energy is an intelligent one, it is not destructive but more useful. i use this energy as 'guided' and 'intelligent'..

Yes I believe the universe was once a singularity which you appear to be calling a "dot", presumably to mock this scientific conclusion, like atheists who call "God" a "sky pixie".

The Big Bang Theory is not an imagined hypothesis, it is a scientific conclusion that is widely accepted by virtually all scientists and most theists, including the Catholic Church. It is heavily relied on as evidence for Cosmological Arguments for the existence of god.

"energy" is a concept in physics that means the capacity to do "work". "Work", roughly, being the product of force and displacement. This is high school physics and math. No, energy is not intelligent.

When you arrange matter into different forms, like miniatures, you are neither creating or destroying energy or matter. You are doing "work", you are using energy through the chemistry of your body to move bits of matter around. This is using the elector-magnetic force. When atomic bombs go off they release enormous amounts of the potential energy stored by a nuclear force that binds atoms together. This is very interesting as it literally means some of the matter of the bomb, is turned into kinetic energy.

Yes, kinetic energy can be very destructive, it is also is necessary for any human activity.

amoebas and other life forms emerged from the universe, no doubt about that. but science doesn't attempt to answer how or why that 'amoeba' (or whatever it was) evolved? evolve needs energy, and that energy should be an 'intelligent' one, and not 'blind forces'

so you simply believe that the 'dot' is the universe? was it a natural cause? i haven't seen a 'dot' simply turned into a vast, very vast universe! (that only happens in the imaginations of physicists and other wide-pocket, so-called scientists, but in reality it never happened).

science tells us that energy is neither created/destroyed.. but what kind of energy is that? what characteristic energy does it have? an intelligent one or not? an atomic bomb that once bombed one japanese city was a very huge energy, the end product was really a disastrous event. that's 'unintelligent' energy.. i have energy, an intelligent energy to create miniature models.

I do not hold any beliefs about the cause of the universe, or whether the universe was caused. How the infinitely small dot turned into the universe we observe today IS the Big Bang theory. You will need at least an undergrad in physics to understand it I expect. The dot didn't trigger the universe, the dot WAS the universe. How the dot originated is unknown, though science has ideas about it. But scientists can indeed explain how and why the universe expanded from a singularity pursuant to natural laws. That is what the theory does, it takes the universe from now and asks, if we roll back time what must have been the case in the past if natural laws are not abridged. They find an infinitely small, hot universe. Science cannot go back further because time ceases to make sense along with dimension in this case.

No I have not observed matter just "pop", all of those things, houses etc, were rearranged, not created out of nothing. Science tells us that matter and energy are never created or destroyed, and that is consistent with observation. It is theists who claim matter "popped" out of nothing, because of a god. We never observe anything remotely like that.

You can call it eternal, but that is a bit misleading. In the context of these discussions, it would usually mean time goes back infinitely in the past, which is not what I am saying. The quote you have from Genesis explains nothing. It does not tell us what is meant by "the beginning". It presupposes that the water existed, and there was a before and after the creation of the dry land and humans. All this would suggest time and space already exist at the beginning. Which means the origin of the universe must have been before the narrative starts, which means it tells us nothing of ultimate origins of material reality.