Scientists Theorize the Big Bang may not Have happened

[fj1200]

The two are indivisible, though. An intelligent mind must be involved in design. Accept the existence of design, it's only logical to automatically accept that an intelligence is, must be, at work.

A big problem that disbelievers in God have is that they also have to refute any possibility of design in the Universe .. when everything around them positively screams 'DESIGN'.

the source of ALL the codes we SEE are intelligent designers. ALL.
the codes are designs not mathematical, chemical and physics leaping accidents.

To both; that is opinion. I may happen to agree but design is not a question of science IMO.

[revelarts]

To both; that is opinion. I may happen to agree but design is not a question of science IMO.

No, those are logical conclusions based on scientific evidence.

Good science makes conclusions based on the evidence, it's only supposed to change when new evidence piles up in another area to make another conclusion MORE likely.
In this case YOU are -a priori- using faith to assume there's materialist only conclusion based on YET to be found evidence to explain it what appears to be designed.
Your assuming materialism = science instead of assuming science = finding WHATEVER the facts are.
the thing is the SCINCE TODAY leads to the conclusion of DESIGN and DESIGNER. miraculous accidents have hit scientific and logical brick walls.

It's like someone who lives on an island with 4 known people left and they've decided that ALL deaths going forward are ONLY by accident or natural causes. But they find someone dead and the other 3 were together during the time death, but the death doesn't look like and accident. There are stab wounds in the back, writing on the body, the body dressed in cloths no one on the island can make or has ever seen, and the body put into an upright position in a chair on the roof of a house.

Sure there MAY be a way to find out how it all happened by accident or natural causes ONE DAY, but is that the BEST or an honest answer?
If one wants to cling to the idea that one of the remaining 3 did it even though there's NO WAY anyone could have because there was no time, they don't have the strength, the tools, the writing pens, inks or the motives. If they still want to cling to the idea that there's NO ONE else on the island they can. but it's AGAINST the available evidence. This death doesn't add up to accident it adds up to murder.
It's not "just opinion." It looks like someone else is on the island.

In a murder case if the evidence leads to ONE suspect it doest matter if most trained detectives on the case "believe" the usual suspects actually did it. And believe they'll find out how their favorite suspects REALLY did it one day even though they all have airtight alibis.
It doesn't change the facts of the case where they significantly and definitely point to someone they'd rather not suspect.

Design and codes are the product of minds, it's the ONLY known source of code...ever observed. there's no other source.
As SETI acts on scientifically, if you find code you KNOW there's intelligence.
it's not an just a baseless "opinion", it's the logical conclusion, a rational deduction, the only thing that makes sense based on what's observed.

[fj1200]

No, those are logical conclusions based on scientific evidence.

That is a faith-based conclusion. Nevertheless I can test if there is a third person on the island by looking for him. I don't want to pull a Gunny here but it becomes a semantic argument. Science will observe, hypothesize, investigate, test, and repeat until scientific conclusions are reached. At no point does science stop and say "Designer."

[revelarts]

That is a faith-based conclusion. Nevertheless I can test if there is a third person on the island by looking for him. I don't want to pull a Gunny here but it becomes a semantic argument. Science will observe, hypothesize, investigate, test, and repeat until scientific conclusions are reached. At no point does science stop and say "Designer."

so in a case where the evidence is obvious that the death is NOT accidental then UNTIL you FIND the murderer... the murderer doesn't exist.

[fj1200]

so in a case where the evidence is obvious that the death is NOT accidental then UNTIL you FIND the murderer... the murderer doesn't exist.

The murderer exists, just need to keep testing. He could have flown away in the airplane that evolved from sand and palm trees.

I'm thinking about two quotes:

'...when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.'

and

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”