Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc
What is your point?
That the BBT is a good solid scientific theory, and it will and should be replaced when another that explains more and fits the data better comes along. Until then, you probably shouldn't act like it's just speculation and extrapolation, and that the mere existence of possible replacements should let you treat BBT as though it were just a guess.
BBT requites extrapolation, some others are questioning whether all the assumptions made were really correct. People with a lot more education on the subject than both of us have wondered if there were flaws in the BBT.
Sure. Nobody, afaik, has claimed that the BBT is the be all end all and we shouldn't keep looking. Nobody has claimed we shouldn't check assumptions, afaik. If you've seen someone in the thread do that, please quote them - and I will admit I was wrong about no one stating that. Publicly. Provided that's actually what they claimed.
Until then, please
a) Provide evidence I have ever claimed science can prove or disprove a diety
b) Admit that you made an accusation that I was someone who faithfully believed that science can prove whether or not a deity/creator exists without actually having evidence to support the accusation