In August? In Israel?
Sweaty, all the way. I’m there right now, I can prove it!
ETA: You beat me to it, dropzone… but I had a better punchline! 
Yeah, but its a DRY heat…
-XT
The Big Bang is easily proved.
Definition: The emergence of the universe from a single point.
Prove: The universe emerged from a single point.
Premise: Physical laws in the universe are everywhere the same. (A reasonable premise used in both relativity theories)
Step 1: The universe is expanding in every direction. (Observation)
Step 2: Spacetime is shaped like a cone. (General Relativity)
Step 3: The reverse of expansion is recession. (Law of Negation)
Step 4: The recession of spacetime leads to an apex. (Premise and Step 2)
Step 5: Every part of the universe leads to an apex. (Step 1 and Step 4)
Conclusion: Every part of the universe expanded from an apex. (Step 3 and Step 5)
QED
You’d lose that bet anyway.
You should have been there for it. It was awesome.
Prove I wasn’t there.
And lightwait goes on the list.
Any votes for “gradual expansion”?
You see, when a Big God Daddy loves a Big God Mommy very much, they go to the Big God Bed and have a Big God Bang, and then 9 months later the Universe is born.
Or the Big God Stork brought it.
It is against the Code to call lightwait’s attention to that possibility, Sampiro. I shall not caution you again.
I hope you kept the work order so you can prove it!
Did the OP ever bother to come back in his Let there be light thread btw? This looks like another drive by to me…
-XT
He did, several times.
Lightwait, I believe that no matter what standard of proof anyone may present to answer your question, you would shift the goalposts and demand something further. If that is true, then there is no point in responding to your question, because you are not really interested in any answwer that happens to disagree with your preconceptions. Don’t worry, I’ll hazard a response anyway.
Your statement that the “Big Bang” (really an inflationary model) theory cannot be proved because no one was there to see it has no meaning. No one can see an electron, yet I presume you would agree that such a thing as electricity exists, and that something like an electron is necessary to explain how electricity works.
“Big bang” is one of many theories that have been floated over the years to explain the known characteristics of the universe. It’s not a perfect theory, by any means. Should further research find that another theory fits the known facts better, it will become the one preferred by science. Should facts indicate that certain of your beliefs (cf. the origin of the universe) are wrong, would you be able take on those facts? I suspect the answer is no.
My bad then…sorry.
-XT
Actually you can see an electron with the proper equipment. As I recall, it requires a Penning trap ( a magnetic device to keep the electron in place ), a mirror from a telescope, and a laser ( which excites the electron into glowing ). I can’t find a link about it, but the scientist in question said he developed the technique in part because of all the people who told him “You can’t an atom, but . . .” and "you can’t see an electron, but . . . "
Fair enough, but this occurred long after electrical theory was established, didn’t it? It wasn’t necessary at the time to see an electron to be able to describe its characteristics.
Hey, I picked* truth*, thanks very much.
I dare you to prove that I am not God, speaking to you elliptically, leading you slowly to truth, and shaking My head sadly that you adhere to ignorant nonsense and childish confrontation, and close your peevish eyes to the awesome beauty of the greatest of My creations.
And also, that I have a huge Boner right now.
“The atoms or the elementary particles are not real; they form a world of potentialities and possibilities rather than one of things or facts.” — Werner Heisenberg
Can you tell me what, precisely, you hope to accomplish with this thread? Seriously.