No, I don't understand it. You're on one of your wild red herrings at this point, which tends to happen when you can't answer a simple question.
It has something to do with a Blazer basketball game. That's one of the things I've learned from you. The other is that if a hole in a theory is pointed out, well, that isn't a part of the theory. Moving goalposts like that is scientific theory, according to you. And no, I don't subscribe to that approach. I believe in real science, not cockamamie tales of a universe being exploded into existence by some unicorns and spaghetti monsters.
FWIW, I'm not the one claiming to know how the universe was created, or such stupid comments as speciation has been observed.
Mock the opposition when your own argument consists of an NBA basketball game. A classic internet tactic.
You're right in one thing. I don't consider "Big Bang" to be a theory, but rather a hypothesis. Calling it a 'theory' is a joke, and shows a lack of understanding in science.
You show a lack of understanding of the difference between a hypothesis and scientific theory. Hint: scientific theory carries a different meaning than "theory" in other usages.
You misuse the term continuously. From that it is hard to believe you know what you're talking about.
All of space is rapidly expanding. If you do not believe we can extrapolate that these heavenly bodies were once much closer together, why not?
Actually that isn't right. "Eternal" is without time. Time isn't the measurement of something eternal.
If the universe were eternal, it would have no beginning and no end. As far as we know, it has no end, but all evidence points to it having a beginning.
Hey buddy! Good to see you... That could be, but my opinion is anything that is eternal never had a beginning or end. So time isn't a measurement for that object, being, whatever...
well, technically infinite time is a measure of something eternal. just semantics, not important. carry on.
