That is my point. If their were quantum fluctuations prior to the big bang that led to the big bang then the big bang wasn't the beginning, because something already existed. In other words, if spontaneous quantum fluctuations were the cause of the big bang, then they had to pre-exist prior to the big bang, which doesn't make sense.

If there were quantum fluctuations before the big bang, then something had to exist before the big bang. As such, what was proven could be that the big bang was not the beginning of the universe versus the universe came into existence spontaneously.

Besides, showing something could have happened this way is not the same as proving it did happen this way. Just because there could have been a second shooter on the grassy knoll doesn't mean there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll.

That would depend on what type of "opinion" the auditors issued on the company's financial statements. However, if they did issue a clean opinion, then like in the Enron and MCI scandals, they will be held accountable. Then again different countries have different accounting standards, so what applies in the US or even Europe may not apply in SE Asia.

One would think that before lending $3B, banks would ask to see audited financial statements. If they didn't, then they lost this money through their own negligence. If they did, then the accounting firm the provided the audits is liable (assuming it gave clean opinions). Neither of those mean the company itself wasn't fraudulent. I wonder if it was truly banks that made these loans or venture capitalists chasing after something that was obviously too good to be true?

If scalability and efficiency don't matter at this point, then I've got a potato fuel cell that you can build at home. All it takes is a potato and a zinc and copper rod. Works great for running a small clock, for instance. It even has the advantage of being biodegradable. If only I could get a grant, I could work on improving the scalability and efficiency.

Kerosene needs the right conditions to explode, unlike gasoline. It does burn, however. Kerosene, jet fuel and diesel fuel are all basically the same thing, just different purity levels.

And by-products. Hydrogen fuel cells release water vapor as the by-product. What would a petroleum powered fuel cell release and would it be better than what is released in an engine (particularly when scaled up to provide the same power outputs).

And if they only eject nonerolled students of faith or color, they get in trouble. Besides, this group is paying to use the facility, so it is very unlikely that they would be charged with trespassing. You can argue all you want, but the courts have already spoken on this and religious groups have just as much access to public facilities as any other group. Now, if the university opts to quit allowing anybody to rent the facilities, then that is their choice, but as long as they do, it has to be non-discriminatory.

A university is a public forum and most get state/federal money. As such, it is as available to use by the public as a public park. If the University makes its facilities available to other groups, then they must for this group, too. Otherwise, if they allow all speech but religious speech, then they are in fact, violating the constitution. Now, if it is a private university that does not receive government funds, then they could possibly deny them the use. But free speech means that the government, in this case a government funded university, can't prohibit speech just because it doesn't agree with it.

It is most definitely about free speech. Are they being disruptive? No. Are they being dangerous (like calling fire in a theater)? No. On what grounds, exactly, would you deny them the right to assemble and to speak what they believe to be true? Just because you or I may disagree with the subject or nature of their speech does not deny them the right to exercise it.

I don't think the flag burning of the 1970s was appropriate, but I recognize that the people who did, had the right to do so to express their viewpoint.

Really? The best scientific minds, in their times said the world was flat and that everything revolved around the earth. That was even after using the scientific method. Then some wacky guy named Copernicus had some wacky idea that this was all wrong. A later guy named Galileo picked up where Copernicus left off and took it even further. Of course he wasn't allowed to publish his findings and the authorities of the day tried to squelch him from teaching his crazy ideas (by that time, Copernicus was shown to have the right idea, but got the math wrong).

Anyway, today, we accept all of this as fact, but at the time is was considered by the scientific community as crazy. Even in modern times, we had the steady state theory of the universe versus the expanding universe we accept today. Even, at the time, the notion of the big bang was deemed crazy by the scientific community.

Science works by having a theory and testing it. It then holds as accepted until some other theory better describes the phenomenon in question. Even today, the big bang and expanding universe have problems with quantum theory that the greatest minds of the day have reconciled by saying there were different laws of physics at the creation of the universe than there are today (of course that is as provable as a deity). That will hold until somebody, in the future, comes up with a better model and furthers our understanding.

Real science isn't all neat. It can be quite messy. We build paradigms and models and even ideologies based on science and when some new scientific theory is proposed, it is almost always fraught with dissension.

So, unless you have evidence to the contrary, I stand by my statement that "...most of the science that you accept that came from what you are calling evidence based studies was once considered crazy, too." That is how science advances.

Do we really think that a large number of undecided creationists/evolutionists exist that we are afraid that letting this group hold a meeting will sway them or bring harm to them? I'd be much more worried about other groups on campus that are allowed to freely meet, than a bunch of creationists.

Any true scientist would admit that if a deity exists, by definition it would be outside the realm of what we casually refer to as nature and as such, science can neither prove nor disprove such a being exists. Why get all worked up over what a believe held by only a minority of religious people?

It is likely that socialists and communists and feminists and misogynists and just about any other "-ist" won't ever be convinced either. Should we deny them the right to assemble and free speech, also?

Of course most of the science that you accept that came from what you are calling evidence based studies was once considered crazy, too. It is the free discussion of ideas that is at the heart of the university system. Even ideas we think are wrong. What kind of university would it be that ignored one's right to assembly and freedom of speech?