[Detector]

The other day I was watching the History Channel and they had this segment on the Big Bang Theory. It was interesting as far as theories go, but I was a bit offended by the remarks of some of their sources.

There was this one fella, that was made out to be some big time MIT professor, that really kind of pissed me off. He came off as if he thought he was gods gift to intelligence, but in my opinion he seemed rather stupid and very arrogant.

He lost my attention when he made the comment that "Anyone, of any intelligence, that didn't believe the big bang theory had to be an idiot."

First off, anyone of any intelligence wouldn't be considered an idiot. Second, what gives this guy the right to call anyone that doesn't agree with his belief an idiot? For a MIT professor that seems a bit ignorant too me. If the big bang concept was more than just a theory then I'd agree, but until it can be found as fact its nothing more than a theory.

What I found strange was while scientists still push this theory they are finding conflicting information. For example, while trying to prove this concept that a big bang sent debris out that formed our universe they discovered the universe was not expanding away from a single point, but that the planets were expanding away from each other.

So they continue to claim that if we were to go back in time some 14 billion years we would find all the debris that makes up our universe has come together at a point smaller than a single atom. And then they tell us while trying to find this single point where it all began they discover the is not expanding from a single point but that all the planets are expanding away from each other in different directions.

So it seems too me that if the planets are not expanding from a single point,as if from a single big bang, wouldn't that disprove the single point big bang theory? And if so, wouldn't they want to think about changing the whole big bang theory? I realize getting science to admit they were wrong is next to impossible, but how can they expect a new theory to emerge if they refuse to except the present one is flawed?

Kind of reminds you of the theory of evolution