[B-Chan]

If there is a better theory out there that explains the billions of data points kgathered to date, any scientist worth his salt will accept it

You're wrong. Many people (scientists included) wouldn't believe in God under any circumstances. In fact, the only thing that would convince most modern materialists that God exists is if He Himself appeared here on Earth, working miracles and proclaiming His authorship of all reality.

Oh, wait -- He DID that. And yet some still don't believe...

[freedumb2003]

You're wrong. Many people (scientists included) wouldn't believe in God under any circumstances. In fact, the only thing that would convince most modern materialists that God exists is if He Himself appeared here on Earth, working miracles and proclaiming His authorship of all reality.

The belief or non-belief in God is not the question at issue. GGG has posted an article which he claims scientifically undermines TToE and, by extension, materialistic/naturalistic science. We are asking where in the article it does that and how so.

As a follow-up we have some people who are saying that a 100% naturalistic (that is, things seen only in the physical Universe) is somehow lacking. I merely ask what scientific discovery and tangible product resulting therefrom has NOT been 100% naturalistic.

I await answers to either of these questions. I suspect the OP and others will abandon this thread before a straight answer is produced.

[LuxMaker]

I suspect when the antichrist does something similar they will embrace him as God not knowing who God really is.