Intellegent Design

[Auronhart]

Well, the theory isn't split into macro and micro. Creationists just do this to make themselves right, since we can observe micro-evolution. The accumulation of micro = macro.

If we could observe a small segment of what we call macro-evolution, then I would agree with you. (although that is still using crazy extrapolation) As far as I know, the only observable form of evolution are changes (such as color etc) that a species will undergo to fit into it's surrounding environment. We have not seen any evidence for one species changing into another. (=macro-evolution)

Yes, as a singularity the universe is completely unlike it is now, all of the laws of physics break down. This doesn't by any means mean that I'm going to use this to say all sorts of crazy things go on. It really doesn't change much.

That is basically what it would require.

If you agree the big bang happened,

This isn't a fact, but we will assume it for now.

you agree that the laws of physics break down.

I don't think I have to agree that all of the laws of physics break down. Certain laws may break down, but then we know those laws do not apply to everything in the universe.
Read this, http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae251.cfm, which says:

It isn't true to say that all laws of physics break down at a singularity.

Exactly, I will look it up to see whether both conservation of energy/second law of thermodynamics must break down, but I somehow doubt it.

The way out is to apply a new theory that has such a floor, such as quantum mechanics or string theory (quantum gravity).

Yes, hopefully we will get one of these theories supported soon.

What is debatable is whethere there was already a universe before the big bang (which is unknowable),

Yes, using your approach, we can never know anything, because we cannot assume anything. (i.e. certain scientific laws)

and whether the big crunch will occur, which looks like no.

Yes, and the oscillating universe theory requires the universe to recollapse, this time and every time.

Sure, the rate of expansion is increasing, but a rocket speeds up before falling back to Earth.

Whatever, the higher the acceleration of the expansion, the more likely that it will continue to expand.

Uh, yes, that's what I just said. Are you going to show me a better theory, or just mock me?

I am not mocking you, sorry if it came across that way. I just mean to say that most scientists are rejecting that theory because of all the evidence against it.

Concluding ANYTHING at this point is jumping to conclusions. That is my point. We know nothing about what could've started time, so how can you possibly say science supports it when there is NO information to base it on?

Science supports a finite beginning to time. The only way you can possibly argue against that is to say that fundemental principles of science can be turned off at will. Yes, I will admit that many of the laws of science have trouble with the singularity, (mainly only because the number 0 causes infinite results in some cases) but at the very least I tend to believe the laws we have tested are correct until proven otherwise. As I mentioned above, string theory/quantum gravity may be able to explain the above, (string theory apparently would be able to find the existence of other dimensions if sucessfully tested) but until that happens, I will just go on what the conservation of energy says. You can always say, "you can't actually prove anything", (this is basically the argument of whether inductive (seen by experience = the laws of science) is a valid argument or if the only valid arguments are deductive (the result is hidden in the premises, so will always be true if the premises are satisfied) but that would literally lead us to the state of believing we know nothing.