The big bang is made up. It's just one hypothetical concept that could possibly explain the creation of the universe. There are various competing hypothesis other than the big bang as well and nobody knows which one is actually true. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that even if the big bang started our universe, we wouldn't know anything about what caused the big bang itself. Which is where the post I've made two posts earlier comes in, that clearly went way over your head. You don't know what you are talking about and you refuse to go back, sit down and try to figure it out instead of just rephrasing the same false statement yet another time.

The big bang is not something that was observed whatsoever... That statement makes the rest of your post largely irrelevant since it indicates that you don't even understand what the Big Bang really is about. And as far as misunderstandings go, it's obvious that you haven't gotten my point, since you're just rephrasing the same false statement that I've already addressed previously.
You're also putting words into my mouth that I've never said or implied.

By your argument, you could also say that there is no value in calling it "Big Bang", "the universe", "everything" or "empty space". Which is just simply false. Depending on the circumstances you need to adapt your language to get a message across. You usually can't hope to speak Spanish to a Chinese person. Using different terminology for the same thing is no different.
And again, when it comes to "proof", it simply doesn't exist. You can not prove anything whatsoever. You can collect evidence, and it might be enough to get everyone to move on with their lives and to assume that they've figured something out. But in the end, no amount of evidence will ever be conclusive and thus will never constitute as an ultimate proof.
Anyone who claims to have proof of anything either uses the term loosely or doesn't know what they are talking about.

Science is fundamentally circular as well. God vs no god is thus no more than entertainment that some people choose to take way too seriously. The whole idea of a God is definitely made up and expressed by humans.

However, at the same time there definitely exists an omnipresent and omniscient something, namely the entirety of existence. Calling that entirety God is perfectly legitimate and something that most rampant atheists are too ignorant and/or arrogant to realize.
Whether or not that entirety is conscious is a different question (and an odd one at that, as there wouldn't be any change to be conscious of for something that is everything - temporal, spatial, etc. - at once), but we can't even answer what human consciousness means in any satisfactory way. Alas, any and every God debate is no more than a mental exercise or just yet another way to pass time as a human being at best, and a way to manipulate others at worst.

All of science is based on statistics and not on immutable facts. All of science is circular as well, so it's not really possible to prove anything in the strictest sense of the word. That also means that there very well might not be anything that requires any proof and that people who chase such are just enjoying their time on earth by making up statements that they feel need to be proven (or not).

While not true for all atheists, most of them are stupid followers themselves. They don't even understand the fundamentals of science and still eat up any and everything that "a study says".
Also, religion is just an excuse to hate and kill. People have been doing this for other fake reasons since the beginning of human existence. There are smart people who think for themselves and stupid blind followers in every group of people, no matter if it's religion, science, or any other kind of group that humans make up.

The market capitalization tells a different story. But it seems like Bitcoin is indeed eating up the traditional markets.

DPRK has no alliances, China is their only friendly country but not an ally. Russia isn't either.
Then China has no major asiatic allies, India would strike China if given the chance, Malayans are racist towards Chinese too... China would avoid war at all cost, their regional enemies largely outnumber their allies.

When you look at the "neos" and compare it to the old version, the major irony is that "neos" would probably hate their "base version".

Neo-Nazis vs Nazis

Neo-Nazis are racist towards anything but white race. Nazis were racist too, but more keen to its time, they don't kill black people for being black people, were friendly to Arabs, Indians and Asiatics, but made differences on "white race", they weren't quite friendly to Slavs and don't consider Latinos proper whites. Their major targets, the only "races" they hate to termination ends, were gypsies (as they see them as totally useless) and jews (seen as the big world conspirator).
Neo-Nazis are also way less of a communist and way more of a capitalist than Nazis.

Neo-Communists (neo-lefties, antifa, so on) vs Communists

Communists were, and still are, homophobic and xenophobic to the extreme, making here a tiny difference to Nazi racism, they don't have a "master race" but the local race is the "master race" of that said local.
They are also very harsh on lazy unproductive people, which happens to be the majority of the neo-lefties' fabric.

These groups if leave in the same space where only them exist would kill each other, making a difference that at the first ones the Neos would probably kill the Nazis, as they are more violent, and the second one to be the real Communists to wipe the Neo ones.

In order for a war to be a World War you need at least two major powers engaging each other. As NK is far from matching any major world power, it would be US crushing a mosquito. And if NK uses its nukes then not even its only "ally", China, will help them on anything.

Wow! I think that's a step to far! Of course they're people and of course nobody should be harassing, injury or killing them over that.
I'm however against it's promotion. You know young people is too influential and may jump of the cliff because some media promotional stuff on those grounds.
My view is acceptance (if you did it, well... be happy) without promotion (I'll not tell someone who's thinking of it go ahead or promote it - as 99,99% of the changes will never make you a successful being of the opposite gender anyway and I'll never support anyone to go through needless surgery).

Sorry to disappoint you, but they are not. They're basically the very same thing with a different name.

Prior to talk of left and right and use meaningless graphics, where the only point is "they're left because they call themselves that way", you need to know and define exactly what those sides are and what they stand for.
On the beginning it was easy, Jacobins and Girondins, Jacobins sit on the left side of the French parliament (hence the name) and Girondins on the right. Jacobins were radical and wanted to eradicate all wealthy persons, Girondins were moderated and seek understanding of the French classes. So on the beginning it just means radical (left) or moderated (right).
No need to say, a couple of centuries later, when communism showed up, there was already nobody on the "left", so they took the empty spot and are marketing it ever since.

So what it means now?
As the communists got to be the "owners of the left" (it should have a TM after it) basically you're "left" if they say so. Nazis were... until 1942, then they suddenly got to "extreme-right", was more of a "copyright violation" than a political sphere movement.
On the political compass left and right are separated by own much the state controls the economy; from "all of it" (extreme-left) to "nothing at all" (extreme-right). On this compass, Fascism, Nazism, Communism are close neighbors, on all of them the state has full control over the economy. On the other axis that goes with your individual freedom, they're also on the Authoritarian side.

So, as you see, you're just reacting to marketing about the very same product. In philosophy when you do the same, you're the same.

As a footnote, a North Korean girl if get pregnant from a foreigner will be forced to abort; they're extremely racist.

EDIT: This is how "antifa" reacts to Hitler's speeches when they don't know the author btw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=derHRFGZ4NU

https://youtu.be/derHRFGZ4NU
 

The OT is just a hate fueled person, equal to any nazi around, just think that by calling himself anti-fascist will make him less of a fascist, regardless acting like a common fascist.

For your knowledge:
Fighting an ideology IS NOT fighting people! When you talk on fighting nazism you are meant to refer to its ideology, uncover its fallacies, show valid alternatives to fanaticism and understand why fanaticism is on the raise.
If you think that by killing people who wear a swastika or any other mumbo jumbo is "fighting nazism" then you're nothing but one of them pretending you aren't. That was their problem: killing people, not using swastikas or lift the arm.

You know, fanatics love labels, be it antifa, nazi, proletarian, capitalist... to the very end they're all hate groups chasing down others and labeling them at convenience. You live under a communist dictatorship, they don't like you and you've a old rusty bike? You're "a capitalist" and they will kill you!

For me transgenders have a base problem. Often you listen to "he felt like a woman" or "she felt like a man"... But ever stop to think what does this means exactly? And the answer is; Nothing at all. Women and men "feel" nothing different, the whole manly and womanly behavior are social constructions, other than give birth, what no doctor can make a man do regardless, there's no overall differences between genders for someone to "feel like the opposite sex".

People isn't perfect but that isn't what makes Communism a non-working fallacy of all cons and pros only to very few at the top of the pyramid. What makes it what it is is the fact that persons are different.
Being different it means that each one of us have a different set of likes, dislikes and interests, this commands the "value of things". If John likes bananas but no apples and Sue likes apples but not bananas therefore bananas will have a higher value to John and be worthless to Sue, in the opposite direction apples are a valuable item to Sue but worthless to John. The Free Market just assumes this simple truth of value floating based on demand, if more people wants a piece of an item and the more scarce is that item to the demand the higher will be its price.

The concept of equal distribution totally fails on assuming items values and making everyone to take it as same value, regardless on how much it worth to each individual.

I fancy the irony that supports Communism.
It's an ideology designed for dumb capitalist people. As the dumb are intrinsically greedy, they believe that if everybody splits their wealth with them - yes, they exclude themselves of the share as in their mind they're poor (even if they are millionaires) - they will get more stuff.
Obviously they will fail square on see the obvious, not only they will be on the "givers" side but that the split will not provide as many wealth as they think. For an instance Bill Gates' fortune is somewhere around 80 bln, as there're 7 bln people, if we do a fair split of his fortune everyone would be receiving something around 10 bucks... Ouch! Not much for those dream holidays and new car, isn't it?

In that subject, Trump isn't the disease, it's a symptom. He didn't grew those groups, was elected by them.
Usually when extremism start to pop up it means there're severe issues on the social fabric, urges to identify and deal with those problems.

They are way different...
Obama was more of a common politician, that kind that people is used to and like to listen even when there comes nothing but soft lies.
Trump isn't anything of a politician, he speaks out his mind regardless and even when he is right he will be pointing unpleasant truths nobody wants to listen. Or just go on big fat lies... depends on the subject.
There's no exact yes or no or black or white answer to that question at this moment. Ask it again after Trump leaves the White House as for most of it only time will tell...