Let's try this a different way. Suppose you are traveling down the highway in your car at 60 MPH when you pass by your friend standing on the side of the road. You stick your hand out the window and wave. Your friend observes you passing by him at 60 MPH while he claims to be stationary. You, however, sitting motionless (relative to the car that is carrying you) observe your friend (and the rest of the world) passing behind you at 60 MPH. Which observation is correct? Well, they both are. It is equally valid for your friend to say you and your car are moving at 60 MPH down the road as it is for you to say that you are stationary and the rest of the world is traveling at 60 MPH behind you. It just depends on what point you use for reference.

Now you may be thinking, that's a pretty mundane explanation, I see that everyday on my way to the store. What does it have to do with Relativity? Relativity doesn't really take effect until you reach much higher speeds (which is to say, the effects are still present at the lower speeds we see everyday, but they are so subtle that they are hardly worth mentioning).

Suppose now that it is getting late and you want to get home. You push down the gas pedal and speed your car up to 75% the speed of light (you bought the sports model). It's getting dark so you also flip on your headlights. One of the things Einstein figured out with the Theory of Relativity is that while all motion in the universe is relative, the speed of light is absolute. It doesn't matter where you are observing from, it will always be the same (approx. 186,000 miles/second). As you flip on your headlights, your friend still watching you go by will observe the beam of light shoot forward out the front of your car at the speed of light, or about 25% faster than you are going. You, however, will see the same beam of light shoot forward at 100% the speed of light. Or, in other words, your friend would measure the speed difference between you and the beam of light to be 46,500 miles/s, while you would measure it to be 186,000 miles/s. Which observation is correct? Once again, both of you are.

Sorry if this is getting a little heavy. I'm not even sure I answered your question, but I kind of got off on a tangent there. I'll try and finish up here (hopefully this is till interesting to you). How can both observations be right when they are so different? Your intuition probably told you that if you are traveling at 75% the speed of light, you should have seen the beam of light leave your car at 25% the speed of light. Turns out the universe is a much stranger place than what our intuition often tells us (probably because we so rarely have to deal with relativistic speeds in everyday life, our brains just aren't wired for it). As you approach the speed of light, relative to your friend still standing on the side of the road, time slows down for you. A minute will take much longer to pass inside your car than it will in the outside world (or, to put it another way, if you look out the window you will see time passing in outside world much faster than it is inside the car).

If you got on a spaceship to Alpha Centauri (4 light years away, or 8 light years round trip) that could go the speed of light, you would find the trip there and back to take hardly any time at all. But once you got back to Earth, you would find that 8 years had gone by. Relative to the Earth, it took you 8 years to get there and back, but, because time moves slower onboard the spaceship (in fact, at the speed of light it stops altogether), it didn't seem like it took much time at all.

That was a very roundabout explanation. Hope I didn't lose you in there. To get back to your original question, the motion of an object only has meaning when described in relation to some other reference point. Just like in the first example: are you traveling at 60 MPH or are you stationary? It depends on if your motion is being measured in reference to some point on the side of the road, or the back seat of your car. Your velocity is still the same either way. Does that make sense?

I like it, aunt edna always make good cookies, better than those goddamn elves, and without the nightitme rape visits.......

But in all reality, your sarchasam is well founded upon the ideas that have been spoon fed to you no doubt by stuperiors with a education based in the 70's.

Get a clue yourself and try and explain it instead of just poking fun at others in your fat rage.

We could dabble with the idea that God hasn't been DISPROVEN, just ignored. Much like the proverbial pink elepahnt inthe room possibly....

I may be incorrect, but I think what he is trying to say is that he is comfortable accepting scientific truths with the caveat that he believes god designed those truths.

As an atheist myself, I am comfortable with a theist having those beliefs, so long as he is not refuting facts that have been proven. I don't think anything he said suggested otherwise.

But you just said there can't be a "before" the big bang. As if nothing existed before it.