: This is precisely what I'm saying.
: It's not observed, but it is the leading theory amongst many scientists that
: explains observations while taking those observations and extending them
: into the distant past, or through vast distances. This is the framework
: within which the Big Bang Theory remains the most viable explanation of
: observed phenomena.

But it is observed. With ever-increasing-fidelity telescopes. besides which nothing is ever proven in science. That's not how it works. You can provide a proof in a subject like mathematics, but science just strives to come up with the best explanations to fit the observed facts. And a 'theory', in the scientific sense of the word (not the colloquial) is the graduating point of a series of explanations that once began with a hypothesis.

Gravity can never be 'proven', and is still called the Theory of Gravity because some observation tomorrow that doesn't agree with the multitude of examples of how it worls would cause that to be rethought.

: "Experience" would be a more apt terminology. In science,
: experimentation and observation of the results (using whatever senses are
: required to 'experience' the result).

: But it's not. It's only an analogy based on assumptions about untestable
: properties of the light's path (eg, the source of the light, the light's
: own properties through its lifetime in the past, and properties of the
: space between the source and destination). Assuming the light's properties
: have remained constant, that it has not interacted with any other
: phenomena we haven't yet detected, and the laws of physics as we know them
: applied constantly throughout its travel, then we can mathematically
: predict the location or distance of the its source. Assuming the location
: is accurate to whatever degree we are capable of calculating, and applying
: the properties we have observed of light (specifically its measured speed
: here), we can predict the most likely distance to its source, and by
: extension how long it would have been traveling given those conditions. We
: can't prove it, as we can't travel there to test the prediction, but
: until any other discoveries somehow imply that our calculations are
: faulty, it's the best explanation for our observations.

This is all science strives to achieve...a theory is the best explanation possible to explain the observed facts.

: We aren't looking back in time, we consider that we are looking at the light
: that has, as calculated above, been traveling for X amount of time, and so
: we consider the image we see as effectively what existed that amount of
: time in the past. Saying we're looking back in time when looking at
: starlight is like saying we're looking back in time when we look at a
: childhood photo that arrived in our mailbox.

Not quite the same. Looking at a childhood photo of yourself is not looking at you in the past but looking at a photograph in the present that was taken in the past. If you look at the star Epsilon Eridani (let's bring Halo back to the discussion) you are not seeing in its present state nor can you ever unless you travel there. From Earth, the best you can see is what Epsilon Eridani looked like 10.5 years ago. That's all I mean by looking into the past. Looking at the light striking your eye when looking at that star is not seeing it as it presently is.

: Yes, what we are seeing is the state of light 'in the present', which as
: explained above, we presume has been traveling for a calculated amount of
: time. It is a snapshot of what we consider to be a state of the source of
: light X amount of time ago, based on the known properties of light. It's
: not looking into the past, it's looking at a snapshot of the past that
: exists here and now.

I guess I see that as the same thing.

: Also a non-answer, that it's impossible to demonstrate the point you're
: trying to defend. Scientists hate when people use that excuse :P.

It wasn't intended as a cop-out. If scientists created life from non-life in the lab, contamination would be the first suspect because life is so prolific.

: Right, that would be very intriguing. As it stands right now, it's stuff of
: science fiction, but the scientific efforts to seek out such life is
: certainly, in my books, a worthy mission.

: Possible, but only posited at current time. You see how your belief that life
: "must have" come from non-life is painting your very opinions
: about what should be found if scientists look long and hard enough?
: There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But it demonstrates that we all
: start our exploration of the universe within some form of an axiom, some
: framework by which we interpret our observations as an attempt to
: strengthen the plausibility of what we're seeking to discover.
: Nonetheless, finding biological life on another planet (presuming it can be
: determined that it wasn't contaminated by earth biology) still doesn't
: demonstrate that non-biological matter produced biological organisms with
: zero influence. It would still be a huge discovery, mind you, but it
: wouldn't solve that particular mystery.

It's not a belief of mine, just the most reasonable place to start to find an answer. Everything that has ever occurred that has been figured out has had a natural explanation behind it. Science only deals with natural explanations because what would be the alternative? "Super"natural? What is that? How can it be brought to bear on the repeatability and testability of experiments.

The total number of verifiable supernatural events that have definitively occurred in the history of the world is still zero, is it not? Sure, there were things that used to be called supernatural like lightning, eclipses, tornadoes, earthquakes, comets. Those were really supernatural in the days when how those phenomena manifested themselves was not known. Now they are known and have sound natural explanations for their existence. In fact, everything we 'know' has a natural explanation.

There are things we don't know, such as how the chemistry of life came from the chemistry of non-life. Given everything we've ever figured out before, the best place to start is look for a natural explanation. How could you begin otherwise?