No theory in Science is ever meant to be proven. If it is proven, it isn't Science anymore. But if it is a theory, that means that enough evidence has been found and presented to uphold the tenents of the theory, and yes the Big Bang does fit into that mold.

I understand that. Yet the scientists are constantly "correcting" their theories, when they find they don't work like they thought they did.

I understand that. Yet the scientists are constantly "correcting" their theories, when they find they don't work like they thought they did.

 

AND want it to be taught and believed as unrefutable fact even though he isn't.

I understand that. Yet the scientists are constantly "correcting" their theories, when they find they don't work like they thought they did.

 

And the Scientists that adjust theories to fit thier own adgenda are wrong. They give Scientist who do the right things and follow the evidence a bad name, as someone like a Fred Phelps gives a bad name to Christians.

 

However, just because we see something fall up instead of down, doesn't mean that the theory of Gravitation should be tossed out. Facts are just the minutia of Science. Scientists should follow the evidence and if enough evidence comes out to disprove the Theory of Gravitation, then you can get rid of it.

And the Scientists that adjust theories to fit thier own adgenda are wrong. They give Scientist who do the right things and follow the evidence a bad name, as someone like a Fred Phelps gives a bad name to Christians.

 

However, just because we see something fall up instead of down, doesn't mean that the theory of Gravitation should be tossed out. Facts are just the minutia of Science. Scientists should follow the evidence and if enough evidence comes out to disprove the Theory of Gravitation, then you can get rid of it.

 

My biggest complaint is the things that they cannot prove and yet they hold it as refutable fact to be taught as truth. And then use different guidelines to view other things they disagree with that cannot also yet be proven or disproven.

No theory in Science is ever meant to be proven. If it is proven, it isn't Science anymore. But if it is a theory, that means that enough evidence has been found and presented to uphold the tenents of the theory, and yes the Big Bang does fit into that mold.

I can’t agree with your definition here CC. If science cannot “prove” anything, it is no more than another form of philosophy. Which, pursued rigorously, could be reasonably defined as a religion.

 

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, defines science as "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world." In this regard, science clearly falls short of defining or describing anything that is not “physical.”

 

Many people deny the supernatural, choosing to embrace the belief that nature is all there is. If this is so, the universe must therefore have been created by the kinds of processes and physical laws we are currently able to observe operating within it. Logically, this is akin to “believing” that a flashlight came into existence via the process of electrical energy stored in a battery being converted into light.

 

The universe is exponentially more complex, and far more finely tuned than a simple flashlight, and yet we’re supposed to “believe” that it just happened. And we’re told this by a branch of thinking/study that denies anything beyond what is visible or measurable. In my world this is known as a tautology… or circular reasoning.

 

No one can explain in scientifically plausible (much less verifiable) terms the processes by which the universe and all that is in it (including you and me) came to be by natural laws and means we currently understand. To suggest other processes or other physical laws (which many scientists do and have done) goes beyond nature (supernatural) as well.

 

You may believe it, but it is disingenuous to the extreme to assert any degree of “proof”. Our known physical laws and processes stumble and fall apart when it comes to explaining the Big Bang.

My biggest complaint is the things that they cannot prove and yet they hold it as refutable fact to be taught as truth. And then use different guidelines to view other things they disagree with that cannot also yet be proven or disproven.

 

Well, to a true Scientist, something that has reached the status as a Theory, is as close to, in Science, a an absolute truth as possible, but in Science nothing is absolute. A theory is stronger than a fact, but a theory can be proven or disproven. There have been theories that have been discarded, as evidence was found that supported thier opposite claims. The Ether theory(I think that is about invisible matter) has been discarded. If the tenents of that theory can be proven or disproven it is Science, but different guidelines must be used if someting cannot be proven or disproven, because it's not Science.

 

The 2004 Red Sox may have come back from a 0-3 deficit against the Yankees because God wanted them to win. It may be true, but it cant be tested to prove or disprove it. The Scientific Method cannot be used at all.

I can’t agree with your definition here CC. If science cannot “prove” anything, it is no more than another form of philosophy. Which, pursued rigorously, could be reasonably defined as a religion.

 

 

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, defines science as "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world." In this regard, science clearly falls short of defining or describing anything that is not “physical.”

 

Many people deny the supernatural, choosing to embrace the belief that nature is all there is. If this is so, the universe must therefore have been created by the kinds of processes and physical laws we are currently able to observe operating within it. Logically, this is akin to “believing” that a flashlight came into existence via the process of electrical energy stored in a battery being converted into light.

 

The universe is exponentially more complex, and far more finely tuned than a simple flashlight, and yet we’re supposed to “believe” that it just happened. And we’re told this by a branch of thinking/study that denies anything beyond what is visible or measurable. In my world this is known as a tautology… or circular reasoning.

 

No one can explain in scientifically plausible (much less verifiable) terms the processes by which the universe and all that is in it (including you and me) came to be by natural laws and means we currently understand. To suggest other processes or other physical laws (which many scientists do and have done) goes beyond nature (supernatural) as well.

 

You may believe it, but it is disingenuous to the extreme to assert any degree of “proof”. Our known physical laws and processes stumble and fall apart when it comes to explaining the Big Bang.

 

My use of "proof" in this context was meant to be an absolute. Nothing in Science is absolute. Theories can be confirmed by empirical evidence, but Science cannot deal with something that is absolute.

 

I don't want to seem like I'm arguing for Science over Religion, because I belive that truth is truth. The Big Bang theory has much support from physical evidence. Scientists have worked backwards as far as possible and support for the Theory still is found in the evidence. The theory has weight because it has held up for years under Scientific testing. Many Scientists actually belive that as more evidence thtat comes closer to the time the actual Big Bang happend, the Theory will loose supporting evidence, and will be discarded.

My use of "proof" in this context was meant to be an absolute. Nothing in Science is absolute. Theories can be confirmed by empirical evidence, but Science cannot deal with something that is absolute.

 

I don't want to seem like I'm arguing for Science over Religion, because I belive that truth is truth. The Big Bang theory has much support from physical evidence. Scientists have worked backwards as far as possible and support for the Theory still is found in the evidence. The theory has weight because it has held up for years under Scientific testing. Many Scientists actually belive that as more evidence thtat comes closer to the time the actual Big Bang happend, the Theory will loose supporting evidence, and will be discarded.

 

And yet isn't it being taught in science's around public schools as the origin of the universe?

And yet isn't it being taught in science's around public schools as the origin of the universe?

Because it is currently the Scientific theory with supporting evidence that is accepted by the Scientific Community.

Beautiful post!:dancingpa

Thanks. I kind of got on a roll last night while fending off the lions.

Thanks. I kind of got on a roll last night while fending off the lions.

 

So, now you are having problems with lions AND squirrels.

The Big Bang theory has much support from physical evidence. Scientists have worked backwards as far as possible and support for the Theory still is found in the evidence. The theory has weight because it has held up for years under Scientific testing. Many Scientists actually belive that as more evidence thtat comes closer to the time the actual Big Bang happend, the Theory will loose supporting evidence, and will be discarded.

The only tangible physical evidence for the Big Bang that can be corroborated is Edwin Hubble’s discovery that the universe is expanding, along with subsequent observations that it appears to be expanding from a distant common point. Hubble suggested that the evidence indicates (if not proves) that the universe had a distinct beginning. No one has come close to explaining how a point of incredibly dense energy the size of the dot over this “i” suddenly burst into a stream of matter that eventually coalesced into the physical universe we witness today. We have no laws in nature or presently observable patterns that come close to explaining the mechanisms involved in the moment of a Big Bang or pre-Big Bang.

 

Ironically, Big Bang theory only attempts to explain what happened from the instant after the universe came into being and what has happened since… not the actual origin of energy and matter. Science is impotent in this regard.

 

In fact, there are as many or more bits of information that deny the possibility of a Big Bang, as there are to indicate such an event.

 

• Missing monopoles, the hypothetical single pole magnetic particles of matter that particle physicists claim should have been generated in the high temperatures of the Big Bang.
  
• Whenever energy is converted into matter, as must have happened during the Big Bang, equal quantities of antimatter are produced. There are no known exceptions. The problem is, matter vastly outnumbers antimatter in our universe. If this were not so, life would be impossible. Without equal quantities of antimatter to matter, it is unlikely that a Big Bang event actually occurred.
  
• Missing “Population III Stars” – This is actually a bit too complex to explain in a sentence or two, but the point is that the Big Bang can only account for the existence of the three lightest elements, hydrogen, helium and lithium. Some stars of this type should still be around today since their theoretical lifespans should exceed the time elapsed since the Big Bang. We have yet to find one anywhere.
  
• In recent years, astronomers have discovered numerous large "Jupiter sized" planets orbiting very close to other stars. This is the opposite of what might be predicted by the Big Bang model.
  
• The microwaves filling the cosmic background are fer more uniform than was predicted by the Big ang model.
  

 

The Big Bang is an idea. It lacks enough evidence to give it the credibility it would need for me to consider logical alternatives to God.

So, now you are having problems with lions AND squirrels.

Definitely some sort of pattern develpoping! :irked: But if I had to choose which one to be nibbled on by...

The Big Bang is an idea. It lacks enough evidence to give it the credibility it would need for me to consider logical alternatives to God.

 

There is nothing in the big bang theory that attempts to be an alternative to God. They are not incompatable with each other.

The only tangible physical evidence for the Big Bang that can be corroborated is Edwin Hubble’s discovery that the universe is expanding, along with subsequent observations that it appears to be expanding from a distant common point. Hubble suggested that the evidence indicates (if not proves) that the universe had a distinct beginning. No one has come close to explaining how a point of incredibly dense energy the size of the dot over this “i” suddenly burst into a stream of matter that eventually coalesced into the physical universe we witness today. We have no laws in nature or presently observable patterns that come close to explaining the mechanisms involved in the moment of a Big Bang or pre-Big Bang.

 

Ironically, Big Bang theory only attempts to explain what happened from the instant after the universe came into being and what has happened since… not the actual origin of energy and matter. Science is impotent in this regard.

 

In fact, there are as many or more bits of information that deny the possibility of a Big Bang, as there are to indicate such an event.

 

• Missing monopoles, the hypothetical single pole magnetic particles of matter that particle physicists claim should have been generated in the high temperatures of the Big Bang.
  [*]Whenever energy is converted into matter, as must have happened during the Big Bang, equal quantities of antimatter are produced. There are no known exceptions. The problem is, matter vastly outnumbers antimatter in our universe. If this were not so, life would be impossible. Without equal quantities of antimatter to matter, it is unlikely that a Big Bang event actually occurred.
  
• Missing “Population III Stars” – This is actually a bit too complex to explain in a sentence or two, but the point is that the Big Bang can only account for the existence of the three lightest elements, hydrogen, helium and lithium. Some stars of this type should still be around today since their theoretical lifespans should exceed the time elapsed since the Big Bang. We have yet to find one anywhere.
  
• In recent years, astronomers have discovered numerous large "Jupiter sized" planets orbiting very close to other stars. This is the opposite of what might be predicted by the Big Bang model.
  
• The microwaves filling the cosmic background are fer more uniform than was predicted by the Big ang model.
  

The Big Bang is an idea. It lacks enough evidence to give it the credibility it would need for me to consider logical alternatives to God.

 

I'd like to see where you're getting this info from b/c nothing you've listed actually contradicts the big bang. Yes the big bang is an account of what happened the moment after "creation" but many of the things you've stated in your list don't discount the big bang.