[color=red]Wolfbitn[/color] wrote:
First of all I want to address the word "Theory".
In the scientific sense, a true "Theory" has to meet certain criteria. Some of these criteria are but not limited to:
1) Objectivity. Without Objectivity we cannot at all practice anything even resembling science. All evidence must be considered equally. Objectivity demands that we present and work with ALL facts available. Biased testing only insures a flawed outcome. Non-objective and biased testing and result and then publication is nothing more than fraud and propaganda. SCIENCE though is a beautiful thing... science is blind like justice and let the balances fall where they may.
2) Testability. A true theory has to be tested to become a theory. It is only a hypothesis if the theory has never been tested. A theory can be tested and "falsified" meaning it failed the test and thus far holds no water so it becomes a falsified theory. Finally a theory can be tested and pass the test, meaning that it could not be found to be false after testing. This must be a test that is repeatable, having the same positive results by the end of testing.
This is true, and the big bang passes these tests.
The big bang theory (BBT) has been repeatedly tested and verified, most notably by both the universe's constant expansion rate and the presence of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). Both of these things would not exist if not for a big bang, and both are predictions which were discovered
after the BBT was formulated and were
predicted by the BBT.
Source:
http://www.pnas.org/content/95/1/29.short
[color=orange]Wolf[/color] wrote:I am a huge fan of Stephen Hawking and also a big fan of Dr. Alan Guth, Theoretical physicist and very recently formerly a professor at MIT, and a developer of a sort of "Chaotic" type of string theory. I'm sure we are aware of the brilliant careers of both these men.
Yes, absolutely.
[color=brown]Wolf[/color] wrote:Although I love science, and although I have great respect for great minds, I believe I also recognize when we begin reaching for straws. Now don't get me wrong. I am not an enemy of the Big Bang OR string. Like Guth I find them fascinating ideas, but they are obviously flawed.
It's not so much that the BBT is flawed (string "theory" is really more of a hypothesis -- it has yet to be empirically verified. Let's focus on the BBT for now), it's simply incomplete. You're right that we've yet to fully explain the ultimate origin of the universe or account for its state before the
Planck time (an infinitesimal fraction of a microsecond; before this time gravity had not separated from the electronuclear force). This, however, does not mean that "God did it," it simply means we need to continue researching until we find the answer. To say otherwise is to commit the god-of-the-gaps logical fallacy.
[color=blue]Wolf[/color] wrote:You noted earlier that I mention string and bang in the same breath. You mention they are different theories and while, yes this is true, I think you would agree that BB (Big Bang) is incomplete and String has been an attempt to give BB it's beginning. As it is BB is not a completed theory at all. It has no beginning. What do I mean by this?
I accept this, but remember, you said Genesis 1 was more accurate, which it most certainly is not (the Earth did NOT exist before the sun, to name one obvious flaw with the myth). Where is your evidence for that?
[color=indigo]Wolf[/color] wrote:Generally speaking, a lot of the math works out pretty well for BB... it could be said fairly AMAZINGLY well... except, as we near the moment of the event, The math ceases to work out. It completely fails. It has been a very frustrating quest for many a scholar, but it simply does not work out. The popular claim is made that the math can take us back to just a FEW seconds AFTER the bang, or more properly termed sudden expansion, but then it ceases to work.
If by "a few seconds," you mean a fraction of a microsecond (the Planck time), then that is correct. Our math breaks down into a singularity at that point. More research is needed, and yes, string "theory" (which is a hypothesis, not a theory
yet) is an attempt to explain the earliest states of the universe.
Once again, where does the Genesis myth come in?
[color=green]Wolf[/color] wrote:Half a century of untold resources and computing power have gone into WHY did it bang, but even with this, taking it back to the moment has never worked out mathematically or through other physical testing. The one thing BB has going for it is that some of the predictions regarding it have actually been tested and so far SOME of them hold up... But this is ONLY testing a PREDICTION... and to be objectively fair, these predictions did not need a BB to exist. There very well could be other explanations for instance for background microwave radiation.
All of the BBT's predictions have held up. All of them. I challenge you to present one example of where the BBT's predictions have failed.
[color=violet]Wolf[/color] wrote: This is why i lump string and BB as one...
This mistake is the same as lumping abiogenesis and evolution together as one. They're not the same; but separate ideas explaining related events. Just as evolution explains the diversity, not the origin, of life, the BBT explains the current state, not the origin, of the universe.
[color=blue]Wolf[/color] wrote:This puts the BB on very shaky ground when contending for the title of "Theory". It may be fairly called a well tested hypothesis, and SOME of the predictions may have certainly been tested and SOME of them have passed. But the event... no not so much as a single test and they cannot even do the math to get them there.
The BBT is indeed a theory, as it has made several accurate predictions and has stood up to every test to which it has been subjected. The same cannot be said for the string hypothesis, but again, it is entirely separate from the BBT, just as abiogenesis is entirely separate from evolution.
[color=olive]Wolf[/color] wrote:This is where it gets sticky for an Atheist's cosmology. If they simply allow an atheistic bias to keep them from factoring in "God" in a serious way, after EVERYTHING ELSE has been attempted, then they are slanting the test results. I think that it is obviously time to broaden our horizons and move aside the biases in the scientific community in this regard and GIVE IT an honest test.
God, as a supernatural being, is beyond the scope of science, which only deals with the natural world. As such, science can never prove or disprove the existence of God.
Whether or not a God is ultimately responsible for the creation of the universe (and I believe there are philosophical reasons to reject this possibility), however, the fact remains that
Genesis 1 is scientifically inaccurate. The Genesis myth claims that the Earth was created before the Sun, that plants existed before the sun, that dolphins existed before dinosaurs, and that all life was created in six days, all of which we know to be false. So regardless of whether or not a God or Gods are responsible for the creation of the universe, the Genesis myth is not more scientifically accurate than the BBT.
Thanks Wolf for a thoughtful opening post.
