Wolfbitn wrote:
[
Replying to post 3 by Haven]
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.
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.
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.
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?
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. 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.
Now I will have to clarify myself. I am actually a FAN of BB and string. I dont deny the math works back to a few seconds after the event. THIS is why lovers of BB were so excited when string came along... this was FINALLY (they thought) going to reveal and complete the BB theory. So it is no exageration to say that BB is an incomplete theory... it doesnt have a beginning. It just randomly begins a few seconds after the event... a bottomless thought. It has no foundation... no beginning.
We cannot work back to the beginning, so we cant work from the beginning to now to even test our equations.
This is why i lump string and BB as one... although we could do the same saddling BB with a few other theories, but mostly we have worked with variations of string for decades. At first string could not be tested. We developed the collider. The test failed. The hopefuls said "we need a bigger collider" and they got one, and it failed. We built one nearly big as some cities, tested and failed to verify any sort of string theory. So the BB STILL has a missing beginning. If we cannot work this from the moment of the singularity event, we cannot work it both ways to check our math and we certainly then cannot even test the event to see if it is even feasible.
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.
So...
1) The event has never been tested and it's likely not to be tested anytime soon
2) The math cannot and does not take us to the moment of the event. Therefore the math cannot be checked.
3) This is after several colliders being built, likely easily hundreds of billions of dollars spent to find these answers, UNTOLD super-computing power, from UNTOLD numbers of computers and the worlds most brilliant mathematicians, Radio-telescope arrays, and SO many other resources being spent to FIND this answer of the moment of the event.
4) During the last decade, string is taking a lot of flack, and there have been several noted scientists who have just quit the idea in frustration.
5) Doctor Alan Guth himself (and this is one reason I have so much respect for him... his honesty) has stated that though it has failed so far, it is still a very cool idea (paraphrasing), but he did state honestly too outright that though it is a very pretty idea, the math simply does not work out. THAT is honesty from one of strings most prolific developers.
6) BB/string then OBVIOUSLY has major problems. We can simplify this logically just by observing that IF BB is ever to be found to hold water, it is obviously MISSING a factor or 2 or more. What is this factor? Everything we could have conceivably thrown at it has failed the test. NO ONE knows what is missing... but I believe I DO know what is missing.
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.
THIS is why we are here in this thread now, Haven and myself, to put this to the test. We are both removing bias, and I will be presenting Genesis 1 showing from the Hebrew language, that it deserves merit for consideration and is as testable as string and BB, and will fare even better.
I dont want to get too lengthy or make too many points on this opening defense. I give the floor to Haven for his approval or rebuttal of things stated and presented thus far.
Many thanks to all and especially to Haven
Wolfbitn
