Big Bang Theory no longer a theory?

[Eroginous]

We aren't talking about observations of evidence, we are talking about observations of the event itself. From what I see from wikipedia, in order for something to be a scientific theory it has to be observed.

Also, concerning my sig, read it again and take note when I use the word natural.

Observations ARE evidence. If an apple falls from a tree and hits Isaac Newton on the head, that's the only evidence that anyone needs to prove gravity. We can observe in real time the universe expanding. We can observe in real time the doppler shift. We can observe in real time the micro cosmic background radiation left over from the big bang. We can even observe evolution in real time.

All you're doing is being deliberately ignorant and arguing semantics. No one here agrees with you, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.

[spinner981]

Creationism can't be used to predict. Nor is it testable.

How is the big bang used to predict, and how is it testable? Also, I don't think that the only things involved inc creationism are burning bushes and world wide floods; it deals with the earth in the same way and in reality it makes theories that are contrary to evolution and the big bang. It is simply a collection of different interpretations, with different predictions. You can't just refer to it as "We can't disprove God" and then call it a day.

[zorkuus]

My response in this post is similar to what I would have liked to debate: infinite regress, and why it is not just a problem for the big bang, but rather contradicting logic.

There is no infinite regress with the big bang model. It's simply an explanation how the universe came from something very smalll to something very big. It doesn't even try to claim where that very small came from. Maybe it was there forever? Where's the need for infinite regress in that case?

How is the big bang used to predict, and how is it testable? Also, I don't think that the only things involved inc creationism are burning bushes and world wide floods; it deals with the earth in the same way and in reality it makes theories that are contrary to evolution and the big bang. It is simply a collection of different interpretations, with different predictions. You can't just refer to it as "We can't disprove God" and then call it a day.

What exactly has creatonism ever predicted?

[Itisamuh]

Somehow I am not surprised that there are people here, like usual, making the mistake of thinking science goes against creation. Even if this theory proves irrefutably correct someday, it still has nothing, at all, to do with theism vs atheism, nor does any other science.

[Annoying]

No, it will still be a theory, a theory is the highest state an explanation can reach in science.

However, you are right that this provides "a great leap in human understanding of the universe". As Gheld has stated, this not only adds new data to the Big Bang Theory, but pushes forward our understanding of General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and most importantly, Quantum Relativity.

It's nearly impossible to overstate how significant this discovery is.

As for the "theory", "fact" and "law", theories contain facts and laws. The Universal Law of Gravitation is part of Newton's theory of Gravity. The Laws of Thermodynamics are a part of the theory of thermodynamics.

Laws describe phenomena and theories explain both phenomena and laws. Einstein's theory of gravity (General Relativity) explains Einstein's Law of gravity. It even explains Newton's Law of gravity under conditions of low energy. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.

Creationism isn't even in the same ball park. It doesn't even rise to the level of unproven hypothesis. If you want to classify it, it's under "fairy tales".

I don't know what people are arguing about (CBA to get in an evolution debate this late), but this really answers the question of the thread.

[spinner981]

Observations ARE evidence. If an apple falls from a tree and hits Isaac Newton on the head, that's the only evidence that anyone needs to prove gravity. We can observe in real time the universe expanding. We can observe in real time the doppler shift. We can observe in real time the micro cosmic background radiation left over from the big bang. We can even observe evolution in real time.

All you're doing is being deliberately ignorant and arguing semantics. No one here agrees with you, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.

The apple falling is a direct observation of gravity. Something similar to this would simply be seeing the apple on the ground, and assuming that gravity caused it to fall from the tree. If we are seeing gravity in action, that is a direction observation of gravity. Words mean things, you can't just define them as having one meaning and then use them to have a new meaning. Doesn't matter how much you want to misinterpret whatever. You can't just apply double standards left and right and expect nobody to point out such double standards.

If observations of evidence are observations of the actual event, then seeing an apple on the ground would mean we also are seeing it fall from the tree.

[facerollin]

God is just testing us when they discovered this. (:

[spinner981]

There is no infinite regress with the big bang model. It's simply an explanation how the universe came from something very smalll to something very big. It doesn't even try to claim where that very small came from. Maybe it was there forever? Where's the need for infinite regress in that case?

What exactly has creatonism ever predicted?

Because infinite regress is a problem with any natural explanation. If the big bang claims to define the origin, then it should do exactly that, instead of saying that there was some infinitely small spec that was already there. If it does do that, then its not an actual theory on the true origin.

This comes down to your opinion on what creationism means. If you want some examples of creationism making predictions, theories and hypothesis's, check out the creation museum (but that's different of course, because opinions!). Of course, I guess this also depends on whatever arbitrary definition of predictions you adopt.

[Dhrizzle]

@spinner

Assuming by Creationism you mean the idea that the universe was created by an outside agency, it can not be a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable because, if there was an intelligent designer, they could create the universe in such a way to leave no evidence that we can observe. You can accept the possibility from a philosophical standpoint, you can apply faith to believe in this agency, but you can not put it forward as a competing theory in empirical science.

- - - Updated - - -

What exactly has creatonism ever predicted?

Creationism accurately predicts that the universe exists.

[spinner981]

@spinner

Assuming by Creationism you mean the idea that the universe was created by an outside agency, it can not be a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable because, if there was an intelligent designer, they could create the universe in such a way to leave no evidence that we can observe. You can accept the possibility from a philosophical standpoint, you can apply faith to believe in this agency, but you can not put it forward as a competing theory in empirical science.

- - - Updated - - -



Creationism accurately predicts that the universe exists.

No theory that claims to explain the origin could be falsifiable, because a purely natural origin is impossible. Every possible explanation for our origin must involve something that is outside the realm of being proven. Every possible origin involves something beyond the scope of our understanding.

[zorkuus]

If you want some examples of creationism making predictions, theories and hypothesis's, check out the creation museum

What prediction can I find in the creation museum?

[spinnaker]

It's still a theory, it's a common misconception that a scientific theory is a scientific law that has not been proven and that once proven, theories get 'promoted' to laws. The real difference is that laws are based off of axiomatic proof while theories are based off of hypotheses. Neither is more correct than the other, it's just that they are founded on different things. The theory of evolution is based off of numerous hypotheses (natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, etc.) but will never be a law because these things (while verifiable) are not self-evident. The law of universal gravitation on the other hand is a law because it is based more-or-less off of the self-evident fact that we are not floating away from Earth.

[spinner981]

What prediction can I find in the creation museum?

They predict a different theory explaining the diversity of animal breeds and what not; an alternative to the evolutionary tree. It makes predictions about what happened surrounding the flood. Are these all falling within your personal definition of predictions, or might you want to establish a more specific definition?

[Dhrizzle]

No theory that claims to explain the origin could be falsifiable, because a purely natural origin is impossible.

That depends on the nature of, um, nature. If we ever learn how to go outside space and before time there could be a perfectly natural and explainable cause for the Big Bang (and note the Big Bang theory does not try to explain what caused the Big Bang, only how the universe developed from the beginning of space and time onwards). Then we'd have to find a way beyond whatever is beyond space and time, to find out what "caused" (cause is probably the wrong phrase when you're not experiencing time) whatever caused the Big Bang and we could end up with a "turtles all the way down" situation, but that doesn't mean anything has to be beyond "nature".

[Endus]

Okay, this thread got thoroughly derailed into gross misunderstandings of basic scientific terminology, and creationist stuff. I'm locking this before it gets any worse.