Kittenshere Continue thread

[Tiberius]

Evidently Pippy has decided to be a hypocrite and respond to my post without reading it. I'll respond so people who actually want to learn can see where he goes wrong.

Can there only be "direct evidence" of things we remember? I am not the one saying I have direct evidence of the beginning of the universe.

We do have evidence; the red/blue shifts of light from starts caused by the expansion of the universe, plus the cosmic microwave background radiation.

My only point is that the big bang theory is theory. Apparently in science theory means "not a doubt in the world", whereas I thought it meant an idea based on available evidence that is either not provable, or not disprovable.

You have not been listening (surprise surprise). In science, a theory is an explanation of the facts, of the evidence. It does not mean "not a doubt in the world", and likewise does not mean "either not provable or not disprovable". Theories make predictions that are repeatedly tested, and if the results are as predicted, the theory is considered as far as "proved" as we can get it.

Adrian, I mean it when I say I don't want these things to turn personal. I know you wrote the parts between wiki links, but you also know how much I dislike them. I am almost assured to have read any wiki link you post, that is why.

Apologies, I did not realize you disliked reading, learning, and debating. Perhaps you should review your evidently poor choice of being a member of a forum where these 3 things are done on a daily (no, make that minutely) basis.

As I stated in my response (did you refuse to read that as well???), the three articles I linked to were (1) a section of an article, (2) an image, and (3) the wiki page for a book I suggested. They were references to help support my point (and the latter to give you a suggestion of a book), nothing more.

I know there is evidence that we fit to the theory of the big bang, but if the common theory changed, the evidence would too. They had evidence heat was a liquid, but when it turned out not to be, the evidence was seen in a different light.

I beg to differ. The only time the evidence changes is when the evidence was poorly collected in the first place. Evidence rarely changes, but the theories do. For instance, Newton's theory of gravity worked fine 99% of the time, but it took Einstein to correct the error in the theory. The evidence of Newton's theory didn't change, but instead new evidence was added that showed Einstein's theory to be correct. I suggest a BBC docu-drama called "Einstein & Eddington" if you want to learn how that happened; I would post a link but you don't seem to like them very much.

I maintain, my only point is that there is a possibility the universe started in a different way than proposed in the big bang theory. Not that it did, but only that it could have.

Course it could have, but until you present evidence that (a) shows this, and (b) also explains the evidence for the Big Bang (as a new theory must also explain the evidence of the old) then you are not making any valid point. Heck, our understanding of gravity could be (and probably is) off, but nobody goes around saying it unless they have a new theory to explain it.

So, it's a case of "put up or shut up". Please present your evidence.