Kittenshere Continue thread

[Kyuuketsuki]

YOU DO NOT POSSESS ANY DIRECT EVIDENCE THAT YOU WERE EVER BORN ... YOU DON'T EVEN REMEMBER IT!

Can there only be "direct evidence" of things we remember?

The point remain s that you rely on the testimony of others and other indirect evidence that you were actually born.

I am not the one saying I have direct evidence of the beginning of the universe. My only point is that the big bang theory is theory.

I don't think anyone is claiming we have direct evidence of the big bang but there is an awful lot of good evidence to support the theory that the universe was once incredibly small, hot & dense and subsequently expanded rapidly to form the universe we observe today.

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.

Where did I (or anyone say) that a scientific theory was beyond doubt? Nothing in science is ever held to be absolute therefore nothing is held to be beyond challenge.

Scientific laws BTW are not higher forms of explanation than theories, they are statements about the behaviour of the universe under idealised, small scale and isolated (as far as I know), conditions and just because they are laws in no way puts them beyond challenge.

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.

There is always the possibility of change but the big bang is held to be the explanation for the beginnings of the universe and is supported by an awful lot of rather significant evidence, what's more the big bang model has successfully predicted a large number of things which turned out to be correct. If evidence were uncovered to change the theory my money would be on it being a change in fine rather than gross and the new theory would be somewhat similar to the old even if it were given a different name.

Kyu