beginning of The Universe theories

[Terr]

The Big Bang theory simply describes an expanding, cooling universe. As has been demonstrated to be the case.

It sayes NOTHING about what what caused it, or the state before (if there was one). Without evidence this would be utterly un-scientific. However there are a number of competeing hypotheses, time and evidence will tell.

[ManMachine]

The Big Bang theory simply describes an expanding, cooling universe. As has been demonstrated to be the case.

It sayes NOTHING about what what caused it, or the state before (if there was one). Without evidence this would be utterly un-scientific. However there are a number of competeing hypotheses, time and evidence will tell.

I think you've understated the 'unscientific' argument. Karl Popper spent a large part of his academic life trying to establish demarcation.

I wouldn't like to mislead the OP. The only generally accepted requirement for scientific theory is that it is falsifiable. Even that has problems, I could put forward the theory that the spots on the Sun indicate it will explode in a thousand years, it's falsifiable in principle but not by you or anyone else alive today.


MM

[Terr]

The Big Bang theory simply describes an expanding, cooling universe. As has been demonstrated to be the case.

It sayes NOTHING about what what caused it, or the state before (if there was one). Without evidence this would be utterly un-scientific. However there are a number of competeing hypotheses, time and evidence will tell.

I think you've understated the 'unscientific' argument. Karl Popper spent a large part of his academic life trying to establish demarcation.

I wouldn't like to mislead the OP. The only generally accepted requirement for scientific theory is that it is falsifiable. Even that has problems, I could put forward the theory that the spots on the Sun indicate it will explode in a thousand years, it's falsifiable in principle but not by you or anyone else alive today.


MM

Fair comment, but without some observational evidence my view is that you are would be presenting a hypotheses, not a fully fledged theory.

[popeyespappy]

The only generally accepted requirement for scientific theory is that it is falsifiable.

I have heard better descriptions of scientific theory from uneducated hillbilly YECs.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evol...anda.shtml

[supergenius]

I recall some famous physicist saying that the universe expanded at the beginning of the and after that it will contract. When I think of contract I think if the Black holes.

[ManMachine]

The only generally accepted requirement for scientific theory is that it is falsifiable.

I have heard better descriptions of scientific theory from uneducated hillbilly YECs.

---

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

---

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evol...anda.shtml

It's not intended to be a description of scientific theory nor did I present it as such. It's a comment made in context of a point made to another contributor who accepts the point I was making, which would suggest it sufficed for the purpose for which it was intended.

However, if you think there is a debate to be had on the merits of defining Scientific Theory and the accompanying Philosophical arguments for and against, then by all means start another thread.

You might attract another hillbilly who has actually read some of Karl Popper's work and learn yerself some Philosophizin'.



MM

[popeyespappy]

I have heard better descriptions of scientific theory from uneducated hillbilly YECs.


http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evol...anda.shtml

It's not intended to be a description of scientific theory nor did I present it as such. It's a comment made in context of a point made to another contributor who accepts the point I was making, which would suggest it sufficed for the purpose for which it was intended.

However, if you think there is a debate to be had on the merits of defining Scientific Theory and the accompanying Philosophical arguments for and against, then by all means start another thread.

You might attract another hillbilly who has actually read some of Karl Popper's work and learn yerself some Philosophizin'.



MM

If Popper's philosophy includes lying about what a scientific theory is I think I will just skip it.

[NoraBrimstone]

Obviously Christians moslems and others believe in creation

"Obviously"? No. I know plenty of Christians and Muslims (is "Muslim" really such a difficult word to spell?) who aren't creationist retards. In fact, creationists of any faith are quite rare in my country.

[Kayenneh]

[fr0d0]

I know plenty of Christians and Muslims who aren't creationist(...)s.

Believing in creation (that God is the creator) and being a creationist (believing that God created the universe taking the metaphors literally rather than as intended) are two different things.

Thank you for attending bible ed