Big Bang vs Creationism

[Vic]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Vic
Hmm... well, on the subject of gravity, I for one am a proponent of the hypothesis that empty space pushes against matter as opposed to the traditional Newtonian view that matter attracts.

HEY! I remember thinking that up about 6 months ago, I thought it was pretty amusing.

It's actually a legitimate scientific discussion, as it better explains the characteristics of galactic rotations (the way stars all orbit the galactic center at the same speeds regardless of their distance from the galactic center) without the need for dark matter. Really controversial though, as it's blatant heresy against the Newtonian model.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Not having a phd I was looking for something along the lines of "gravity." To which I would ask how can you prove it's not god's finger holding you down? Or maybe you accept that a chemical that in clinical trials produces a result 100% of the time, to which I'd ask, how do you know god didn't just change the results in this trial? I don't find injecting the unknowable into the repeatable, observable, provable to have any utility. I stand by laughing at the undead unicorn followers.

I have demonstrated both verbally and mathematically situations that give rise to multiple models that are scientifically indistinguishable, thereby proving the premise that I set out to demonstrate in the OP. That you choose to reject certain models on philosophical grounds is absolutely fine by me. However, I do take issue with those who feign superiority based on their belief being grounded in science when it is, in reality, a philosophical choice that they have made. What you have not yet realized is that the Creationist thinks you are just as dumb as you think he is, while both of you have simply made a philosophical decision to choose one theory over the other. Science has nothing to do with it.

Oh, and by calling me an idiot you only insult yourself since I am your clone sent back in time to annoy you.

I'm a scientist. My job is to call it how I see it based on my observations.

So whether the earth revolves around the sun or the universe revolves around the earth is a philosophical question?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
No, it seems like we're a bunch of guinea pigs for his phd.

"This is Cyclo. Human trial no. 347 conducted today. Met with strong resistance. Atmosphere volatile, proceed with caution. Results inconclusive. Test subjects will be euthanized. Cyclo out."

Making a note here, huge success.

My PhD work is on how your eye focuses, why you lose that ability with age, and how we can fix it. I can send you some papers if you're interested in the subject, but this thread certainly has little to do with any of my research.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
So whether the earth revolves around the sun or the universe revolves around the earth is a philosophical question?

Actually, that is simply dependent on your selection of a coordinate system. I can model the movement of every particle in the universe equally well by choosing any arbitrary point as the "center." This is the concept of frame invariance that Einstein set forth for testing the validity of any constitutive relationship. Thus, you're correct: the choice of the reference is completely arbitrary and, therefore, philosophical. The choice is usually made to make the math easier, but the results will be identical regardless of which frame one chooses.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
My PhD work is on how your eye focuses, why you lose that ability with age, and how we can fix it. I can send you some papers if you're interested in the subject, but this thread certainly has little to do with any of my research.

A noble study. My father had to get lens transplants last year (at 73), which saved him from the fate of being one-eyed and nearly blind for the last 20 years of his life like his father before him, so (out of my own self-interest) I wish you and your colleagues the best of success.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

My PhD work is on how your eye focuses, why you lose that ability with age, and how we can fix it.

Let me save you some time. Eyes are made of jellitonin, which is in short supply in alternate universes. Over the course of our lives, beings from those alternate universes bore holes to our space/time continuum and steal the jellitonin from our eyes. Over time this leads to deterioration and loss of focus. As to fixing it, that's easy, just like fixing all the problems in the world. You pray. Can I get a publishing credit?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Vic
A noble study. My father had to get lens transplants last year (at 73), which saved him from the fate of being one-eyed and nearly blind for the last 20 years of his life like his father before him, so (out of my own self-interest) I wish you and your colleagues the best of success.

Thanks. Hopefully we'll have something that we can throw in humans in less than 10 years. A lot of groups are already making monkeys blind by skipping the basic research, but I decided to take a little bit different approach. It'll take a little longer, but the monkeys are pretty happy with it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Let me save you some time. Eyes are made of jellitonin, which is in short supply in alternate universes. Over the course of our lives, beings from those alternate universes bore holes to our space/time continuum and steal the jellitonin from our eyes. Over time this leads to deterioration and loss of focus. As to fixing it, that's easy, just like fixing all the problems in the world. You pray.

Wow. And here I thought that the lens kept growing throughout life, since that is what all of the science tells me. Here you come along and turn all that on its head, saying that it's actually losing jellitonin. The only way to reconcile these two theories, then, is to suggest that jellitonin has negative mass, which is physically unrealistic (at least, to my knowledge), so your theory is not admissable even as a philosophical equivalent. Thanks for throwing in a side of bigotry that had been missing from your recent posts though. :thumbsup:

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: sandorski
#1) Not sure how to disprove it
#2 is easy, there's plenty of Older than 6000 years objects.

They could have been made to appear over 6000 years old when their initial states were defined.

Originally posted by: hscorpio
No, but I think Occam's razor favors number 1.

I knew this would be the first thing brought up, which is why I specifically said "disprove either hypothesis." Occam's Razor tells us nothing of either hypothesis.

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
You can not disprove Creationsim because it is faith based dogma or doctrine. Either you believe it or you do not.

And my question to you is: how can you disprove the Big Bang? If you cannot, wouldn't that place it in the "faith-based dogma or doctrine" category as well, rather than in the realm of science?

The Big Bang is falsifiable, especially as our understanding of cosmology increases. That is, as the theory gains sophistication, more and more predications that are consequences of the Big Bang will be made. If it's found that those predications aren't true, that's evidence that calls into doubt the Big Bang. If the predications are borne out, that's more and more evidence that the theory is correct.

Contrast this with divine creation: It's not falsifiable. Thus, there by definition can be no experiments that can be performed that support or undermine divine creation. So claiming "God created everything" is a non-theory, having nothing to do with scientific knowledge.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Then what's the argument? The Big Bang is science, creationism is not.

Oops, thought you had it, but you missed the points that you yourself made. We may propose infinitely many models to fit any data. Discerning between those models, then, becomes a purely philosophical exercise rather than a scientific one because no observables are predicted to be different by the various models.

Well, I'll hand it to you. You've got me, and probably 500 other people arguing about completely the wrong issue. Your question wasn't about creationism vs the Big Bang - it drives a lot deeper than that and I can only assume that you picked that topic to draw a greater audience.

What I see as your question is whether logic and reason are innate or taught / indoctrinated. If that really is your question, it's far more intelligent than the idiocy we're driving at here.

Dawkins accuses religious people of indoctrinating children, who don't know any better, with religious ideals. He says this is one of the worst crimes that can possibly be perpetrated by an adult on a child. It begs the question, though, is logic indoctrinated as well? Personally, I'd tend to say yes. Rationality, logic, the scientific method are all cornerstones of our society. They've served (and continue to serve) us well. It is, in fact, the belief system that has given us nearly every technical advance in our society. It is the vehicle through which we understand the world we live in.

The problem is that we, as a society, need something to build our understanding of the world. Our chosen tool is logic. Everything we've built stands on it and, if ever proven wrong a lot of it could come crashing down.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: shira
The Big Bang is falsifiable, especially as our understanding of cosmology increases. That is, as the theory gains sophistication, more and more predications that are consequences of the Big Bang will be made. If it's found that those predications aren't true, that's evidence that calls into doubt the Big Bang. If the predications are borne out, that's more and more evidence that the theory is correct.

Contrast this with divine creation: It's not falsifiable. Thus, there by definition can be no experiments that can be performed that support or undermine divine creation. So claiming "God created everything" is a non-theory, having nothing to do with scientific knowledge.

My hypothesis, as stated in the OP, is not identical to the Big Bang. It's a simplification for the purpose of demonstrating a very simple point that most everyone in this thread has now realized.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Well, I'll hand it to you. You've got me, and probably 500 other people arguing about completely the wrong issue. Your question wasn't about creationism vs the Big Bang - it drives a lot deeper than that and I can only assume that you picked that topic to draw a greater audience.

What I see as your question is whether logic and reason are innate or taught / indoctrinated. If that really is your question, it's far more intelligent than the idiocy we're driving at here.

I don't understand how you could possibly arrive at that conclusion from the OP. In fact, I'm guessing you simply made that up to insert some drivel about Dawkins, who is perhaps one of the worst offenders in deriding people for making a different philosophical choice than he did on the premise that he is basing his on science, which is false.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Let me save you some time. Eyes are made of jellitonin, which is in short supply in alternate universes. Over the course of our lives, beings from those alternate universes bore holes to our space/time continuum and steal the jellitonin from our eyes. Over time this leads to deterioration and loss of focus. As to fixing it, that's easy, just like fixing all the problems in the world. You pray.

Wow. And here I thought that the lens kept growing throughout life, since that is what all of the science tells me. Here you come along and turn all that on its head, saying that it's actually losing jellitonin. The only way to reconcile these two theories, then, is to suggest that jellitonin has negative mass, which is physically unrealistic (at least, to my knowledge), so your theory is not admissable even as a philosophical equivalent. Thanks for throwing in a side of bigotry that had been missing from your recent posts though. :thumbsup:

You merely need my Jellitoninometer to see the truth. $9.99 + S/H. And don't tell me I'm a bigot for believing in prayer, it's my right.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
You merely need my Jellitoninometer to see the truth. $9.99 + S/H. And don't tell me I'm a bigot for believing in prayer, it's my right.

The real question I have is this: are you going to continue mocking Creationists because you are the adherent to the "scientific" hypothesis?

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
My PhD work is on how your eye focuses, why you lose that ability with age, and how we can fix it. I can send you some papers if you're interested in the subject, but this thread certainly has little to do with any of my research.

A noble study. My father had to get lens transplants last year (at 73), which saved him from the fate of being one-eyed and nearly blind for the last 20 years of his life like his father before him, so (out of my own self-interest) I wish you and your colleagues the best of success.

Very interesting! I'll have to read further into that, because I thought I was just being crazy when I thought of it.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Well, I'll hand it to you. You've got me, and probably 500 other people arguing about completely the wrong issue. Your question wasn't about creationism vs the Big Bang - it drives a lot deeper than that and I can only assume that you picked that topic to draw a greater audience.

What I see as your question is whether logic and reason are innate or taught / indoctrinated. If that really is your question, it's far more intelligent than the idiocy we're driving at here.

I don't understand how you could possibly arrive at that conclusion from the OP. In fact, I'm guessing you simply made that up to insert some drivel about Dawkins, who is perhaps one of the worst offenders in deriding people for making a different philosophical choice than he did on the premise that he is basing his on science, which is false.

I'd disagree. What you're arguing, ultimately, is how should we order the world we see. While most of the people on this board, as well as in our society, choose to do so through science, I thought you were trying to show that isn't really the only choice. If one moves beyond logic and reason as being the only correct lens through which to view the world, then lots of other ideas suddenly retain validity.

If you read what you wrote in bold, you're in fact agreeing with what I said above. While I happening to think using the scientific method is best, I have no absolute basis on which to prove it's better.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Big bang theory has had numerous chances to be disproved in the past, but it passed with flying colours. If the cosmic microwave background had been found to not exist, or exist at an unexpected temperature, it would have been a major blow to BB theory. It could still be disproved today in a number of ways. If we found a galaxy that was 16 billion years old, for example, the theory would need some work to reconcile itself with that fact. If we found that the universe was lop-sided (more galaxies in one direction that another) then the theory would need to be adjusted. There are a lot of observations that could disprove BB theory. Funny that your God seems to have set things up so that BB theory looks just so damn likely.

I have to go to uni but if this thread is still kicking tonight I will post further, as big bang theory is a favourite subject of mine.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ElFenix
yes, the question is philosophical. why? because you're asking a question that cannot be answered by someone stuck in the system. it's not a question that science is seeking to answer, nor purports to answer. it's like asking what was before the big bang?

that doesn't mean the big bang theory (the actual one, not the conjectured one you're starting to argue from) is not falsifiable by new observation (which, as i'm sure you're aware, the observation would be the same in either system in your post). that is what makes the proper big bang theory of the origin of the universe scientific.

The point is that you cannot scientifically discern between the two hypotheses as stated. Therefore, the question of which is correct is not in the realm of science and is purely philosophical in nature. The reason I brought it up was because, while I am not a Creationist, I'm tired of people pretending to ride the high horse of scientific thought in deriding Creationists. This simply demonstrates the ignorance of those trying to claim that their idea is scientific while the other is not, since it is clear (as we have agreed) that neither of them is scientifically distinct from the other.

Again, you are incorrect. The Big Bang, as a stand-alone scientific theory, implies certain consequences (background radiation, for example) that CAN be checked. Adding God doesn't imply ADDITIONAL consequences, so the "enhanced explanation" (God => Big Bang Data) isn't supported at all.

To put this another way: I could postulate the following:

GodA => GodB => God C => . . . . (ad infinitum) => Big Bang-like data. All the "stuff" to the left of "Big Bang data" is unfalsifiable, yet just as legitimate as the single-God explanation. So why choose the single-God explanation?

And it gets worse: If the stand-along Big Bang Theory produces predictions that are NOT borne out, we would reject (or greatly modify) the theory. Contrast this with "God => Big Bang-like Data" explanation: If the "predictions" aren't borne out, you STILL keep the God explanation, since three's no "real" Big Bang, just the data (which a God could make anything he wants).

So any explanation involving God isn't subject to any challenge whatsoever, whereas any theory IS subject to challenge.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: sirjonk
You merely need my Jellitoninometer to see the truth. $9.99 + S/H. And don't tell me I'm a bigot for believing in prayer, it's my right.

The real question I have is this: are you going to continue mocking Creationists because you are the adherent to the "scientific" hypothesis?

No, I don't mock creationists, I mock Young Earthers, and I will continue mocking them because they choose to believe what they believe based on interpretation of a book written by men centuries ago, and I choose to believe what I believe because intelligent scientists like you have spent their lifetimes attempting to come up with rational explanations for what we haven't figured out yet. If a clergyman tells me there's no such thing as global warming and I choose to believe him over the studies produced by climatologists, I deserve to get laughed at, because my decision making skills suck. Since he is about as much an authority on the age of the universe as he is about global warming, if I choose to believe him, mock away. And it's also the fact that most Young Earth believers are not people who strongly believe science except when it comes to the age of the earth. Generally they are fundies who also believe Jesus wrode a triceratops to work in the morning too.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
I'd disagree. What you're arguing, ultimately, is how should we order the world we see. While most of the people on this board, as well as in our society, choose to do so through science, I thought you were trying to show that isn't really the only choice. If one moves beyond logic and reason as being the only correct lens through which to view the world, then lots of other ideas suddenly retain validity.

I've never said anything remotely related to what you've stated here. You're simply fabricating ideas that I have never uttered in this thread because they're easy for you to argue against, which I believe is commonly known as a straw man fallacy. The real point here is that science cannot answer every question and, therefore, it is absurd to ridicule someone who disagrees with you on one of these questions because you believe that one explanation is more plausible than the other. I see the ideas of the Big Bang and Creationism as completely consistent with one another, even complementary, though I do not necessarily choose to believe one, the other, or both. Nor do I ridicule those who choose one over the other. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of those who ridicule those who choose one over the other, as this is akin to me calling you an idiot because your favorite color is blue while obviously the best color is red.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: shira
The Big Bang is falsifiable, especially as our understanding of cosmology increases. That is, as the theory gains sophistication, more and more predications that are consequences of the Big Bang will be made. If it's found that those predications aren't true, that's evidence that calls into doubt the Big Bang. If the predications are borne out, that's more and more evidence that the theory is correct.

Contrast this with divine creation: It's not falsifiable. Thus, there by definition can be no experiments that can be performed that support or undermine divine creation. So claiming "God created everything" is a non-theory, having nothing to do with scientific knowledge.

My hypothesis, as stated in the OP, is not identical to the Big Bang. It's a simplification for the purpose of demonstrating a very simple point that most everyone in this thread has now realized.

It's not a simplification whatsover, from a scientific standpoint, as it accomplishes nothing. It's meaningless. It doesn't answer the objective of science: to PREDICT.

Think of this another way: If you add God, then you can claim that ANY outcome is consistent with the "theory," since God can make any set of circumstances arise. So if there's no background radiation, you can still claim that God created Big Bang-like data, but absent background radiation. There's no accountability in this, and your explanation is thus meaningless from a scientific standpoint.

From a "belief" point of view, anyone can believe anything they want. But don't confuse that with pure science.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
No, I don't mock creationists, I mock Young Earthers, and I will continue mocking them because they choose to believe what they believe based on interpretation of a book written by men centuries ago, and I choose to believe what I believe because intelligent scientists like you have spent their lifetimes attempting to come up with rational explanations for what we haven't figured out yet. If a clergyman tells me there's no such thing as global warming and I choose to believe him over the studies produced by climatologists, I deserve to get laughed at, because my decision making skills suck. Since he is about as much an authority on the age of the universe as he is about global warming, if I choose to believe him, mock away. And it's also the fact that most Young Earth believers are not people who strongly believe science except when it comes to the age of the earth. Generally they are fundies who also believe Jesus wrode a triceratops to work in the morning too.

You mock them because they made a different philosophical choice than you did. We have already agreed that the difference is not scientific, yet here you are trying to frame it such that it is a scientific debate. You have employed a false analogy again because climate change is within the realm of science: changes in temperature over time are observable. Choosing something that is directly contradicted by raw data is just plain stupid and is, therefore, worthy of ridicule. However, ridiculing someone because you think something that happened billions of years ago is different from how they perceive it, then invoking science as the basis of your ridicule, is equally worthy of ridicule, which is why I previously called you an idiot. Invoking my previous mathematical formulation, this is akin to your saying that everyone who accepts theory B is legally retarded because A is the theory that you find more appealing for whatever reason.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: shira
It's not a simplification whatsover, from a scientific standpoint, as it accomplishes nothing. It's meaningless. It doesn't answer the objective of science: to PREDICT.

Think of this another way: If you add God, then you can claim that ANY outcome is consistent with the "theory," since God can make any set of circumstances arise. So if there's no background radiation, you can still claim that God created Big Bang-like data, but absent background radiation. There's no accountability in this, and your explanation is thus meaningless from a scientific standpoint.

From a "belief" point of view, anyone can believe anything they want. But don't confuse that with pure science.

Both of the hypotheses I posited in the OP predict the exact same thing. That is what you are failing to grasp, and that is the point of this thread: science tells us absolutely nothing about theories that make identical predictions. This is the realm of philosophy.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: sirjonk
No, I don't mock creationists, I mock Young Earthers, and I will continue mocking them because they choose to believe what they believe based on interpretation of a book written by men centuries ago, and I choose to believe what I believe because intelligent scientists like you have spent their lifetimes attempting to come up with rational explanations for what we haven't figured out yet. If a clergyman tells me there's no such thing as global warming and I choose to believe him over the studies produced by climatologists, I deserve to get laughed at, because my decision making skills suck. Since he is about as much an authority on the age of the universe as he is about global warming, if I choose to believe him, mock away. And it's also the fact that most Young Earth believers are not people who strongly believe science except when it comes to the age of the earth. Generally they are fundies who also believe Jesus wrode a triceratops to work in the morning too.

You mock them because they made a different philosophical choice than you did. We have already agreed that the difference is not scientific, yet here you are trying to frame it such that it is a scientific debate. You have employed a false analogy again because climate change is within the realm of science: changes in temperature over time are observable. Choosing something that is directly contradicted by raw data is just plain stupid and is, therefore, worthy of ridicule. However, ridiculing someone because you think something that happened billions of years ago is different from how they perceive it, then invoking science as the basis of your ridicule, is equally worthy of ridicule, which is why I previously called you an idiot. Invoking my previous mathematical formulation, this is akin to your saying that everyone who accepts theory B is legally retarded because A is the theory that you find more appealing for whatever reason.

Not appealing for "whatever reason"! Appealing because it's a theory supported by evidence over a theory supported by ZERO evidence. Is it your contention there is zero evidence for BBT? Because if there is any at all, that's more than the amount for young earth. Choosing to arbitrarily believe in something for no reason over a rational explanation supported by at least some evidence is one of the definitions of dementia.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: sirjonk
No, I don't mock creationists, I mock Young Earthers, and I will continue mocking them because they choose to believe what they believe based on interpretation of a book written by men centuries ago, and I choose to believe what I believe because intelligent scientists like you have spent their lifetimes attempting to come up with rational explanations for what we haven't figured out yet. If a clergyman tells me there's no such thing as global warming and I choose to believe him over the studies produced by climatologists, I deserve to get laughed at, because my decision making skills suck. Since he is about as much an authority on the age of the universe as he is about global warming, if I choose to believe him, mock away. And it's also the fact that most Young Earth believers are not people who strongly believe science except when it comes to the age of the earth. Generally they are fundies who also believe Jesus wrode a triceratops to work in the morning too.

You mock them because they made a different philosophical choice than you did. We have already agreed that the difference is not scientific, yet here you are trying to frame it such that it is a scientific debate. You have employed a false analogy again because climate change is within the realm of science: changes in temperature over time are observable. Choosing something that is directly contradicted by raw data is just plain stupid and is, therefore, worthy of ridicule. However, ridiculing someone because you think something that happened billions of years ago is different from how they perceive it, then invoking science as the basis of your ridicule, is equally worthy of ridicule, which is why I previously called you an idiot. Invoking my previous mathematical formulation, this is akin to your saying that everyone who accepts theory B is legally retarded because A is the theory that you find more appealing for whatever reason.

You make no distinction between lazy choices based on ignorance, fear, and/or personal need and those based on the thirst for knowledge and continual self-analysis. You imply that ANYONE who adopts the "God explanation" has made a "philosophical choice." That's BS.

There are philosphical choices worthy of the name - and I'll respect the integrity of anyone who is making a real effort, regardless of their specific belief. But there are also choices that have nothing to do with philosophy, and I have no problem whatsover with my lack of respect for such celebrations of ignorance.