Big Bang...How Did it Happen?

quote:

---

You see, for me, the best logic is normally the simplest.

---

So you would agree that if a phenomena can be explained by a natural mechanism that is backed up with evidenciary support, this is probably the best explanation. Or is the better explanation a supernatural one where there is no evidenciary support and is at times contradictory to our observations. The simplest seems to be what agrees with our observations instead of the more complicated route of including supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.

quote:

---

Before I end this, I want to say, that Einstien, Newton, Faraday, Kepler, etc. These men were amazingly brilliant. I would wet my pants if were to talk to any one of them. But when it comes down to it, where the proverbial rubber meets the road, I have to side with what makes sense. Not with a list of numbers. Not with the papers. Not even with people who are so much smarter then me, that they would have trouble stooping low enought to read what I'm writting here.

---

Are you saying that as soon as you don't understand something, or it doesn't make sense to YOU, that it has to be wrong? Am I understanding you correctly? The fact of the matter is that the numbers do make sense to those trained in the field.If you were alive 5,000 years ago and somebody told you the earth was a sphere, would you say "But it looks flat, a round earth makes no sense to me."If you were alive 3,000 years ago and somebody said that the Earth goes around the sun, would you say "But I can see the Sun moving around the Earth, this makes no sense to me, you have to be wrong. Besides, the Bible says that the Earth is fixed in the sky."If you were alive 200 years ago, would you have said "Disease isn't caused by microscopic organisms, it is caused by bad humors. Germs make no sense to me, you have to be wrong."As you can see, what makes sense to people is often wrong. You have to dig a little deeper than a cursory investigation, you have to dig deep into the facts and numbers. You then have to test your theories. Simple observation does not always work.To answer your question on why scientists trust the work of other scientists in a separate field, the answer is simple. We know how competition in science is set up. If you have a ground breaking theory, and you can support it and none of the data falsifies it, you are guaranteed a well fulfilled career. There is strong competition within each field of science, and it is the competition that creates strong, well supported theories.Cold fusion was mentioned earlier. This discovery is the holy grail of physics, and may well be impossible. When a group of investigators claimed that they had produced cold fusion, the scientific community was hot on their tails. They did not want their competition to be right, they wanted to be the first to discover it, or feel content in saying that it was nearly impossible. What did they do? They tried to replicate their results, as well as forcing the original investigators to replicate their own work. It has yet to be repeated after numerous trials. If it can't be repeated, it isn't reliable, and that is where cold fusion stands today. It is the competition within science that has lead to the discovery of many frauds and misrepresentations, and keeps scientific theories strong and healthy. Until you actually practice science as a profession you will not fully understand this aspect, but trust me it exists.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-19-2004]

quote:

---

I'm always upset, and have to call my shrink, whenever I'm called a fruitcake.

---

We'll keep the "Seamen, First Class" jokes to a minimum, I promise.

quote:

---

On to the post I'm replying to: It is apparent to me that there are major divisions still in the scientific community, as to what really happened to get us all here. If there are still disreprencies, maybe that means that a definent working model describing the beginning has not yet been constructed. That means there is no "Scientific Gospel". So the "airtight" big bang hypothosis has more versions then Victoria's Secret has styles of underware.

---

Just because we aren't sure about something, it doesn't mean that God did it. The overall theory is pretty solid, but the finer details are still being worked out. Just like no one disagrees that the Battle of Stalingrad happened, they still disagree on how many people died. Nothing in science will ever be proven, but that's not it's purpose anyway. Proof is for mathmeticians. Now, turn your Gospel's to Darwin 14:3 . . .

quote:

---

true i agree with the circumstancial evidence and volcanic glass thing but that has nothing to do with evolution.

---

But it has everything to do with how scientific inquiries are carried out. Just like on CSI, scientists look for evidence pertaining to the past. Each new piece of evidence can either support or falsify a theory. The fact is that a young earth and special creation has been falsified by the evidence. Evolution is supported by the evidence and has yet to be falsified.

quote:

---

People are trying to prove our very exsistance by these experiments, thats why we need more concrete evidence then just saying well i think this is what thee Earth was like billions of years ago.

---

I am pretty sure I have all the evidence to know that I exist, I hope you do as well. If you mean that science is trying to tell people how they should live, then you are entirely mistaken. The moral importance of biblical teachings does not hinge on how God created us.

quote:

---

When I press a key on my keyboard, text appears on the screen. When I don't press a key, nothing happens. Apparently, I am causing, by pressing a key, an effect - the letter on the screen.

---

When the sidewalk is wet it is raining. Therefore, the wet sidewalk causes it to rain. This is the danger of making statements about cause and effect.

quote:

---

Well, did it start raining before or after the sidewalk got wet? If it started raining after the sidewalk got wet then wet sidewalks making rain may be true, but I'll bet that the sidewalk got wet AFTER it started to rain, suggesting the rain makes the sidewalk wet, which would be correct.

---

Of course your are right. All I was trying to point out is that we need to be careful when linking cause and effect. We need to find a mechanism behind the effect before giving it a cause. If no mechanism is found then we are left with two choices: 1. There may be no cause; 2. The cause is, to this point, unknown.