NationStates Jolt Archive

So, as most people know I'm an ID person, but that's not relevant for the purpose of this thread. (Just so everybody knows where I'm coming from.)

Often in debated over things like Evolution vs ID one of the things that's pointed out is that the existence of God is unscientific because it's neither falsifiable nor testable one way or the other. I understand that completely.

But my question is, (And this is a serious question, not a set-up for debate) how is something like the Big Bang any more scientific? I assume I'm missing something, but as I understand it, everything we know that suggests the Big Bang is circumstantial.... The movement of galaxies and such by measuring red shift, background radiation, etc. The Big Bang is a theory but I'm not sure I understand what makes it any more testable or falsifiable than the existence of God.

Once more for the record: This isn't a set up question, I'm sincerely curious. As it happens, I don't disbelieve the Big Bang anyway, but I do want to separate that from ID for the purpose of this question. I'm not looking to debate ID in this thread, I only bring it up for the sake of clarity and honesty.

Any Astronomers out there who can help?

Something about disconnecting the TV arial is the propaganda used for the big bang theory in My school.

Other than Miracles (also outside science and nature).

I know little of Astronomy, however i think the big bang theory is more scientific than God because you can calculate it's effects far more easily than a "God".
Yes there are probably problems with the big bang theory but it can account for the universe as we know it, whereas the idea of "God" isn't so easy to account for.
From my own point of view i find the Big Bang theory useful but explaining where the universe came from it doesn't do. It does show where the universe goes but doesn't indicate why or how it got there.
So i suppose you could say the idea of God is equally as justifiable as the Big Bang theory, however you can see the Big Bang in action and it's been supported by various scientists, i think Stephen Hawking supports it.
I'm not an expert at this but this is what i can discern from various snippets of information i have recieved.
Hope that helps.

Because we can (in theory and practice) find scientific evidence for the Big Bang. It is natural, not supernatural.

God is inherently outside the rules of nature, and therefore science cannot test for him.

I am not the best person to attempt to explain this by a long way but...the Big Bang theory has been used to make predictions about such things as how fast the universe is expanding, how much matter there is etc. these predictions have been borne out by observations so in that sense it is falsifiable.

So, as most people know I'm an ID person, but that's not relevant for the purpose of this thread. (Just so everybody knows where I'm coming from.)

Often in debated over things like Evolution vs ID one of the things that's pointed out is that the existence of God is unscientific because it's neither falsifiable nor testable one way or the other. I understand that completely.

But my question is, (And this is a serious question, not a set-up for debate) how is something like the Big Bang any more scientific? I assume I'm missing something, but as I understand it, everything we know that suggests the Big Bang is circumstantial.... The movement of galaxies and such by measuring red shift, background radiation, etc. The Big Bang is a theory but I'm not sure I understand what makes it any more testable or falsifiable than the existence of God.

Once more for the record: This isn't a set up question, I'm sincerely curious. As it happens, I don't disbelieve the Big Bang anyway, but I do want to separate that from ID for the purpose of this question. I'm not looking to debate ID in this thread, I only bring it up for the sake of clarity and honesty.

Any Astronomers out there who can help?


Observable quantifiable phenomena and data extrapolated from it behaves in a way consistent with the Big Bang theory. Observable quantifiable phenomena and data doesn't contradict the Big Bang theory. Most importantly, scientists continue to study phenomena and gather data. That data may support, refute or modify the theory.

Ths differs from ID in the fact that data is not collected and observable phenomena is not quantified. Attempts are not made to support, refute or modify the theory. In ID, data is picked and chosen to support the theory of ID. Data that does not support the theory is itself refuted. That's not science.

*bows gracefully and dives back into the mud* :)

Any Astronomers out there who can help?

I'm no astronomer, but I believe that it is the result of a theory which explains things that can be tested, and if you use it to go far back in time you get what is called the big bang.

theoretical support for the Big Bang comes from mathematical models, called Friedmann models. These models are framed in the context of general relativity and are based on the cosmological principle, which states that the properties of the universe is everywhere similar, and that there is no preferred orientation or in other words the universe is homogeneous and isotropic when viewed over sufficiently large spatial scales.

Analysis of the spectrum of light from galaxies reveals a shift towards longer wavelengths proportional to each galaxy's distance in a relationship described by Hubble's law indicating that space-time is undergoing a continuous and uniform expansion. Furthermore the accidental discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964 suggests that the universe had cooled from an initial hot dense state via the expansion of space-time. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background led to general acceptance among physicists that the Big Bang describes the evolution of the universe reasonably well. Further evidence comes from the relative proportion of light elements in the universe, which is a close match to predictions for the formation of light elements in the first minutes of the universe, according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis. However there are features of the universe which are not well explained by the Big Bang model such as the similarity of regions of the universe which, within the scope of the model, have never been causally connected. Augmenting the Big Bang model with an early rapid inflationary phase can explain many of the features unaccounted for by the standard Big Bang model.

So it can't really be tested, but it was theorized using a model which seems to have been tested and there is some other evidence too.


If you don't mind I have a question back, if you can't test God this is probably because he has no impact on our natural world. If he has no impact on our natural world than how can he or she be relevant?

no, it can be tested and proved. Hubble found "cosmic background radiation", or the shock wave from the big bang, which is still bouncing around out there.

If you don't mind I have a question back, if you can't test God this is probably because he has no impact on our natural world. If he has no impact on our natural world than how can he or she be relevant?

I don't want to debate God in this thread, but the quick and dirty answer is that science, as it's practiced, is ill-equipped to measure and/or deal with the impact He has.

Rolling squid;13485844']no, it can be tested and proved. Hubble found "cosmic background radiation", or the shock wave from the big bang, which is still bouncing around out there.

Actually that's the circumstantial evidence I referred to. It fits the theory, but doesn't conclusively prove it.

But my question is, (And this is a serious question, not a set-up for debate) how is something like the Big Bang any more scientific? I assume I'm missing something, but as I understand it, everything we know that suggests the Big Bang is circumstantial.... The movement of galaxies and such by measuring red shift, background radiation, etc. The Big Bang is a theory but I'm not sure I understand what makes it any more testable or falsifiable than the existence of God.

You just answered your own question: it IS testable.
If a big bang occured, one expects to find cosmic background radiation, starsystems moving away from eachother and so on. We do. Facts fit theory.

Creation by God otoh is less testable. How can you know what to test for ?
The facts might or might not support the theory, but we do not even know what the theory is.

Scientific research has just as much a focus on looking for the aftereffects of phenomena like the Big Bang as trying to experimentally recreate the conditions around the time it occurred. We've successfully done both.

The CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) is a radiation signature in the universe that is something akin to an echo of the Big Bang. Its existence was theorized well in advance of its discovery as part of the theoretical work on the Big Bang, and it was the discovery of the CMBR that signaled the end of the Steady State model of the universe (one in which the universe was theorized to have had no origin).

In addition, successfully more powerful particle accelerator systems have allowed us to get a glimpse at the conditions that existed around the time the Big Bang occurred, and have produced extremely valuable data that have further supported existing theoretical models.

So I guess you could say that, while we can't directly observe the Big Bang, we've been able to confirm its existence through its effects and a corroboration between reconstructed conditions of that time with the theory itself.

Unlike God, who can't be observed directly, and also does not have a way of being tested for confirmation of his existence, or corroboration with the underlying literature.

That makes a lot of sense, thanks!

I think the issue here is something like a housefly looking at a skyscraper... it doesn't understand it... it has been there for countless generations of its species, it will be there for countless more.
the debate of science vs god is a tierd one. its like debating ghosts vs cavemen..... which brings up a good question

Are there cavemen ghosts?

or is god a scientist?

So, as most people know I'm an ID person, but that's not relevant for the purpose of this thread. (Just so everybody knows where I'm coming from.)

Often in debated over things like Evolution vs ID one of the things that's pointed out is that the existence of God is unscientific because it's neither falsifiable nor testable one way or the other. I understand that completely.

But my question is, (And this is a serious question, not a set-up for debate) how is something like the Big Bang any more scientific? I assume I'm missing something, but as I understand it, everything we know that suggests the Big Bang is circumstantial.... The movement of galaxies and such by measuring red shift, background radiation, etc. The Big Bang is a theory but I'm not sure I understand what makes it any more testable or falsifiable than the existence of God.

Once more for the record: This isn't a set up question, I'm sincerely curious. As it happens, I don't disbelieve the Big Bang anyway, but I do want to separate that from ID for the purpose of this question. I'm not looking to debate ID in this thread, I only bring it up for the sake of clarity and honesty.

Any Astronomers out there who can help?

Scientific research has just as much a focus on looking for the aftereffects of phenomena like the Big Bang as trying to experimentally recreate the conditions around the time it occurred. We've successfully done both.

The CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) is a radiation signature in the universe that is something akin to an echo of the Big Bang. Its existence was theorized well in advance of its discovery as part of the theoretical work on the Big Bang, and it was the discovery of the CMBR that signaled the end of the Steady State model of the universe (one in which the universe was theorized to have had no origin).

In addition, successfully more powerful particle accelerator systems have allowed us to get a glimpse at the conditions that existed around the time the Big Bang occurred, and have produced extremely valuable data that have further supported existing theoretical models.

So I guess you could say that, while we can't directly observe the Big Bang, we've been able to confirm its existence through its effects and a corroboration between reconstructed conditions of that time with the theory itself.

Unlike God, who can't be observed directly, and also does not have a way of being tested for confirmation of his existence, or corroboration with the underlying literature.

Rolling squid;13485844']no, it can be tested and proved. Hubble found "cosmic background radiation", or the shock wave from the big bang, which is still bouncing around out there.

Please do your research ahead of time. Hubble was not the one who discovered the CMBR. It was discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson at Bell Labs in 1965, and originally theorized by Gamow et al. in 1948.

Actually that's the circumstantial evidence I referred to. It fits the theory, but doesn't conclusively prove it.

That's the good thing with science, it doesn't actually prove anything. All it does is collecting evidence and making theories to fit the evidence and discarding those theories when they no longer fit the evidence.

I don't want to debate God in this thread, but the quick and dirty answer is that science, as it's practiced, is ill-equipped to measure and/or deal with the impact He has.

ok

That makes a lot of sense, thanks!

No problem.

Actually that's the circumstantial evidence I referred to. It fits the theory, but doesn't conclusively prove it.

Nothing in science is proven.

Actually that's the circumstantial evidence I referred to. It fits the theory, but doesn't conclusively prove it.

...which, of course, might have something to do with the fact that nothing in science can be proven true.

Actually that's the circumstantial evidence I referred to. It fits the theory, but doesn't conclusively prove it.

true, but circumstantial evidence is more than ID has.


Please do your research ahead of time. Hubble was not the one who discovered the CMBR. It was discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson at Bell Labs in 1965, and originally theorized by Gamow et al. in 1948.

my apologies about that, I based my post on what I remembered of eight grade science.

You just answered your own question: it IS testable.
If a big bang occured, one expects to find cosmic background radiation, starsystems moving away from eachother and so on. We do. Facts fit theory.In fact the data have been around long before a theory was assembled. The theory was based on the already available information.

ID on the other hand is just Christian self-adulation.

If the big bang occured as the theory predicts it had, then events from the big bang would still be observable today. Practical evidence such as microwave radiation, red shift, and the like all indicate that this is what occured. It is entirely falsifiable because all one has to do is come up with something that we should observe as a result of the big bang, and note its absence.

God is not falsifiable because we can't even begin to test for the absence of god. We can't even begin to know what qualities god would impart on the universe, and use any noteable absence of those qualities as proof of the nonexistance of god.

We can know what qualities and observeable effects the big bang would impart on the universe and their absence would be proof that the big bang did not occur.

Actually that's the circumstantial evidence I referred to. It fits the theory, but doesn't conclusively prove it.

of course not. Nothing proves a theory. A theory can not, by definition, be proven in a scientific sense. "it fits the circumstantial evidence" is all a theory can do. A theory is a fragile thing, easily disproven, never proven. If you want to disprove the big bang all you need to do is find a single thing that should be there as a result of the big bang, but is not. Then the theory needs to be either modified, or discarded.

That's what makes science so great. A theory is the thing that best fits the evidence. Nothing more, nothing less. To argue that the big bang is no more scientific than god because neither can be "proven" shows a fundamental lack of understanding about what science is, what it odes, or how it operates.

I don't want to debate God in this thread, but the quick and dirty answer is that science, as it's practiced, is ill-equipped to measure and/or deal with the impact He has.

no, you just want to "debate" about how those "scientists" with their "theories" about "the big bang" are no more scientific than "god did it", and you try to dress that point up by claims of ignorance of "oh I'm actually curious, no hidden agenda for me, nope nope!"

Unfortunatly for you, and fortunate for the rest of us, your entire premise (oh wait you didn't have a premise, you just wanted to be informed, which is why you constantly argue and defend the point you're not making) rests on fundamentally flawed presumptions about how science works.

Actually the big bang is falsifiable, in the context that if data shows that not all matter in the universe is shifting from a central point, at a speed that would require the force of the big bang, then it falsifies it. It hasn't been falsified to my knowledge.

of course not. Nothing proves a theory. A theory can not, by definition, be proven in a scientific sense. "it fits the circumstantial evidence" is all a theory can do. A theory is a fragile thing, easily disproven, never proven. If you want to disprove the big bang all you need to do is find a single thing that should be there as a result of the big bang, but is not. Then the theory needs to be either modified, or discarded.

That's what makes science so great. A theory is the thing that best fits the evidence. Nothing more, nothing less. To argue that the big bang is no more scientific than god because neither can be "proven" shows a fundamental lack of understanding about what science is, what it odes, or how it operates.

Exactly, science is about offering the best natural explanation to the phenomena we observe, it can't conclusively prove anything, only offer valid assumptions or extrapolations based on the evidence. But valid =/= true.

Side note: The Big Bang was originally proposed from within the Catholic Church.

I'd cite this, but I have a psych test to go to, and I'm going to trust that my Catholic friend who constantly brings this up, is right (He also believes in evolution FYI).

Although, he also says that the Catholic church sainted Buddha and some random, nameless, dead guy who looked good in a suit.

The problem is that this demonstrates in a classic sense the problem many have in that they don't understand what is meant by "testable" and "falsifiable".

Some, as the OP has done, start with the premise that science is testable and falsifiable. This is fine. however what they don't understand is what is meant by "testable" and "falsifiable". They take the position that in order for big bang theory to be "testable" we have to recreate a big bang. And since we can't do that, they argue, it's not science.

The problem is, there are whole schools of science that can't be directly observed. Quantum mechanics as an entire discipline wouldn't classify as science at all because it deals with things that can't be seen, not merely because they're too small to observe with our instruments directly, they're literally smaller than light.

We can't see them, just as we can't see the big bang. We can see the effects however. We can gather evidence about the universe and go "ok, does this evidence fit in to what we know about what the universe would look like if it had a big bang, or does it counter that"?

That's how science works. If we discount things as "not science" because we can not directly observe the thing being theorized as, then a whole lot of things would not be science. By the very logic that we have only "circumstantial" evidence of gravity. You don't see "gravity". You just see the results of gravity, like shit falling. Yet we don't discount gravity as "not science". We recognize that "when shit falls" something probably makes it fall, and work out a theory to define why.

We don't see the big bang either, but we see things that occur, most likely, as a result of such a thing, and we see no evidence to discount it. That's how a lot of science works. We don't see gravity, we see the effects of it. We don't test for the presence of a virus, we test for antibodies the body produces in response ot the virus. We don't test for a small embro when determining whether a woman is pregnant, we look for hormones the body produces in response ot pregnancy.

Science doesn't always look for "the thing". In fact in some branches of science it almost never does. Instead it looks for the reults of the thing.

Side note: The Big Bang was originally proposed from within the Catholic Church.

I'd cite this, but I have a psych test to go to, and I'm going to trust that my Catholic friend who constantly brings this up, is right (He also believes in evolution FYI).

Although, he also says that the Catholic church sainted Buddha and some random, nameless, dead guy who looked good in a suit.

He's somewhat correct. A Belgian Roman Catholic priest by the name of George Lemaître first suggested the universe had originated from a central point based on calculations derived from Einstein's theory of general relativity (Which were first derived by a Russian scientist Alexander Friedmann and are called the Friedmann equations) in 1931.

However, I don't know if it's really accurate to say that it came from within the Catholic Church so much as it was suggested by a qualified member of the Church. Lemaître published his work in Nature that year:
Lemaître, G. (1931). "The evolution of the universe: discussion". Nature 128: suppl.: 704

I'm citing Wikipedia, by the way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_theory#History

However, I don't know if it's really accurate to say that it came from within the Catholic Church so much as it was suggested by a qualified member of the Church. Lemaître published his work in Nature that year:
Lemaître, G. (1931). "The evolution of the universe: discussion". Nature 128: suppl.: 704

I'm citing Wikipedia, by the way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_theory#History
I agree; the Church probably provided an environment that allowed this guy to write and publish his ideas, but the hierarchy as a whole did not endorse it.

As an interesting side note, the Vatican does have an observatory run by astronomers in Rome. I think it was built mostly to double-check ne'er-do-wells like Galileo, with their fancy-shmancy heliocentric models.

I agree; the Church probably provided an environment that allowed this guy to write and publish his ideas, but the hierarchy as a whole did not endorse it.

As an interesting side note, the Vatican does have an observatory run by astronomers in Rome. I think it was built mostly to double-check ne'er-do-wells like Galileo, with their fancy-shmancy heliocentric models.

I wouldn't be surprised.

There is some scientific evidence of the Big Bang - the cosmic microwave background radiation being the most prominent piece.

The theory that the universe was created at some specific point is unscientific. The Big Bang theory itself, however, is more detailed, and can be disproven. Finding evidence that does not fit would cast doubt on the theory. Finding conclusive evidence for an alternate and incompatible theory could well destroy it.

The Big Bang theory cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Neither can evolution, relativity, or gravitation. But the Big Bang is a well-supported theory. It has its problems, of course, but they're being worked on.

As I'm sure others have said, what data we have suggests if not proves the Big Bang theory, while we can't establish scientific data pointing towards a supernatural being.

If you're lost, half a sign-post is a better bet than no sign post at all.

I think the big bang theory is fairly sound myself. As for God I think you really need to define what God is. For all we know God is just a being from another race down here trying to civilize a backwater race. If that is the case then God is just as likely as the Big Bang.

So, as most people know I'm an ID person, but that's not relevant for the purpose of this thread. (Just so everybody knows where I'm coming from.)

Often in debated over things like Evolution vs ID one of the things that's pointed out is that the existence of God is unscientific because it's neither falsifiable nor testable one way or the other. I understand that completely.

But my question is, (And this is a serious question, not a set-up for debate) how is something like the Big Bang any more scientific? I assume I'm missing something, but as I understand it, everything we know that suggests the Big Bang is circumstantial.... The movement of galaxies and such by measuring red shift, background radiation, etc. The Big Bang is a theory but I'm not sure I understand what makes it any more testable or falsifiable than the existence of God.

Once more for the record: This isn't a set up question, I'm sincerely curious. As it happens, I don't disbelieve the Big Bang anyway, but I do want to separate that from ID for the purpose of this question. I'm not looking to debate ID in this thread, I only bring it up for the sake of clarity and honesty.

Any Astronomers out there who can help?


does ID preclude the possibilty that god created the big bang?

I agree; the Church probably provided an environment that allowed this guy to write and publish his ideas, but the hierarchy as a whole did not endorse it.

As an interesting side note, the Vatican does have an observatory run by astronomers in Rome. I think it was built mostly to double-check ne'er-do-wells like Galileo, with their fancy-shmancy heliocentric models.
If you mean the Vatican Observatory, no. That sucker was built in the mid-1700's, long after Galileo. The Roman Catholic Church has been looking at the stars since the 1500's though, not to check on any heliocentric models, but to set calendars. Remember, the most important date in the Christian year is Easter, and that sucker moves because it's based on the old lunar calendar, requiring a knowledge of the heavens to figure out just when it is.

Well, the big bang theory is pretty hard to prove, since it's supposed to have created the matter we live in (and use to observe matter). So it's pretty much impossible to go up to the big bang anyways. That's why it is and (unless we get a time machine) will always stay a theory.

Btw, the opinion of one expert (i.e: Stephen Hawking), is invalid in a debate when there is no consensus on the subject between experts.

Well, the big bang theory is pretty hard to prove, since it's supposed to have created the matter we live in (and use to observe matter). So it's pretty much impossible to go up to the big bang anyways. That's why it is and (unless we get a time machine) will always stay a theory.

Btw, the opinion of one expert (i.e: Stephen Hawking), is invalid in a debate when there is no consensus on the subject between experts.

Not all experts are equal. You might also want to look up the scientific definition of a theory.

Not all experts are equal. You might also want to look up the scientific definition of a theory.

Not all experts are equal, but you can't take into account the opinion of only one expert when there are many who disagree, some of which may well be more experienced or trustable than him.

You may want to look in an encyclopedia for the words "Appeal to authority".

Well, the big bang theory is pretty hard to prove, since it's supposed to have created the matter we live in (and use to observe matter). So it's pretty much impossible to go up to the big bang anyways. That's why it is and (unless we get a time machine) will always stay a theory.

Btw, the opinion of one expert (i.e: Stephen Hawking), is invalid in a debate when there is no consensus on the subject between experts.

Can you name any dissenting experts? And by experts I of course mean individuals with degrees in the appropriate field (Ph. D. in Physics would be preferrable, if not required) from accredited universities.

Can you name any dissenting experts? And by experts I of course mean individuals with degrees in the appropriate field (Ph. D. in Physics would be preferrable, if not required) from accredited universities.

Sir Fred Hoyle, for one (he named the Big Bang, accidentally). That's not the majority, but that's still a part of the scientific community.

Sir Fred Hoyle, for one (he named the Big Bang, accidentally). That's not the majority, but that's still a part of the scientific community.

Hoyle is not part of any community as he's been dead for the last 7 years. in addition his general theory has been widly attacked and discredited, namely because it required him to invent out of whole cloth explanations for observable data that had absolutly no backing in evidence.

As an interesting side note, the Vatican does have an observatory run by astronomers in Rome. I think it was built mostly to double-check ne'er-do-wells like Galileo, with their fancy-shmancy heliocentric models.
It was built by Pope Leo XIII in the late 19th-century. He was a "modernizing" Pope elected to succeed the arch-reactionary Pius IX: Pius was the first to officially declare his "infallibility", the one who locked himself in the Vatican refusing to accept that the government of Italy had taken the city of Rome, the one who chiseled all the penises off the male statues in the Vatican's galleries, the one who declared it "error" to say that "the pontiff ought to reconcile himself with progress, liberty, and the modern civilization", etc.

Leo revised the Catechism: the catechism in use since the 1600's was by Cardinal Bellarmine, prosecutor in the Galileo case, and among other things still taught that it was heretical to believe that the Earth rotated on its axis and revolved around the Sun. In the 1830's, the Church had finally given an "imprimatur" to a textbook which taught Copernican astronomy and Newton's laws, but only with the heading "Modern astronomers believe that..." (in other words, you still could not teach Catholic kids that Copernicanism was true but it was acceptable to educate them about what scientists were saying!)

The effect of those centuries of anti-Copernicanism had been, of course, that scientific research was practically extinct in Catholic countries. Portugal especially had been a leader in astronomical observation, and Italy had been a hotbed of investigations of all kinds, but all of that had stopped; the only Italian astronomer of note since Galileo had been Cassini (discoverer of Saturn's moon Titan) who did all his work in France, one of the few Catholic countries to thumb its nose at the Vatican's stance against Copernicanism.

So of course, to make it absolutely plain that the Catholic Church was not going to be against science anymore, the strongest symbolic action Leo could take was to found an observatory. He was also the Pope who made the Vatican Library open to scholars of all nations, whether or not Catholic or even Christian. There was some backlash after him: the next Pope was Pius X (the choice of name indicating his conservative stance) who mollified those who were still upset about the replacement of the old Catechism by making Cardinal Bellarmine a "Doctor of the Church" (along with Thomas Aquinas, Augustine of Hippo, and a couple other worthies). However, there was no going back to geocentric astronomy or any other absurdly anti-science position.

Hoyle is not part of any community as he's been dead for the last 7 years. in addition his general theory has been widly attacked and discredited, namely because it required him to invent out of whole cloth explanations for observable data that had absolutly no backing in evidence.

Okay, so you're saying every single scientist that has sufficient education to be called such (in astronomy or physics, let's say) agrees with the Big Bang theory? If not, then it's an appeal to authority to talk about a single scientist as if he was representing the whole scientific community. It's an argument that doesn't make sense because Stephen Hawking or whoever you want may be right about everything else but still be wrong about that specific aspect of knowledge.

Edit: About Hoyle, I just don't have time to search for other names, but I know many experts are still skeptical when it comes to the Big Bang.

Edit: About Hoyle, I just don't have time to search for other names, but I know many experts are still skeptical when it comes to the Big Bang.
Whoever told you that is just flat-out wrong. Hoyle conceded that the evidence favored the Big Bang over his own preferred model back in 1969. Nobody is still holding onto Hoyle's model four decades after Hoyle himself gave it up!

Whoever told you that is just flat-out wrong. Hoyle conceded that the evidence favored the Big Bang over his own preferred model back in 1969. Nobody is still holding onto Hoyle's model four decades after Hoyle himself gave it up!

I'm not saying people use Hoyle's model in any way nowadays. The Big Bang is widely accepted, as is the theory of evolution, but none of both make absolute consensus as they are, not even now. You do know the majority can be wrong.

Of course a majority, or even an absolute consensus, can be wrong. That wasn't the issue. You are claiming that the Big Bang does not enjoy the status of an "absolute consensus" at the present time, among the professionals in the field: that is wrong; it does.

Link?

I'm not saying people use Hoyle's model in any way nowadays. The Big Bang is widely accepted, as is the theory of evolution, but none of both make absolute consensus as they are, not even now. You do know the majority can be wrong.
Of course a majority, or even an absolute consensus, can be wrong. That wasn't the issue. You are claiming that the Big Bang does not enjoy the status of an "absolute consensus" at the present time, among the professionals in the field: that is wrong; it does.

I'm not saying people use Hoyle's model in any way nowadays. The Big Bang is widely accepted, as is the theory of evolution, but none of both make absolute consensus as they are, not even now. You do know the majority can be wrong.

Absolute Consensus?

Can you name anything that will have absolute consensus?

Absolute Consensus?

Can you name anything that will have absolute consensus?

Among the experts, yes. There is, for example, the rejection of heliocentrism and geocentrism. That's one of many.

Link to WHAT? If you are going to claim that there exists such a thing as a professional astronomer who doesn't believe in the Big Bang, then you need to show me such a person. Are you expecting me to link to a webpage by every professional astronomer on the planet, saying "this guy isn't your Big Bang; no, this guy isn't either; no, not him either..."? I do not believe that there are any more astronomers who believe some other model than the Big Bang (you claim that the anti-Big-Bang people you say are out there now have some different model other than Hoyle's old Steady State-- what is it, then? you are providing no substance), just like there aren't any astronomers who still doubt the Copernican model of the Solar System.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Criticism_of_the_theory

Link?
Link to WHAT? If you are going to claim that there exists such a thing as a professional astronomer who doesn't believe in the Big Bang, then you need to show me such a person. Are you expecting me to link to a webpage by every professional astronomer on the planet, saying "this guy isn't your Big Bang; no, this guy isn't either; no, not him either..."? I do not believe that there are any more astronomers who believe some other model than the Big Bang (you claim that the anti-Big-Bang people you say are out there now have some different model other than Hoyle's old Steady State-- what is it, then? you are providing no substance), just like there aren't any astronomers who still doubt the Copernican model of the Solar System.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Criticism_of_the_theory

From the piece you quote...

"The general response from cosmologists to Lerner's book has been negative..."

which indicates how little his theory is thought of by the rest of the scientific community.

Finding a couple of people who say "the earth is flat" doesn't go all that far towards making it true. No matter WHAT the theory, you will be able to find someone to argue with it...

Exactly, science is about offering the best natural explanation to the phenomena we observe, it can't conclusively prove anything, only offer valid assumptions or extrapolations based on the evidence. But valid =/= true.

"A dragon ate it" was once a valid theory for why the sun set, now we have further evidence and can show that that is not the case :D

You must be right, then.

Among the experts, yes. There is, for example, the rejection of heliocentrism and geocentrism. That's one of many.

And how old are those theories.

Experts rarely agree on things. Even when proven wrong they will fight for their stance especially if they made a career on it.

Absolute consensus is a silly form of measurement anyway. Our knowledge increases when there are constant challenges to the established viewpoints.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Criticism_of_the_theory
The paragraph cites the Hoyle/Alfven circle of Steady State theorists, without mentioning that they abandoned their theory four decades ago, or that most of those people aren't even alive anymore; and then goes on to exhibit one lunatic, who has never managed to convince anyone in his field.
I am sure you can find *one* geocentrist astronomer somewhere, too.

Experts rarely agree on things.
Which is why it is noteworthy when a general agreement is reached.
Even when proven wrong they will fight for their stance especially if they made a career on it.And how old are those theories.
Which is why it is especially noteworthy when someone like Hoyle, who made a career for decades on his theory, admits that the evidence is against him.
Absolute consensus is a silly form of measurement anyway. Our knowledge increases when there are constant challenges to the established viewpoints.
Not necessarily. There is no point in going to argue about the roundness of the earth. Building on what has come to be recognized, and asking NEW questions, is better than refighting old battles over and over again.

I agree; the Church probably provided an environment that allowed this guy to write and publish his ideas, but the hierarchy as a whole did not endorse it.

Not necessarily, after all, the Big Bang was at one point attacked as being a creationist theory.

Even if the Big Bang were not scientific and testable, that still wouldn't be reason to support ID or any other creation theory. It would smply be a reason not to support the Big Bang theory.

Even if the Big Bang were not scientific and testable, that still wouldn't be reason to support ID or any other creation theory. It would smply be a reason not to support the Big Bang theory.that's a detail creationists are incapable of grasping.

that's a detail creationists are incapable of grasping.

But but.. you mean the false dichotomy is actually false ?
Oh noes ! That means the discovery institute and most presidential candidates are either liars or idiots !

Poor US of A.

My biggest complaint with how people generally think is their unnecessary assumption of an excluded middle.

My biggest complaint with how people generally think is their unnecessary assumption of an excluded middle.

Why just a "middle" ? Plenty of explanations that are nowhere near "between" God and the Big Bang.