The Big Bang: Why is it still being taught?

Calling them fudge factors or 'without evidence' is a pretty horrid summary of the fields. And, of the three 'factors', I'd say that Inflation is the most important to the Big Bang model, and it's not really taught at lower levels. Only at higher levels where its evidence can be comprehended.
 
In bold, because it was ignored in my last response to the claims in the OP: Dark matter has been observed by gravitational lensing.

So we know that there is something out there that behaves like dark matter. We just don't know what it is exactly. The lack of observation in laboratory experiments only proves that dark matter has not the properties that would lead to an observation in those experiments, but is by no means a crisis for the Big Bang Theory, because the existence of the effects needed for it has been observed.

The question why it is taught is easy to answer: It is the explanation for the measured data with the least problems and the most evidence. Any other explanation has more problems and less evidence going for it.
 
Chukchi Husky said:
"This thing is amazing and works in a way unimaginable, and there is no explanation, clearly it must be designed."
Click to expand...

My favorite. Basically saying they don't have the intelligence to figure out an explanation therefore there is not one.
 
On the other hand, I'm just as much annoyed by die-hard atheists who claim that because Young-Earth creationism is disproven, so must that be conclusive evidence against the existence of god. And I'm not even religious! Lack of confirming evidence is not evidence for non-existence and confusing the two is just as anti-scientific as bending science to your political objectives. Actually, the latter is often a motivation for the former.
 
Kaiserguard said:
On the other hand, I'm just as much annoyed by die-hard atheists who claim that because Young-Earth creationism is disproven, so must that be conclusive evidence against the existence of god. And I'm not even religious! Lack of confirming evidence is not evidence for non-existence and confusing the two is just as anti-scientific as bending science to your political objectives. Actually, the latter is often a motivation for the former.
Click to expand...

What?

Seriously, who does that?
 
Why could it not be that god or whoever created the universe with the big bang?

The big bang theory does not preclude the possibility of something beyond our selves, be it god or whatever. If you think of the big bang theory, evolution and whatever else as tools then the question becomes what is directing these tools, random chance or some sort of design?
 
God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance. Just because we can't explain something right now, doesn't mean we won't in a few decades from now.

Kaiserguard said:
On the other hand, I'm just as much annoyed by die-hard atheists who claim that because Young-Earth creationism is disproven, so must that be conclusive evidence against the existence of god. And I'm not even religious! Lack of confirming evidence is not evidence for non-existence and confusing the two is just as anti-scientific as bending science to your political objectives. Actually, the latter is often a motivation for the former.
Click to expand...
It's just one of the best examples of what I said above. Sometimes you can't help but feel one follows right from the other.
 
Why do we still teach it?
It is more in line with scientific understanding of the beginning of the universe than "A wizard did it".
 
Zack said:
To be fair, God is at least a level 50 mage.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but Stephen Hawking is a level 72 scientist with the spell "Scientific Method".
 
KmDubya said:
Why could it not be that god or whoever created the universe with the big bang?
Click to expand...

It certainly could be, it's just that there's no reason to believe that that is the case.
 
Another thing:

Scientific method does not prove the existence of dark matter yet *includes article in OP to prove YECism*.

Scientific method method proves the world is 4.5 billion years old, humans evolved from "monkeys," and that sunsets occur independent of God *articles nowhere to be found*.
 
They recently found the skull of Adam and based on DNA evidence found on the skull, have concluded that it really was Adam and Steve.
 
KmDubya said:
Why could it not be that god or whoever created the universe with the big bang?

The big bang theory does not preclude the possibility of something beyond our selves, be it god or whatever. If you think of the big bang theory, evolution and whatever else as tools then the question becomes what is directing these tools, random chance or some sort of design?
Click to expand...
This one is my favorite. It is indeed very much like claiming that a god must have created evolution.

Never give up. Never surrender!

Goodfella said:
God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.
Click to expand...
Good answer, Neil deGrasse Tyson?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Samson
  • Poll
Consciousness: what it is, where it comes from, do machines can have it and why do we care?
14 15 16
Replies
302
Views
9K
Samson
Samson
Kyriakos
Some stuff on Goedel
Replies
4
Views
457
Kyriakos
Kyriakos
Blake00
Heroes of Might and Magic 2 Scenario Mod (& HoMM1 Addon) - Release Thread
Replies
6
Views
2K
CurtSibling
CurtSibling
TerrisH
Out of the Portals, a Never Ending Story.
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
9K
Aiken_Drumn
Aiken_Drumn
The_J
30 years Civ - all the little things you didn't know
2
Replies
32
Views
10K
Horizons
Horizons
Top Bottom