The Big Bang is NOT Scientific

To the other moderators,I won't stand in the way of releasing this thread, but I'm a little relucant to release threads containing errors of simple fact like "According to current science there is no way to change space." I'd love to release all kinds of topics like this for people who are interested in learning about it, but not for someone who has made no effort to educate himself about the actual scientific views and merely wants to make assertions out of ignorance.Lost-Apathy, my advice to you is to either phrase your opening post as more of an inquiry than an assertion, or do some study. If you choose the latter, though its a thick book I think many people here would endorse my recommendation of The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time and the Texture of Reality by Brian Greene. You really only need the first third to get a much better idea of what science actually says about space and time.This message has been edited by Admin, 04-27-2005 10:30 AM

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Nipok,Your collision theory model is more appropriate for a new topic.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

This is an old thread being resurrected, but even old threads have topics they are supposed to discuss. This thread is not about the nature of science, it is not about evolution, and it is not about God. It is considering whether the Big Bang has a legitimate scientific foundation.Some participants may find that their impressions of the nature of science do not find acceptance among the more science minded, so keep in mind again that this is not a thread about the nature of science. Those who believe science has been defined improperly should discuss this in the [forum=-11] forum.Those who do not have the patience to explain their views carefully and in detail multiple times without becoming emotional and/or abusive should not participate in this thread. In the same vein, those given to ignoring or not understanding careful explanations so that they may repeat assertions unsupported by evidence (science requires evidence) should also not participate in this thread.I'd like to caution both sides that in this particular subject area it is often better to post nothing then to post something casually that is difficult to understand or easily misinterpreted.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I see no problems in this thread right now, this is merely preemptive.Generally speaking, science strives to gather evidence in order to understand how the universe around us works. It builds theories that place the evidence within an explanatory context that can be used to make predictions about what science should find in the future.Ideally those who have other views of how science should work would take their ideas to the [forum=-11] forum, while those who view contrary evidence as something to be ignored would avoid the science forums altogether, but this often doesn't happen. EvC Forum permits a variety of approaches in the science forums, and members are therefore not required to accept any particular evidence or perspective, no matter how well established, nor are they obligated to understand the topic they're discussing.For this reason members who believe they possess some scientific knowledge and understanding are encouraged to maintain a patient and forbearing approach that stays within the Forum Guidelines when they encounter approaches that may appear unconstructive or unduly skeptical.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

The thread is not about whether the Big Bang happened. It is about whether the current scientific understanding for the origin of the universe has a scientific foundation.In 1900 scientists believed the universe was static and eternal.By 2000 scientists believed the universe was 13.7 billion old, expanding and accelerating in its expansion, and that it had a definite beginning in the Big Bang.Does this change in viewpoint have a scientific foundation rooted in evidence? Certainly the answer is something anyone can understand.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Buzsaw,Are the points in your list of excerpts things you agree with? Disagree with? Think contradict each other? It isn't clear, so I think it would be helpful to your potential respondents if you could clarify a little.To all,I'd like to keep this thread focused on the topic and not on people or side-issues. It would be difficult to rule out explanations of the details of the Big Bang and the nature of space as off-topic because might be necessary background, but keep in mind that that's not what this topic is mostly about. It's about whether modern views of cosmological origins have a scientific foundation.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Yeah, I know, that bothered me, too, but recall that we basically say the same thing about creation science. I do have a couple problems with this approach, no matter which side uses it:

1. It is so general that it could apply in any forum, so I'm inclined to rule it out for purposes of rebuttal no matter which side uses it.
   ​
2. There's no supporting argument or evidence.

For this reason, when in the future someone argues that someone is wrong because creation science isn't real science, or because scientists just sit in their ivory towers and make unsupported pronouncements, I'm going to encourage moderators to rule the argument out of order. Anyone who wants to discuss the fundamental reasons why creation science or traditional science is inherently wrong or biased or whatever should propose a thread, and it would probably get assigned to the [forum=-11] forum.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I think if you just address yourself to the topic that everything is fine. There's only a few more messages left until closing time anyway.I'm not going to review the thread, that would take too long, but I have followed it as it progressed, and if memory serves me correctly, the topic of this thread was never seriously addressed. The topic isn't creationist views of the Big Bang, and it isn't the fabric of space/time, but whether mainstream science's view of the Big Bang has a legitimate scientific foundation. Diversions into these and other related topics are certainly okay as long as they are pursued with the main topic in mind, but somehow or other that didn't happen here.You might want to propose a topic discussing your view of the nature of space/time.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

A short summary of the evidence that accumulated in support of the Big Bang and the successful predictions that were made along the way would be a fitting way for this thread to end.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Buzsaw,The suggestion to propose a topic to discuss your ideas about space/time was not intended as an invitation to post a possible OP for that topic here. You mean sequel? Gee, why didn't I think of that!

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director