Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
27 Apr 95 10:35:38 EDT
In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org (Gil Hardwick) writes:
> What is being said, Scott, in the absence of far more substantially
> factual data being offered which any of us might be free to observe
> freely and independently for ourselves, is merely that Big Bang is
> being invoked by astronomers in place of God.
Proof? Why would astronomers need a god?
> The actual written word "God" failing to appear in astronomy texts is
> not at issue. As somebody else had mentioned in a different context,
> anyone with a word processor handy can carry out a Find and Replace
> operation without altering the sense of the text in any way at all.
> It remains, when all is said and done, that while you may not need a
> God you do need a Big Bang for the similar purpose of anchoring your
> manifold prognostications within the one single construct.
Let's see. The Big Bang theory attempts to explain the origin
of the universe as we see it today. It has been partially validated
by making predictions of things we did not know, thus giving us some
better understanding of the universe, within that framework, than
before those predictions were discovered. This is how we operate in
the sciences. A validated theory is used until observations fail to
Conversely, religious faith, astrology, etc. give up seeking
knowledge. Simply accept was is given to you and shut up.
Yep! Obviously two sides of the same coin to me!
> So what IS the difference? Please don't persist in arguing in your
> defence over what may or may not be "outside the realm of science".
Are you really as scientifically illiterate as you imply.
The existence of god falls outside of scientific query to the extent
that no comment can be made without observations to base them on.
There is no experiment that could be formulated to prove god exists or not.
So, within the realm of scientific query, that is, using as a basis of
understanding the scientific method (in some form), science is mute on
the subject of god. There is no compelling evidence for the existence
of god within that realm.
> We have been over that currently financially lucrative esoterica ad
> nauseam here on sci.anthropology.
Noting your trailer (which I have deleted) should you not qualify your
data before ranting, as you seem to be doing throughout this thread.