the big bang theory

how is this testable? i dont understand how one could test this theory. it is in textbooks because it is scientific theory but creationism is not scientific theory and can not be tested either. what is it about the big bang theory that is testable?

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
how is this testable? i dont understand how one could test this theory. it is in textbooks because it is scientific theory but creationism is not scientific theory and can not be tested either. what is it about the big bang theory that is testable?

The Big Bang Theory can be, has been and is being tested. Essentially, if you look at the universe, and its current behavior, you can make a guess or hypothesis about what it used to be like in the past. For example, we know it is expanding, so we make a hypothesis that it used to be smaller than it is now. Another very important factor is that the further away galaxies are from us, the longer it takes the light to get to us and therefore the older the galaxies we see actually are. In other words, we can actually look at galaxies that are billions of years old.
Now once a hypothesis is made about the big bang, you then do calculations to predict the various results one would expect including what ratio of particles would result, what sort of radiation would be emitted what the distribution of galaxies would be like etc etc. Then you check whether reality matches your predictions.

Creationism can be tested to a certain degree. For example creationists claim:
1. The earth is not nearly as old as scientist claim.
2. There was a world wide flood.
3. God does not intentionally deceive.

Now without 3, it would be impossible to tell the difference between the Big bang theory and a version of creationism where God made the world in such a way as to fool us into thinking the Big bang happened. In fact, in this version of creationism, we do not know whether or not God made the world last month.
However, I am yet to meet a creationist who will admit to God being that deceptive, so they must somehow claim that the enormous amount of evidence for an old earth must be wrong, and they must provide evidence for their claims. They have done remarkably badly on both fronts often resorting to manufacturing evidence or relying on attempts to shed doubt on the Big bang theory without actually providing reasoning to back it up.

My favorite argument against creationism, is that if the universe is a mere 6000 years old then 90% of the stars you see in the sky with your eye and over 99.999% of the stars that can be seen with a telescope, simply do not exist because the light that is reaching us has been traveling for more than 6000 years. Also, we would have to rewrite almost 50% of all science subjects as being totally and utterly wrong.

======================

My favorite argument against creationism,

=======================


Yes we noticed that you like to define Creationism within very limited and specific boundaries as if all scientists who believe in creation have the same opinions.

For example, your implication that all creationists are Young Earth - 6,000 year old universe creationists.

And again that all creationists hold to a global deluge that covered the entire planet.

It stands to reason that you also have "favorite" arguments to go along with your favorite strawmen.

Would you like me to list for you a list of scientific associations or bodies which are not Young Earth Creationists but could be called Creationists?

Better yet, why not do a little research on it yourself. Or do you prefer to be baised? If you do prefer to stick with bias it doesn't lend to your credibility as a fair or objective minded researcher.

Originally posted by jaywill
Yes we noticed that you like to define Creationism within very limited and specific boundaries as if all scientists who believe in creation have the same opinions.

For example, your implication that all creationist are Young Earth - 6,000 year old universe creationists.

And again that all creationists hold to a global deluge that covered the ent ...[text shortened]... stick with bias it doesn't lend to your credibility as a fair or objective minded researcher.

My sincere apologies. I was referring specifically to Young Earth Creationists and should have specified it in my post.

Just as a matter of interest what do creationists who are not Young Earth Creationists believe and why do they call themselves Creationists?

For example most Christians (if not all) believe that God made the Universe by some means. Many believe that he did it via the Big Bang. Are they not creationists? If not, why not? The first post in this thread implied that creationism is an opposing concept to the Big Bang Theory. Was he wrong?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]======================

My favorite argument against creationism,

=======================


Yes we noticed that you like to define Creationism within very limited and specific boundaries as if all scientists who believe in creation have the same opinions.

For example, your implication that all creationists are Young Earth - 6,000 ye ...[text shortened]... stick with bias it doesn't lend to your credibility as a fair or objective minded researcher.[/b]

Well you have to give the "Young Earthers" their due. At least they're not as stupid as the "flat Earthers".

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
how is this testable? i dont understand how one could test this theory. it is in textbooks because it is scientific theory but creationism is not scientific theory and can not be tested either. what is it about the big bang theory that is testable?

Look up Cosmic Background Radiation.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
how is this testable? i dont understand how one could test this theory. it is in textbooks because it is scientific theory but creationism is not scientific theory and can not be tested either. what is it about the big bang theory that is testable?

If we have a model that describes the formation of a universe, we can run the model forward in time to see what it predicts about future states of this universe.
If our universe's current state matches one of these predictions then that presents as evidence in support of the model.
This is one way of testing any model or theory ...

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Look up Cosmic Background Radiation.

Cosmic Background Radiation is explained by thermodynamics without any Big Bang.
Fits Big Bang theory, but the radiation should be there anyway...
Big Bang sucks... But it's way better then genesis.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]======================

My favorite argument against creationism,

=======================


Yes we noticed that you like to define Creationism within very limited and specific boundaries as if all scientists who believe in creation have the same opinions.

For example, your implication that all creationists are Young Earth - 6,000 ye stick with bias it doesn't lend to your credibility as a fair or objective minded researcher.[/b]

Notice that you say belief... it is not science, it is religion. If scientists who 'believe' in this disagree, how can you even going about proving it? Every theory can be summed up in a series of points, and usually only one or two! Creationism is just NOT SCIENCE.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]======================

My favorite argument against creationism,

=======================


Yes we noticed that you like to define Creationism within very limited and specific boundaries as if all scientists who believe in creation have the same opinions.

For example, your implication that all creationists are Young Earth - 6,000 ye stick with bias it doesn't lend to your credibility as a fair or objective minded researcher.[/b]

How many subtheories are there to this strange 'belief'... does everyone who 'believes' in it have a different definition?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]======================

My favorite argument against creationism,

=======================


Yes we noticed that you like to define Creationism within very limited and specific boundaries as if all scientists who believe in creation have the same opinions.

For example, your implication that all creationists are Young Earth - 6,000 ye stick with bias it doesn't lend to your credibility as a fair or objective minded researcher.[/b]

I just can't get enough of this... how can you prove belief to be reason? IT IS BELIEF!!!

Originally posted by UzumakiAi
How many subtheories are there to this strange 'belief'... does everyone who 'believes' in it have a different definition?

well... it's called "interpretation".
That's what made Nostradamus a prophet, too..

Nobody has the right to call themselves scientists, or scientific organizations, unless they follow established scientific methodology and submit any research or conclusions they generate to a review by a recognized body of reviewers.
This exists for many reasons, the main one being to prevent people just publishing numbers/information/research that supports their theory and ignoring the rest. Which is why lunatics sometimes come across a plausible to those who don't fully understand the subject at hand.
This is exactly the case with Creationism in nearly all it's forms Quote Mining, half truths, big words and lack of peer reviews have lead to people believing there is a scientific grounding for the story. There isn't, the scientific community accepts evolution, the big bang (somewhat anyway, certainly it fits current data) and various other theories. Creationism, young earth, the flood and intelligent design have no grounding in science.
I post this in the hope that people will realize this and either continue with belief and stop using science to justify their god. Or else accept that science and any form of god that interacts with the universe, simply don't work together.

"The last refuges in god lie in the shrinking gaps in science"

As our understanding of our universe grows, the religious always come up with more and more ridiculous stories to try and justify themselves to a world driven by science.

Originally posted by serigado
well... it's called "interpretation".
That's what made Nostradamus a prophet, too..

You can't INTERPRET science in that way though... you can't change a theory to fit your person! I do not understand the logic!

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
how is this testable? i dont understand how one could test this theory.

Just interested to know whether you understand it now?