Quote:
|
I have to admit... I just can't wrap my mind around the argument that states because there is no evidence for something, then it is only logical to disregard it as "non-existant". Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.
|
The default position is to conclude that something does not exist until evidence can be shown otherwise. There's no evidence that Santa Claus doesn't have a toy factory hidden in the ice and snow at the North Pole, but I think it's pretty safe to conclude that such a thing doesn't exist. There's also a chance that unicorns might be roaming in some unexplored area of the planet somewhere, but again, the default position is not to claim that unicorns exist because there is no evidence that they exist.
Quote:
|
There is no evidence for the Big Bang, but many scientists still believe in it (as I do).
|
The bolded portion of that sentence is very wrong. If it wasn't so close to bedtime, I'd go hunting for my old university astrophysics textbook so I could make a more salient point. :P
Suffice to say, the Big Bang isn't something that was just dreamed up by cosmologists with no justification; there's ample evidence to support the theory (which is how it has survived the scrutiny of peer review and the scientific method for over 75 years). IIRC, it has something to do with the cosmic redshift, cosmic microwave background radiation, and a few other points that I can't remember at the moment. Searching for the answer on Google or wikipedia I'll leave as an exercise to the reader.
