Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
I've mentioned this earlier in the thread, but it really bothers me when someone dismisses something in science as "just a theory". The word 'theory', in science, does not mean the same as the words 'hypothesis', 'postulate' or 'conjecture', even though all of those words are often used synonymously in popular English usage. This is something you ought to have learned at some point during your science degree -- if not at the high school or middle school level.
Also, scientists don't "put their faith" in anything. That's the exact opposite of the scientific method. They choose to accept the best current theory backed by empirical evidence until such a point that a better theory emerges.
.
|
And you should know that for something to be considered scientifically valid, it has to be observable and reproducable. The Big Bang theory is neither. It's not like evolution theories that are observable by forcing selection. The Big Bang, as well as the Big Crunch are 2 theories that cannot be proven (not even close in fact). Do you disagree with that?
I'm not saying that "it's just a theory". I am completely aware of scientific method and how it derrives theories. What I am saying is that within the scientific community, the Big Bang does not have enough evidence to be considered science fact (even NASA agrees, yet you don't for some reason). Despite this, it is generally accepted. That is faith my friend.