I agree. The Big Bang theory is based on observations of the past and meets the definition of a scientific theory. A scientific theory is not necessarily based on observations according to the definitions below. It is an explanatory, rational framework based on facts. The theory of evolution meets the standard definition of a scientific theory and it is not based on direct observations but on the interpretation of many facts and past events. The theory of evolution does have observational consequences if we define an observation as something that can be found through scientific inquiry that includes more than the human senses. This is from: https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.htm The University of California, Berkley, defines a theory as "a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses." Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists' explanations and interpretations of the facts. An important part of scientific theory includes statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton's theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently. The evolution of a scientific theory A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time. Wikipedia's definition of a scientific theory, first paragraph: A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]
Nope, Evolution is a religious theory as well, for the same reasons that the BBT is. Evolution is also about a past unobserved event. Even if species ARE currently evolving, that doesn't mean that species have always evolved in the past, and always evolved back before our species even existed. There is simply no way to test the theory that present day life evolved from more primitive life. It is simply a religious belief. I agree with this bit. I will add that the "high confidence" is based on the ability of a theory of science to continue surviving null hypothesis testing. Correct. Any falsifiable theory (aka theory of science) in existence today could be completely and utterly destroyed tomorrow. No, I am using the same definition of theory ("an explanatory argument"). ALL theories begin as circular arguments. In other words, ALL theories begin as arguments of faith. It is the test of falsifiability, and ONLY the test of falsifiability, that separates a nonscientific theory from a scientific one. Religion is simply an initial circular argument (an "initial nonscientific theory", if that helps you picture it better) with other arguments stemming from it. Christianity is one such example of a religion. Buddhism is another. Atheism is another. The Big Bang is another. Evolution is another. Intelligent Design is another. The theory that the Earth is increasing in temperature ("Global Warming") is another. Now, many people will claim that Atheism is "lack of belief", and BBT, Evolution, and AGW are "science", but ALL of these aforementioned theories are "justified" via forming arguments around an initial circular argument (an "initial nonscientific theory").
The Big Bang theory is strongly supported by observational evidence, particularly the synthesis of helium, deuterium, and lithium and their relative abundances compared to hydrogen. From Wikipedia - Big Bang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Observational evidence "[The] big bang picture is too firmly grounded in data from every area to be proved invalid in its general features." Lawrence Krauss[66] The earliest and most direct observational evidence of the validity of the theory are the expansion of the universe according to Hubble's law (as indicated by the redshifts of galaxies), discovery and measurement of the cosmic microwave background and the relative abundances of light elements produced by BBN. More recent evidence includes observations of galaxy formation and evolution, and the distribution of large-scale cosmic structures,[67] These are sometimes called the "four pillars" of the Big Bang theory Using the Big Bang model it is possible to calculate the concentration of helium-4, helium-3, deuterium, and lithium-7 in the universe as ratios to the amount of ordinary hydrogen.[25] The relative abundances depend on a single parameter, the ratio of photons to baryons. This value can be calculated independently from the detailed structure of CMB fluctuations. The ratios predicted (by mass, not by number) are about 0.25 for {\displaystyle {\ce {^4He/H}}}, about 10−3 for {\displaystyle {\ce {^2H/H}}}, about 10−4 for {\displaystyle {\ce {^3He/H}}} and about 10−9 for {\displaystyle {\ce {^7Li/H}}}.[25] The measured abundances all agree at least roughly with those predicted from a single value of the baryon-to-photon ratio. The agreement is excellent for deuterium, close but formally discrepant for {\displaystyle {\ce {^4He}}}, and off by a factor of two for {\displaystyle {\ce {^7Li}}}; in the latter two cases there are substantial systematic uncertainties. Nonetheless, the general consistency with abundances predicted by BBN is strong evidence for the Big Bang, as the theory is the only known explanation for the relative abundances of light elements, and it is virtually impossible to "tune" the Big Bang to produce much more or less than 20–30% helium.[
Of course there is a methodology for looking back. We have fossil records that go back WAY before there were any humans on Earth. That record supports evolution as we know it today. It would be entirely reasonable to prove the theory of evolution to be false by simply finding patterns in that record that don't conform to what is required by evolution. So, every fossil find on Earth is a test of evolution. Theories explanations of how something works, but more than that is required. A theory arises as a collection of one or more hypotheses that have been tested by independent groups and have passed serous review. You can't have a scientific theory that hasn't had that kind of testing and review history. There is nothing "circular" about science like that. Science has one main foundational assumption - that nature may be meaningfully observed. From there it is a methodology. Intelligent design is not science, because it can not be falsified. The big bang and evolution are falsifiable and have long histories of testing and review. They ARE science.
No, the theory of evolution isn't built on assumptions - other than the assumption that we may meaningfully observe nature.
[QUOTE="gfm7175, post: 1071322538, member: 79153 ] There is simply no way to test the theory that present day life evolved from more primitive life. It is simply a religious belief. No, I am using the same definition of theory ("an explanatory argument"). ALL theories begin as circular arguments. In other words, ALL theories begin as arguments of faith. It is the test of falsifiability, and ONLY the test of falsifiability, that separates a nonscientific theory from a scientific one. Christianity is one such example of a religion. Buddhism is another. Atheism is another. The Big Bang is another. Evolution is another. Intelligent Design is another. The theory that the Earth is increasing in temperature ("Global Warming") is another. Now, many people will claim that Atheism is "lack of belief", and BBT, Evolution, and AGW are "science", but ALL of these aforementioned theories are "justified" via forming arguments around an initial circular argument (an "initial nonscientific theory"). /QUOTE] You are making the same argument that creationists make regarding the reliability of historical science. Are you a creationist? Do you believe in the accuracy of dating the age of the earth or is that a science? Here is what I am talking about (copied from the Biologos website): https://biologos.org/common-questions/is-historical-science-reliable One tactic often used by those seeking to discredit evolutionary science is to label it as “historical science.” They claim historical sciences make no testable predictions and can only make educated guesses about the past, since the past is not directly observable and is not repeatable. Other sciences (sometimes called “operational” or “observational” or “experimental”) are purported to be more reliable because they involve observing things in the present and can directly test their hypotheses. This distinction allows people to affirm science insofar as it is responsible for technology and modern medicine, while rejecting the science that has established the ancient age of the earth and the reality of evolution. Is there any merit to distinguishing historical science from other kinds of science? I don't understand the statement that all theories begin as circular arguments or arguments of faith. There is a marked difference in how scientific theories begin relative to religious ideas or religions. Theories always begin with facts and a logical, rational argument. Religions are often based on fantastic claims often involving divine revelation. There are ways to either verify that either the theory of evolution is consistent with observations or is false. The theory of evolution has been consistent so far with all observations and has never been falsified. The genomes and DNA of all extant organisms provides an enormous amount of evidence confirming the theory. That would include the similarity of pseudogenes and transposable elements in anatomically similar species.
Sure it is. It is about a past unobserved event. It is a complete speculation of past events before we even existed as a species.
That would suggest problems with geology, plate techtonics, cosmology, climatology and other fields where indirect evidence is a primary source, It would also suggest that most of modern particle physics is in the same bracket, as nothing is directly observed. Suspecting that evolution didn't exist until we were there to actually watch it is preposterous. And, the same goes for these other fields as well. There's no justification for ignoring ice core evidence of passed climmate cycles or ignoring the clear evdence that space is expanding and has been doing so for billions of years. How rock is formed, how Earth's magnetic field has changed, how mountain ranges form, etc., etc. - these are very clearly science. The fact that humans don't live for millions of years doesn't mean we can't understand these fields through scintific method. The idea that these processes didnt start until humans observed it is just not justified. Humans just aren't that important. Nature doesn't quit unless a human is there to watch.
More than one foundational assumption . Another one is that matter is fundamental. That assumption excludes any possibility of intelligent creation. This has been taught in academia in philosophy 101 for years. Why do materialists eithet ignore it or not educated enough to be aware of this assumption. ? They can of course reject that possibility but to act as if it does not exist is something else.
OK. Couldn't we also say that energy is fundamental? After all, Einstein points out that energy = mass with a conversion factor, and mass (or matter) actually takes up space while energy does not. But, I don't believe either energy or matter should be seen as a foundation of scientific method. Einstein and those before him used observation to explore energy and mass. Energy and mass are what is explored, not the methodology used in the exploration. I think the issue of meaningful observation is meant to differentiate science as being emperical rather than rational. So, Theoretical Physics is excluded, for example, as it is rational, not emperical. There are probably issues related to metaphysics that are affected by the requirent that science depends on observation being meaningful. I'll bet you have more, and I'm interested. I would add, though, that scientific method can not address any issue of God for the same reason that theoretical physics is excluded. It is beyond our ability to test. A god defined to have the power attributed to the god of the bible could have created the big bang or anything that has happened subsequentely. For example, there is no way for scientific method to prove that God isn't moving objects in conformance with everything we think we know about gravity. Absolutely nothing about God is falsifiable using scientfic method. Having a scientific explanation doesn't falsify a claim that god is involved.
Science unlocks the details of past events because everything follows the same physics . No one saw the Earth created , but we know , through radioactive decay - it’s around 4.5 B
Based on the speed and acceleration of distances between galaxies , they can work backwards to figure out the starting point!!! Also with today’s scopes they can peer to within only tens of thousands of yrs to the BB
Yup. Not what I said. I said that Evolution is not science since it is a theory about a past unobserved event. It cannot be falsified in any accessible, available, practical, specific way that yields a specific result. To falsify it, we would have to go back in time to when the very first primitive species existed and observe if following species mutated from it or not. We don't have time machines... We can't test that null hypothesis against the theory of Evolution... It cannot be falsified. Another religious belief. Are you referring to "Earth's climate"? If so, then ice cores only relate to a specific location. They don't represent the Earth as a whole, and Earth has many climates, not a singular climate. What do you think we "know" about "past climate cycles" from studying these ice cores? Another religious belief, and a logical fallacy. Just because "observable space" is expanding does not mean that "space as a whole" is expanding. Compositional Error Fallacy. Okay. So? Not what I said (see above), and never said they were. Never said it did.
No we don't. You are basing that claim on the assumption that the rate of decay has remained constant throughout all of history. We don't know this. We weren't around back then...
Rate of decay is always the same based on the individual isotope This is math ....should be simple to follow for anyone It decays the same if now or 4B yrs ago
Evolution is fact that is proven by bone records , genetics and DNA and remnants Humans did not magically appear in thin air
There are many ways that the evolution can be falsified or at least shown to be questionable: 1) If eukaryotes were found to be exist prior to prokaryotes 2) If complex multicellular organisms were found to exist prior to simpler unicellular organisms 3) If mutations were never found to be beneficial 4) If fish with jaws were found to be older than jawless fish 5) If amphibians were found to exist prior to reptiles 6) If mammals and birds were found to exist prior to reptiles 7) If the genomes of similar organisms located on a phylogenetic tree did not share very similar genes or identical genes If a pseudogene (dead gene) was not found to exist in an organism that was predicted to have evolved from an earlier appearing organism with the same pseudogene 9) If embryonic development wasn't very similar for all vertebrates that would be a serious problem for evolution 10) If islands possessed organisms that could not have arrived there on their own or through some known mode of transportation 11) If the information-transfer and coding processes weren't virtually identical in all organisms that would cast doubt on evolution
Evolution absolutely CAN be falsified. There is NO question about thtat. For example, any fossil find could demonstrate novel genetics or disorder that would preclude evolution. Suspecting that evolution only works today is a preposterous flight of fancy that can not be supported by evidence. The idea that we had to be there has nothing to do with whether an hypothesis is science. No such requirement exists. I'd really like to see you cite your claims. I've literally never seen this claim made.
Nope, we don't know whether that rate of decay has always remained the same. We are ASSUMING that it has.
Any evidence that some structure or organ could not have evolved from a preexisting structure or organ would be a means to falsify evolution. Evidence that specialized teeth were older than non-specialized teeth would be evidence against evolution. Evidence that fur, skin, and feathers existed before scales would be evidence against evolution. Evidence that transitional fossils did not exist or that organs did not gradually transition from a simpler form to a more complex form would be evidence against evolution.
This is from datinhttps://www.britannica.com/science/dating-geochronology/Principles-of-isotopic-g Fortunately for geochronology, the study of radioactivity has been the subject of extensive theoretical and laboratory investigation by physicists for almost a century. The results show that there is no known process that can alter the rate of radioactive decay. By way of explanation it can be noted that since the cause of the process lies deep within the atomic nucleus, external forces such as extreme heat and pressure have no effect. The same is true regarding gravitational, magnetic, and electric fields, as well as the chemical state in which the atom resides. In short, the process of radioactive decay is immutable under all known conditions. Although it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will change, given a sufficient number of atoms, the rate of their decay is found to be constant
