Well, this explains the tendency for scientists to hold theories that have problems and simply try to remedy the problem. The horizon problem cannot be fixed unless the speed of light wasn't constant or you use some cosmology such as white whole cosmology. Whether you wish to acknowledge it, the problem is real and the predictions are against it. Merely accommodating the observations is something that these scientists have warned against. In fact, the statement that they put out argues all against what you're saying. It doesn't matter whether it can explain observations. It seems you miss the point by equating explanations of facts as factual in itself. On the other hand, we know that facts don't speak for themselves and must be interpreted.
Look, I'm not some fanatical adherent to the BBT; I'm not knowledgeable enough in cosmology to be one. I don't know where you got that idea. I am willing to leave that question in the hands of real scientists. I do know that the BBT must be closer to the truth than Genesis literalism, at least in terms of the age of the universe, which is what I have been arguing from the beginning. Keep in mind the context from which the post of mine that you first started challenging came. I was arguing against Bob B's concept of a universe 6-7 thousand years old, not specifically for any one theory of the origin of the universe. You're the one who came in here with an ax to grind w/rt the BBT.
The problem with simply accomodating data is this:
What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.
It's worth exploring alternatives to any theory. I'm not saying otherwise. But it's also worth trying to fix broken theories and see if they still work with a better understanding. I don't believe there's a consensus that the BBT has reach 'ad hoc' status yet.
You want ad hoc, look at the justifications for creationism. If you don't like ad hoc apologetics, why don't you turn some of your attention to Bob B's claims.
A criteria for judging the scientifically validity of theories is specificity. It must make predictions of what will and won't occur and the more specific these predictions are, then the better. This will make it useful and testable. Theories that make general predictions that can accommodate just about any result not only are less useful but are also protected from being falsified.
I don't disagree with you here at all.
The other thing you must acknowledge is that there are other perfectly scientific theories that explain the same data.
I've never denied that. I've only denied that creationism is one of them.
We're not invoking miracles here to argue against the BBT...well at least I am not.
Understood. But keep in mind that my comments were addressed to Bob B, who
was invoking miracles.
The point is, no one is saying that we should completely throw out all the ideas from the BBT in the same way that no one is saying we should entirely abandon newton's ideas.
Read Bob B's posts in this thread.
I am not a young earth creationist by the way as you define it. Magic? Not for me.
Excellent. Then we probably aren't actually too far apart on this.
Though I don't think that I agree with his cosmology, I still don't understand how providing a link makes the implication that he's "using them to justify creationism". He never stated that, "here's this link, and it's proof of creationism" as I am sure he was very aware that the website doesn't talk about creation cosmology. In my mind, it would've made more sense to point to a creationist website to do that. The purpose of the link was simply to answer you question...
Maybe that wasn't his intent, but that has been his theme throughout this thread. If I missed his point, well, that's too bad, but he also hasn't said that I did. Bob B has been trying to use any scrap of doubt or dispute to justify creationism all along, and so my assumption as to his intention doesn't seem too far out of line to me.
Why aren't you skeptical of the BBT either? It seems you're committing a double standard here.
Show me where I said that I wasn't.
Merely because many scientists accept the Big Bang theory has no bearing on it's truth. Skepticism is healthy even on a strongly held belief among the scientific community. Einstein for example, challenged the belief that length, mass and time were constant but he convincely demonstrated otherwise (relative). Challenging popular scientific stances is what brings forward new theories or should I say paradigms (eventually) in the words of Thomas Kuhn.
And that's fine, but if there is going to be a revolution of cosmology, it's still down the road. The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter to me much to make a firm decision about the origin of the universe. I'm content to wait until the problem is more completely solved, however, one fact that is beyond serious dispute is that the universe is a lot older than 6-7 thousand years.
Somehow, I doubt you even verified the claims of BBT to make sure it's true. An assumption but that's the impression I get from you. Anyone who denies a widely held theory in science deserves skepticism. Nothing wrong with that except for the double standard.
Like I said, I'll defer to scientific consensus on the matter. That's another way of saying I don't have my own opinion. As long as there is serious dispute, I will respect that. There is no serious scientific dispute between old and very very young models, which is what I was disputing in the first place.
Can you point to any pseudo-science in their conclusions? I am surprised at how hostile you are to them...even though they're not even creationists. In the words of Barry Setterfield, I conclude that:
It is never good science to ignore anomalous data or to eliminate a conclusion because of some presupposition. Sir Henry Dale, one-time President of the Royal Society of London, made an important comment in his retirement speech: "Science should not tolerate any lapse of precision, or neglect any anomaly, but give Nature's answers to the world humbly and with courage." To do so may not place one in the mainstream of modern science, but at least we will be searching for truth and moving ahead rather than maintaining the scientific status quo.--Barry Setterfield, March 7, 2002
This has nothing to do with data, it is about the credability of the group.
Like I said, it seems suspicious. I am making that determination based upon the fact that it shares several features of pseudo-science:
1. It seems to appeal to the public directly rather than scientific communities.
2. It seems to rail against the scientific establishment.
3. It seems to include (although not exlusively) people who do not at all claim to possess scientific credentials, or whose credentials are dubious or ambiguous.
That being said, it looks like the signatures to the original letter may have been from people with proper credentials, but why have they allowed such open signing? Some of the signers even submitted URLs pointing to spam pages full of ads and nothing else. They can't be filtering this too hard. It seems like they are trying to inflate their support, and for that reason it's hard for me to trust their motives.
so it must have been formed "lived" and exploded after God stretched it all out.
