The Good in Bad Science

[nPeace]

First, inflation has *not* been verified yet. But the basic Big Bang theory and the age of the current expansion phase has been.

Second, your characterization of the process here is faulty.

Big Bang: If this is true, here are some things you will see. here is the expected size of the effects, and here is the math behnd those effect. Now, go out and look to see if you see them. For example, details of the structure of the CMBR, abundances of the light elements, pattern of expansion.

Inflation: if this is true, here are some very specific observations that you can make and here is what you should see. Now go out and look (develop the instruments to do so) and see what you find.

Hand of God: Go out and look and I will give an explanation after. I can explain anything by 'God did it'.

Do you see how these are fundamentally different? In fact, the second is no explanation at all. The second makes predictions *first* that are specific and testable. If those predictions are not held up by observation, the theory has to change or be discarded.

For the God non-explanation, *nothing* is a test. There is no way to do anything that actually gives evidence one way or the other. It is pure faith.

Current? Current expansion phase? What do you mean by current?

If A is true, then we can expect B to be true. Go out and look, and this is what we find. Therefore A is true.
Polymath257, no I don't see a difference.

B is true because A is true. If A was not true then there would be no B. Do you get it?
Why is A what we want A to be, and not something else.

The universe is ordered, "fine tuned, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
X should not be, yet X is. Why?
This is what we expect if God did it.
What do we see? Search anywhere in the universe, and it's only intelligence we see responsible for this, otherwise we see what we expected, and we don't ask why, because it's expected.
Do you get it?

 

[nPeace]

"Sorry. I make no apology" must set some sort of record for immediate self-contradiction.

Another cherry picker and twister. How many are on RF?
I make no apologies, if / for / when... What a huge difference.
I love you guys.

I have no intention of trying to persuade you of anything. I know that is impossible. Your responding to my post with a load of biblical quotations makes clear the futility of any attempt. (Who's the charlatan with the 'tache, by the way?)

What I won't do however is let you, or others like you, get way Scot-free with false assertions about science. There are other readers on these forums who might get wrong ideas.

 

[nPeace]

Well, I do not debate links. For obvious reasons. Let’s see if I will understand by interpolation.

Which of the following is good science and which bad science.

1) cosmology. Most specifically inflation theory.
2) astrophysics/physics. Most specifically the theory of origin of heavy materials
3) forensic science. Most specifically how to gather evidence in the absence of witnesses
4) geology. Most specifically the tectonic theory and all theories surrounding the far past of our planet.

So, i just need 4 bits of information. For starters.

Ciao

- viole

Try this.
Which of the following is good food.
a) apples
b) bananas
c) carrots
d) lettuce

This is not a trick question.

By the way @viole if you don't debate links, how can anyone direct you to a post on RF? Is the person supposed to copy paste information they posted each time? I think that is an unnecessary action that should not be required, especially if the person had highlighted particular points. It would require highlighting those points again - a waste of time.

 

[viole]

Try this.
Which of the following is good food.
a) apples
b) bananas
c) carrots
d) lettuce

This is not a trick question.

Well, I did not start a thread on bad food. But you started one on bad science. So, unless you withdraw the attribute, i must assume you think there is a thing as bad science.

So, my case stands.

Do you now want to answer, or are you are revising your premises?

Your call.

Ciao

- viole

 

[nPeace]

Well, I did not start a thread on bad food. But you started one on bad science. So, unless you withdraw the attribute, i must assume you think there is a thing as bad science.

So, my case stands.

Do you now want to answer, or are you are revising your premises?

Your call.

Ciao

- viole

Okay. I will answer.
The foods are only bad, when something makes them bad. For example, the fruit or vegetables could rot, or become contaminated.
Otherwise, it's simply food - good to eat.

Likewise, every field of science is useful for the study of nature to those who use the tool.
What makes it bad is when it is contaminated with various things - methods, opinionated bias,etc.

Is there such a thing as bad science? Yes.
Perhaps you can help me sort out where I went wrong with the bad part.

Also, the limits of science does not make it bad, but assertions that it is more than what it is capable of does.

 

[Polymath257]

Current? Current expansion phase? What do you mean by current?

Well, we don't know what, if anything happened before about 13.7 billion years ago. Most of the evidence of such times would have been destroyed. So we can only talk, so far, about the current expansion phase.

If A is true, then we can expect B to be true. Go out and look, and this is what we find. Therefore A is true.
Polymath257, no I don't see a difference.

*sigh* If A is true, we would see B. If A is not true, we would see C. So we look and see B. That gives us *confidence* in A. On the other hand, if we see C, then we know A is false.

B is true because A is true. If A was not true then there would be no B. Do you get it?
Why is A what we want A to be, and not something else.

Well, if A gives B, then there could be other things that also give B. So finding B doesn't, in and of itself, show that A is true. We need to also see that there are things that *could* show A to be false and see if those happen.

The universe is ordered, "fine tuned, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
X should not be, yet X is. Why?
This is what we expect if God did it.

And also if no God did it. So it isn't evidence one way or the other.

What do we see? Search anywhere in the universe, and it's only intelligence we see responsible for this, otherwise we see what we expected, and we don't ask why, because it's expected.
Do you get it?

And this is actually counter to what we see. We only see 'intelligence' acting in one small part of the universe: here on Earth. Everywhere else we see the action of impersonal natural laws.

 

[nPeace]

Well, we don't know what, if anything happened before about 13.7 billion years ago. Most of the evidence of such times would have been destroyed. So we can only talk, so far, about the current expansion phase.

Great! So we are on the same page. You assume the rate of expansion was always the same as current. Therefore, you reach a conclusion, based on your assumption.

Another, you may conclude, based on certain observed phenomenon, that the rate was not constant, and base your conclusions on that. So, you form opinions to fit the observed phenomenon.

Hypotheses win.

*sigh* If A is true, we would see B. If A is not true, we would see C. So we look and see B. That gives us *confidence* in A. On the other hand, if we see C, then we know A is false.

<sigh>
Why is A true? Why not Z?
Because A is what we came up with. A is true because we don't propose Z.

Proposition:
If Z is true, then we would see B. if Z is not true, then we would see C. So we look and see B. That gives us confidence in Z. On the other hand, if we see C, then we know Z is false.
Really?

Repeat:
Why is A what we want A to be, and not something else.

Well, if A gives B, then there could be other things that also give B. So finding B doesn't, in and of itself, show that A is true. We need to also see that there are things that *could* show A to be false and see if those happen.

Cool.
What happens to A, if it has problems, say certain findings do not support A?
Isn't A refined to make those problems go away?

And also if no God did it. So it isn't evidence one way or the other.


And this is actually counter to what we see. We only see 'intelligence' acting in one small part of the universe: here on Earth. Everywhere else we see the action of impersonal natural laws.

Yes small things - micro, leads to large things - macro... and we see what we want.

 

[Polymath257]

Great! So we are on the same page. You assume the rate of expansion was always the same as current. Therefore, you reach a conclusion, based on your assumption.

No, I assume the same basic laws are effective. Because of the changing conditions, the rate of expansion will change over time.

Another, you may conclude, based on certain observed phenomenon, that the rate was not constant, and base your conclusions on that. So, you form opinions to fit the observed phenomenon.

Yes, of course. We change our views based on the evidence.

Hypotheses win.

Nope. Observations win. If you have two hypotheses that make different predictions, then we make an observation to distinguish between them. That can tell us wheich is wrong/

<sigh>
Why is A true? Why not Z?
Because A is what we came up with. A is true because we don't propose Z.

And now that we *have* proposed Z, we need to find some way in which A and Z affect things differently. So, if A predicts M and Z predicts Q, then an observation of Q would support Z and eliminate A while an observation of M would support A and eliminate Z.

Proposition:
If Z is true, then we would see B. if Z is not true, then we would see C. So we look and see B. That gives us confidence in Z. On the other hand, if we see C, then we know Z is false.
Really?

Yes, if Z predicts B and we actually see C, then we know that Z is false. For that matter, if we see D we also know Z is false.

Repeat:
Why is A what we want A to be, and not something else.

Huh? We realize A is one of the possibilities. Perhaps J P and R are also. We look at what each predicts, say A->B, J->K, P->Q, and R->S. Then we look to see which of B,K,Q, or S actually happen. That will eliminate at least three from A, J, P, and R.

Usually, there are several different alternatives being discussed in any scientific discussion. But we also accept the results of previous investigations. So, if A has already been verified in many different cases, we can use it as a base for further investigation.

Cool.
What happens to A, if it has problems, say certain findings do not support A?
Isn't A refined to make those problems go away?

Well, refined or eliminated. Generally, we need make changes based on *all* the evidence we have. when new evidence comes along that weakens a hypothesis, we first try to see if there is a special case and then we make look for a very different hypothesis.

Yes small things - micro, leads to large things - macro... and we see what we want.

And this is the basic problem. Sometime we *don't* see what we expect. The universe isn't determined by our wants and expectations. Many very crucial observations were crucial precisely because they were unexpected.

 

[gnostic]

Cool.
What happens to A, if it has problems, say certain findings do not support A?
Isn't A refined to make those problems go away?

Well, refined or eliminated. Generally, we need make changes based on *all* the evidence we have. when new evidence comes along that weakens a hypothesis, we first try to see if there is a special case and then we make look for a very different hypothesis.

It generally depends on the situations, nPeace.

Say for instance, you have a scientific theory that have backed up by solid verifiable evidences for decades, and you have recently discovered some new evidences that contradict the tested theory.

You don’t immediately dump the theory. You would investigate, by comparing the older evidences (X) and new evidences (Y), to find out WHAT, HOW & WHY they differ.

If you discovered more evidences, some that still support and verified evidences X, and some that verify evidences Y, then you would tried to formulate a new hypothesis that would explain what the new evidences represent.

There are several possible outcomes.

1. If the new hypothesis can explained the differences, the new hypothesis can either replace the old theory, but ONLY IF you can successfully debunk the old one;
2. or you keep both old and new, as 2 separate theories;
3. or you can try to incorporate the new hypothesis into the original theory, expanding it two alternative mechanisms.

Point 3 is a definite possibility, and Evolution is one example of scientific theory that have incorporated more than one mechanism.

Evolution originally consisted of just one mechanism - Darwin’s Natural Selection. Since his death, 20th century biologists have corrected, refined and expanded Natural Selection, but along the way they discovered more evidences that 4 different mechanisms. Instead of creating 5 different theories, the theory of Evolution explained all 5 different evolutionary mechanisms:

1. Natural Selection
2. Mutations
3. Genetic Drift
4. Gene Flow
5. and Genetic Hitchhiking.

None of them refute Natural Selection, because the mechanism still work.

Another example of point 3, is the theory of gravity. Newton’s original theory still work, but Einstein’s Special Relativity and General Relativity explained more things about deep space and distant galaxies in the universe, where Newtonian theory was insufficient to explain, like spacetime and how gravity can curvature of space, and so much more.

Many of the physical cosmological models, including the Big Bang theory required General Relativity to explain the expanding universe, and the Universe’s origin.

The Big Bang theory have expanded at least twice, beyond the original 1920s Lemaître/Friedmann/Robertson concept, with -

1. 1948, where Gamow, Alpher and Herman predicted the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) and the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), which were accidentally discovered in 1964, using radio telescope by Penzias and Wilson. Since then other radio telescopes have detected CMBR, including more detailed mapping from space missions WMAP and Planck space probe.
2. And during the 1990s to present, the Big Bang theory was further expanded to include Dark Matters and Dark Energy. Generally, it is used to explain not only the universe’s continual expansion, but to explain why the expansion is actually accelerating.

In each new phases of the BB model, new evidences provided new information and new understanding of the universe that the original BB pioneers did have.

it is called progress, nPeace.

Sometimes you might replace a theory with something better, but sometimes you can expand and refine theory, as the 3 examples I have given above.

 

[nPeace]

@gnostic thanks for bringing me back to what I was focusing on. I think @Polymath257 and I were simply moving away from that.

Key thought...

Say for instance, you have a scientific theory that have backed up by solid verifiable evidences for decades, and you have recently discovered some new evidences that contradict the tested theory.

Cosmic inflation is called a theory.
I think we agree that in science, they do not start with theories, but with a hypothetical.
So at what point did cosmic inflation become a theory - a well-substantiated explanation?
According to Polymath257, "inflation has *not* been verified yet". What exactly does that mean? How do you verify a hypothetical for which you can only create ideas to explain why the nature you observe is the way it is?

An example...
Create a hypothetical (A), to explain the phenomenon (B).
A can explain a few things, but has some major problems.
Solution: Create a (or more - two or three... or four) hypothetical (Z), to correct any problem that would falsify A.
So A is safe, and is a good and solid explanation to explain B, for one thing, because Z is true, although not true... yet.
Therefore A is a well-substantiated explanation - a theory.
Meanwhile, the hypothesis Z, is just an idea that cannot be tested by any current means.
Yet... our theory stands. It's solid.

That's science?
It seem more like a belief system, to me - not just me, but even scientist as well. Hence why those scientists were strong in their words.
Quote "
...cosmologists appear to accept at face value the proponents’ assertion that we must believe the inflationary theory because it offers the only simple explanation of the observed features of the universe.

...it's even worse, ...inflation is not even a scientific theory:
“nflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.

The latest astrophysical measurements, combined with theoretical problems, cast doubt on the long-cherished inflationary theory of the early cosmos and suggest we need new ideas
" Unquote

I disagree with the whole new ideas part, because any idea is still an idea.
How about this...
God did it.
When we look, we see that there are no problems with this hypothesis. It explains everything... perfectly, and need no hypothesis to prop it up.
Therefore, it is the best explanation for all we observe.

Sounds good?
I think so. Not only does it sound good. It actually is what reality presents... evidently.

Moreover, it is not in any way crazier than... Many physicists also believe that inflation explains why the universe appears to be the same in all directions (isotropic), why the cosmic microwave background radiation is distributed evenly, why the universe is flat, and why no magnetic monopoles have been observed.

Many people believe that an intelligent creator explains why.... everything is the way it is.

 

[Polymath257]

@gnostic thanks for bringing me back to what I was focusing on. I think @Polymath257 and I were simply moving away from that.

Key thought...


Cosmic inflation is called a theory.
I think we agree that in science, they do not start with theories, but with a hypothetical.
So at what point did cosmic inflation become a theory - a well-substantiated explanation?
According to Polymath257, "inflation has *not* been verified yet". What exactly does that mean? How do you verify a hypothetical for which you can only create ideas to explain why the nature you observe is the way it is?

We may be having a language problem here. The expansion of the universe *has* been verified. Extensively. The basic Big Bang scenario has been verified extensively.

The *inflation* scenario, however, is an *extension* to the basic Big Bang theory that deals with times before the period of nuclear synthesis. In this scenario, for the very early universe (much less than a second old), the universe expanded exponentially because of the influence of a particle that is similar to the Higg's boson (and might even be the Higg's---we don't know that yet).

This inflationary scenario has NOT been verified. The later, expansion which is usually called the Big Bang expansion *has* been. There was a proposed observation that would have strongly supported it, but that observation was found to be faulty (another example of where people look for alternatives even for theories that are strongly favored).

An example...
Create a hypothetical (A), to explain the phenomenon (B).
A can explain a few things, but has some major problems.
Solution: Create a (or more - two or three... or four) hypothetical (Z), to correct any problem that would falsify A.
So A is safe, and is a good and solid explanation to explain B, for one thing, because Z is true, although not true... yet.
Therefore A is a well-substantiated explanation - a theory.
Meanwhile, the hypothesis Z, is just an idea that cannot be tested by any current means.
Yet... our theory stands. It's solid.

The 'major problems' of the basic Big Bang theory are, classically, the Flatness problem, the Horizon problem, and the lack of magnetic monopoles. None of these actually contradict the basic Big Bang scenario. They just seem unlikely in such a scenario. That is why inflation was proposed. But once again, inflation only deals with a very early phase of the expansion. Even if inflation is false, the BB description works incredibly well for any times after the first second.

So yes, the basic BB theory is *well established*. There is a proposed *extension* to deal with aspects of the first second of the expansion. That extension is the infliationary scenario (and there are other proposals, by the way---inflation is simply the easiest).

That's science?
It seem more like a belief system, to me - not just me, but even scientist as well. Hence why those scientists were strong in their words.
Quote "
...cosmologists appear to accept at face value the proponents’ assertion that we must believe the inflationary theory because it offers the only simple explanation of the observed features of the universe.

...it's even worse, ...inflation is not even a scientific theory:
“nflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.

The latest astrophysical measurements, combined with theoretical problems, cast doubt on the long-cherished inflationary theory of the early cosmos and suggest we need new ideas
" Unquote

Yes, that *extension* to the BB theory has not been demonstrated. It has a lot of good aspects to it, but there are preditions it makes that need to be verified before it is completely accepted.

I disagree with the whole new ideas part, because any idea is still an idea.
How about this...
God did it.
When we look, we see that there are no problems with this hypothesis. It explains everything... perfectly, and need no hypothesis to prop it up.
Therefore, it is the best explanation for all we observe.

Sounds good?

Nope. It actually explains nothing at all. So, how does your hypothesis predict the details of the red shifts we see? how does it deal with the abundances of light elements? How does it deal with the existence of the background radiation? How does your hypothesis explain that the background is a nearly perfect Blackbody radiation (to within one part in 100,000)? How does it then go on to deal with the *differences* between that radiation and the Blackbody radiation?

I think so. Not only does it sound good. It actually is what reality presents... evidently.

Except that it explains absolutely none of the details. Even inflation helps to explain those details.

Moreover, it is not in any way crazier than... Many physicists also believe that inflation explains why the universe appears to be the same in all directions (isotropic), why the cosmic microwave background radiation is distributed evenly, why the universe is flat, and why no magnetic monopoles have been observed.

Many people believe that an intelligent creator explains why.... everything is the way it is.

Yes, inflation gives a nice proposal for how those details are to be explained. How does *your* hypothesis explain them in detail?

Once again, the 'God hypothesis' gives absolutely no testable details. It is absolutely useless as a scientific theory.

 

[viole]

Okay. I will answer.
The foods are only bad, when something makes them bad. For example, the fruit or vegetables could rot, or become contaminated.
Otherwise, it's simply food - good to eat.

Likewise, every field of science is useful for the study of nature to those who use the tool.
What makes it bad is when it is contaminated with various things - methods, opinionated bias,etc.

Is there such a thing as bad science? Yes.
Perhaps you can help me sort out where I went wrong with the bad part.

Also, the limits of science does not make it bad, but assertions that it is more than what it is capable of does.

So, I made an initial list in my previous post. With all due respect, I wonder why creationists are always so shy to answer simple binary questions...

Which is one is bad, in your opinion?

1) cosmology. Most specifically inflation theory.
2) astrophysics/physics. Most specifically the theory of origin of heavy materials
3) forensic science. Most specifically how to gather evidence in the absence of witnesses
4) geology. Most specifically the tectonic theory and all theories surrounding the far past of our planet.

Ciao

- viole

 

[gnostic]

I think we agree that in science, they do not start with theories, but with a hypothetical.
So at what point did cosmic inflation become a theory - a well-substantiated explanation?

Yes, in modern science, it always with hypothesis.

You need to understand the differences between a hypothesis and a theory, and I am talking about SCIENTIFIC THEORY, as used in science and as used by scientists.

The important thing to remember is that a hypothesis is merely a draft of explanation or proposed explanation, that either hasn’t been tested or still undergoing testing.

While a (scientific) theory is the finished product, the final explanation that have been successfully tested.

The tests involved some sorts of observation, like evidences or the end results of experiments, where

That’s what a “well-substantiated explanation mean, nPeace, a theory that have been substantiated by evidences.

The evidences or experiments have to be

1. either observable or detectable,
2. measurable,
3. quantifiable,
4. testable,
5. and verifiable.

Personal beliefs are not evidences. Making claims are not evidences. Maths or logic alone are not evidences. Philosophy isn’t evidence.

Back to theory and hypothesis.

The hypothesis is like a preliminary document. The hypothesis usually has to provide preliminary observations before formulating hypothesis. The hypothesis would contain

1. the explanation of what is being investigate and how does it work;
2. then some mathematical equations and predictions;
3. and then how you would find evidence or how you would perform the experiments.

Then you would been the actual works, finding the evidences or performing the experiments. You would compare each evidence against the other (or test result against test result) as well as comparing against your explanations, equations and predictions.

If the tests failed each time or the evidences is contrary to your hypothesis, then you have refuted your own hypothesis, so you might as well as throw it in the trash.

If it succeed most of the time, then you would perform rigorous tests. If it is still successful then the next step would ask someone to review by independent scientists in the same or related fields, hence the Peer Review.

Peer Review are methodology to ensure the evidences or test results meet the specifications of the hypothesis, that there are no errors and no biases and no cheating.

People don’t need to accept hypothesis, because it hasn’t yet completed the testings, therefore it hasn’t completed the scientific method.

 

[gnostic]

Cosmic inflation is called a theory.

According to Polymath257, "inflation has *not* been verified yet". What exactly does that mean? How do you verify a hypothetical for which you can only create ideas to explain why the nature you observe is the way it is?

I think you have misunderstood polymath257.

You do understand the importance of CMBR, don’t you?

CMBR related to period known as the Recombination Epoch.

Recombination Epoch prove both predictions made back in 1948, the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) and The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

The BBN started around 3 minutes after the Big Bang, and lasting for 17 to 18 minutes. BBN is when the atomic nuclei formed around proton and around 2 protons and 2 neutrons, hence respectively ionized hydrogen atoms and ionized helium atoms. They are ionized because no electrons were bound to these atoms.

They were ionized because the universe was still young and still every hot.

The universe at this stage was opaque.

The Recombination Epoch didn’t start until 377,000 after the Big Bang. The universe cool down enough for electrons to bond with hydrogen and helium atoms. When the electrons bonded with atoms’ nuclei, they decoupled the photons (light).

This bonding caused the universe to become transparent, allowing photons to move freely. Because light is so far back in time, it has become shifted in the red spectrum, that it can only be detected via as microwave EM, hence the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

CMBR is the oldest light that we can currently observed today, through radio telescopes or from space telescopes like WMAP and Planck spacecraft.

CMBR are older than the first stars, older than the first quasars.

Anyway, there are older epochs than BBN and Recombination Epoch (with CMBR), like the Planck Epoch, which is the first epoch. The Big Bang cosmology has listed over a dozen Epoch before the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, when the universe was very young.

We currently don’t have the technology to observe before the BBN & CMBR.

This is why the Big Bang theory is a ongoing investigating theory. The older epochs are still hypothetical and theoretical.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, in modern science, it always with hypothesis.

You need to understand the differences between a hypothesis and a theory, and I am talking about SCIENTIFIC THEORY, as used in science and as used by scientists.

The important thing to remember is that a hypothesis is merely a draft of explanation or proposed explanation, that either hasn’t been tested or still undergoing testing.

While a (scientific) theory is the finished product, the final explanation that have been successfully tested.

The tests involved some sorts of observation, like evidences or the end results of experiments, where

That’s what a “well-substantiated explanation mean, nPeace, a theory that have been substantiated by evidences.

The evidences or experiments have to be

1. either observable or detectable,
2. measurable,
3. quantifiable,
4. testable,
5. and verifiable.

Personal beliefs are not evidences. Making claims are not evidences. Maths or logic alone are not evidences. Philosophy isn’t evidence.

Back to theory and hypothesis.

The hypothesis is like a preliminary document. The hypothesis usually has to provide preliminary observations before formulating hypothesis. The hypothesis would contain

1. the explanation of what is being investigate and how does it work;
2. then some mathematical equations and predictions;
3. and then how you would find evidence or how you would perform the experiments.

Then you would been the actual works, finding the evidences or performing the experiments. You would compare each evidence against the other (or test result against test result) as well as comparing against your explanations, equations and predictions.

If the tests failed each time or the evidences is contrary to your hypothesis, then you have refuted your own hypothesis, so you might as well as throw it in the trash.

If it succeed most of the time, then you would perform rigorous tests. If it is still successful then the next step would ask someone to review by independent scientists in the same or related fields, hence the Peer Review.

Peer Review are methodology to ensure the evidences or test results meet the specifications of the hypothesis, that there are no errors and no biases and no cheating.

People don’t need to accept hypothesis, because it hasn’t yet completed the testings, therefore it hasn’t completed the scientific method.

Why oh why...
Why do you think I need to understand.
Please point out in my post, what gave you the impression that you need to teach me. Please show me where it is clear to you that I don't understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory... scientific, that is. Which paragraph. Which line.

 

[nPeace]

I think you have misunderstood polymath257.

You do understand the importance of CMBR, don’t you?

CMBR related to period known as the Recombination Epoch.

Recombination Epoch prove both predictions made back in 1948, the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) and The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

The BBN started around 3 minutes after the Big Bang, and lasting for 17 to 18 minutes. BBN is when the atomic nuclei formed around proton and around 2 protons and 2 neutrons, hence respectively ionized hydrogen atoms and ionized helium atoms. They are ionized because no electrons were bound to these atoms.

They were ionized because the universe was still young and still every hot.

The universe at this stage was opaque.

The Recombination Epoch didn’t start until 377,000 after the Big Bang. The universe cool down enough for electrons to bond with hydrogen and helium atoms. When the electrons bonded with atoms’ nuclei, they decoupled the photons (light).

This bonding caused the universe to become transparent, allowing photons to move freely. Because light is so far back in time, it has become shifted in the red spectrum, that it can only be detected via as microwave EM, hence the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

CMBR is the oldest light that we can currently observed today, through radio telescopes or from space telescopes like WMAP and Planck spacecraft.

CMBR are older than the first stars, older than the first quasars.

Anyway, there are older epochs than BBN and Recombination Epoch (with CMBR), like the Planck Epoch, which is the first epoch. The Big Bang cosmology has listed over a dozen Epoch before the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, when the universe was very young.

We currently don’t have the technology to observe before the BBN & CMBR.

This is why the Big Bang theory is a ongoing investigating theory. The older epochs are still hypothetical and theoretical.

What makes you think I don't understand @Polymath257... amd that I needed information on CMBR.

Seems to me you are not addressing my posts. Thanks., but I don't need a teacher.
However, if you think I do, I;d be glad if you could point it out in my post. Thanks.

 

[nPeace]

So, I made an initial list in my previous post. With all due respect, I wonder why creationists are always so shy to answer simple binary questions...

Which is one is bad, in your opinion?

1) cosmology. Most specifically inflation theory.
2) astrophysics/physics. Most specifically the theory of origin of heavy materials
3) forensic science. Most specifically how to gather evidence in the absence of witnesses
4) geology. Most specifically the tectonic theory and all theories surrounding the far past of our planet.

Ciao

- viole

Could it be the case that they answer your question, but you don't like the answer because they are wise enough to see that you are not really interested in an answer, but bent on "trapping them in their speech" - that is, trying to get them to say something, which you can then twist to your advantage.
I saw that exhibited here already.
Besides, notice my profile - Follower of Christ. He is my instructor.

(Luke 20:19-26)
19 The scribes and the chief priests then sought to get their hands on him in that very hour, but they feared the people, for they realized that he told this illustration with them in mind. 20 And after observing him closely, they sent men whom they had secretly hired to pretend that they were righteous in order to catch him in his speech, so as to turn him over to the government and to the authority of the governor. 21 And they questioned him, saying: “Teacher, we know you speak and teach correctly and show no partiality, but you teach the way of God in line with truth: 22 Is it lawful for us to pay head tax to Caesar or not?” 23 But he detected their cunning and said to them: 24 “Show me a de·narʹi·us. Whose image and inscription does it have?” They said: “Caesar’s.” 25 He said to them: “By all means, then, pay back Caesar’s things to Caesar but God’s things to God.” 26 Well, they were not able to trap him in his speech before the people, but amazed at his answer, they became silent.

Please, I answered you. I explained myself.
It's your turn to address what I explained. Don't tell me you don't understand.
Is there such a thing as bad science? Yes or No?
I hope you are not about to do as some do - post page after page of the same question that have been answered, while refusing to address anything the poster says.

 

[viole]

Could it be the case that they answer your question, but you don't like the answer because they are wise enough to see that you are not really interested in an answer, but bent on "trapping them in their speech" - that is, trying to get them to say something, which you can then twist to your advantage.
I saw that exhibited here already.
Besides, notice my profile - Follower of Christ. He is my instructor.

(Luke 20:19-26)
19 The scribes and the chief priests then sought to get their hands on him in that very hour, but they feared the people, for they realized that he told this illustration with them in mind. 20 And after observing him closely, they sent men whom they had secretly hired to pretend that they were righteous in order to catch him in his speech, so as to turn him over to the government and to the authority of the governor. 21 And they questioned him, saying: “Teacher, we know you speak and teach correctly and show no partiality, but you teach the way of God in line with truth: 22 Is it lawful for us to pay head tax to Caesar or not?” 23 But he detected their cunning and said to them: 24 “Show me a de·narʹi·us. Whose image and inscription does it have?” They said: “Caesar’s.” 25 He said to them: “By all means, then, pay back Caesar’s things to Caesar but God’s things to God.” 26 Well, they were not able to trap him in his speech before the people, but amazed at his answer, they became silent.

Please, I answered you. I explained myself.
It's your turn to address what I explained. Don't tell me you don't understand.
Is there such a thing as bad science? Yes or No?
I hope you are not about to do as some do - post page after page of the same question that have been answered, while refusing to address anything the poster says.

Well, then I suggest you follow Christ and leave alone things you do not understand, like science, instead of pontificating about it. After all Jesus Himself said you should have the mind of a child to follow Him. So it is normal if true followers of Christ do not grasp grown-up things, like science.

And you did not answer me at all. And now you even start to quote Scriptures to an atheist to make a point, lol. It would be like me quoting Pinocchio to make my point

So, you mentioned in the OP that there is bad science. You also mentioned it in a previous post.

When I asked you to tell me, on a short list of scientific disciplines, which one are bad or good, you systematically refuse to answer.

What should I think, apart from being constantly confirmed about the intellectual inconsistence of the creationist position. And its intellectual dishonestly. Or both.

?

Ciao

- viole

 

[nPeace]

We may be having a language problem here. The expansion of the universe *has* been verified. Extensively. The basic Big Bang scenario has been verified extensively.

The *inflation* scenario, however, is an *extension* to the basic Big Bang theory that deals with times before the period of nuclear synthesis. In this scenario, for the very early universe (much less than a second old), the universe expanded exponentially because of the influence of a particle that is similar to the Higg's boson (and might even be the Higg's---we don't know that yet).

This inflationary scenario has NOT been verified. The later, expansion which is usually called the Big Bang expansion *has* been. There was a proposed observation that would have strongly supported it, but that observation was found to be faulty (another example of where people look for alternatives even for theories that are strongly favored).

The 'major problems' of the basic Big Bang theory are, classically, the Flatness problem, the Horizon problem, and the lack of magnetic monopoles. None of these actually contradict the basic Big Bang scenario. They just seem unlikely in such a scenario. That is why inflation was proposed. But once again, inflation only deals with a very early phase of the expansion. Even if inflation is false, the BB description works incredibly well for any times after the first second.

So yes, the basic BB theory is *well established*. There is a proposed *extension* to deal with aspects of the first second of the expansion. That extension is the infliationary scenario (and there are other proposals, by the way---inflation is simply the easiest).

I don't really understand what all this talk about BB is for.
I already made my position clear about BB on page 1... Read.
So really, you lost me on the whole BB sermon.

Secondly, the information here, seems legit to me.
Let me know if any of it is incorrect.

Eternal inflation - Wikipedia
Inflation, or the inflationary universe theory, was originally developed as a way to overcome the few remaining problems with what was otherwise considered a successful theory of cosmology, the Big Bang model.

Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia
Inflation theory was first developed in 1979 by theoretical physicist Alan Guth at Cornell University. It was developed further in the early 1980s. It explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos. Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the Universe (see galaxy formation and evolution and structure formation). Many physicists also believe that inflation explains why the universe appears to be the same in all directions (isotropic), why the cosmic microwave background radiation is distributed evenly, why the universe is flat, and why no magnetic monopoles have been observed.

Please refer to my previous post.

Yes, that *extension* to the BB theory has not been demonstrated. It has a lot of good aspects to it, but there are preditions it makes that need to be verified before it is completely accepted.

That does not address the argument being made in this thread.
Please refer to my previous post.
How is it a theory, if it has not been demonstrated? Where is the good science in that?

Nope. It actually explains nothing at all. So, how does your hypothesis predict the details of the red shifts we see? how does it deal with the abundances of light elements? How does it deal with the existence of the background radiation? How does your hypothesis explain that the background is a nearly perfect Blackbody radiation (to within one part in 100,000)? How does it then go on to deal with the *differences* between that radiation and the Blackbody radiation?

For real?
If it is intelligently directed, would it not logically follow that everything seen is a a result of the hand of God. Sheesh.

Just think of it this way - a controlled force in action,

Except that it explains absolutely none of the details. Even inflation helps to explain those details.

I can take every detail from your textbooks, and apply it to my "theory". Prediction: Success.

Yes, inflation gives a nice proposal for how those details are to be explained. How does *your* hypothesis explain them in detail?

Once again, the 'God hypothesis' gives absolutely no testable details. It is absolutely useless as a scientific theory.

See above. I'm amazed, that this question came up.
Do you not realize that inflation is no different than my inventing a "hand of God" hypothesis? It's a good explanation. The name is different, is all.

Inflation
noun

1. 1.
   the action of inflating something or the condition of being inflated.
   "the inflation of a balloon"

Inflate
verb

1. increase (something) by a large or excessive amount.

So inflation started, and stopped, but no one knows why.
So let's create "eternal inflation"
...and on, and on, we go.

Shouldn't your argument be, "But we can't falsify the supernatural."
Isn't that what you are already doing, when the idea of inflation is created?

 

[nPeace]

Well, then I suggest you follow Christ and leave alone things you do not understand, like science, instead of pontificating about it. After all Jesus Himself said you should have the mind of a child to follow Him. So it is normal if true followers of Christ do not grasp grown-up things, like science.

And you did not answer me at all. And now you even start to quote Scriptures to an atheist to make a point, lol. It would be like me quoting Pinocchio to make my point

So, you mentioned in the OP that there is bad science. You also mentioned it in a previous post.

When I asked you to tell me, on a short list of scientific disciplines, which one are bad or good, you systematically refuse to answer.

What should I think, apart from being constantly confirmed about the intellectual inconsistence of the creationist position. And its intellectual dishonestly. Or both.

?

Ciao

- viole

The reason you can't address the posts in this thread, is because they do not show a lack of understanding of science, but they address the problem with what is presented as science, but really is not.

The reason you would continue to deny that I answered your question, is because you don't want to admit that fact.
This is not a question and answer forum, or a classroom. It is a debate forum.

If you can't debate the topic,, it's quite understandable.
I don't wish to get in a debate over who is being evasive here.
For some reason, I pull my punches when it comes to you.

Have a good day ma'am.
Hope your stay wasn't too stressful.