Misunderstandings about Theory (split from Big Bangy)

[ArchimedesBoy]

I have a question, not about sethoflago's question but about the Big Bang theory in general. How can anyone scientifically believe in the Big Bang, or evolution, for that matter? For something to be believed by the scientist community, doesn't it have to be repeatedly observed and the theory tested, according to the scientific method. Evolution has never been seen, observed, or recorded by humans, so how can we scientifically believe in it? Same thing with the Big Bang, but I guess not as much so since the beginning of the universe only happens once, and we can't really observe it.

[Phi for All]

I have a question, not about sethoflago's question but about...

 

!

Moderator Note

If you need to say this, you need to start your own thread instead of hijacking someone else's. I've split this off by itself. Good luck defending this position on a science discussion forum.

[Strange]

I have a question, not about sethoflago's question but about the Big Bang theory in general. How can anyone scientifically believe in the Big Bang, or evolution, for that matter? For something to be believed by the scientist community, doesn't it have to be repeatedly observed and the theory tested, according to the scientific method.

 

 

No, it doesn't have to be repeatedly observed. What has to be repeatable are the measurements made by an experiment. And it must be possible for others to replicate the experiment. The results of the experiment will either be consistent with the theory (in which case it survives) or they won't (in which case the theory will be modified or, possibly, abandoned).

 

There are many repeated observations that confirm both the big bang (which we can observe because it is an ongoing process, not an even in the distant past) and evolution.

 

 

 

Evolution has never been seen, observed, or recorded by humans, so how can we scientifically believe in it?

 

Evolution has been observed for millennia. Ever since plants and animals were domesticated, if not before. Theories to explain it were discussed by the ancient Greeks.

 

 

 

Same thing with the Big Bang, but I guess not as much so since the beginning of the universe only happens once, and we can't really observe it.

 

There is no evidence for a "beginning". But we can observe all the evidence for an expanding and cooling universe (which is what the big bang model describes).

[Argent]

I have a question, not about sethoflago's question but about the Big Bang theory in general. How can anyone scientifically believe in the Big Bang, or evolution, for that matter?

I have seen comments to this effect by members on other science forums about belief in science: no serious scientist, or person well trained in the sciences "believes in the Big Bang, or evolution. They accept those theories as being the best explanation of what has been observed. In the case of BBT and evolution the match between the evidence and the theories is so overwhelming that one would need to seriously misguided to doubt their authenticity. Nevertheless the serious scientist (etc.) is ready to abandon acceptance if a superior theory is developed.

 

On the matter of evolution, ArchimedesBoy, how would you explain the diversity of life on the planet and the nested hierarchies of genotype and phenotype?