"On 31 Jul 2006 07:31:05 -0700, in article
<1154356265.726204.301740@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
Codebreaker@bigsecret.com stated..."
Big bang not testable either... Evolution is even worse in term of
testability.
What make them Science then?
[...snip...]
I am curious as to why there is this senseless opposition to the Big Bang.
After all, before the evidence started to accumulate for BB, the assumption
was that there was no beginning in time to the universe. Einstein, famously,
introduced the Cosmological Constant so that General Relativity would be
consistent with an infinitely old, steady-state universe. Wouldn't the EAC
be in favor of "no beginning"?
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"... have a clear idea of what you should expect if your hypothesis is correct,
and what you should observe if your hypothesis is wrong ... If you cannot do
this, then this is an indicator that your hypothesis may be too vague."
RV Clarke & JE Eck: Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers - step 20
.
|
