YEC Evidentialist Article: Evidence for a young world

Post Reply New Topic

Ocaml's razor is a fallacious method used in these cases.

Pick the simplest explanation for the current evidence. There's no evidence right now that requires this 'other thing' you are talking about to exist.

Of course, maybe someone will find such evidence, it is extremely unlikely, but when it happens, we'll have to update the theories to explain the new evidence. But until then...

I am aware of Occam's Razor, but I fear that if the razor is invoke too early, it becomes a butcher's knife.

Do we really know enough about cosmology for the big bang theory to be as accepted as it is? Further evidence wold be all it took to disprove, sure, but is anybody even looking anymore? If anybody tried to look, would the scientific community support them as conducting a legitimate investigation or mock them? I mean, there are numerous flaws in the big bang theory, and all the attempts to rationalize them seem hamfisted at best, and the documentaries I've seem on the subject have made the idea sound more ridiculous. One described the explosion as having a temperature of "Infinity degrees" and then cooling down. How can something cool down from a temperature of infinity, and how can something have a temperature of infinity at all? Much of the theory seems to depend on assumption. For example, one documentary mentioned that electromagnetism, gravity, and weak and strong nuclear energy would have to have at one time all been the same force. Do we have any reason to believe this is possible? Have the documentaries I've been watching just all been full of BS?

And even if the theory is solid enough to deserve it's acceptance, is it sold enough that we are already building other theories on top of it, i.e. cosmic dissolution?

If it's a dead end, we'll find out eventually. We'll keep collecting data and try to piece them together as we go. Theories can become useless and die due to enough rebellious data.

Actually, it's not the original Big Bang theory that's the currently accepted cosmological model. The currently accepted cosmological model is inflationary theory which is more of a refinement to the Big Bang theory. I don't know which problems with the Big bang theory you're talking about but inflationary theory was initially proposed by Alan Guth to address problems like such as the horizon problem. To answer your second and third questions, cosmologists are continually looking for evidence as what must be done with all science. As for the infinite temperature thing, it has to do with the fact that the universe is expanding. At an earlier time, the universe was smaller and so all the energy of the universe was concentrated in a smaller space. Higher energy density means higher temperature. In that documentary, they might of meant that the temperature approaches infinity when all the energy of the universe gets concentrated into a single point. Although it might not be entirely accurate to say that the energy concentration and hence temperature at the beginning of the universe was infinite. The energy density was probably at the Planck scale which is high, but not truly infinite. With regards to the four forces, we do know from data from particle accelerators that the strength of at least the first three (electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear forces) vary with any scale. We know for a fact that the weak force combines with the electromagnetic force (forming the electroweak force) at the energy scale where the LHC is supposed operate at. The strong force decreases in strength with an increase in energy which implies that it would combine with the electroweak force at higher energy scale. Gravity may only converge at the Planck scale but that's mostly theoretical.

Ah I see... it makes quite a bit more sense now.

Wasn't this joke of a theory brought up a year or so ago and thoroughly debunked then? Waiting a year doesn't make something not debunked you know....

I remember there being a quote about this guy's theory brought up then: "What he's done is the equivalent of saying 'It's snowing at a rate of 2 inches per hour, and the snow's 2 feet deep. Therefore, the Earth's 12 hours old'."

The outdated arguments on any subject are always the easiest to refute. As for a refutation being well known, that's a matter of having funds for publicity or otherwise being popular.

As of groups repeating the same refuted arguments all over and over again, it is more about people not having anything better to do or men that have so little real faith in their god that they can't stand the fact of how science doesn't make it easy for them to just believe.

No, really, no. Not at all.

It cannot ever be applied too early. It should be applied always. I think that the reason you said something like 'too early' is that you think that using Occaml's razor means that we should stop looking for more evidences/theories, but it doesn't. You are free to look for other evidence. However, speculating that 'there might be other theories' or that there might be another source of radiation is just...speculation and does not really help explain the universe, it does the opposite , it becomes something like philosophizing instead of doing actual science. This is the reason the razor is so necessary.


The inflationary deal has survived a couple of decades already. So I'd dare to call it 'solid'.

I could acept and appriciate that if that was what I saw, but as far as I can tell people are hostile to any attempt to refute an established theory.

P.S. It took centuries to refute spontainios generation, so I would not cite the ammount of time a theory has been accepted as evidence of it's truth.

That wasn't meant for me, but thank you for the reminder. That's why people think I'm weird.

YECs rock my socks.

sand: how much self control is this thread taking right now? you're my hero.

iamaparakeet: what do you have against radiophsysicists? ok, seriously though: what are you thoughts on the periodic table?

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?


Stop using your computer!

You don't know enough about cosmology to know whether or not your computer use will cause the end of the universe!! !! !

Now you are just being insulting

perhaps I don't know much about fields outside my area of interest because when I ask people about them, they insult me and generally make jerks out of themselves.

in the twelve forums I've been a member of, Jono is the first person to actually put any effort into explaining anything to me, and convinced me in like, three posts.

Maybe if you spent more time explaining and less time insulting, you would persuade a lot more people.

That was me doing some reductio ad absurdum to the implications of what I quoted, bro.

I don't care about persuading people.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... news_rss20

This is an interesting proposal being floated around at the moment.

you also don't care about who you insult in doing so, either.