The closest that I am aware of is the work going on in the fields of particle physics and quantum mechanics...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics
Here is a good starting place for you to research your question...
2007-03-12 09:52:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
You start from several false premises, then go on to ask for an unsupportable conclusion to those false premises. Do you really have so little knowledge of both science and logic?
Demonstrable and observable, yes. But scientists aren't idiots (like apparently some people are) -- you can't repeat something that happened billions of years ago. But since the observational and demonstrable evidence showing the big bang to be an accurate description of how our universe began is so overwhelming, we say the probability of it being correct is very high. It's not absolutely proven, but it doesn't need to be.
Let's put it very simply, in terms you may be able to understand: hundreds of thousands of observations and experiments support the big bang being accurate. There have been a large number of alternative ideas about how the universe began (some scientific, some mythical) -- very few of them have any observational evidence to support them, none of them are supported by all of the observational evidence (like the big bang is), and many have no supporting evidence of any kind (like "god did it."). That means our confidence is by far the highest in the big bang -- though science is always open to refinement, new observations, and better data (unlike religion).
Now, your turn: prove there is anything in the universe not created by man that is a result of "design"... Just one of your false premises.
Peace.
2007-03-12 09:56:10
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
At it's core - yes. However knowledge must move beyond the prime experiment. This is not done on guess work but the logical and philosophical deduction of the basic work.
The whole of science is build on solid foundation of commonsense and every day understanding - tried and tested. This is unlike Creationism and Design arguments completely fall apart when the slightest commonsense is applied to them.
After all if we were created just 6000 years back then all the studies of geology, genealogy, improperly, archeology, astronomy are all wrong. It ultimately means that the god is triking us all the time. For what reason? Are we just his game - his little amusement?
It has other implications. If the sciences listed about are all based on weak foundations then the whole of forensic science and the science behind aircraft too. So you better not fly anywhere and turn a good 1/3 the criminals out for lack of evidence.
2007-03-12 10:00:40
·
answer #3
·
answered by Freethinking Liberal 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Based on your response to the first 11 answers, you are a vain, arrogant, ignorant fool.
No, those are not requirements for something to be "scientific." Those are requirements for proof of a theory, and most theories are much more narrowly focused than "the Big Bang." Scientists make theories about what would have to be true in order for the Big Bang to be true, and prove those pieces one by as technology allows.
For example, scientists theorized that a Big Bang type explosion would have to leave behind a very specific type of background radiation. They then tested, and proved that such background radiation does in fact exist, which other scientists were able to observe, verify and replicate (se Arno Penzias' Nobel Prize work).
Whether or not that background radiation had creativity or design is up to you, but meaningless.
Einstein theorized that gravity could bend light, but it was decades before the technology was available to test and prove that theory.
2007-03-12 10:00:35
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Scientific and experimental processes are two different things.
Just about everything is scientific (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, Astronomy, etc.)
In order for something to be labeled as a valid experiment it must be demonstrable, observable, and repeatable.
The Big Bang is not an 'experiment.' Not to mention that since ALL the energy in the universe cause it to happen, the amount of energy we can produce here on Earth is so miniscule compared to that, that we couldn't get anywhere close. The biggest man-made explosion would be a nuclear warhead, e.g. Hiroshima.
2007-03-12 09:58:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by Maverick 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well not the event itself, but the evidence that led you to arrive at the theory. The universe is expanding as can be seen in the Doppler shifts of all galaxies except Andromeda (the closest). It also predicted background radiation from all directions that has been found.
There is more but that is a pretty good start and that evidence meets those three criteria.
2007-03-12 09:51:34
·
answer #6
·
answered by Alex 6
·
5⤊
0⤋
None yet.
Which doesn't change the fact that in nature, the universe started with the big-bang: an accelerating expansion of matter and energy from a singularity.
2007-03-12 09:59:11
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Seems like you have some misconceptions. Anything that the scientific method can be applied to could be considered to be scientific. That means that one must be able to make predictions ( or retrodictions ) which can be tested. That is all. None of the conditions you state are necessary in order to use the scientific method.
2007-03-12 09:50:33
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Since there was no one there at the time to observe, the scientists have to use the available clues to figure out what happened. Kind of like the forensics done on a crime scene.
2007-03-12 09:51:31
·
answer #9
·
answered by Let Me Think 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
While scientists will be not able to create actual Big Bang any time soon, the experiments and measurements (microwave background radiation, for example) that they use to study it can indeed be repeated.
2007-03-12 09:52:08
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
Okay. It is a common belief in Christianity that the ability to quote the Bible doesn't make you know it.
Just because you yank some words outta a science book, hun, doesn't make you know science.
There are just... So.....many things wrong with your statement.
"Considering that for something to be scientific" alone is a sin against the mechanics of grammar. You've blown the definitions of both considering and scientific.
Dear gods!
2007-03-12 09:52:43
·
answer #11
·
answered by LabGrrl 7
·
4⤊
1⤋