Interesting video I happened upon this morning

[RickD]

Not earth shattering news by any means. But interesting. I even think Audie would appreciate this:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/417928059400 ... show-clips

[1over137]

why God did not say: Let there be quark-gluon plasma?

[Kenny]

I thought it rather telling that the first question she asked was; “we call the BigBang a theory, I thought it was settled science. Is it or is it not settled science.”
Obviously the person conducting the interview has no idea what a scientific theory is; and the “expert” she is interviewing makes no attempt to inform her.

Ken

[1over137]

I thought it rather telling that the first question she asked was; “we call the BigBang a theory, I thought it was settled science. Is it or is it not settled science.”
Obviously the person conducting the interview has no idea what a scientific theory is; and the “expert” she is interviewing makes no attempt to inform her.

Ken

Kenny, may I ask, what you did not like about the first answer expert provided?

her answer is similar to Richard Feynman's one minute video
http://www.presentationzen.com/presenta ... inute.html

[EssentialSacrifice]

So ken what is the answer to your question on theoretical Big Bang ? Is it settled or not (scientific theory) I'm asking because I don't know, but your response indicates you do.

Why does the expert have to define or inform her of the Big Bang( theory ?) She certainly could (See credentials and follow-up below) but I'm not sure of the impact on the interview of an answer. I thought the topic was does the Big Bang confirm a Creator ?
https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2015/ ... scientist/

From everything I heard on RickD's video (thx by the way ) and the subsequent link I have attached, she seems to be very even keeled and fair... very scientific type individual.

[Kenny]

I thought it rather telling that the first question she asked was; “we call the BigBang a theory, I thought it was settled science. Is it or is it not settled science.”
Obviously the person conducting the interview has no idea what a scientific theory is; and the “expert” she is interviewing makes no attempt to inform her.

Ken

Kenny, may I ask, what you did not like about the first answer expert provided?

her answer is similar to Richard Feynman's one minute video
http://www.presentationzen.com/presenta ... inute.html

Well as you know; the way the term “theory” is used in science is much different than the way the term is used in general public.
Most people use the term “theory” to mean a hunch, or a guess, but in science the term refers to the way facts are interpreted.

The person conducting the interview appeared oblivious to this; I felt the person being interviewed should have cleared this up for the listening audience.

Ken

[Kenny]

So ken what is the answer to your question on theoretical Big Bang ? Is it settled or not (scientific theory) I'm asking because I don't know, but your response indicates you do.

Not sure what you mean by “settled” but as the person being interviewed said; nothing in science is ever settled, but I also think she should have pointed out that scientific theory is about as close to settled as science gets.

Why does the expert have to define or inform her of the Big Bang( theory ?) She certainly could (See credentials and follow-up below) but I'm not sure of the impact on the interview of an answer. I thought the topic was does the Big Bang confirm a Creator ?

If something the interviewer said gives a false impression about that which is being discussed, the person being interviewed should clear that up, rather than allow the interview to continue and end with that false information still intact.

Ken

[EssentialSacrifice]

Not sure what you mean by “settled”

"settling" facts... are the words the interviewer used and you reused in your first post. My problem is I'm not sure what you mean by them. Quite correctly, I think, the interviewer is unaware of the scientific meaning of the word theory, but since you objected i was in the hopes of you explaining the difference, other than the interviewees reply that science is never fully settled. She goes further by saying that science uses the scientific method through a process of inductive reasoning and that precludes science "settling" anything. The best it can do is assemble the best evidence we have so far. I think that answer, in the light of the theory of the Big Bang being a viable candidate for the beginning of the universe is more than ample. I'm not sure what else she could have said and still been correct and therefore not allowing for any false impressions you feel were committed..

I also think she should have pointed out that scientific theory is about as close to settled as science gets

Why ? She calls it a theory because the universe has been found not to be static, in fact is expanding and that conclusion leads the hypothesis of the Big Bang in to the realm of theory because of the observational consequence of that expansion... if it's growing it must have had a beginning... isn't that about as close as it gets ?

If something the interviewer said gives a false impression about that which is being discussed, the person being interviewed should clear that up, rather than allow the interview to continue and end with that false information still intact.

Apologies here, but I think she did clear it up as referenced above. Anyway, to a non lay person of science like me it was.

[Kenny]

"settling" facts... are the words the interviewer used and you reused in your first post. My problem is I'm not sure what you mean by them.

Actually “settled science” was the term used, and I am not familiar with the term "settled science".

Quite correctly, I think, the interviewer is unaware of the scientific meaning of the word theory, but since you objected i was in the hopes of you explaining the difference, other than the interviewees reply that science is never fully settled. She goes further by saying that science uses the scientific method through a process of inductive reasoning and that precludes science "settling" anything. The best it can do is assemble the best evidence we have so far. I think that answer, in the light of the theory of the Big Bang being a viable candidate for the beginning of the universe is more than ample. I'm not sure what else she could have said and still been correct and therefore not allowing for any false impressions you feel were committed..

I didn't have a problem with most of what she said; I just thought she should have cleared up the part about theory.

Why ? She calls it a theory because the universe has been found not to be static, in fact is expanding and that conclusion leads the hypothesis of the Big Bang in to the realm of theory because of the observational consequence of that expansion... if it's growing it must have had a beginning... isn't that about as close as it gets ?

No, she said; (in reference to the big bang) “we’re calling it a theory, yet most people thought is was settled science. Is it or is it not settled science?
She never even mentioned the expansion of the Universe. She seem to be questioning weather or not the Big Bang is accepted by science. I just thought that should have been cleared up during the interview.

Ken

[EssentialSacrifice]

No, she said; (in reference to the big bang) “we’re calling it a theory, yet most people thought is was settled science. Is it or is it not settled science?
She never even mentioned the expansion of the Universe. She seem to be questioning weather or not the Big Bang is accepted by science. I just thought that should have been cleared up during the interview.

My fault here ken. I was unclear as to whom was speaking... I was referencing the scientist's words in regards to the use of the word theory. She stated many times don't look for proofs from science. At the 5:18 mark she does speak of the veracity of the universe having many examples of a beginning, which obviously means growth of the universe.

I also like the lottery example of 2 tickets bought per week for 50 years and winning every time as the same as the chances of the universe not being created.

[Kenny]

No, she said; (in reference to the big bang) “we’re calling it a theory, yet most people thought is was settled science. Is it or is it not settled science?
She never even mentioned the expansion of the Universe. She seem to be questioning weather or not the Big Bang is accepted by science. I just thought that should have been cleared up during the interview.

My fault here ken. I was unclear as to whom was speaking... I was referencing the scientist's words in regards to the use of the word theory. She stated many times don't look for proofs from science. At the 5:18 mark she does speak of the veracity of the universe having many examples of a beginning, which obviously means growth of the universe.

I also like the lottery example of 2 tickets bought per week for 50 years and winning every time as the same as the chances of the universe not being created.

Yeah her christian beliefs were apparent but then this is Fox News so of course they are going to get a Christian Scientist.

The big bang is the beginning of the Universe as we know it. Science doesn't claim a point when nothing existed. But she said the Universe had a beginning then concluded if something has a beginning, it must have a creator.

As far as the lottery ticket example; I think that opinion could only be valid if you assume the laws of physics concerning the vast majority of the Universe we are not familiar with, are consistent with the tiny percentage of the Universe we are familiar with. Nobody is qualified to make that assumption.

Ken

[EssentialSacrifice]

Yeah her christian beliefs were apparent but then this is Fox News so of course they are going to get a Christian Scientist.

Yeah, well, it was the religion editor for Fox news promoting the book of the Christian scientist... about the Big Bang ... what did you expect ?

The big bang is the beginning of the Universe as we know it. Science doesn't claim a point when nothing existed. But she said the Universe had a beginning then concluded if something has a beginning, it must have a creator.

Yeah, well, if there is a beginning it leads to a cause and that leads to a Creator ... this isn't new stuff ken...

A

s far as the lottery ticket example; I think that opinion could only be valid if you assume the laws of physics concerning the vast majority of the Universe we are not familiar with, are consistent with the tiny percentage of the Universe we are familiar with. Nobody is qualified to make that assumption.

So you're saying the assumption of the universality of physics is only contained in the vast amount of the universe we know, and not the balance, within that same universe ? not very scientific ken. There is certainly much more to learn about the universe but to say we only know a small amount is wrong... very wrong, and an uneducated thing to say.

[1over137]

We know about 4,6 % of the matter in the universe. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html
Plus, we do not have an established scientific theory that would combine all known 4 forces: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong, weak. Only the last 3 are combined into one theory (theory which also has its problems)

[Kenny]

Yeah, well, if there is a beginning it leads to a cause and that leads to a Creator ... this isn't new stuff ken...

The cause of the Big Bang would probably be the singularity. Now if you want to believe the origin of the singularity leads to a creator, that's fine, but that belief is gonna be based upon faith, opinion, assumption, or whatever; but it isn't based upon science; let's not pretend that it is.

Ken

[Kenny]

We know about 4,6 % of the matter in the universe. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html
Plus, we do not have an established scientific theory that would combine all known 4 forces: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong, weak. Only the last 3 are combined into one theory (theory which also has its problems)

There is so much about the Universe that we just don't know

Ken