# The Big Bang is not proven fact; it is opinion. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 5, 2006, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bang-is-not-proven-fact-it-is-opinion/343078 "2006-02-05T05:20:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2006, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bang-is-not-proven-fact-it-is-opinion/343078/61 "2006-02-06T09:53:21Z")
- If a Bush appointee does good things\* a list, please,… ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2006, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bang-is-not-proven-fact-it-is-opinion/343078/62 "2006-02-06T10:05:36Z")
> [@Stranger On A Train](#): > > As for the Big Bang, it is indeed a theory, and it would be amiss to say that it is anything but a speculative one; we’ve see no event, nor direct consequence that could be and only be the result of a big supersingularity explosion. On the other hand, there is a substantial amount of cosmological and astronomical evidence that tends to favor the theory as a common explaination for universal origin. First, the Big Bang was not an explosion in any sort of common use of the word. Most serious astrophysicists do not care much for the term “Big Bang” because it has caused popular culture to imagine some massive super-explosion billions of years ago. Also, on a point not directly related to your post but the thread in general, yes the Big Bang is not _proven._ A theory can’t be proven per se, it can only be disproven. The longer a given theory survives scrutiny without being disproven the stronger it gets, and the more observational evidence that comes in supporting the theory, the stronger the theory gets. As it is there is actually an overwhelming abundance of theory to support the Big Bang. I’d honestly say the chance of the Big Bang being disproven is so remote it’s not even worth discussion. > [@](#): > > On the other hand, there isn’t a single piece of solid evidence that the universe was, as the Christian Bible suggests, formed in six days by a guy with a shaggy beard and a booming voice who couldn’t be bothered to work overtime to correct some of the more egregious oversights, such as certain anatomical inconveniences, the rakish angle of the Earth which makes much of it only marginally habitable, and the problem of keeping coffee at the proper drinking temperature for more than ninty seconds. 1. Genesis makes no reference to God’s bear or lack thereof. 2. It is both acceptable and logical that you could view the creation story as somewhat allegorical in nature. 3. How you can define much of the earth as marginally habitable is beyond me. Except for the very polar regions themselves the vast majority of the earth has an enormous number of species. There are literally thousands of species that live in extremely cold regions of the earth and have made tons of biological adaptations to make their lives easier. Not to mention all the microscopic organisms that litter the earth as well, or of course all the flora out there. The earth actually is far more like an oversatured ball of organic mess than it is a marginally habitable orb. > [@](#): > > An intelligent, curious being must have his, hers, or its priorities; after all, there would be no persistant late-night inquiry without adequate supplies of caffine. Just because most people are chronic caffeine addicts does not mean it is in any way even remotely required for late-night inquiry. ---
**Author:** ![zagloba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/977dab/32.png) [@zagloba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zagloba)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2006, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bang-is-not-proven-fact-it-is-opinion/343078/63 "2006-02-06T10:47:19Z")
**Stranger** , What is CEV? > [@](#): > > I also hope the kids in the foothills of Altadena Aren’t you a little young to be calling them kids? I’ve always thought of it as La Canada, anyway. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![sunfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/96bed5/32.png) [@sunfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sunfish)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2006, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bang-is-not-proven-fact-it-is-opinion/343078/64 "2006-02-06T13:23:03Z")
> [@GaWd](#): > > Sorry, Sunny…looks like we’ve had an all-around misunderstanding. > > I didn’t read the Snopes article, and my frustration/exclamation was directly in response to the Mouthpiece that this story is in regards to, not NASA or their scientists. George Deutsch is a fucking tool, and his press statements are what piss me pff, even if the work behind the scenes aren’t as religiously apologetic as it may seem. > > Perhaps in a decade or so, we can remove the presidentially appointed bullshit from their work and have a nice body of research that isn’t totally fucking whitewashed. > > Sam No problem, Sam. We’re cool. 🆒 In all honesty, I’ve yet to meet a scientist (can’t speak to the engineers, now 😉 ) that had any difficulty keeping their religious views, if they have them, out of their research. The only tip-offs to such things are casual references to time off around religious holidays, or long rambling discussions in the evening after a few pitchers of beer. Would that we had an administration that could keep that separation of faith from work as well. **zagloba** , the CEV = [Crew Exploration Vehicle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Exploration_Vehicle). It’s to be the next generation of manned spacecraft. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2006, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bang-is-not-proven-fact-it-is-opinion/343078/65 "2006-02-06T13:53:53Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > - If a Bush appointee does good things\* > > a list, please,… Not to get off on a hijack, but the judge who smacked down Intelligent Design in Dover was a Bush appointee. And what a fine smackdown that was. It was like one of the very best Pit Threads, enshrined into law. Nearly brought tears to my eyes, it was so beautiful. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2006, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bang-is-not-proven-fact-it-is-opinion/343078/66 "2006-02-06T17:34:39Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Just because most people are chronic caffeine addicts does not mean it is in any way even remotely required for late-night inquiry. > [@zagloba](#): > > What is CEV? Aren’t you a little young to be calling them kids? I’ve always thought of it as La Canada, anyway. 😉 Guys, I’m being somewhat facetious and melodramatic for the sake of effect. I agree with **Martin** to the extent that Big Bang theory is unlikely to be disproven, but there are alternative scientific hypotheses, though none is currently in favor nor enjoy the mass of independent evidence which fits nicely with Big Bang theory. But we can’t observe the Big Bang directly, nor can the resultant products be identified exclusively with that theory, so in that sense it is speculative. We have what in legal terms would be described as a circumstantial (though strong) case for the basic theory. With regard to religious creationism, my comments bear only toward the literalist interpretation of Biblical Creationism (or any other fable), for which essentially all available evidence inclines against. If you are willing to adopt an allegorical approach toward these stories then it becomes much easier to rationalize them with emperical evidence; on the other hand, it doesn’t say much (to me) about accuracy of such tales when you’re able to conveniently redefine the interpretation on the run to fit new observations. I don’t mean to attack anyone’s personal beliefs, and with regard to religion I find the spiritual and supernatural aspects to be beyond any critical disproof by their very nature, but as a bloody-minded practical matter I find them to be of little pragmatic use in understanding the world. CEV is, as **sunfish** indicated, is the Crew Exploration Vehicle; in essence, an updated and expanded Apollo capsule launched atop an extended SRB. It’s something you’d tihnk we could do on the cheap–after all, it’s not going to require a new booster design with complicated propulsion system dynamics and intricate plumbing, or bleeding edge materials for sophisticated heat shielding tiles on a winged body capable of high cross-range gliding–but the actual costs are, no pun intended, astronomical, to the point that the vast majority of NASA’s budget in the foreseeable future is going to be dedicated to developing this vessel at the sacrifice of unmanned interplanetary and observation missions. Not only will we lose the immediate capability, we’ll also lose the expertiese involved in developing and managing unmanned programs; given the vast wealth of data provided by these programs over the last forty years this represents a giant step backward for the advancement of human knowledge…at least, so far as the United States is concerned. On the other hand, it may indeed be more cost-effective to outsource the work to the Chinese or Indians. The only problem is that Mandrian and Hindi are such difficult languages to pick up… Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2006, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bang-is-not-proven-fact-it-is-opinion/343078/67 "2006-02-06T17:53:23Z")
> [@Stranger On A Train](#): > > there are alternative scientific hypotheses, though none is currently in favor nor enjoy the mass of independent evidence which fits nicely with Big Bang theory. But we can’t observe the Big Bang directly, nor can the resultant products be identified exclusively with that theory, so in that sense it is speculative. We have what in legal terms would be described as a circumstantial (though strong) case for the basic theory. I’m getting pretty darn curious about the multi-year delay on the release of the [WMAP](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMAP) year two data. Could it be that the microwave background data prooves that we are actually living inside a concentric array of crystalline spheres? ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2006, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bang-is-not-proven-fact-it-is-opinion/343078/68 "2006-02-06T19:21:12Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > I’m getting pretty darn curious about the multi-year delay on the release of the [WMAP](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMAP) year two data. Could it be that the microwave background data prooves that we are actually living inside a concentric array of crystalline spheres? More likely it shows that the universe is balaned upon the back of a honkin’ gurgiantic tortise named Fred. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![SisterCoyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@SisterCoyote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SisterCoyote)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2006, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bang-is-not-proven-fact-it-is-opinion/343078/69 "2006-02-06T19:41:40Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > 1. Genesis makes no reference to God’s bear or lack thereof. I think this is possibly the funniest typo I’ve seen in weeks. And I’m not sure why it strikes me as so funny. ---
**Author:** ![yBeayf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e274bd/32.png) [@yBeayf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yBeayf)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2006, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bang-is-not-proven-fact-it-is-opinion/343078/70 "2006-02-07T03:41:44Z")
Interestingly, if [this physicist](http://www.stanford.edu/~afmayer/) is right, the big bang theory may be incorrect after all (or so [slashdot](http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=176275&cid=14647428) tells me). ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2006, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bang-is-not-proven-fact-it-is-opinion/343078/71 "2006-02-07T04:37:04Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > Not to get off on a hijack, but the judge who smacked down Intelligent Design in Dover was a Bush appointee. > > . Point taken. (although I deplore the demise of Bad Frog Beer, courtesy of the Judge’s tenure on the Alcolholic Beverage Commission…) ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2006, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bang-is-not-proven-fact-it-is-opinion/343078/72 "2006-02-07T15:25:47Z")
> [@SisterCoyote](#): > > I think this is possibly the funniest typo I’ve seen in weeks. And I’m not sure why it strikes me as so funny. It’s one of the funniest I’ve been a part of, anyways :). ---
**Author:** ![betenoir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/258eb7/32.png) [@betenoir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoir)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2006, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bang-is-not-proven-fact-it-is-opinion/343078/73 "2006-02-07T20:39:32Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > 1. Genesis makes no reference to God’s bear or lack thereof. I have to question the truthiness of this statment. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2006, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bang-is-not-proven-fact-it-is-opinion/343078/74 "2006-02-07T21:33:26Z")
> [@](#): > > Although Deutsch did attend Texas A&M University, where he majored in journalism and was scheduled to graduate in 2003, he left in 2004 without a degree, a revelation that I was tipped off to by one of his former coworkers at A&M’s student newspaper The Battalion. I later confirmed this discovery through the records department of the Texas A&M University Association of Former Students. [http://scientificactivist.blogspot.com/2006/02/breaking-news-george-deutsch-did-not.html](http://scientificactivist.blogspot.com/2006/02/breaking-news-george-deutsch-did-not.html) Someone at NASA needs to check Deutsch’s resume for accuracy. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2006, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bang-is-not-proven-fact-it-is-opinion/343078/75 "2006-02-07T22:03:48Z")
Ouch. Thank goodness for him that a little dick sucking can still get you somewhere in politics, even if nowhere else! ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bang-is-not-proven-fact-it-is-opinion/343078/76 "2006-02-08T05:51:00Z")
[A Young Bush Appointee Resigns His Post at NASA](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08nasa.html?pagewanted=print) > [@](#): > > Mr. Deutsch’s resignation came on the same day that officials at Texas A&M University confirmed that he did not graduate from there, as his résumé on file at the agency asserted. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bang-is-not-proven-fact-it-is-opinion/343078/77 "2006-02-08T05:56:19Z")
The other George sure knows how to pick them eh? ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bang-is-not-proven-fact-it-is-opinion/343078/78 "2006-02-17T20:21:57Z")
Sorry for crossposting but I felt I should note this here, too. Our own **Bad Astronomer** is going to talk about Mr. Deutsch on the Paul Harris Show ([KMOX 1120AM, ST. Louis](http://www.kmox.com/home/) (they bitcast, too)) between 3 & 4 Central. If you don’t see this in time, go to iTunes and sign up for the Paul Harris Show podcast. I’m sure he’ll turn up on there, too. ---
**Author:** ![Ponder\_Stibbons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ponder_stibbons/32/343_2.png) [@Ponder\_Stibbons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ponder_Stibbons)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bang-is-not-proven-fact-it-is-opinion/343078/80 "2006-02-17T21:19:22Z")
> [@Stranger On A Train](#): > > So, on the whole, we’d have to opt for Big Bang Theory over Big God Thoery, unless we posit that Big God is, in fact, a dyspeptic hyperdimensional being with Attention Deficit Disorder and who failed out on Fundamental Biomechanics at the School for Divine and Omnipotent Architects. Missed that first time around. That, my friend, is gold, just pure gold. Oughta be on a T-Shirt or something. ---
**Author:** ![RogueRacer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7ab992/32.png) [@RogueRacer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RogueRacer)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bang-is-not-proven-fact-it-is-opinion/343078/81 "2006-02-17T22:29:56Z")
> [@Stranger On A Train](#): > > CEV is, as **sunfish** indicated, is the Crew Exploration Vehicle; in essence, an updated and expanded Apollo capsule launched atop an extended SRB. It’s something you’d tihnk we could do on the cheap–after all, it’s not going to require a new booster design with complicated propulsion system dynamics and intricate plumbing, or bleeding edge materials for sophisticated heat shielding tiles on a winged body capable of high cross-range gliding–but the actual costs are, no pun intended, astronomical… _\_ I don’t know if CEV is really to blame for the science cuts. That blame seems to fall more on the shuttle program and the ISS. This is kind of an interesting (and short) read by Jeffery Bell (who I normally consider to be a total wanker) [Griffin’s Vision For Apollo 2.5](http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/oped-06a.html). How serious he is in the article is open for debate, but it’s kind of interesting. Also, I know that I read something recently (can’t find it right now) stating that the “science” portion of the NASA budget has been on the increase (as a percentage of overall) for years. Some of the current cuts are getting it back to old levels. Granted, that may not be a wise choice. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bang-is-not-proven-fact-it-is-opinion/343078.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-big-bang-is-not-proven-fact-it-is-opinion/343078.md?page=5)