- If a Bush appointee does good things*
a list, please,…
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.
-
Genesis makes no reference to God’s bear or lack thereof.
-
It is both acceptable and logical that you could view the creation story as somewhat allegorical in nature.
-
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.
Just because most people are chronic caffeine addicts does not mean it is in any way even remotely required for late-night inquiry.
Stranger,
What is CEV?
Aren’t you a little young to be calling them kids? I’ve always thought of it as La Canada, anyway. 
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. It’s to be the next generation of manned spacecraft.
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.
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
I’m getting pretty darn curious about the multi-year delay on the release of the 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
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.
Interestingly, if this physicist is right, the big bang theory may be incorrect after all (or so slashdot tells me).
Point taken.
(although I deplore the demise of Bad Frog Beer, courtesy of the Judge’s tenure on the Alcolholic Beverage Commission…)
It’s one of the funniest I’ve been a part of, anyways :).
I have to question the truthiness of this statment.
http://scientificactivist.blogspot.com/2006/02/breaking-news-george-deutsch-did-not.html
Someone at NASA needs to check Deutsch’s resume for accuracy.
Ouch. Thank goodness for him that a little dick sucking can still get you somewhere in politics, even if nowhere else!
The other George sure knows how to pick them eh?
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 (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.
Missed that first time around. That, my friend, is gold, just pure gold. Oughta be on a T-Shirt or something.
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. 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.