"It's the Best Explanation We Have." "Is It Really?" "But I Believe!"

Time: Ten thousand years ago. Gods are the best explanation for everything. In the day they give light so people can see what they do, and in the night gods give darkness people can rest. The gods give people what they need and punish people who don't obey their rules.

Time: Thousands of years later. New best explanations have replaced previous best explanations. People tell stories and then write their stories. One of these stories tells how everything came to be. It's known as Genesis and tells of the lights in the sky. Other people elsewhere have different best explanations.

Time: Early 1900s CE. Astronomers' best explanation for the night sky is that everything they see is part of the Milky Way galaxy.

In the 1920s a man named Edwin Hubble measures the distances to some of what he sees in the night sky. Some of what he sees is too far away to be part of the Milky Way. This both shocks and excites astronomers and they want new best explanations. A Catholic priest gives them one. It's much like the Genesis story.

2016 CE. Some of us insist that a Genesis-like story is still the best explanation.

Is it really?

When we here at Think Atheist stop believing and start thinking, we will want more than hypotheses; we will want evidence.

- - - - - - - - -

Blame my spare time library browsing for the idea that best explanations change.

Views: 1108

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yep, that is food for thought. It's far more nourishing than Genesis.

...until something better in terms of explanatory value and with fewer hypotheticals and other problems comes along.

Thank you, Unseen, for paving the way for the Electric Universe.

I like best your "with fewer hypotheticals". The BB has nothing but hypotheticals, the first of them being that red shift measures only recessional velocity.

Not so fast. The EU theory doesn't stand up to even minimal scrutiny. That's why it's not the standard theory.

So never let it be said that an astro-scientist has never considered the electric universe model with an open mind.  The Electric Universe model is wrong.  Provably, clearly and ridiculously wrong.

We’ve put the Electric Universe to the test.  Final Grade:  F- (source)

Not so fast.

The BICEP2 folks moved as fast as the media would allow. They learned publicly they had found dust.

The LIGO folks moved as fast. Will they learn publicly they had found ordinary electronic chirps?

I usually move more slowly, ...but you generously a door wide open.

The EU theory doesn't stand up to even minimal scrutiny. That's why it's not the standard theory.

EUers say the BBers decide the funding, and a lack of funding does limit the required studies.

I doubted the BB from the instant I heard its claim that the entire universe once occupied a space as small as a particle. BBers have been fudging that claim for years, most recently asserting but not supporting a claim that space didn't exist until the universe needed space in which to expand.

Aren't they also asserting without support that time began then?

As to Brian's claim "we know observationally that the universe is expanding":

1) Red shift hardware made such inferences possible; where is the hardware that made such observations possible?

2) BBers overuse the word "observation" and words formed from it.

Its funny how some people will read something outlandish, but which pushes their buttons, so they perceive it as plausible/likely...and then filter out any conflicting data so as to be able to maintain the validity of the belief of choice.

They don't even recognize themselves in that group either, they see others as being the blind or unreasonable ones.

Its like "I see dead people, and they don't even know they're dead".

Their retort is never based upon actual (True) point by point debunking of the other side's data, but of bolstering their own, and flipping it around and saying the OTHER guy is the one who is deceived.

Their supporting data is not likely to be peer reviewed, and is likely to have been accepted at face value, where as peer reviewed papers, etc, debunking their claims are simply ignored.


The bible is a great example of a source proven to be debunked, that supporters of will somehow struggle to salvage some validity from...if not insist upon its acceptance as a valid source of knowledge, etc.

People susceptible to biblical validity are probably susceptible to pseudoscience validity.

Being able to tell real science from pseudoscience is typically difficult if not a scientist though...as one claim may seem as valid as another. 

IE: If you know nothing about geology or plate tectonics, a scientist explaining how a plesiosaur could have been trapped in Loch Ness might make sense.

If you knew the Loch was created by a glacier, and recently, in geological time, you'd KNOW the "scientist" was wrong...no matter how convincing his evidence was about plesiosaurs, etc.

If you read about scientists and their EU theory...it might sound convincing if you do not understand the context and terms....but if you do, it would sound like babbling.

Merely considering the claims vs known reality would debunk EU.

EU predicts that doppler radar would not work, yet, it does.  (Red Shift).

EU predicts that atomic and nuclear devices could not work, nor would your GPS, yet, they do (Relativity).

And so forth...its pseudoscience, not real.


Every scientist who supports the Big Bang views it as the best guess based on what we know. 

The EU supporters don't appear to be theorists. They KNOW that their theory is better.

There's a tip-off right there. It's not "there's another explanation," it's all the "experts" are idiots. Here is the TRUTH!

NONE of the top echelon physicists takes EU seriously. Why is that?

Perhaps because there are things EU can't explain:

  1. First and foremost, it doesn't appear that the electric universe model makes any quantitative predictions. I don't see any models for how stars and galaxies are supposed to form and behave, just a bunch of words about how gravitational models make too many assumptions or rely on too much theory, whatever that means. Really, this theory is not even wrong.
  2. Also, it appears that these models don't really discuss the equivalence principle. If you're going to use electricity to explain gravity, you need to explain why the rate at which something falls is independent of that object's charge (minus electric self-force), and also independent of that object's mass. Why do all objects near the Earth fall with the same acceleration?
  3. While dark matter and dark energy are problems, they solve problems that arise within a quantitative model. In particular, the standard ΛCDM models very precisely predict the relative abundance of hydrogen and helium in our universe. If the 'electric' universe can't do that, then it has a bigger problem than dark matter/dark energy
  4. Also, these people seem to believe in an eternal static universe with an infinite extent. They need to explain how they resolve Olbers' paradox (source of the above four points)

Awesome research Unseen... haha, even if EU ever comes out on top of BB.

Tom, time for some nitty gritty on the points, without first assuming profit motives for upholders of BB? To be honest, it was the denial of round crater explanation that put EU on the back burner for me.

If only creationists tried more research... just being the most popular theory doesn't prove it.

1. You haven't read the EU explanation.

2:. EU doesn't explain gravity via electricity.

3: BB needs dark matter/energy. EU accounts for the 96% that mystifies Bangers.

4. Telescopes and Hubble show me galaxies in places that to my eyes look black. Bye, bye, Olber.

The BB won't convince me and the EU won't convince you. Let's you and I not use them to burden TA's website further.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service