The Myth of the Big Bang

[Cybele]

Okay Cybele, you did find the right quote by Carl Sagan about the big bang as "our modern scientific myth," but your attempt to exonerate him from the insult to atheists with his quote did not go beyond mere verbal juglling.

"Insult to atheists"? How is relating the Big Bang with myth, regardless of meaning, an insult to atheists? You assume that all atheists are people who treat scientific theories as if they were sacred dogma. You commit the same error you accuse others of(with regard to theism) by painting all atheists as being alike. I see this often in this section of UM.

I don't care about "exonerating" Sagan, but I do hate dishonesty.

I did not misunderstand the quote.

You misquoted Sagan in a way that seems biased towards your views; you took it out of context and even added a word that was not in the original text. You have yet to acknowledge or explain this fact.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Cybele

[ShadowSot]

Ok... after all of this can we please stop feeding the troll?

BTW, nice new avatar Cybele.

Edited April 18, 2012 by ShadowSot

[Cybele]

I do not discard the probability that the big bang could have been a fact. But on the other hand, what do we know for sure? Especially talking about events of millions of years ago, nobody does. So, it is simply foolishness to state that it was so and thus. Therefore, to believe or to deny any

thing for sure is simply playing the fool.

Ben

I posted a video elsewhere a while back of a lecture by the Albert Einstein Professor of Physics at Princeton University. When a layperson talks about "The Big Bang Theory", they assume it goes along with the assertion that the Big Bang was the beginning of everything. In the video, it was pointed out that the theory, as understood by professional cosmologists and physicists, is actually a logical reversal in time of the observable and highly replicated fact that the universe is both expanding and cooling. If the universe is cooling and expanding, obviously it was very dense and very hot as far back as we can observe. The Big Bang Theory only goes back to this point. It cannot say whether or not there was something before that. It is not proven or agreed upon unanimously that this was the beginning of everything.

Watch this video, if you're interested:

[quillius]

This has been an enjoyable thread guys, have been learning quite a bit.

Quick question, if life was created by this single cell..what is the driving force behind evolution. What I am trying to ascertain is that I understand that we are talking about chemistry and reactions of gases etc...I am confused as to why and where purpose enters the equation...

I have a feeling I will need to phrase this all a little better...will wait for some initial direction from responses (should they come)

[quillius]

Have you checked "Cosmos" page 258 by Carl Sagan to come to the conclusion that my information is false? I don't think so. Therefore, please, don't be too rash at accusing me. It is not fair.

Ben

Ben, from what I have seen and read on this thread, no one is questioning the information i.e. the quote itself, they are questioning your interpretation of it.

Have you looked at the quote again to see if it can be read in a different way? as per the many suggestions so far on its real meaning within context?

[Beckys_Mom]

Have you checked "Cosmos" page 258 by Carl Sagan to come to the conclusion that my information is false? I don't think so. Therefore, please, don't be too rash at accusing me. It is not fair.

Ben

You deserve to be told the truth.. and the truth is you have seriously misintrepreted Sagans book...and you are now facing a few people on here who have read the book and told you you are wrong. They have tried explaining things to you about his book and you ignore their posts just-to post up the same repeated message about page 258 again and again.. It is considered ignorance And yet you still refuse to believe the people who have read the same book ... No one is convinced of your post... You have lost this battle ..

[JayMark]

Myth definition: A traditional sacred story, typically revolving around the activities of gods and heroes, which purports to explain a natural phenomenon or cultural practice.

In what way do you ever consider the Big Bang as being a myth?

The Big Bang is a theory. Period.

[JayMark]

Just reading through Segan's quote, the term "scientific myth of the Big Bang" is quite indeed an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a "scientific myth".

Right away that should tell you that it is not to be taken to the 1^st degree and that it most probably has a meaning which may not correspond to what some readers may get out of it. As simple as that to begin with.

So just because you interpret it in your way dosen't mean it is the way others interpret it or even what Carl Segan meant by this. I'm talking about the whole text you are refering to as a matter of fact.

I don't think it is relevant in any way to try to prove or disprove an interpretation or an opinion. But it is also irrelevant to define them as being truth.

My thoughts.

Peace.

[karmakazi]

Myth definition: A traditional sacred story, typically revolving around the activities of gods and heroes, which purports to explain a natural phenomenon or cultural practice.

In what way do you ever consider the Big Bang as being a myth?

The Big Bang is a theory. Period.

A scientific theory of today IS like a myth but only if you look at it a certain way:

At the time the ancients were creating these myths, they were trying to explain natural phenomena which they had no other way to explain. They probably thought they were quite brilliant to be able to "figure this out". So, while we understand the methods to arrive at a scientific theory are night and day as compared to inventing a myth; and today we look back on those myths and think "made up fairy tale hoo-hah", at the time those stories had the value and importance to the people that today's scientific theories have to us.

This was my understanding of Sagan's statement and what he meant by comparing the two.

Obviously not that a made up story compares to a scientific theory in methodology or that today the two hold the same value, but that in another way the two do compare.

[Mr Walker]

This has been an enjoyable thread guys, have been learning quite a bit.

Quick question, if life was created by this single cell..what is the driving force behind evolution. What I am trying to ascertain is that I understand that we are talking about chemistry and reactions of gases etc...I am confused as to why and where purpose enters the equation...

I have a feeling I will need to phrase this all a little better...will wait for some initial direction from responses (should they come)

The basic underlying question here is, "Why do you feel there needs to be ANY "purpose"?"

Some humans are driven to think that there must BE a purpose, and upon that rationale build constructs like religion or belief in god/prime cause etc. Other's either dont have that drive/ mindset, or have "repressed it" logically, and accept that there does not need to be ANY "purpose" to anything. (In nature, at least. There does see to be a need for purpose within human "thought patterns." which is why we tend, always, to impute purpose)

Those people can then logically and freely conclude that there is no need for; design, purpose, intelligence, or creative force; for anything we can now observe in the universe including us and our sapience. All came from accident, random chance, natural consequences, and cause and effect etc.

The "driving force", in terms of the scientific drivers of evolutionary change, has been well described many times here and elsewhere. But there is no evident purpose (in the terms of intelligent, self aware purpose) behind evolution.

[quillius]

The basic underlying question here is, "Why do you feel there needs to be ANY "purpose"?"

Some humans are driven to think that there must BE a purpose, and upon that rationale build constructs like religion or belief in god/prime cause etc. Other's either dont have that drive/ mindset, or have "repressed it" logically, and accept that there does not need to be ANY "purpose" to anything. (In nature, at least. There does see to be a need for purpose within human "thought patterns." which is why we tend, always, to impute purpose)

Those people can then logically and freely conclude that there is no need for; design, purpose, intelligence, or creative force; for anything we can now observe in the universe including us and our sapience. All came from accident, random chance, natural consequences, and cause and effect etc.

The "driving force", in terms of the scientific drivers of evolutionary change, has been well described many times here and elsewhere. But there is no evident purpose (in the terms of intelligent, self aware purpose) behind evolution.

Hello Mr Walker, thanks for the response.

I am really struggling to put my thoughts across. In laymans terms, cause and effect created life...chemical reactions. Then from here life continues and seems to focus on survival (natural selection etc), so it seems that there is a shift from chemical reactions (cause and effect) to survival, which seems to be more of a 'reason/purpose' rather than random reactions.

I think I have failed again in putting my thoughts across, will try again when I have more time to formulate a more articulate response.

[Mr Walker]

Hello Mr Walker, thanks for the response.

I am really struggling to put my thoughts across. In laymans terms, cause and effect created life...chemical reactions. Then from here life continues and seems to focus on survival (natural selection etc), so it seems that there is a shift from chemical reactions (cause and effect) to survival, which seems to be more of a 'reason/purpose' rather than random reactions.

I think I have failed again in putting my thoughts across, will try again when I have more time to formulate a more articulate response.

In a sense all life strives to survive and reproduce. But that isnt a self aware "purpose" until sapience arises At bed\st it is a "purpose" we attribute to it from our own form of thinking.

Then, with the emergence of self aware sapience, beings like humans create their own purposes for them selves . They alos attribute purposes to thing s which never had one. That still doesn't mean life or even sapience has any inherent/ innate purpose to it.

It is just an accident of time and circumstance. I dont think some humans like considering themselves like that, but it doesn't bother me. It is not important how i got here, only what i do with myself, and the difference I make to the universe..

[quillius]

In a sense all life strives to survive and reproduce. But that isnt a self aware "purpose" until sapience arises At bed\st it is a "purpose" we attribute to it from our own form of thinking.

Then, with the emergence of self aware sapience, beings like humans create their own purposes for them selves . They alos attribute purposes to thing s which never had one. That still doesn't mean life or even sapience has any inherent/ innate purpose to it.

It is just an accident of time and circumstance. I dont think some humans like considering themselves like that, but it doesn't bother me. It is not important how i got here, only what i do with myself, and the difference I make to the universe..

hello again, doesnt the bolded wording above again suggest purpose, not self aware purpose, just 'purpose' , as opposed to coincidental reactions of 'chemistry'.

I would have thought life would (could) rise as it seesm to have done and would then just die unless further 'reactions' took place?!?!

[Mr Walker]

hello again, doesnt the bolded wording above again suggest purpose, not self aware purpose, just 'purpose' , as opposed to coincidental reactions of 'chemistry'.

I would have thought life would (could) rise as it seesm to have done and would then just die unless further 'reactions' took place?!?!

I am open on that one. the scientists here will probably say no.

It depends on your understanding of the word "purpose." Purpose implies conscious intent. Life comes about without purpose. Whether an inbuilt imperative evolved genetically into living things to survive and reproduce can be a purpose, without self aware intent, is very debatable. As i said, WE think it is purposeful intent because that is recognisable in us. But that awareness exists in no other known lifeform.

No other life form has the same sense of purpose as we do, and it is tempting, but probably wrong, to think that other life has real purpose at all. Ie survival and reproduction is not a purpose of life, but an evolved consequence of the nature of life. It is not the purpose of a flower to open with the sun and close with the night. It is just the way it has evolved. It is not the purpose of an animal to survive and reproduce, it has just evolved and been programmed, like the flower, to do this.

[quillius]

I am open on that one. the scientists here will probably say no.

It depends on your understanding of the word "purpose." Purpose implies conscious intent. Life comes about without purpose.

My understanding of the word is as you describe..implying conscious intent, although I would argue that the intent need not be conscious, at leaast not in the 'object/thing' itself....I will try an analogy even though I am unsure if this really hits the spot so to speak. A firework is created by man with the intent to create a sparkling display (intent) the firework will rely in the 'reactions' to create this display. The firework has a 'purpose' inbuilt by it is obviously not 'conscious' of this intent.

Whether an inbuilt imperative evolved genetically into living things to survive and reproduce can be a purpose, without self aware intent, is very debatable. As i said, WE think it is purposeful intent because that is recognisable in us. But that awareness exists in no other known lifeform.

I suppose its everything leading up to this awareness that I am asking about.

No other life form has the same sense of purpose as we do, and it is tempting, but probably wrong, to think that other life has real purpose at all. Ie survival and reproduction is not a purpose of life, but an evolved consequence of the nature of life. It is not the purpose of a flower to open with the sun and close with the night. It is just the way it has evolved. It is not the purpose of an animal to survive and reproduce, it has just evolved and been programmed, like the flower, to do this.

Let me try using your analogy of a flower. The flower blossoms and seeds the ground (reproduction) and life continues with the 'cause and effect' / natural chemical reactions...but lets say there is a slow change to the land and the flower must now adapt to continue reproducing and surviving...why?. Now these initial 'reactions' would have to change to adapt....why do they?, if at a microscopic level the chemistry is unchanged with the same 'cause and effect' (from when the land was good). I suppose one could argue that changes in the land (heat/energy) etc again change, so a different chemical reaction in the flower is forthcoming naturally...ok I can buy that but why is it that if we use this example on all living things the outcome is nearly always survival and not death.....I understand the odds of life being started were astronomical when all factors are put into the equation, however the odds become impossible if you are to factor in a 'natural chemical' change equalling survival in all living things instead of death.

clear as mud...thought so

Edited April 19, 2012 by quillius

[Mr Walker]

name='quillius' timestamp='1334841528' post='4270235']

My understanding of the word is as you describe..implying conscious intent, although I would argue that the intent need not be conscious, at leaast not in the 'object/thing' itself....I will try an analogy even though I am unsure if this really hits the spot so to speak. A firework is created by man with the intent to create a sparkling display (intent) the firework will rely in the 'reactions' to create this display. The firework has a 'purpose' inbuilt by it is obviously not 'conscious' of this intent.

Part of my problem in explaining this, is with the use/meaning of words, but it is also related to different perceptions, understandings, and maybe even prior belief. The firework has a purpose because it was designed by man with a purpose. But only because of that. In itself, it has no inherent purpose. So suppose "you" believe in a god which created things. Then "you" will think of everything as having an inherent purpose.(god's) If you do not believe in a creator being then nothing has an inherent purpose . It just is. It came abour by prior causal factors.

This is easy to see if we start with something like a grain of sand on a beach, and if we understand the causal factors which "created" it . The grain of sand has no purpose, until some one decides to give it one; for example by using it to make silica or sand paper.

An even more classic example is a sharp rock. It had no purpose at all until an early hominid came along, picked it up, and used it to crack open a bone or a shell fish.

Plants and animals (even human animals) are just like that grain of sand. Products of natural, understandable, and consequential processes. Only when humanity evolved sapient self awareness, and began the process of thinking, analysing etc. did a concept like purpose, (which is a human construct) even come into existence.

For example, grass doesnt have the purpose of feeding cows. Both evolved an interlinked dependency on each other. Oxygens purpose is not to allow all things to breathe and live .We evolved in an oxygen "rich" environment, and are as we are, because the oxygen was there.

I suppose its everything leading up to this awareness that I am asking about.

Let me try using your analogy of a flower. The flower blossoms and seeds the ground (reproduction) and life continues with the 'cause and effect' / natural chemical reactions...but lets say there is a slow change to the land and the flower must now adapt to continue reproducing and surviving...why?. Now these initial 'reactions' would have to change to adapt....why do they?, if at a microscopic level the chemistry is unchanged with the same 'cause and effect' (from when the land was good). I suppose one could argue that changes in the land (heat/energy) etc again change, so a different chemical reaction in the flower is forthcoming naturally...ok I can buy that but why is it that if we use this example on all living things the outcome is nearly always survival and not death.....I understand the odds of life being started were astronomical when all factors are put into the equation, however the odds become impossible if you are to factor in a 'natural chemical' change equalling survival in all living things instead of death.

clear as mud...thought so

I can explain this in laymans terms, but others can give you a better explanation. Basically, in living things there are random "genetic mutations" involving the alleles. These occur perhaps by chance, perhaps in response to environmental conditions, perhaps as a natural part of the nature of genes. When these variations occur, they cause changes in the next generation of living things.

If those variations are positive adaptations, the organism will have an advantage and gain a foot hold in the environment. It will reproduce its new genetic form. It may even replace the prior form of itself, because of its better adaptation to its environment. However, in my understanding, the organism does not actually "adapt" in any "responsive" way to new or changing conditions/environments, even though this concept is still taught to kids at school.

The organism may mutate in a way which is not well adapted to its environment. In that case it will not survive or reproduce, and we will probably never be aware of it.

The classic example is a moth in england. These moths were white before the industrial rev. But as smoke and soot covered the landscapes they began to be eaten by predators. At the same time natural drift of genes produced a variety of differnt shades in succeeding gentrations of moths. One shade happened to be a grey which provided perfect camouflage in the new environment.

The new "family" of moths was better fitted for survival in the new landscape. Before long almost all the moths were grey becaus the white ones got eaten, and did not reproduce.

NOW when england "greened up" its power sources, soot and smoke stopped covering the landscape. The grey moths now stood out and the process was reversed. Today there are very few grey moths and almost all are the original white form. But i would guess that grey and other "coloured" moths are continually mutating. It is just that they are not fitted to survive in the modern clean landscape.

The odds of life starting are debatable. Some scientists think that life may be a rare thing, even on planets conducive to it. Others believe that life will evolve every time conditions are right for it to do so.

This does not necessarily mean earth type life. There are many other forms of life which would theoretically develop under other conditions. Even earth life has evolved and adpated to some very extreme environments, like exremely hot suplphur springs and at the bottom of deep ocean trenches near volcanic vents where there is no sunlight.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Mr Walker

[quillius]

Part of my problem in explaining this, is with the use/meaning of words, but it is also related to different perceptions, understandings, and maybe even prior belief. The firework has a purpose because it was designed by man with a purpose. But only because of that. In itself, it has no inherent purpose. So suppose "you" believe in a god which created things. Then "you" will think of everything as having an inherent purpose.(god's) If you do not believe in a creator being then nothing has an inherent purpose . It just is. It came abour by prior causal factors.

This is easy to see if we start with something like a grain of sand on a beach, and if we understand the causal factors which "created" it . The grain of sand has no purpose, until some one decides to give it one; for example by using it to make silica or sand paper.

An even more classic example is a sharp rock. It had no purpose at all until an early hominid came along, picked it up, and used it to crack open a bone or a shell fish.

Plants and animals (even human animals) are just like that grain of sand. Products of natural, understandable, and consequential processes. Only when humanity evolved sapient self awareness, and began the process of thinking, analysing etc. did a concept like purpose, (which is a human construct) even come into existence.

For example, grass doesnt have the purpose of feeding cows. Both evolved an interlinked dependency on each other. Oxygens purpose is not to allow all things to breathe and live .We evolved in an oxygen "rich" environment, and are as we are, because the oxygen was there.

Good morning Mr Walker, the firework wasa very poor analogy. I am absorbing the points you have made, one quick question that springs to mind is why and how did humans evolve sapient awareness?

I can explain this in laymans terms, but others can give you a better explanation. Basically, in living things there are random "genetic mutations" involving the alleles. These occur perhaps by chance, perhaps in response to environmental conditions, perhaps as a natural part of the nature of genes. When these variations occur, they cause changes in the next generation of living things.

If those variations are positive adaptations, the organism will have an advantage and gain a foot hold in the environment. It will reproduce its new genetic form. It may even replace the prior form of itself, because of its better adaptation to its environment. However, in my understanding, the organism does not actually "adapt" in any "responsive" way to new or changing conditions/environments, even though this concept is still taught to kids at school.

The organism may mutate in a way which is not well adapted to its environment. In that case it will not survive or reproduce, and we will probably never be aware of it.

The classic example is a moth in england. These moths were white before the industrial rev. But as smoke and soot covered the landscapes they began to be eaten by predators. At the same time natural drift of genes produced a variety of differnt shades in succeeding gentrations of moths. One shade happened to be a grey which provided perfect camouflage in the new environment.

The new "family" of moths was better fitted for survival in the new landscape. Before long almost all the moths were grey becaus the white ones got eaten, and did not reproduce.

NOW when england "greened up" its power sources, soot and smoke stopped covering the landscape. The grey moths now stood out and the process was reversed. Today there are very few grey moths and almost all are the original white form. But i would guess that grey and other "coloured" moths are continually mutating. It is just that they are not fitted to survive in the modern clean landscape.

The odds of life starting are debatable. Some scientists think that life may be a rare thing, even on planets conducive to it. Others believe that life will evolve every time conditions are right for it to do so.

This does not necessarily mean earth type life. There are many other forms of life which would theoretically develop under other conditions. Even earth life has evolved and adpated to some very extreme environments, like exremely hot suplphur springs and at the bottom of deep ocean trenches near volcanic vents where there is no sunlight.

very interesting about the moth.

I shall continue to read up as much as I can and hopefully can have a better discussion on the subject one day.

thanks for your time and information, much appreciated

[Mr Walker]

name='quillius' timestamp='1334912223' post='4271212']

Good morning Mr Walker, the firework wasa very poor analogy. I am absorbing the points you have made, one quick question that springs to mind is why and how did humans evolve sapient awareness?

LOL thats a great interest of mine Its only in this millenium that science has come to understand the neuroscience of the brain. That will eventually probably answer your questionof how. It appears to be linked to many factors, including both the inherent ability to speak, and perhaps, also, to a certain level of dexterity and the abilty to make tools That ability evolves with it, more complex thougth patterns which may be precursors to self aware thought. But the answer, i think, is still unknown. Why is unanswerable in the sense i think you mean Obviously an ability to communicate is an evolutioanry advantage and the beter one can comunicate the greater the advantage I just read an aricle in the new scientist which discussed how human language probalb first evolved from hominids with no recognisable language. But here is no real "reason" for it other than evolutionary advantage.

Humans have the biological abilty for sapient self awareness. However the actual ability is also learned via socialisation. Place a human child in an environment with no other humans and keep it alive, and it will probably NOT develop human level sapient self awareness. This is something which comes with interaction and learning.

One thing we know for sure is that our thoughts and our speech are absolutely interconnected. It is possible to artificailly create speech from pure human thought pattens beacuse the thought mirrors the speech.

very interesting about the moth.

I shall continue to read up as much as I can and hopefully can have a better discussion on the subject one day.

thanks for your time and information, much appreciated

Np

I enjoy talking through such subjects. They have interested me for nearly 60 years.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Mr Walker

[quillius]

LOL thats a great interest of mine Its only in this millenium that science has come to understand the neuroscience of the brain. That will eventually probably answer your questionof how. It appears to be linked to many factors, including both the inherent ability to speak, and perhaps, also, to a certain level of dexterity and the abilty to make tools That ability evolves with it, more complex thougth patterns which may be precursors to self aware thought. But the answer, i think, is still unknown. Why is unanswerable in the sense i think you mean Obviously an ability to communicate is an evolutioanry advantage and the beter one can comunicate the greater the advantage I just read an aricle in the new scientist which discussed how human language probalb first evolved from hominids with no recognisable language. But here is no real "reason" for it other than evolutionary advantage.

Humans have the biological abilty for sapient self awareness. However the actual ability is also learned via socialisation. Place a human child in an environment with no other humans and keep it alive, and it will probably NOT develop human level sapient self awareness. This is something which comes with interaction and learning.

One thing we know for sure is that our thoughts and our speech are absolutely interconnected. It is possible to artificailly create speech from pure human thought pattens beacuse the thought mirrors the speech.

Np

I enjoy talking through such subjects. They have interested me for nearly 60 years.

Thanks again for all your points...hopefully we can discuss this further one day.

[Ben Masada]

Myth definition: A traditional sacred story, typically revolving around the activities of gods and heroes, which purports to explain a natural phenomenon or cultural practice.

In what way do you ever consider the Big Bang as being a myth?

The Big Bang is a theory. Period.

The big bang is a proposition. Period. That's okay if you want to call a proposition a theory. It doesn't make much of a difference. Both go obsolete

when new research is made and the records must be changed.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

Just reading through Segan's quote, the term "scientific myth of the Big Bang" is quite indeed an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a "scientific myth".

Right away that should tell you that it is not to be taken to the 1^st degree and that it most probably has a meaning which may not correspond to what some readers may get out of it. As simple as that to begin with.

So just because you interpret it in your way dosen't mean it is the way others interpret it or even what Carl Segan meant by this. I'm talking about the whole text you are refering to as a matter of fact.

I don't think it is relevant in any way to try to prove or disprove an interpretation or an opinion. But it is also irrelevant to define them as being truth.

My thoughts.

Peace.

Really! How about science fiction? Do you have any idea how many science fictions have become nothing other than simply myths? I would be more lenient than Carl Sagan and call the big bang a proposition. I know it is not much of a help. At least, sounds better than a myth.

Ben

[JayMark]

The big bang is a proposition. Period. That's okay if you want to call a proposition a theory. It doesn't make much of a difference. Both go obsolete

when new research is made and the records must be changed.

Ben

Still isn't a myth no matter how you look at it.

In what way has research made this theory so obsolete?

What records need to be changed?

I'll wait for your anwsers. I'm curious.

Peace.

[Ben Masada]

You deserve to be told the truth.. and the truth is you have seriously misintrepreted Sagans book...and you are now facing a few people on here who have read the book and told you you are wrong. They have tried explaining things to you about his book and you ignore their posts just-to post up the same repeated message about page 258 again and again.. It is considered ignorance And yet you still refuse to believe the people who have read the same book ... No one is convinced of your post... You have lost this battle ..

The problem, Mom, is not that I sound obstinate. I happen to have a mind of my own and I find too hard to take people's word for it. And talking about events that could have happened billions of years ago, that's a hard bone to chew on if I have to go according to people who claim to be as sure as I am. Does it make sense?

Ben

Edited April 24, 2012 by Ben Masada

[JayMark]

Really! How about science fiction? Do you have any idea how many science fictions have become nothing other than simply myths?

I would be more lenient than Carl Sagan and call the big bang a proposition. I know it is not much of a help. At least, sounds better than a myth.

Ben

I don't think you get what I was saying there.

A "scientific myth" does not exist because science do not base it's work on immaginary things and fairy tales. It's as simple as that. Science and myths have nothing in common per se.

Science-fiction has nothing to do with what I was trying to say. And no, I haven't heard of any science-fiction work becoming a "myth" for the simple reason that science-fiction works are already "fictionnal" just like myths to begin with. Only that sci-fi is usually based on science and myths on mythology. That is how I see it.

Again, read up the definition of "myth" and explain to me, please, how that can relate to science in any way. How can a scientific theory be a myth if a myth is nothing but an immaginary tale to begin with? Are you implying that we have no reason or evidence to beleive that the big bang theory is accurate? I don't get it.

Peace.

Edited April 24, 2012 by JayMark

[Ben Masada]

Still isn't a myth no matter how you look at it.

In what way has research made this theory so obsolete?

What records need to be changed?

I'll wait for your anwsers. I'm curious.

Peace.

You don't have to wait too long. That the big bang is a myth, I am not the one who coined the idea out of my head. Carl Sagan was the one who did it, whether you take it his way or not. What I make mine is that the big bang is a proposition, which, like a theory, it could be erased from the map

as new research pops out. My point is that we should be a little cautious and not be caught in the mistake of the common theist who believes by faith

what he cannot explain for sure what he believes in.

Ben