Quote:
Originally Posted by Noclevername
Er, no. Creationists don't have theories, they have untestable hypotheses. A hypothesis is an attempted explanation for observed data. A theory is a hypothesis that is supported by evidence. A hypothesis that can't be tested, like saying "god did it", is not part of science, which is a method of testing evidence.
Big Bang theory accounts for observed data. It says that at one time, the universe was smaller and hotter. This is proven fact, it is not in doubt. The rest of the concepts attached to it, like time beginning then and there being "nothing" before it, are not part of Big Bang theory per se, they are hypotheses that attempt to explain the Big Bang.
|
From Dictionary.com --
Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
hypotheses: a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
Fact: something known to exist or to have happened.
To know something as fact and not theory as you propose, you would have to have seen it with your own eyes or have some crediable witness to the event in question. If the event is not observable, not testable, and you cannot replicate it, then is it still a fact.
To claim that all creationist have are hypotheses and no facts or theories assumes that you know all creationists and know all data that creationist talk about. Your assuming that you have infinite knowledge. There is still a lot of evidence that shows the Big Bang might have happened, but there is no proof. You cannot prove it. Just because you cannot prove it doens't mean that it didn't happen, but it does mean it that it cannot be classified as a fact.