Exactly. Reporters and writers tend to try to use laymans terms.

I mentioned in another thread about a reporter calling parafinic hydrocarbons "Waxy hydrocarbons" in the news.

Oops.

It happens with the other side of this argument every time someone says something simple like, "Life adapted to this particular environment..." It implies that "Life" is this intelligently guided entity that consciously chose to change its nature in order to survive.

That only fuels misconceptions. Yet, these words are simple and oft used.

But the evidence demonstrates that is not what happened. Life itself may have adapted- the individual animals and plants did not adapt. Their successful descendants survived. There is a fundamental difference.

I can also imagine the reporter getting it right, but then a copy editor looks in a thesaurus for a shorter word that matches "paraffinic". Bingo! "Waxy" is less than half as many letters, half as many syllables, and keeps the paper inside the reading comprehension level of their audience. After all paraffin is wax, right? Right? Duh. They could have used "alkanes" (two syllables for eight), but then only chemists would have known what they meant.

Perhaps you should review your posts? Quoting from the beginning of your first post in thread:

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Sorry, I suppose that was before I knew the importance between BBT and Evolution, or that BBT was not part of Evolution. Also let me state I never intended to refer to 'intelligence' as in a formal ID 'theory', but rather some form of intelligence. Maybe this explains it, I looked up term 'cdesign proponentsists' that I've seen posted wondering what it was and I found,,
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/...g_link_cd.html,
hmmmm, 1987, that would have been right at the time of my middle school....

It's not religion.....

Thats why I am here. I know the basics, I can read 'prepared' material, but I am looking for discussion and insight.

But this is NASA Foundations of Big Bang Cosmology, not some high school teacher or news reporter. I am being directed toward these sites to disprove any 'myth' or mis-spoken words that I may have said, and now I am being told that it is incorrect. Just look back at my use of the word 'explosion' and maybe you'll see the humor I am experiencing....

But you don't know the basics; that's pretty painfully obvious. You talk about science "proving" things. You conflate theory with guess and evolution with all of science, it sometimes seems--certainly BBT and abiogenesis. I explained a lot of things to you that you said you didn't know.

Now, don't get me wrong. There is no shame in being ignorant. I could, if you like, list things I'm ignorant about; I have before. However, you are gravely ignorant here, don't think you are, and are correcting those who are not. Do you see the problem?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

It's "Universe 101". I am not going to be an apologist for NASA on this. But it does appear to be a site devoted to giving a much simplified introduction to some of the most profound ideas in modern science. To do so, without getting bogged down in messy details, writers sometimes say things that are not strictly correct. They aren't lying to you, perhaps just not doing the best job of presenting the material. Just because it is a NASA site doesn't mean that you should take it as literally true. There are no gospels in science.

How many descriptions of an atom have you seen that portray electrons in orbits around the nucleus just as if they were planets around the sun? That (Bohr atom) description has been obsolete for the best part of a century, and yet in popularizations it's still common.

The idea that the universe started at a point is similar, though more recent. It would be better to say that at one time, about 13.7 billion years ago, the universe was very much hotter and denser than it is today. Using theory that can be reliably applied, we can take this back to a small fraction of a second of the life of the universe. At that point, all the matter we can see (the actual universe may be infinite in extent) would have fit in a rather small volume.

If you can go beyond web browsing for your information, I'd recommend you get a copy (libraries should have it) of Steven Weinberg's book "The First Three Minutes". It's several years old now, but remains an excellent description of the very early universe. You can see from his presentation how some of the observables in the universe, like the ratio of hydrogen to helium, flow out of the way matter behaved in those first few seconds.

I'd like to think there are more precise sources for you on the internet, but off hand I don't have anywhere I can direct you. Maybe some other person reading this thread can help.

Not incorrect so much as simplified to the point of being misleading, if you try to read too much into it.

Lonest@r should check out especially their subsite Talk Design.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

AM I now, OR am I just play Devil's Advocate to find weaknesses in theories that are 'well proven', and taught/expained as fact, (or almost fact) by some. Again, if there is no opposing viewpoints (scientific or not) than the taught viewpoint is often interpreted as fact. Also, I thought I had stated that my intention was Cosmology/Orgins of Life, and for that I apologized for any confusion. I would be willing to bet that majority of the general public also interprets BBT as part of the 'overall' Evolutionary Theory, (that is the developement of solar sysytem and life as by random chance).

I also stated that I used the term 'explosion as in laymans terms and the was directed to NASA, to paraphrase convesation....
Now I learn, NASA too uses 'laymans' terms???

Don't know anybody that would do that.....

If it is not a scientific alternative, it does not belong in a science class. What's so hard to understand about that? If you have a philosophical alternative, it belongs in a philosophy class. Science alone belongs in a science class. Are you really saying otherwise?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

YES and NO, reality is not so black and white. NO, I am not saying philosophy should be taught in science class, nor should science be taught in philosophy class, but YES the opposing view should be atleast mentioned, if not you then run the risk of teaching indoctrination (the taught viewpoint becomes interpreted as fact). BTW, How many HS have philosophy classes?

The more I learn the more I realize everyting is connected somehow. An example I just discussed at lunch; World History, World Civ, and World Religion. Do I think Religion should be taught in history class, NO, but until someone learns both angles they don't understand/see the 'Whole Picture', Middle East is prime example; nobody here (US) understands difference between a Shiite and Sunni or the conflict with Jews...

Before we get off topic, I see the same 'blindness' for science from some who 'refuse' to be aware of any explanation outside of science.

And as we've repeatedly tried to show you, ID is not an opposing view, any more than Gaia being fertilized by Uranus to produce the Titans and then humanity is an opposing view. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, but you haven't provided any yet. I'm still waiting...

Excepting that at least Greek mythology makes for interesting reading, while ID isn't.

I completely agree that high schools should include courses in critical thinking and philosophy. But that has no bearing on what is taught in a science class: our science classes are already overloaded, and don't have time to teach even the basics. Adding nonsense (like ID, biblical Creationism or Greek mythology) to a science class adds nothing to students' understanding of science; it merely gets in the way.

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

The problem with this view is that we're talking about high school level science courses. At that level the "opposing" view should only be taught in any course if it stands up to the same level of rigor as the mainstream view and has some actual use to furthering students' education.

To compare to a similar situations in other subjects, should we teach High School students that William Shakespeare was actually Christopher Marlow, or teach the Apollo Hoax in history class just because it is an "opposing" view?

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

Amen (so to speak)

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

Opposing views should only be taught in science classes when they are scientific opposing views. If no credible alternative stands up to counter the mainstream, then no deal. A mainstream viewpoint with no opposing scientific rivals is as good as fact.

Evolution and the BB theory are just as factual as the statement that "humans do not live to be much more than a decade over 100 years old". One day, medical advances may force us to revise this, but at the moment all the available evidence says it's true.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

Playing Devils Advocate? You mean Trolling? Well Proven? haven't we just gone to some lengths to say that Science doesn't Prove things?

As for Facts, Sceince has plenty of them, a theory is there to explain. Evolution is a Fact, we can see and measure it, Evolution is also a Theory to explain the facts.

As for

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Yes, but some are so arrogant as to say Evolution is a Fact, deal with it!

WOW 5-6 posts in the last 20 min........ where was everybody when I was looking for NASA explanations ?

Actually, I was taught about various religions in history class; I had to do a report on Islam in ninth grade world history. Why am I okay with that? Because it's relevant. History is shaped by religion; that does actually include the history of science. If you're teaching phlogiston--a concept with every bit as much evidence as ID, by the way--as something people used to believe, teach creationism as something every bit as wrong. But if you are looking for a valid scientific theory to teach alongside evolution as something with equal standing as an explanation, keep looking. No one's found one yet.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"