Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightdemon  If it isn't visible, how do we gather data on it?
In other words, do have empiracle evidence of this? Or are we merely hypothesizing based on trends that we have seen according to the CMB?
The two are very different.
The first is a confirmation, the second is a prediction.
Thanks for the correction. I got the two mixed up.
And what difference is that to an Evangelist who says things that we directly observe can be explained thru God (an invisible structure)?
You see, the only thing that is keeping it separate is the empiracle evidence. But this type of argument hinges on a prediction. You would need to have faith in this prediction, to make sense of everything else that comes after it. I do not see a difference between this and a man who has found God, and now sees the way of the universe thru Him. |
This concepts that the article speaks of are new and entirely theoretical. They are by no means accepted scientific truths
The difference between this and evangelism is that the theory follows the fact. Rather than start with the presumption that there is a God and looking for data that would seem to validate this presumption, the scientist looks at a certain phenomena (in this case the non-uniformity of the CMB) and theorizes about what may have caused this (in this case the researchers propose large structures beyond the visible universe). That theory is then tested against all relevant data, and if it holds up to scrutiny it becomes part of Science with a capital 'S'. If at
any time there is even a single instance where a verifiable phenomena contradicts that theory it is revised or abandoned.
There is a large difference between the man who has found the Answer and looks at the world in terms of that Answer, and the man who understands the world through an aggregate of verifiable, constantly revised answers.