One hundred years from now(or perhaps less) it won't matter one whit to any of us that are here today..
 
And unless archeologists find the remnants of this thread on and old server somewhere, nobody will know we pondered this..
 
I just  like being cynical

Karyn
I blame Blue Ray

Wasn't he was that guy in a shell-suit, pencil 'tache, selling hard-core videos out the back of a Datsun Cherry?

Gravitational waves left over from the big bang may have caused the clumps of matter in our universe to clump the way they did. 
 
It is not just the big bang we research but the resulting shape of the universe trillionth of seconds after the bang that really shaped what we see/learn about today.  It is all so fascinating!

bitflipper
Big bang theory rocks! One of my favorite TV shows.

Ahh man....... yet another of life's illusion's shot down in flames.............and a pretty big one at that....
 
Turns out that....... I can hardly bring myself to say it.........but......
 
Bitflipper doesn't always speak sense :(
 
Is there anything left to believe in ?

Jonbouy
 
Lots of talk today about being able to trace matter back to the 'Big Bang' which gave birth to the Universe.
 
No talk of the obviously very naughty boy that let that one off, nor even perhaps of an even bigger boy that made him do it.
 
And they have the cheek to laugh at 'ridiculous' creationists yet to my mind what is claiming everything suddenly appeared out of nowhere if not exactly the same thing?
 

I'd argue that the crucial difference is that the creationists believe there was a 'creator'.
 
And instead of conducting observations and gathering data, and then advancing hypotheses that best fit this research, creationists are already certain that they know who (or what) did the creating. Some of them, I'm led to believe, even know exactly when this happened.
 
Scientific ideas and theories are usually never more than the current "best fit" explanation of a phenomenon or occurrence. No true scientist would ever say that any particular hypothesis is correct (particularly his own), or that they 'know' that something is or isn't true (aside, of course, from pure mathematics and some forms of logic) .
 

Jonbouy
 
It just goes to show that none of us 'know' jack really.
 

 
There’s a lot we don’t know for sure, but that shouldn't stop of from trying to learn more about the universe we inhabit.
 
 

Jonbouy
 
Nobody needs a degree in astrophysics to see that a simple snowflake just rocks completely out loud.

 
I agree.
 
But that shouldn't stop those of us who haven't from trying to found out how they are formed.
 
 
Incidentally JB, did you happen to watch this fascinating episode of Horizon a week or so back - What happened before the Big Bang?
 
Sadly, it's no longer on the iPlayer if you didn't, but some fine chap has uploaded it on Facebook:

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3

She blinded me with science.

SteveStrummerUK
I'd argue that the crucial difference is that the creationists believe there was a 'creator'.
 

 
There are two different methodologies by which people arrive at their conclusions regarding such things - Faith and evidence. Obviously different people will often assign very different weights to the value of each. 
 

And instead of conducting observations and gathering data, and then advancing hypotheses that best fit this research...
 
Scientific ideas and theories are usually never more than the current "best fit" explanation of a phenomenon or occurrence. No true scientist would ever say that any particular hypothesis is correct (particularly his own), or that they 'know' that something is or isn't true (aside, of course, from pure mathematics and some forms of logic) .

Be careful - often a theory will predict certain things that have never been observed until they are subsequently tested and confirmed. This makes for much more powerful evidence than just coming up with something that seems to sort of fit previous observations.
 
Well established theories that are strongly supported by a preponderance of carefully gathered and confirmed evidence are regarded as both "settled science" and "fact".
 
I think saying things like "best fit" is misleading for anything but the frontiers of theoretical science. Most refinements made to settled science will only apply around the edges and/or under unusual or extreme conditions.

The other thing there is that I'd agree some might want to study how stuff came about while others want to utilize what is there.
 
I'd rather boogie board the cosmic waves than consider the atomic structure of the fluff in my belly button personally.
 
E.g. you could take Sonar apart to see how it all works or you can simply utilize it to make music.

I wish someone would tell my daughter that ... She's just about to graduate (Physics Major) and got accepted into two grad schools to continue with this foolishness ....  
 
Well, at least I finally understand the Blackhole theory ... The cost of educating a Physicist .... (Hmmm... Big Bang Theory as well)