As far as I'm aware, the Big Bang theory is reliant on three main pieces of experimental evidence: the expansion of the universe, cosmic background radiation and hydrogen-helium abundance. If evidence is experimental it must be falsifiable. Granted we have a huge amount of evidence to support those three things but finding just one valid, repeatable test that showed, for example, that what we though was true about cosmic background radiation was false would mean we would have to reconsider parts of the whole theory. I'm far from a scientific genius, so I don't know how we could find that evidence if it exists. There isn't a more compelling theory (at the moment), but we shouldn't act as if that means one will never come up if the data changes. I don't think there's a high chance of that, but it's possible because for the scientific method to be effective we can never assume something to be irrefutable.
Is it normal for atheists to claim that they are..
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
As far as I'm aware, the Big Bang theory is reliant on three main pieces of experimental evidence: the expansion of the universe, cosmic background radiation and hydrogen-helium abundance. If evidence is experimental it must be falsifiable. Granted we have a huge amount of evidence to support those three things but finding just one valid, repeatable test that showed, for example, that what we though was true about cosmic background radiation was false would mean we would have to reconsider parts of the whole theory. I'm far from a scientific genius, so I don't know how we could find that evidence if it exists. There isn't a more compelling theory (at the moment), but we shouldn't act as if that means one will never come up if the data changes. I don't think there's a high chance of that, but it's possible because for the scientific method to be effective we can never assume something to be irrefutable.