So what can I put my hand on that started the Big Bang? Now don't go telling me that isn't science. By the way, scientific conclusion is not necessarily fact. The scientific community would like us all to think so but many of us know better.
I knew you were going to take that and push it to the limit of your ability.
I can see pictures of the radiation patterns, the background radiation, microwave, doppler shifts etc, to show the pattern that indeed, seems to indicate that all the galaxies are spreading apart from one central point in the universe, which shows that the Big Bang, probably occurred.
I can literally put my hands on the measurements, on the pictures, on the peer reviewed reports by scientists.
Yes, I can literally put my hands on evidence of the Big bang, just as I can literally put my hands on the evidence for the theory of evolution.
That tired strawman. *sigh*
OK, one more time: The BB, although interesting, is NOT a part of TToE. You do not have to understand the origins of the Universe to describe evolutionary mechanics.
Now don't go telling me that isn't science. By the way, scientific conclusion is not necessarily fact. The scientific community would like us all to think so but many of us know better.
You misconstrue what a Scientific Theory is and what Scientific Fact is. People who understand science know the definitions (and they have been posted on these threads countless times).
Please tell us again how the moon landings were faked.
What can I put my hand on who wrote the Bible, that created God, that surfed the waves during the Noachian flood?
I suspect that you are trying to claim that science requires evidence to be direct and tactile before it is acceptable.
This is silly. Although direct observation is used by science, at least as far as we can trust our senses, increasingly science is relying on indirect observation. None of quantum physics is known through direct observation but on predictions of what tracks would be left by specific quantum events. Very little of chemistry is based on direct observation, most is based on the observation of reactions by tools. Name a science and then check the direct to indirect observation ratio.
We, in our every day life, base as much of our awareness of what is around us on indirect clues as on direct observation.
When we hike along a dirt track, how do we know a bicycle has been there, do we need to physically see and touch the bike? No, we can observe the tracks it leaves in the dirt. If we leave a child in a room for a moment and come back to find a broken lamp, do wee need to directly observe the child knocking the lamp down to know the child did knock it down? Of course not. We sift through the possible causes of the lamp falling down and one by one, eliminate them as realistic given the environment the lamp is found in - we check the dust on the table to see how close to the edge the lamp was originally, we look at the same clues to see if the lamps traveled across the table before toppling. We check to see if the household pet left tracks in the same dust. We examine the room for sources of wind strong enough to move the lamp. Eventually we narrow the possibilities down to one. We do this type of analysis so frequently in our lives it becomes automatic, many times we are unaware we are doing so.
We do the same sort of thing in science, except that we go a few steps further and if possible try to replicate a number of the possibilities. When replicating the possibilities, we attempt to stabilize all the variables but the one we are testing, a process that at times requires a larger, complex effect to be broken down into much smaller events.
For those possible explanations where we can't replicate the event, we look to as many different lines of evidence as is possible.
We don't just conclude that the child is guilty of knocking the lamp down, we check for that pet, for that wind, for a slammed door, even a potential earthquake before coming to a conclusion.
We determine by examining the dust and marks on the table whether the lamp was slid across the table or knocked over.
We calculate the friction coefficient of the lamp on the table with dust and without dust.
We check the force needed to knock the lamp over. We check the strength of the child - is he/she strong enough to move the lamp. We examine all sorts of things before concluding that our hypothesis of the child knocking the lamp over is correct.
All of that testing is done, and the conclusion drawn, without observing the child knocking the lamp off the table.
" Now don't go telling me that isn't science.
Why would we do that? Direct observation is a part of science but it is not the whole of science. Not by a long shot.
" By the way, scientific conclusion is not necessarily fact. The scientific community would like us all to think so but many of us know better.
I see you do not understand the difference between a fact and a theory. A fact is a data point, generally directly or indirectly observed. A theory is an explanation for the existence or state of the fact, or more often the relationship between a number of different facts.
As far as calling a scientific conclusion a fact, as in 'the absolute truth', this does not happen, science is tentative and it knows it. When some scientist uses the term fact, if s/he is not using it to reference a bit of data, s/he is using the term as shorthand for 'shown to be accurate to a degree beyond reasonable doubt'. This occurs when a theory has so many converging lines of evidence all pointing in one direction, and/or has survived so many attempts at falsification, that it would be extremely surprising for it to be falsified in the future.