Replies

Yet another example of "how little" we know about the Universe:

[text from source (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html)]:

As with the COBE temperature measurement, the agreement between the predicted shape of the CMBR power spectrum and the actual observations is staggering. The balloon-borne experiments (particularly BOOMERang, MAXIMA, and DASI) were able to provide convincing detections of the first and second acoustic peaks before WMAP, but none of those experiments were able to map a large enough area of the sky to match with the COBE DMR data. WMAP bridged that gap and provided much tighter measurement of the positions of the first and second peaks. This was a major confirmation of not only the Lambda CDM version of BBT, but also the basic picture of how the cosmos transitioned from an early radiation-dominated, plasma-filled universe to the matter-dominated universe where most of the large scale structure we see today began to form.

Another stunning example of actual empirical data confirming the theoretical predictions of the cosmological models currently in use by scientists.

Some people seem to be bent on celebrating their ignorance; I prefer to celebrate the light that science has been able to shed on the workings of the Universe. One point of view is negative, and one positive. As our knowledge increases, the negative view will have less and less and less to celebrate, while the positive view, which I hold, will have more an more and more to celebrate.

If our knowledge of the Universe is so paltry, how is that the angular power spectrum predictions Lamda-CDM model fit the actual measured data so well? Again, I'm not holding my breath for answers from the "it's a mystery" crowd. I DO predict another round of whining and hysterical obfuscation from the usual suspects.

Me and the boys at the saw mill were talkin' 'bout how you smarty-pants science guys are always changing your theories, so we decided that at the rate you're going, just about everything you geniuses think you know will be wrong in a few years. You're just a bunch of arrogant jackasses for claiming you know so much. You don't know nothin' except how smart you are, and that isn't very smart. I'm glad I never went in for all that fancy education, because by now I'd have no brains left. If you want to debate me, come on down to the saw mill. We'll be waitin' for ya.
</luddite mode>

Some people seem to be bent on celebrating their ignorance;

Really? On THIS thread? I never knew that 'recognizing' and 'celebrating' are one and the same - and I'm not 'celebrating' my ignorance of that 'fact', either.

I prefer to celebrate the light that science has been able to shed on the workings of the Universe.

What, you mean you can't do THAT, and still acknowledge we have much further to go? I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to prove by citing well-known scientific successes - but I expect the penultimate definition of "strawman" would probably suggest such a tactic. I certainly hope you're not expecting me to take some sort of position against science, or its ability to make testable hypotheses and valid predictions.

Perhaps you're confusing all this with some sort of crevo argument - but I find the following admonition from talk.origins relevant to your overall attitude on this thread:

"...And Science is happy, even eager, to accommodate! After all, the goal of science is to progress from less knowledge to more knowledge, from less understanding to more understanding. We already know that we don't know everything -- unlike certain people who (on religious grounds) think they have all knowledge and wisdom and power and might."

In short, you're arguing with the same defensiveness I would expect from a creationist. It's not even clear to me what set you off.

You bristle at the term "how little we know". I think it's a rather odd battle for you to choose, but fine; set us all straight. Give us a ballpark answer of how much knowledge of the universe is left to be discovered. Are we closer to knowing 10% of everything about the universe, or 90%? Your defensiveness seems to suggest that you do indeed have an opinion about the relative completeness of our knowledge, and I'm sure we'd all like to hear it.