There are many different theories of the big bang or even multiple big bangs. The primary evidence we have for the big bang is that the universe is expanding. Hence we extrapolate that at one time it was much smaller, anything beyond that is mostly speculation.
By the way, I was quite amused to see that you first said "..show how Creationism can be falsified and then it will count as a credible theory, for which evidence can be shown for and against." Then you said that 'Gods' theory ... has been falsified. Which is it? Is it unfalsifiable or falsified? [grin]
The problem is that there are about a dozen different creationism and God theories. Take your pick, some are falsifiable and some aren't, most aren't. If you are positing an uncreated creator not bound by the rules of this universe then how is it falsified?
Ahah! I agree with you that most of what that Berkeley page says IS mostly speculation! But the sad fact is that that's what's being taught in universities and schools across my country (USA) - including leading universities like Berkeley -- and it is being taught as well-known fact. If any other field were so full of speculation and was being dogmatically taught as fact, it'd be called religion (especially if it had moral implications.)
The problem is that there are about a dozen different creationism and God theories. Take your pick, some are falsifiable and some aren't, most aren't. If you are positing an uncreated creator not bound by the rules of this universe then how is it falsified?
haaaahahaha *wiggle* *squirm* *wheres the exit?* :-)
How about the oldest written historical account - Genesis - In the beginning, God, created the heavens and the earth, etc. (In 7 24-hour days, with a first man and a first woman, etc.) In other words, a literal reading of Genesis.(Hey. If any other old document of the age of Genesis were found it would be a significant historical document and would be worth studying and learning from!)
Now, about evolution. You said "The theory is that changes are natural and that selective pressures eliminated non beneficial changes."
Okay, I suspect you might be switching terms on me here. The theory you describe there is clearly demonstrated - I seen it it myself growing up on the farm! Some livestock that was born unable to eat or breath didn't live. But this doesn't address the other kind of evolution - the kind that I have not seen in real life - the kind which is taught as fact in schools across my country - the one that says that all life descended from one first cell. Call it the theory if macroevolution, or I prefer the theory of "All Speciation By Evolution." Or, herein, ASBE if you like. (Hey, come up with a better description and we can use that one!)
So is the theory of ASBE falsifiable? has all of its predictions been fulfilled? What are its predictions? If it is falsifiable, then that means it has a list of predictions that I can go read. Could you kindly point me to that?
Is a theory really still falsifiable if all of its predictions have been fulfilled? What if I put forth a theory but only include predictions for it which I can see are already fulfilled? Is it still falsifiable?
I think that you may be playing up falsifiability a little bit too much - or perhaps I'm just not understanding. For example, lets say I have a cat that lives in my house but one day I get home and the cat greets me in the front yard, and I notice that the front door is open, and then I remember not latching it when I left -- I can make a theory right away that says "I left the door unlatched, the cat pushed it open, and got out." Now I'm probably correct - and it's a valid and possible theory. But it's not falsifiable since I haven't made any predictions for which I do not know the answer. Does that mean that it's not a valid theory?
Thanks!
-Jesse