Any astro minded folks around here

[RevStoningpot]

yes you could have just said the karat means 8 is an exponent i would've got that but thanks for the bigger explaination any how. I didn't know there were established ways to type an exponent without the superscript.

[Gnatogryz]

Just to revive this topic a bit, there's a nice quote I found

A great scientific theory, like Newton's, opens up new areas of research... Because a theory presents a new way of looking at the world, it can lead us to ask new questions, and so to embark on new and fruitful lines of inquiry... Typically, a flourishing science is incomplete. At any time, it raises more questions than it can currently answer. But incompleteness is no vice. On the contrary, incompleteness is the mother of fecundity... A good theory should be productive; it should raise new questions and presume that those questions can be answered without giving up its problem-solving strategies

Also, I found that the Big Bang theory predicted cosmic background radiation some 17 years before the radiation was discovered.

As for comparing science to religion - scientific theories are generally falsifiable, while religious claims (like the existence of a god) are not.

[RevStoningpot]

wel god can't be proven one way or another because no scientist has defined a scientific theory about what god is. It would seem the science community just (rather unscientifically) calls god bunk without testing any theories to prove that claim. If I were to say "My theory is that god is a being of human form that lives some where in the stratosphere" I could begin testing it by searching the clouds for life signs or what ever. And inevitably, i assume, I would find that there is no man in the clouds. That wouldn't disprove god but it would require that a new theory be devised.

As for background radiation. I feel that it only helps my theory that the universe came into being universe sized. of coarse smaller since i do believe expansion followed. Not that the universe grew from a pinpoint into universe size. The radiation, or the earliest snapshot of the universe, shows a full sized universe with out any big flashy spot at it's center.

And good quote, good point. The more theories, crackpot though they may be, the more active the scientific community is. Wrong answers are just as good as right answers cuz any proof is progress.

[Gnatogryz]

wel god can't be proven one way or another because no scientist has defined a scientific theory about what god is. It would seem the science community just (rather unscientifically) calls god bunk without testing any theories to prove that claim. If I were to say "My theory is that god is a being of human form that lives some where in the stratosphere" I could begin testing it by searching the clouds for life signs or what ever. And inevitably, i assume, I would find that there is no man in the clouds. That wouldn't disprove god but it would require that a new theory be devised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
Boom. God=Universe. There's your proof of god, now cut the crap :)

[RevStoningpot]

sounds good to me.people always say crap like we;re all a part of god or god is every where. I always got the feeling god was just the universe. As it is energy and matter so to is a being body and soul. If our rather simple unintersting forms are capable of intelligence why couldn't something as complex as the universe have a thinking mind.