budaatum:

I find it insulting when people ask me to "read again". They are implying that I am not using my mind when the truth is it is they who don't use their's. If you read the writings of Stephen Jay Gould, you would not be taking him out of context and you definitely would not be using creationdotcom's spin on him to try to prove the point you are trying to prove here. Read the quote from him above and learn!

If that quote is true, it does nothing more than portray SJG as subscribing to evolution. I, in fact, noted that he was an atheist. But it's refreshing to know that at some point he admitted the truth of preconceptions and biases.

budaatum:

It's likely you are taking what he wrote out of context just as you have done with SJG. I'm certain that's what creationdotcom does or how else would they get you and your sort, their only source of income, to send them money?

It's okay to appeal to ridicule. It's a popular cop out means.

DoctorAlien:

It's okay to appeal to ridicule. It's a popular cop out means.

I wonder what you'd call your asking me to calm down. A sign of superior intellect, perhaps, and not the patronising which it was?

DoctorAlien:


If that quote is true, it does nothing more than portray SJG as subscribing to evolution. I, in fact, noted that he was an atheist. But it's refreshing to know that at some point he admitted the truth of preconceptions and biases.

They were pointing out the errors some scientist make, and not advocating that scientists should make those errors, nor were they claiming all scientist make those errors. We should at least recognise them as errors, having had them pointed out to us, and refrain from making them ourselves.

The truth is, most of us grew up with the misconceptions and biases of creationism and only latter were we introduced to evolution, and not the other way round. The fact that we are willing to consider the validity of our early indoctrination says a lot about the facts and our ability to accept what is more likely to be the truth. You'd hardly find anyone on here accepting the Young Earth Creation theory, and anyone who does would have had to deny an awful lot of evidence to the contrary for reasons best known to them. They likely didn't go past third year secondary school science or went to a shitty school.

budaatum:

They were pointing out the errors some scientist make, and not advocating that scientists should make those errors, nor were they claiming all scientist make those errors. We should at least recognise them as errors, having had them pointed out to us, and refrain from making them ourselves.

The truth is, most of us grew up with the misconceptions and biases of creationism and only latter were we introduced to evolution, and not the other way round. The fact that we are willing to consider the validity of our early indoctrination says a lot about the facts and our ability to accept what is more likely to be the truth. You'd hardly find anyone on here accepting the Young Earth Creation theory, and anyone who does would have had to deny an awful lot of evidence to the contrary for reasons best known to them. They likely didn't go past third year secondary school science or went to a shitty school.

If I say you should read that quote again, you'd say that's insulting. But how you read that quote, and see SJG use language like "OUR ways of learning about the world ARE strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that EACH scientist MUST apply to any problem...", only for you to conclude that he was "pointing out the errors some scientist make, and not advocating that scientists should make those errors, nor were they claiming all scientist make those errors", eludes me.

DoctorAlien:


If I say you should read that quote again, you'd say that's insulting. But how you read that quote, and see SJG use language like "OUR ways of learning about the world ARE strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that EACH scientist MUST apply to any problem...", only for you to conclude that he was "pointing out the errors some scientist make, and not advocating that scientists should make those errors, nor were they claiming all scientist make those errors", eludes me.

Reading is not only about what one says! SJG is pointing out that "OUR ways of learning about the world ARE strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that EACH scientist MUST might apply to any problem..." And not that one must apply "social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking" to one's education or problem!

If you had bothered to read the quote of his which I posted here, you might understand what he meant by "Facts do not go away while scientists debate rival theories for explaining them" . Basically, your "preconceptions and biased modes of thinking" would not change the facts and make apples rise tomorrow!

budaatum:

Reading is not only about what one says! SJG is pointing out that "OUR ways of learning about the world ARE strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that EACH scientist MUST might apply to any problem..." And not that one must apply "social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking" to one's education or problem!

If you had bothered to read the quote of his which I posted here, you might understand what he meant by "Facts do not go away while scientists debate rival theories for explaining them" . Basically, your "preconceptions and biased modes of thinking" would not change the facts and make apples rise tomorrow!

Why striking the word "must", which appears in the original quote, and replacing it with "might"? Are you editing Stephen Jay Gould's quote for him? SJG uses the word "must" in the sense that that is what he observes "each" scientist doing, and which each scientist cannot avoid doing, i.e. "applying social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking to any problem." This is corroborated by the very next line of the quote, in which he affirms that the alternative idea, "The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method’, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.”

Now with this explanation, read the quote again.

DoctorAlien:


Why striking the word "must", which appears in the original quote, and replacing it with "might"? Are you editing Stephen Jay Gould's quote for him? SJG uses the word "must" in the sense that that is what he observes "each" scientist doing, and which each scientist cannot avoid doing, i.e. "applying social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking to any problem." This is corroborated by the very next line of the quote, in which he affirms that the alternative idea, "The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method’, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.”

Now with this explanation, read the quote again.

I struck it through so you might understand what SJG meant. You can't just take a quote out of context as you have done and claim SJG is saying allow your "learning about the world to be strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking"! He himself was heavily against doing so as you'd find if you bother to read his books instead of relying on a couple of paragraphs quoted by a site that is the epitome of "preconceptions and bias"! My own quote by him presented is sufficient to make anyone question what you are claiming he meant.

Even as a doctor you must not allow your "preconceptions and bias" to influence your diagnosis. I would expect you to know that if you do allow your "preconceptions and bias" to influence your diagnosing you'd more likely be a crap doctor!

But please tell me I'm wrong, and that you do allow your "preconceptions and bias" to influence your diagnosing, if you really are a doctor, that is!

budaatum:


This isn't the first time you've posted this junk and I've bothered to watch it. The evidence for evolution far outweights that for creationism and a simple use of a brain would show which is more valid.

More intelligent evolutionist scientists were interviewed in that videoclip and they still got stumped.

OLAADEGBU:


More intelligent evolutionist scientists were interviewed in that videoclip and they still got stumped.

For you, evolution is an attack on your God. I don't have any such issues and both can equally dwell inside my head. But then, so can quite a lot of things, perhaps because of my two shoulders and four heads!

budaatum:


For you, evolution is an attack on your God. I don't have any such issues and both can equally dwell inside my head. But then, so can quite a lot of things, perhaps because of my two shoulders and four heads!

Can you name one piece of technology that could only have been developed starting with a belief in molecules-to-man evolution?

OLAADEGBU:


Can you name one piece of technology that could only have been developed starting with a belief in molecules-to-man evolution?

I don't know where you get the idea of a "belief in molecules-to-man evolution", or why you'd be asking me to name a technology that began in such a way. Care to explain what you mean?

That said, every technology started from an idea in someone's mind, but that of course is not what you meant, I'm sure.

budaatum:

I struck it through so you might understand what SJG meant. You can't just take a quote out of context as you have done and claim SJG is saying allow your "learning about the world to be strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking"! He himself was heavily against doing so as you'd find if you bother to read his books instead of relying on a couple of paragraphs quoted by a site that is the epitome of "preconceptions and bias"! My own quote by him presented is sufficient to make anyone question what you are claiming he meant.

Even as a doctor you must not allow your "preconceptions and bias" to influence your diagnosis. I would expect you to know that if you do allow your "preconceptions and bias" to influence your diagnosing you'd more likely be a crap doctor!

But please tell me I'm wrong, and that you do allow your "preconceptions and bias" to influence your diagnosing, if you really are a doctor, that is!

It appears I'm not the only one who holds my view of what Stephen Jay Gould thought about preconceptions and biases. Here is a biography of Stephen Jay Gould, entitled "Stephen Jay Gould: Reflections on His View of Life", edited by Warren D. Allmon, Patricia H. Kelly and Robert Ross. Check pages 4, 5 and 6 of the book.

Note the view which the author said SJG advocated, that science is "... never separable from human biases and preconceptions." (p.4). It may interest you to know that the author (Warren Allmon) received his PhD in 1988 under SJG's supervision.

Note, too, what the author says is SJG's favorite quote. (p.4) That's a quote by Darwin in which Darwin affirms that observations must be interpreted for or against a view. It appears that the staunch men of evolution recognize that worldviews affect a lot.

Vaxx, remember you and I having this discussion sometime ago? It eventually led to my subobj thread.

DoctorAlien:


It appears I'm not the only one who holds my view of what Stephen Jay Gould thought about preconceptions and biases. Here is a biography of Stephen Jay Gould, entitled "Stephen Jay Gould: Reflections on His View of Life", edited by Warren D. Allmon, Patricia H. Kelly and Robert Ross. Check pages 4, 5 and 6 of the book.

Note the view which the author said SJG advocated, that science is "... never separable from human biases and preconceptions." (p.4). It may interest you to know that the author (Warren Allmon) received his PhD in 1988 under SJG's supervision.

Note, too, what the author says is SJG's favorite quote. (p.4) That's a quote by Darwin in which Darwin affirms that observations must be interpreted for or against a view. It appears that the staunch men of evolution recognize that worldviews affect a lot.

It seems you don't understand what SJG means. He's saying basically that human beings are subjective by nature so their preconceptions and biases get in the way of their learning. Now that you know that, are you not supposed to ensure your preconceptions and biases do not get in the way of your learning?

Tell me doc, can one be a good doctor if one allows one's preconceptions and biases to get in the way when one is diagnosing a person's illness? Do you seriously believe SJG is saying "allow your preconceptions and biases to get in the way of your learning"?

budaatum:
Vax, remember you and I having this discussion sometime ago? It eventually led to my subobj thread.


It seems you don't understand what SJG means.

No. On the contrary, it seems you don't understand what SJG meant.

He's saying basically that human beings are subjective by nature so their preconceptions and biases get in the way of their learning.

Except that he put it in a different, and stronger, way. He "tirelessly advocated" for the view that "science ... is never separable from human biases and preconceptions."(p.4). He declared that the idea of "a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method’, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology." (p.5). He said too that "Impartiality [in science] (even if desirable) is unattainable by human beings with inevitable backgrounds, needs, beliefs, and desires." (p.6)

Did you see the word "beliefs" there, Buda? Now, I put it to you that there is no type of belief, background, preconceptions, biases, or preferences that can influence anyone to arrive at a different conclusion as to the boiling point of water. No matter your beliefs, biases, preconceptions, and preferences, the boiling point of water is 100°C. Same with all of operational science.

But there's another type of science in which beliefs, backgrounds, needs, preferences, biases, preconceptions, and desires can (and must) influence conclusions. That type of science involves observing things in the present, and then interpreting them as evidence for ones's narrative/view of how things happened in the past. It is then immediately apparent that the views of how things happened has to have been formed before hand, and then observations only interpreted through the lens of those views. Richard Lewontin agrees with his "a prior commitment to materialism" quote. Note that materialism is a type of view/preconceptions which I'm talking about here. Another one is creationism.

Now that you know that, are you not supposed to ensure your preconceptions and biases do not get in the way of your learning?

in the way of my learning biology, physics, anatomy, or physiology, biochemistry or haematology? I don't see how my own preconceptions and biases can get in my way of gaining knowledge in those disciplines. No matter my biases and preconceptions: DNA is the genetic material of (most) organisms, water boils at 100°C, biceps brachii is located in the arm, the kidney is essential in homeostasis, glucose is metabolised by humans to generate energy, and red blood cells contain haemoglobin molecules which carry oxygen! Can my preconceptions and biases of creationism possibly get in my way of acquiring these knowledge? No.

Tell me doc, can one be a good doctor if one allows one's preconceptions and biases to get in the way when one is diagnosing a person's illness?

Except that the type of preconceptions and biases I'm talking about here don't really find their influences in the area of diagnoses. When I'm talking about biases and preconceptions, I mean things like materialism, creationism, etc. A creationist believes that God created all things. That can hardly get in the way of diagnosing a patient.

Do you seriously believe SJG is saying "allow your preconceptions and biases to get in the way of your learning"?

while he has not exactly put it that way, he put it in a different way. He was of the view that science is inseparable from these biases and preconceptions. He said too that impartiality is unattainable in science. (Surely this impartiality cannot be in determining, for example, the boiling point of water, or the melting point and atomic number of a newly discovered element). He even said that "This messy and personal side of science should not be disparaged, or covered up, by scientists..." (p.5)

Darwin perhaps put it in a better way, when he says that observations must be for or against a view. No wonder it is SJG's favorite quote.

DoctorAlien:


Except that the type of preconceptions and biases I'm talking about here don't really find their influences in the area of diagnoses.

Why wouldn't they? Did you not undergo a course whilst training to be a doctor that emphasised the awareness of your preconceptions and biases and how they would affect your ability to do your job if not properly tamed?

In fact doc, are you a medical doctor!?

DoctorAlien:


Except that he put it in a different, and stronger, way. He "tirelessly advocated" for the view that "science ... is never separable from human biases and preconceptions."(p.4). He declared that the idea of "a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method’, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology." (p.5). He said too that "Impartiality [in science] (even if desirable) is unattainable by human beings with inevitable backgrounds, needs, beliefs, and desires." (p.6)

And it's for this very reason that we adopt the scientific method and peer reviews. So people don't get to pass their preconceptions and biases off as objective when it might be full of their preconceptions and biases.

Creationism if held to be true, is a bias and a preconception. So also is the big bang. Both are pure speculation based on shoddy evidence, opinions and beliefs and not on objective reality

Evolution, on the other hand, is based on quite a lot of objective evidence. And only those who have a God bone to grind seem to be against it.

I'm sorry, but I must say that your preconceptions and biases blind you to this fact. I am also aware that you are accusing me of the same preconception and bias blindness. I can only suggest you learn more about evolution. You might change your mind.

EmperorHarry:
Evolution is closely related to,if not adaptation which is a observable and verified phenomenon in nature. So in no way should an open minded knowledge seeker dismiss evolution due to anthropocentric or supercilious mentality such an overwhelmingly evident phenomenon as a hoax.

Hi @EmperorHarry, @All,

Agreed that adaptation is an observable and verified phenom. Is your point that be extension "evolution" is also? Adaptation happens within the confines of already extant genetic information.

So, I visit the gym, pump some iron, as do my offspring, and theirs after them. Over generations we become more muscular. Yet we remain humans (homo muscularis ). I would see that as adaptation

For one creature, something "less evolved" than an ape say, to "evolve" into apes and humans (apes I know, but different by a degree of magnitude), requires the acquisition of new genetic material. Or more strikingly say a flightless/wingless creature, evolving into one able to fly.

Can the mechanism behind this acquistion of new material be clearly evidenced or demonstrated by experiment?


Thanks
TV

TV01:
Hi @EmperorHarry, @All,

Agreed that adaptation is an observable and verified phenom. Is your point that be extension "evolution" is also? Adaptation happens within the confines of already extant genetic information.

So, I visit the gym, pump some iron, as do my offspring, and theirs after them. Over generations we become more muscular. Yet we remain humans (homo muscularis ). I would see that as adaptation

For one creature, something "less evolved" than an ape say, to "evolve" into apes and humans (apes I know, but different by a degree of magnitude), requires the acquisition of new genetic material. Or more strikingly say a flightless/wingless creature, evolving into one able to fly.

Can the mechanism behind this acquistion of new material be clearly evidenced or demonstrated by experiment?


Thanks
TV

You have misunderstood evolution.
Please read some more on the topic.

budaatum:

You have misunderstood evolution.
Please read some more on the topic.

Classic.

You guys all over the world must have gathered together in one place to learn this reply.

TV01:
Hi @EmperorHarry, @All,

Agreed that adaptation is an observable and verified phenom. Is your point that be extension "evolution" is also? Adaptation happens within the confines of already extant genetic information.

So, I visit the gym, pump some iron, as do my offspring, and theirs after them. Over generations we become more muscular. Yet we remain humans (homo muscularis ). I would see that as adaptation

For one creature, something "less evolved" than an ape say, to "evolve" into apes and humans (apes I know, but different by a degree of magnitude), requires the acquisition of new genetic material. Or more strikingly say a flightless/wingless creature, evolving into one able to fly.

Can the mechanism behind this acquistion of new material be clearly evidenced or demonstrated by experiment?


Thanks
TV

You need to read extensively the concept of evolution.It's not necessarily an explanation for anything but an observation of a phenomenon that has occurred over billions of years hence it's flexibility as it can be accepted by both religious and nonreligious institutions. Like I stated initially it's still a work in progress but that doesn't mean it's not a theory that has been agreed upon by the scientific community. You should read carefully this article.Most especially the history,definition,scientific acceptance and status. You might just gain a whole new perspective on evolution.

Thanks for your response, @EmperorHarry, You previously stated this...

EmperorHarry:
Evolution is closely related to, if not adaptation which is a observable and verified phenomenon in nature. So in no way should an open minded knowledge seeker dismiss evolution due to anthropocentric or supercilious mentality such an overwhelmingly evident phenomenon as a hoax.

...essentially claiming that "evolution" is "observable" and "verified", as well as having "overwhelming evidence" backing it.

You have subsequently stated this;

EmperorHarry:
You need to read extensively the concept of evolution. It's not necessarily an explanation for anything but an observation of a phenomenon that has occurred over billions of years hence it's flexibility

Repeating your description of evolution as an observable phenomenon. All I asked for was some insight and, or, evidence of the mechanism that drives this phenomenon.

Is evolution not an explanation, and claimed on this very thread as the consensus amongst creditable and reputable scientists, for the origin of all species by descent from a common ancestor?

If so, ther emust be a mechanism by which creatures acquire the new genetic information that enables them to undergo wholesale changes in morphology, such that an entirely new creature is the result.

Apologies if I may have read you incorrectly and for my clunky articulation - I'm not scientific or even technical. And thanks for the link. I did read it, but it didn't speak to my question.


Cheers
TV

TV01:
Thanks for your response, @EmperorHarry, You previously stated this...
...essentially claiming that "evolution" is "observable" and "verified", as well as having "overwhelming evidence" backing it.

Yup

You have subsequently stated this;

Repeating your description of evolution as an observable phenomenon. All I asked for was some insight and, or, evidence of the mechanism that drives this phenomenon.

Well I cannot provide you with that evidence but I think there are evolutionist videos on YouTube that can if you care to research.

Is evolution not an explanation, and claimed on this very thread as the consensus amongst creditable and reputable scientists, for the origin of all species by descent from a common ancestor?

Did you really read the key areas I gave you in that link.If it is an explanation for the origin of all species would religious institutions adapt it to their creation stories? The evolutionists that use it as an explanation of the origin of life or to refute ID are the one's that are the problem.I stated this earlier on my first post on this thread.

If so, ther emust be a mechanism by which creatures acquire the new genetic information that enables them to undergo wholesale changes in morphology, such that an entirely new creature is the result.

You should prolly reread the article I referred you to.

Apologies if I may have read you incorrectly and for my clunky articulation - I'm not scientific or even technical. And thanks for the link. I did read it, but it didn't speak to my question.


Cheers
TV

Uhm it wasn't meant to answer your question but to enlighten you about the common mistakes people who have an objection to evolution make and even evolutionists themselves. I've always been sceptical about this theory cos of the gaps and missing links which are yet to be filled but in light of the evidence put toward it's actually plausible and in no way afffects ID except to a creationist who believes the earth is 6000 years old give or take.

OLAADEGBU:


Can you name one piece of technology that could only have been developed starting with a belief in molecules-to-man evolution?

Modern medicine, the combat against pathogen wouldn't be possible without the fundamental understanding of evolution.

Policies on the environment have also been shaped by our understanding of evolution.


Being a creationist before, the theory of evolution never made much sense or seemed believable. I could explain fossil evidence by relying on apologetic's resources on The Great flood.

But finally after abandoning my faith, I found how much I really didn't understand the theory of evolution really. And why there couldn't have been a global flood.

There couldn't have been a global flood,the geological layer wouldn't exist the way it is. You see if there was a global flood, we'd expect the heavier denser particles to settle at the bottom (because they are heavier and would settle faster) while the lighter finer ones to rise to the top , however this is not the case in the geologic column, they interchange wildly between heavy to light, which proves they couldn't have been laid down by flood waters as mentioned in the bible.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnKWuEcFheQ

TV01:
Thanks for your response, @EmperorHarry, You previously stated this...
...essentially claiming that "evolution" is "observable" and "verified", as well as having "overwhelming evidence" backing it.

You have subsequently stated this;

Repeating your description of evolution as an observable phenomenon. All I asked for was some insight and, or, evidence of the mechanism that drives this phenomenon.

Is evolution not an explanation, and claimed on this very thread as the consensus amongst creditable and reputable scientists, for the origin of all species by descent from a common ancestor?

If so, ther emust be a mechanism by which creatures acquire the new genetic information that enables them to undergo wholesale changes in morphology, such that an entirely new creature is the result.

Apologies if I may have read you incorrectly and for my clunky articulation - I'm not scientific or even technical. And thanks for the link. I did read it, but it didn't speak to my question.


Cheers
TV

from what youve been saying since, i have to tell you to read some more on the topic. Kindly do sir. Youve got it wrong.

Heathen777:




Modern medicine, the combat against pathogen wouldn't be possible without the fundamental understanding of evolution.

Policies on the environment have also been shaped by our understanding of evolution.


Being a creationist before, the theory of evolution never made much sense or seemed believable. I could explain fossil evidence by relying on apologetic's resources on The Great flood.

But finally after abandoning my faith, I found how much I really didn't understand the theory of evolution really. And why there couldn't have been a global flood.

There couldn't have been a global flood,the geological layer wouldn't exist the way it is. You see if there was a global flood, we'd expect the heavier denser particles to settle at the bottom (because they are heavier and would settle faster) while the lighter finer ones to rise to the top , however this is not the case in the geologic column, they interchange wildly between heavy to light, which proves they couldn't have been laid down by flood waters as mentioned in the bible.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnKWuEcFheQ

you see the problem with this Christian apologetics is that they know nothing outside the bible. Except for folks like muttleylaff and a very few other which im yet to see on the thread.

budaatum:

And it's for this very reason that we adopt the scientific method and peer reviews. So people don't get to pass their preconceptions and biases off as objective when it might be full of their preconceptions and biases.

Creationism if held to be true, is a bias and a preconception. So also is the big bang. Both are pure speculation based on shoddy evidence, opinions and beliefs and not on objective reality

Evolution, on the other hand, is based on quite a lot of objective evidence. And only those who have a God bone to grind seem to be against it.

I'm sorry, but I must say that your preconceptions and biases blind you to this fact. I am also aware that you are accusing me of the same preconception and bias blindness. I can only suggest you learn more about evolution. You might change your mind.

You are very wrong about equating big bang theory to creation. Creation has zero evidence, just dogma forcefully pushed down ones throat, or should I say head.
Big bang on the other hand has 2 key evidences , namely - the red shift of light from distant galaxies, showing galaxies are moving away from each other and the cosmic microwave background that is constant throughout the universe.
If you have a better explanation for these phenomena, I am all ears.

wirinet:


You are very wrong about equating big bang theory to creation. Creation has zero evidence, just dogma forcefully pushed down ones throat, or should I say head.
Big bang on the other hand has 2 key evidences , namely - the red shift of light from distant galaxies, showing galaxies are moving away from each other and the cosmic microwave background that is constant throughout the universe.
If you have a better explanation for these phenomena, I am all ears.

So, "moving away", you hear a big bang? Sorry, all myths to me as I'm not the believing sort.

In a world where we struggle to know what happened 100 years ago, 200 years ago, 10,000 years ago, and even yesterday in Nigeria, anything said about a billion years ago can only be mythology, at least, to me.

As for a better explanation, my ignorance should do.

And I'm saying that despite being completely hooked on Brian Cox's new book and tv program called The Planets. I just love the way he makes one realise it's speculation, albeit, based on the best understanding of the very tiny evidence as understood.

budaatum:

So, "moving away", you hear a big bang? Sorry, all myths to me as I'm not the believing sort.

In a world where we struggle to know what happened 100 years ago, 200 years ago, 10,000 years ago, and even yesterday in Nigeria, anything said about a billion years ago can only be mythology, at least, to me.

As for a better explanation, my ignorance should do.

And I'm saying that despite being completely hooked on Brian Cox's new book and tv program called The Planets. I just love the way he makes one realise it's speculation, albeit, based on the best understanding of the very tiny evidence as understood.

The way science works is to attempt to give the best explanation for observable data, the prevailing explanation might change with new data.
Yes all of science can be termed speculation, but speculations based of careful collation of data and providing the best explanation for the collated data. Most times these science theories can be used to make accurate predictions of future situations or data not yet observed.
Now read the works of Edwin Hubble and how he came about the Big Bang theory. He noticed that all galaxies and objects were accelerating from us, and the further away from us, the faster the acceleration. This fact is undisputed. So the onus is now the person that can provide the best explanation for this phenomenon. Now, anybody with a better explanation would deserve a Nobel price.
The cosmic microwave background was used to validate the big bang. It was predicted before it was even discovered.

wirinet:

The way science works is to attempt to give the best explanation for observable data, the prevailing explanation might change with new data.
Yes all of science can be termed speculation, but speculations based of careful collation of data and providing the best explanation for the collated data. Most times these science theories can be used to make accurate predictions of future situations or data not yet observed.
Now read the works of Edwin Hubble and how he came about the Big Bang theory. He noticed that all galaxies and objects were accelerating from us, and the further away from us, the faster the acceleration. This fact is undisputed. So the onus is now the person that can provide the best explanation for this phenomenon. Now, anybody with a better explanation would deserve a Nobel price.
The cosmic microwave background was used to validate the big bang. It was predicted before it was even discovered.

I'm not a novice to any of this so don't assume I've no knowledge whatsoever. Even you call it "best explanation", and accept that it is "speculation", so you can hardly expect me to claim it as my knowledge, and you definitely can not be asking me to believe it! I don't do believe!

What we have is the best assumptions from "careful collation of data" very long after the fact, out of which we have "provided the best explanation", which is exactly the same way ("careful collation of data" as we could at the time within the confines of our ability to collate it), we got "God done it in 6 days then rested". It is precisely for this reason that the Big Bang theory is described as "the prevailing cosmological model for the observable universe", and not "this is exactly how the universe came about". The fact that it is "prevailing" is no reason to claim that's what happened, and the best scientists will always qualify with "as best as we know". None of the models exactly explain how any of it began, just what happened after it had begun, and that really is saying quite a lot about what is not known.

budaatum:

I'm not a novice to any of this so don't assume I've no knowledge whatsoever. Even you call it "best explanation", and accept that it is "speculation", so you can hardly expect me to claim it as my knowledge, and you definitely can not be asking me to believe it! I don't do believe!

What we have is the best assumptions from "careful collation of data" very long after the fact, out of which we have "provided the best explanation", which is exactly the same way ("careful collation of data" as we could at the time within the confines of our ability to collate it), we got "God done it in 6 days then rested". It is precisely for this reason that the Big Bang theory is described as "the prevailing cosmological model for the observable universe", and not "this is exactly how the universe came about". The fact that it is "prevailing" is no reason to claim that's what happened, and the best scientists will always qualify with "as best as we know". None of the models exactly explain how any of it began, just what happened after it had begun, and that really is saying quite a lot about what is not known.

I am surprised you are talking like this. You are beginning to sound like a theologist. It is only theologist that claim to know exactly how the universe began, no scientist claim that. What scientists have are various postulations and guesses. No one can know exactly how the universe began, because no one witnessed it and there is no observable data before the universe began or even after it began (that is even if it had a beginning in the true sense of the word). What scientist are fairly confident of is what happens long after the beginning from their interpretation of observable data.
You cannot compare that with the postulation by theologists of "God did it" or since it exist it must have been created by someone" without any supporting evidence or data whatsoever.
To the theologists, all uknown obsevations stop at God did, while with the scientists vigorous debates and arguments ensures and the most widely acceptable explanation for "observable data" wins, albeit temporarily until a better explanation comes along or new data that does not conform to old explanation is observed. Einstein and Bohr debated quantum mechanics 3 times and in the end Einstein was "wrong" and Bohr was "right" and today quantum mechanics rules the microscopic world.
It is a travesty to put the Big Bang Theory in the same league with the "God did it" hypothesis.