Reflectorites
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 23:00:44 -0700, Cliff Lundberg wrote:
[...]
>SJ>Here are a couple of Yahoo stories which claim that the universe is "flat".
>>and growing apart at an increasing rate.
>>
>>My understanding is that is against the original predictions of cosmic
>>inflation (on which many anti-design multiple universe theories depend).
[...]
CL>But by what rational thought does this support ID? The unknown doesn't
>prove ID, unless the argument from personal incredulity is the basis.
I had already given my reasons above: it "is against the original predictions
of cosmic inflation (on which many anti-design multiple universe theories
depend)"
[...]
>SJ>This also means also that this is the one and only expansion phase of this
>>universe and any lingering hopes that it would expand and contract in an
>>eternal cycle (and thus rule out creation) are therefore further dashed.
CL>Why would a one-time expansion support ID, except that the bible doesn't
>mention oscillating-universe theories? And why would an oscillating pattern
>have to be eternal? And why would anything rule out creation? Couldn't the
>designer design an oscillating universe?
The fact is that when the Big Bang was confirmed, one of the first
attempts to evade its creation inference was to postulate an eternally
oscillating universe:
"Scientists lamented momentarily, and yet hope springs eternal. The
prestigious British journal Nature published this statement from
physicist John Gribbin:
`The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory of the origin of the
Universe is philosophical-perhaps even theological-what was there
before the bang? This problem alone was sufficient to give a great
initial impetus to the Steady State theory; but with that theory now
sadly in conflict with the observations, the best way round this initial difficulty is
provided by a model in which the universe expands from a singularity
[that is, a beginning], collapses back again, and repeats the cycle
indefinitely.' (Gribbin J., "Oscillating Universe Bounces Back", Nature 259, 1976,
pp.15-16)
(Ross H.N., "The Creator and the Cosmos," 1994, pp.55-56)
BV>I have the impression that Steve cites many articles merely because he is
>interested in science, all science, not just that which supports ID. I hope
>supporters of ID never fall into the trap where many Darwinists find
>themselves, where defending a theory becomes more important than doing
>science.
[...]
I thank Berthajane for her kind words. Indeed, I am interested in the
scientific facts themselves, not just in attacking evolution and defending
creation/ID.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Zircon dating, which calculates a fossil's age by measuring the relative
amounts of uranium and lead within the crystals, had been whittling away
at the Cambrian for some time. By 1990, for example, new dates obtained
from early Cambrian sites around the world were telescoping the start of
biology's Big Bang from 600 million years ago to less than 560 million
years ago. Now, with information based on the lead content of zircons
from Siberia, virtually everyone agrees that the Cambrian started almost
exactly 543 million years ago and, even more startling, that all but one of
the phyla in the fossil record appeared within the first 5 million to 10
million years. "We now know how fast fast is," grins Bowring. "And what I
like to ask my biologist friends is, How fast can evolution get before they
start feeling uncomfortable?" (Nash J.M., "When Life Exploded", Time,
December 4, 1995, p74.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/1995/951204/cover.html)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 17:55:50 EDT