Posted on 02/16/2005 9:11:58 AM PST by DannyTN
If you can get title insurance and clearance for private toll booths, we'll talk.
First of all, don't minimize the importance of the term "seemingly" above. As best we can tell now the universe is not, in fact, endless, something that in itself is very intriguing.
Secondly, could it be that a set of self-consistent laws of physics demands that the universe be this large? One common argument among ID'ers is that a variety of cosmological constants are incredibly precisely balanced---if they were off by but a small fraction the universe would be uninhabitable. Plenty of secular cosmologists realize this too, and ascribe no divine motivation to it. But the point is, for your question to be valid, it would have to be true that it is possible to create a universe that provides the same local experience that we enjoy on earth in a much more compact form. Perhaps it can't be.
Thirdly, who says that we are destined to forever be confined to this tiny little corner of the universe? Perhaps this is just our starting point.
For the record I am not a young-earth creationist. But I am a Christian. And I don't find it at all difficult to fathom that an infinitely powerful God might create an enormous but still finite universe just so that we might inhabit it.
And if other life was intended why would we be denied contact? As for science, find this life and prove your point that we are not as special as we like to think we are.
If we are indeed contact by intelligent alien live I will likely be forced to rethink my faith. I'm not holding my breath though.
LOL!!
Well, there is a little hitch. You'll have to move it to my swamp land in Florida.
BTTT
That'd make for a pretty expensive deer stand.
Not a thing. What is it about the Big Bang that threatens many of them, since a number of them make frantic posts attempting to "disprove" it?
Can it be that it points decisively towards the existence of God Almighty?
Probably not, since a lot of the folks you're talking about are Christians -- and so are the *majority* of Americans who accept the validity of evolution, since I see that's your next topic:
I find it terribly sad that I haven't time to debate and debunk everyone that thinks they can prove evolution is factual.
Evolution is factual. Feel free to try to "debate and debunk" me.
It's still just a silly little theory.
No, it's a very well-established theory in the scientific meaning of the word, supported by mountains of evidence, has made innumerable predictions which have been confirmed by subsequent testing, and has survived countless potential falsification tests. Nothing "little" or "silly" about that. But your attempt at hand-waving it away with snide labels is rather "silly" and "little".
The genetic code doesn't back it up,
ROFL! Okay, this should be fun -- support your claim, with specifics.
the complexity of life doesn't back it up
Actually it does, quite well -- the specific nature of the complexities of life (including the vast complexities of specific DNA sequences, biogeography, nested phylogenic trees, etc. etc.) "backs up" evolution in incredible detail.
(guess what? FreeRepublic just happened when a bomb went off inside Jim Robinson's garage),
"Guess what"? Your attempted analogy to evolution shows that you really have absolutely no clue about how it works. A "bomb going off in a garage" bears as little resemblance to the processes of evolutionary biology as "I spilled my Coke" has to the Mt. Saint Helen's eruption.
and the fossil record is NOT THERE.
Oh really? A wise man once said, "never argue with a fool, bet him money". Would you like to lay a hundred bucks on a specific test of your claim, such as "the reptile to mammal transitional fossil record is NOT THERE"? Please respond at your earliest convenience.
(Even Stephen Jay Gould admitted the fossil record was a big problem for them)
Actually, "even Stephen Jay Gould" got annoyed at how badly creationists lied about his actual position (emphasis mine):
The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim.So stop bearing false witness about Mr. Gould's position, okay?[...]
Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices.
[...]
A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuated and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."
-- Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
I'm amused to find the long-defrauded information such as "Lucy" (Australopithicus aferenses)
And I'm amused to find you repeating the longstanding creationist lie that there is anything fraudulent about "Lucy" or all the other Australopithecus afarensis [spelled right] fossil specimens... Perhaps you could state specifically what your allegations are, and on what you base them?
and embryonic recapitulation still appearing in my biology book.
Gee, really? Which textbook, exactly? Be specific, and quote what it says about embryonic recapitulation. Since it's in "your textbook", I'm sure you won't have any trouble citing it.
I'm looking forward to the discussion about evolution.
So am I, son.
Read up on the subject.
Oh, I have...
Find out if an Answers in Genesis conference is in your area (usually free) and attend. Listen to them speak, and sure, hit them up with your hardest questions afterwards.
Why would I want to attend a lecture by a group which is such a constant fountain of misinformation?
But stop acting so positively confident that you know evolution is true.
It is true, because that's what the mountains of evidence indicates happened.
Not even scientsits "know" evolution is true.
Sure we do, even if you don't. Consider the following position statement:
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.This statement has to date been signed by 542 scientists -- all named "Steve". It's the National Center for Science Education's playful rebuttal to the various "lists of people who question evolution" waved around by various creationists. The funny part is that there are more *actual* scientists (*most* of them biologists) JUST NAMED STEVE who have signed the above statement than there are on the creationists' lists of people from any profession, of *any* name, who question evolution. See the NCSE's Project Steve: FAQs.
For example, you seem to think it's unreasonable that we're alone in the universe. Well frankly, even without God, even if we are products of random chance, how do you know one way or another? You may be skeptical of God because you haven't seen evidence of Him; well, we have no more evidence of the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life, too. And all the speculation about how there must be intelligent life elsewhere because the universe is so big is founded on many untested assumptions and guesses.
For an interesting contrarian view---from a skeptic/atheist---regarding the likelihood of extraterrestrial life, consider this Michael Chrichton talk:
At the time, matter/energy/etc. was packed tightly enough together that it could hardly be described as a "vacuum".
It was only later (since space kept expanding while the amount of matter remained constant) that we ended up with our current configuration of a whole lot of nothin' between isolated lumps of matter (in varying sizes).
The "sound waves" scenario is that while the matter of the universe was still mostly smooshed together (how's that for a scientific term?), shock waves passing through the "cosmic egg" caused variations in density from spot to spot, which resulted in large scale highs and lows in the distribution of matter even after things had spread apart across cosmic distances.
But this isn't my specialty, so I'm pinging a couple of other folks to check over my post and correct any slips I may have made.
...and the light begins to come on...
I accept only the Big Band Theory - that God was "In the Mood".
To be sure, I think there are very strong cases to be made. This article could have easily been fixed. Had the author expounded on why the ripples didn't match Big Bang, and offered a direction of future areas of research, he could have easily avoided some major criticisms.
Oh, and I guess you saw I quoted in you in post 59 to RadioAstronomer. Hope you have a sense of humor.
That's the essence of the problem with creationists/ID. The author simply said the data support creationism and Genesis, case closed, no need to investigate any further because we know the "truth."
He does, and Hugh Ross is, in fact, all wrong.
No surprise. I have to say the one thing that bugs me the most about your average Young Earth Creationist is how they suggest that the entire Christian faith hinges on 144 hours. As if Jesus' death and resurrection didn't matter.
YEC AMEN!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.