In other words, you don't know. You have a theory that explains nothing. It says only, "The creator has his own rules, which we can't even guess at."

Okay: fine theory. It covers all the facts, by saying, "See? The creator did it."

Some of us have another theory, and it explains *why* males have nipples. Our theory may be right...or it may be wrong...but it explains things.

The creationism theory is nothing more than a surrender to ignorance.

You concede that you don't know. Great. Then get out of our way; we're busy learning.

Silas

Creation by a Transcendent God clearly predicts that man will never figure out reasons for everything. If he could, God would not be transcendent. The fact neither Creationists nor Evolutionists can truly explain the reason for everything about such magnificently designed creatures screams out that God is transcendent.

"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; ; to search out a matter is the glory of kings." Prov. 25:2

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

[quote]
On 2002-05-20 17:11, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
I suggest you find a good website (say, Astronomy Notes) and read what about scientists are thinking about the origin of the Universe and the solar system.

Onmce you understand what the basics are, then you can argue for or against them. Arguing from ignorance won't win any converts on this board.

My question below this statement!
Just what is the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe? One scientist summed it up succinctly by saying: "The explosion from zero volume at zero time of a corpuscle of energy equivalent to the mass and radiation that now constitute the Universe."(2) What does that mean? It means that everything we now see or know about was once compacted into an unimaginably small blip that suddenly expanded in a huge explosion that created the very space and time it was expanding into.

Question:
From where this corpuscle of energy equivalent to the mass and radiation that now constitute the Universe come from?

And don`t forget "Arguing from ignorance won't win any converts on this board."

Orion38

Maybe God is transcendent on some other subject.

Silas

I would like to gently remind you that the only "arrogance" I see in this thread is coming from those who dogmatically follow the literal Biblical "interpretation" of the cosmos. Others have seen these Biblical myths as representing symbolic meanings not to be taken literally, but rather revealing something important about how people thought in the past and even today. Of course, some of these stories came to the Bible from the ancient Greeks and their Gods, who are just as profound and relevant in the mythological sense. (Mythological as defined by Joseph Campbell, for example.) The "arrogance" I see here is founded in the dogmatic refusal to simply accept the value of thought of one's fellow men and women regardless of basic agreement or disagreement. Accept what you like about someone with whom you disagree rather than simply mock a wise man's good name. In other words, turn the other cheek. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[quote]
On 2002-05-20 17:11, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
I suggest you find a good website (say, Astronomy Notes) and read what about scientists are thinking about the origin of the Universe and the solar system.

Onmce you understand what the basics are, then you can argue for or against them. Arguing from ignorance won't win any converts on this board.

My question below this statement!
Just what is the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe? One scientist summed it up succinctly by saying: "The explosion from zero volume at zero time of a corpuscle of energy equivalent to the mass and radiation that now constitute the Universe."(2) What does that mean? It means that everything we now see or know about was once compacted into an unimaginably small blip that suddenly expanded in a huge explosion that created the very space and time it was expanding into.

Question:
From where this corpuscle of energy equivalent to the mass and radiation that now constitute the Universe come from?How this corpuscle of energy was created?

And don`t forget "Arguing from ignorance won't win any converts on this board."

Orion38

You ask about the Big Bang? "A sickly pall now hangs over the Big Bang theory.
When a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that it rarely recovers.Jayant Narlikar, an Indian professor of cosmology, is a
leading theoretical physicist who also shares this view" (Sir Fred Hoyle)."The Big
Bang is not needed!" (Allen)."The theory has been disproved by present day empirical evidence" (Hermann Bondi). "The evidence has always been and will by definition always remain a borderland between science and philosophy.Some would say religion" (Hannes Alfven).

Best to perhaps start with those who have studied this longer and more professionally than most of us.
Start here: http://www1.cac.washington.edu/alumn...universe1.html

BB vs. SS (From BA's Website): http://www.badastronomy.com/mad/1996/bigbang.html

Try here: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...tml#BBevidence

And here: (From Ned Wright) http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...y_faq.html#BBB

This is just a start. (The Big Bang may be just part of a larger bubble that we cannot see.)

Ew, Thrust, Parry, Counter-Thrust, Now This, is What I Call, a Debate!

You see, Orion, unlike Prince you're not Dragging out Drivel, that has been Steadily Debunked for nearly Two Centuries!

Instead, you're asking questions on the Fore-Front, in that Grey Area between Knowledge and Ignourance, between I Don't Know and Very Old Hat; Which is Exactly where ALL of The Fun is!

In Regards to your First Question, no one, on Any Side of This Debate, seems to be able to come up with an Analogy, that is Both Easy to Understand, and Yet Still Preserves, the Underlying Facts; however, I do know of a Few Examples, that do come Pretty Close, What Follows, is the most Basic:

What you do, is you Take a Balloon, Preferably One that is Very, Very Small and Very, Very Strong, and you Start by Filling it Full of Very, Very Fine Sand; this Represents the Sum Total, of All that is, and All that Will Ever be.

Now that it is Full, you Fill it with Water, Quickly at First but then More Slowly; as you fill it, Notice how The Sand Grains Move Away from Each Other, more or less evenly, Ignouring of course, the Ones at the Top, as The Universe is Not Actually Connected to a Spigot [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Also Note, that because of The Bulk of The Water, Another Effect becomes Visible, The Futher Away Any Two Grains are, The Faster they Move Away, from Each Other; as Each Sand Grain Represents a Galaxy Cluster, This Illustatrates The Phenomenon, of Red-Shifting.

To Now Simulate The Big Crunch, Simply Pour The Water, out of The Balloon, Being Very Careful, Not to Pour Out The Sand Grains, we can't Lose Any Galaxy Clusters Now can we, and Return The Balloon to an Approximation, of its Pre-Filled State.

To Simulate The Flat Universe, Refill The Balloon, as Before, but This Time Keep Filling it, Slower and Slower, until Finally, not at All.

For The Big Freeze, you'll Probably Want to Put Out a Tarp; All That you Have to Do, is to Start Filling Up The Balloon again, Going Faster and Faster, until it Explodes, if you Splatter Water All Over The Walls of The Room, Then you're Doing it Right!

As for Your Major Question, I Think that Chip answered it Truthfully, with one Small Caveat:

It is Theoretically Possible, That Our Universe Began its Existence as a Black Hole, in a Parent Universe, as it is also Theoretically Possible, to Closely Examine the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation, and to Peer Through The Keyhole, as it were.

_________________
If you Ignore YOUR Rights, they Will go away.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ZaphodBeeblebrox on 2002-07-18 07:48 ]</font>

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img] Wow, Zaphod! That's the best explanation for cosmological principles I ever heard. You're a genious!

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

Optimum design can only be defined by the creator,...
I suppose so, but it is possible for ordinary humans to recognize suboptimal "design".

For people like Silas, Tiny Tim, STS60 & thkaufm who cannot begin to design a single living cell, to critique the Creator's handiwork tells you more about their arrogance than their science....
I never claimed to be able to design a cell. But that is irrelevant anyway. Pointing out that some arrangement would work better a different way is an observation of fact when the differences are clear-cut, e.g., certain problems within the human eye.

Evolutionists always try to impose their own views of functionality on God. Typically they argue for "survival" (design that "compromises the cell' offends them)...
Au contraire, it is *you* who is telling God what to do. You insist that He had to do it just the way you believe. Scientists, on the other hand, follow the evidence to arrive at increasingly-better explanations for how things work.

Scientists are not "offended" by the way the universe works. That's silly. The universe is, and there's no way us mere mortals can change it. I personally don't believe in denying the way it is, either; if how He did it doesn't jibe with what I assume, it behooves me to examine my assumptions. That's what science is all about; and I think faith is all the stronger for it.

---------------
A man said to the Universe,
"Sir, I exist!"

"However," the Universe replied,
"That fact creates in me no sense of obligation."

- Stephen Crane

Redundant design is something every good designer does,for different reasons. The fact that you don't,reflects more on his ignorance of design strategies than it does on his brilliance in proving eg that God did
not design antifreeze proteins. I would be much more impressed if you had designed and built a frog which had survived a few thousand years using antifreeze proteins.
While you're at it, why don't you just toss in a mechanism for self replication and one to slow it's heart rate to one beat every 10 minutes? Frogs do both."Survival" is not likely one of God's criteria, nor one of His
problems. As man implements God's mandate to "fill the earth," God undoubtedly planned to make room for him. Designs that 'compromise the cell' are absolutely consistent with the "curse" of Genesis and the "bondage to decay" in the entire cosmos. When God redesigned the entire Cosmos to implement the curse, He obviously did so in a manner to prevent man from subverting
His plan via technology. There are so many planned "decay" processes that man can never
even discover them all, much less devise way 's to subvert them. "Decay" is what we will have, and "science" will not explain it, much less overcome it! Designs that appear to have "lost information ('species' that crossbreed but produce infertile offspring and or "lost function" (pig's toes, whale's hips, back molars etc), are completely consistent with the curse of Genesis. They do not prove evolution, they confirm a Master Creator with a decay goal.
"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."
Isaiah 55:9.

So, is this cosmology or theology you guys are discussing?...

Religious non-sense [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] "When God redesigned the entire Cosmos to implement the curse" [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img]

Have you ever read the Genesis account for yourself? Or do you just blindly regurgitate the mindless drivel "preached" by ignorant televangelists? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

Can anyone here explain Prince's latest post to me? My brain tossed out a bunch of syntax error messages and stopped compilation.

Prince, if you could take a deep breath and sort out the pronouns so it was clear to whom "you" and "his" referred, that would help.

The second part of the post, though, doesn't bolster your position (although your position is kinda hard to pin down), because it is just one of several theological explanations which could fit the data. It is also lacking evidentiary support, explanatory power, and falsifiability in principle, and is therefore not useful as a scientific explanation.

I still can't get over the fact he actually quoted Hoyle on the "sickly pall" bit...

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

"Trying to wrap my head around creationist astronomy is like trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip: it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere." Phil Plait

Order, even lots and lots of detailed order is not proof positive of divinity.

If anything it is evidence that perhaps the only stable way for a universe to operate is under certain conditions, and that the only way for intelligent life to arise which might question the origins of a stable universe is from certain conditions. Happily, in our case, the conditions to create a stable universe are also condusive to creating intelligent life (at least in one documented case).

For all we know plenty of universes have erupted only to recollapse, fizzle-out, or fall apart because the right combinations of rules didn't fall into place. We can only question because we happen to reside in a universe which hit on the right rules for stability and us. Go figure. Now just sit back and enjoy it.

[quote]
On 2002-07-11 16:19, Wiley wrote:
let's develop a function &lt;i>y = f(x)&lt;/i> where if x is the mean radius of Mercury's orbit, y is the mean radius of Venus's orbit; and if x is the mean radius of Venus's orbit, y is the radius of Earth's orbit; and all the way to Neptune->Pluto. The function
&lt;i>f(x) = c0 + c1*x + c2*x^2 + c3*x^3 + c4*x^4 + c5*x^5 + c6*x^6 + c7*x^7&lt;/i>
where
c0 = -1.44096737664698
c1 = 11.42135624407643
c2 = -20.65869862572241
c3 = 16.05289608373315
c4 = -4.29716737386516
c5 = 0.46677148297260
c6 = -0.02084342288882
c7 = 0.00031609000609
will do this quite nicely. Just to make the numbers reasonably size &lt;i>x&lt;/i> and &lt;i>y&lt;/i> are in AU's.
-------------------------------
Your result give only a linear progression,this is the same result for the bodes law a linear progression, compare to this graph who showing clearly a relation betwen the inner orbit an the outher orbit of the planets
You take the size of the orbit of Mercury,
process it trough the equation, and out comes the size of the orbit of
Mars. Then you plug in Venus's orbit and get out Jupiter's. Then Earth
gives Saturn, and Mars gives Uranus.
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/astroeq...s/38eee982.jpg

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/astroequation/mathone.htm

An analysis of that equation gives this:
This equation has several degrees of freedom, i.e.
parameters that were selected to make the equation fit the
orbits of the planets. The parameters are (9/4*pi), ln30,
(2/3*pi) and F. Given the way that the formula is laid out,
I would say even the 9,4 and 2,3 are separate parameters. These
parameters were then selected so that the formula gives the
distances to the planets from the Sun in AU. Therefore, it
is not surprising at all that the result for earth is 1, because
the equation was selected to achieve just that result.
If the Origin of the equation is really from
there, this is the demonstration that manking in the past have an advanced knowledge of the mechanics of the solar system and the constant Pi to say the least!
http://hometown.aol.com/stoneequation/index.htm
Taking all the above facts into consideration, it is difficult to maintain the notion that the Solar System originated solely by the action of gravity on a random distribution of dust particles."
The question is what is the forces causing this observed fact of order?
The easy answer could be:
The Anthropic Principle at work,but
that explain nothing!

(Sorry for script error my first language is not english)

Karl
Thanks for the links