interesting

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

...and M-theory has been proven wrong...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Take your time. I have had too much beer for tonight. I'll answer tomorrow.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Calculations have shown there isn't enough mass in the universe to cause that. Also, you have the acceleration of expansion, which hasn't yet been shown to be slowing down, so as far as I can see, there isn't any evidence to support a crunch.

Space is curved as is the non-space the Universe is expanding into. Following the curve of non-space everything will once again become a singularity.

---

He was wrong with the accelerated expansion of the Universe. The Quoran predicts a Big Crunch, I stand corrected.

[edit] Well, Yousef must stand corrected...It's mere a creed.

I'm trying to make plans and am getting so confused.

---

I agree with Julie.
Calculations have shown there isn't enough mass in the universe to cause that. Also, you have the acceleration of expansion, which hasn't yet been shown to be slowing down, so as far as I can see, there isn't any evidence to support a crunch.

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

He was wrong with the accelerated expansion of the Universe. The Quoran predicts a Big Crunch, I stand corrected.

[edit] Well, Yousef must stand corrected...It's mere a creed.

I also believe in the crunch...

You do... funny

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

I asked you to start us out. Please do so. Little hints wont do it for me. Open your mouth, or, in this case type away...

Trouble is... I think ID is hoping to trick fish into getting hooks stuck in them this weekend... bass... not herring... so it's unlikely we'll get any answers to our questions for awhile... but then... that's never stopped me asking him them before! :)

Will be back :)

4 bass this morn and mowed my folks lawn, wife called me home to help her bake for a Church picnic.

Back later tonight...

Ooh... *guilty start* There you are, ID! :) I wasn't really expecting you back till tomorrow. Poor fish :(

Still... moving on :) I er... got a bit distracted by a red herring in another thread... the one Misery Guts was in danger of nodding off in (hi MG!) Had hoped we could start with genetic drift... but I haven't done my homework... will have in a few hours though :)

He was wrong with the accelerated expansion of the Universe. The Quoran predicts a Big Crunch, I stand corrected.

[edit] Well, Yousef must stand corrected...It's mere a creed.

I also believe in the crunch...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

He was wrong with the accelerated expansion of the Universe. The Quoran predicts a Big Crunch, I stand corrected.

[edit] Well, Yousef must stand corrected...It's mere a creed.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

[quote]Considering some earlier posts, isn't this latest post by our friend Robert a red herring.

Ahem... :) that probably happened because of a brief discussion between Clyde and myself about what there was before our universe turned up. In our defence, I would like to say we were waiting for ID to let us know about whether we should ignore the bit in the vanilla theory about dealing with impossible people :)

Still waiting... ;-)

I'm not quite sure what to do with ID's big bang post, being as we are in a "neo-darwinism" thread and given it's resemblance to a red herring... and I was sort of looking forward to getting some insights into why he doesn't like genetic drift... *sigh* ... never mind... I'm sure we'll get to that eventually. :)

I asked you to start us out. Please do so. Little hints wont do it for me. Open your mouth, or, in this case type away...

Trouble is... I think ID is hoping to trick fish into getting hooks stuck in them this weekend... bass... not herring... so it's unlikely we'll get any answers to our questions for awhile... but then... that's never stopped me asking him them before! :)

Will be back :)

4 bass this morn and mowed my folks lawn, wife called me home to help her bake for a Church picnic.

Back later tonight...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

+1

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

The statement was that Darwin never used them words. It is false, he did. Spin it anyway you wish but the text of what was said is the text of what was said.

Bottom line...

Where is this statement other than in your posts?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I had a long discussion on fb today with my teamcoach. We came to the conclusion, well actually, we knew it already, that ID will NEVER be seen as Science in today's Science because of lack of proof. There IS actually proof, written down almost 1700 years ago, people wrote down 'the truth' already, and then we have articles like this: http://www.harvardhouse.com/expanding_universe_quran.htm, that try to refute or rather falsify these words. I don't say I completely agree with ID but this raised my eyebrow.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Considering some earlier posts, isn't this latest post by our friend Robert a red herring.

Ahem... :) that probably happened because of a brief discussion between Clyde and myself about what there was before our universe turned up. In our defence, I would like to say we were waiting for ID to let us know about whether we should ignore the bit in the vanilla theory about dealing with impossible people :)

I'm not quite sure what to do with ID's big bang post, being as we are in a "neo-darwinism" thread and given it's resemblance to a red herring... and I was sort of looking forward to getting some insights into why he doesn't like genetic drift... *sigh* ... never mind... I'm sure we'll get to that eventually. :)

Trouble is... I think ID is hoping to trick fish into getting hooks stuck in them this weekend... bass... not herring... so it's unlikely we'll get any answers to our questions for awhile... but then... that's never stopped me asking him them before! :)

Will be back :)

But as no one has posted to say they agreed with the bolded text, then I must concluded that the bolded text is not the truth.

Following the threads indicates to me that ID often prevaricates. He often claims to have addressed a question when in fact he has not. If this is typical of what the Intellent Design people can up with I call that really limp.

---

Not true, once again. I have answered questions and given proof.

You're upset I didn't go down the rabbithole with you. I told you I don't do the red/blue pill thing. I just wont accept the red herrings you offer. Bottom line...

Hands up all who agree with the statement in bold.

I don't usually like answering my own posts, but I cannot reply to the only response to this one as the mods removed it, didn't they Robert.

But as no one has posted to say they agreed with the bolded text, then I must concluded that the bolded text is not the truth.

Considering some earlier posts, isn't this latest post by our friend Robert a red herring.

The statement was that Darwin never used them words. It is false, he did. Spin it anyway you wish but the text of what was said is the text of what was said.

Bottom line...

Doesn't really matter what Darwin wrote in his diaries or other archival material. His original theory has been tested experimentally and refined to reflect current scientific knowledge. Darwin's written work is not blindly accepted by scientists as reflecting absolute knowledge. Blindly accepting everything Darwin said would be unscientific and would be similar to those who believe that everything in the bible or the Qoran is literally true. As scientists, we accept that which can be experimentally verified. For this reason, the statement that "one species changes into another" is not incorporated into modern evolutionary theory because it is not true.

---

The beginning is a very good place to start.

I believe in the Big Bang theory. A Belgian cosmologist, Monseigneur Georges Lemaître, priest and scientist first came up with the hypothesis and later British physicist, Fred Hoyle coined the words. I find it more then theory, the microwave interference, later called the microwave background noise is in my mind a vindication of Monseigneur Georges Lemaitre early work. I think in short time we will be calling this work a science fact.

I do not believe in multi-verses, this is just a hypothesis. Alexander “Sasha” Kashlinsky of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center says he has found evidence of another verse. I'm not convinced, it is weak. I do believe that the universe is moving at the same speed and in all directions. If we was pressing against another, the part that was pressing would slow down. And since we used the word multi we would see more then one part of the background noise slowing down, not just the one spot he says he see's.

There is no way to test what is outside of our universe. There is no way to test the causal agent. If you light a firecracker you back away quickly so you are not caught up in the aftershock. There is no way to place yourself in the center of the explosion to escape it. This basic logic tells me the causal agent is outside of our timeline, ergo no way to test the causal agent.

I do not accept the words..."Scientifically Settled", when we use such words we stopped doing science. Some things we can call facts, light is bent by gravity would be one. Some things, far from all things, can be called science fact. But I know of only a handful of science that started out as hypothesis that we can now call, fact.

So, as the creation event goes, only the big bang theory has advanced, in part, to be called 'law' and as far as I know nothing else comes close.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...