De-Evolution is Alive and Well!

[InHouston]

I take it, then, that physics wasn't your strong suit at school?

I suppose then you believe in the theory of wormholes too. The Big Bang and wormholes are just theories, and while they can be argued to be mathematically plausible, it in no way serves as empirical evidence of their validity. No matter how elaborate a calculation may be, its premise can still be fundamentally incorrect.

Before the Wright brothers demonstrated controlled flight to the world, many engineers and physicists argued that mathematically it wasn’t possible for man to accomplish this. Some even argued that mathematically it would take thousands of years to accomplish this feat. One of the Wright brothers figured it out by twisting a cigar box in his hands while talking to a customer at their bicycle shop that led to warped-wing control.

Occam's Razor – The simpler answers tend to be the correct ones.

[InHouston]

InHousten said, "I'm atheist and absolutely reject the Big Bang Theory as nonsense. That's just another form of creationism for scientists. The notion that the entire universe was packed into an area smaller than an atom is as absurd as the notion of a god creating the earth in seven days. "

as long as "absurd" doesn't mean outright contradiction, i agree: one is as absurd as the other. but all the scientific evidence points to the former scenario and no evidence can be found for the latter. the universe, in 60's terminology, is mind expanding.

I'm not sure which side you're driving at here. However, there is no direct evidence of the Big Bang. It's just a theory.

[trish]

InHousten said, "I'm atheist and absolutely reject the Big Bang Theory as nonsense. That's just another form of creationism for scientists. The notion that the entire universe was packed into an area smaller than an atom is as absurd as the notion of a god creating the earth in seven days. "

as long as "absurd" doesn't mean outright contradiction, i agree: one is as absurd as the other. but all the scientific evidence points to the former scenario and no evidence can be found for the latter. the universe, in 60's terminology, is mind expanding.

I'm not sure which side you're driving at here. However, there is no direct evidence of the Big Bang. It's just a theory.

Of course it's a theory. The hubble expansion, the cosmic microwave background radiation, the distribution of atomic abundances, all number among a growing list of quantitative evidence in its favor. i'm not sure what you mean by direct evidence and why direct evidence is a requirement for the acceptance of a hypothesis.

[InHouston]

InHousten said, "I'm atheist and absolutely reject the Big Bang Theory as nonsense. That's just another form of creationism for scientists. The notion that the entire universe was packed into an area smaller than an atom is as absurd as the notion of a god creating the earth in seven days. "

as long as "absurd" doesn't mean outright contradiction, i agree: one is as absurd as the other. but all the scientific evidence points to the former scenario and no evidence can be found for the latter. the universe, in 60's terminology, is mind expanding.

I'm not sure which side you're driving at here. However, there is no direct evidence of the Big Bang. It's just a theory.

Of course it's a theory. The hubble expansion, the cosmic microwave background radiation, the distribution of atomic abundances, all number among a growing list of quantitative evidence in its favor. i'm not sure what you mean by direct evidence and why direct evidence is a requirement for the acceptance of a hypothesis.

Yes the Hubble expansion reveals that the universe is expanding in all directions. However, a balloon expands in all directions when you push air into it, yet no one can compact the balloon into a space smaller than an atom, and that’s just a balloon.

Cosmic microwave background radiation is just one of several electromagnetic frequencies that are prevalent throughout the cosmos.

Distribution of atomic abundances? Those same atomic abundances would be present if the universe were expanding or contracting.

To prove that the entire universe was compacted into a space smaller than an atom, would require you to compact the entire universe in a space smaller than an atom.

[trish]

InHousten said, "I'm atheist and absolutely reject the Big Bang Theory as nonsense. That's just another form of creationism for scientists. The notion that the entire universe was packed into an area smaller than an atom is as absurd as the notion of a god creating the earth in seven days. "

as long as "absurd" doesn't mean outright contradiction, i agree: one is as absurd as the other. but all the scientific evidence points to the former scenario and no evidence can be found for the latter. the universe, in 60's terminology, is mind expanding.

I'm not sure which side you're driving at here. However, there is no direct evidence of the Big Bang. It's just a theory.

Of course it's a theory. The hubble expansion, the cosmic microwave background radiation, the distribution of atomic abundances, all number among a growing list of quantitative evidence in its favor. i'm not sure what you mean by direct evidence and why direct evidence is a requirement for the acceptance of a hypothesis.

Yes the Hubble expansion reveals that the universe is expanding in all directions. However, a balloon expands in all directions when you push air into it, yet no one can compact the balloon into a space smaller than an atom, and that’s just a balloon.

Cosmic microwave background radiation is just one of several electromagnetic frequencies that are prevalent throughout the cosmos.

Distribution of atomic abundances? Those same atomic abundances would be present if the universe were expanding or contracting.

To prove that the entire universe was compacted into a space smaller than an atom, would require you to compact the entire universe in a space smaller than an atom.

1) A star of ten solar masses cannot ultimately resist collapse into a region smaller than an atom. The universe is a lot more massive than that.

2) Electromagnetic radiation is prevalent throughout the universe, but not cosmically uniform backgrounds of just the frequency predicted by the big bang hypothesis.

3) The quantitative distribution of atomic abundances depends on the density of the early universe and the time required for nuclei of varous complexities to form. The current abundances are predicted by the big bang model and would NOT be the same under all other circumstances.

[Quinn]

While I really enjoyed reading Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time," astrophysics definitely isn't my strong suit. That said, I am of the opinion that, at this point, there is substantially more evidence to support the Big Bang than any competing theory.

If you're looking for some really interesting reading, take a look at Einstein's work toward establishing a unified field theory.

-Quinn

[Felicia Katt]

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody
discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it
will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre
and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has
already happened"
Douglas Adams

FK

[BeardedOne]

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody
discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it
will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre
and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has
already happened"
Douglas Adams

Damn, I love that man's work and still kick myself for not jumping at the opportunity to talk to him when I saw him in Boston in 1980.

Because the human race is just one big ball o' whackos anyway, you can be sure that, two millenia down the road (If we haven't blown it up before then) someone is sure to be selling the Church at the End of the Universe theory and the words "So long, and thanks for all the fish" will be added to the standard funereal rites of most cultures.

[chefmike]

Scientists Call Fish Fossil the 'Missing Link'
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
Published: April 5, 2006
Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375 million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought "missing link" in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land.

In addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils are widely seen by scientists as a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who hold a literal biblical view on the origins and development of life.

article here-

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/sc...erland&emc=rss

[chefmike]

It hasn't been a good week for the bible-bangers....

Floating Ice May Explain How Jesus Walked on Water, Researchers Say

By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 6, 2006; A03



Combining evidence of a cold snap 2,000 years ago with sophisticated mapping of the Sea of Galilee, Israeli and U.S. scientists have come up with a scientific explanation of how Jesus could have walked on water.

Their answer: It was actually floating ice.

The scientists acknowledge that the Sea of Galilee, in what is now northern Israel, has never frozen in modern times. But they say geological core samples suggest that average temperatures were lower in Jesus's day, and that there were at least two protracted cold spells in the region 1,500 to 2,500 years ago.

In addition to chilly weather, their explanation depends on a rare physical property of the Sea of Galilee, known to modern-day Israelis as Lake Kinneret. It is fed by salty springs along its western shore that produce plumes of dense water, thermally isolating areas that could freeze even if the entire lake did not, they assert.

"I don't know whether the story is based on someone seeing Jesus walk on ice," said Doron Nof, an Israel-born professor of oceanography at Florida State University. "All I know is that during that time, a freeze could have happened -- and it could have looked like someone was walking on water, particularly if it rained after the ice formed."

This is not the first time that Nof, 61, has attempted to debunk a biblical miracle. In 1992, he and Nathan Paldor, an atmospheric scientist at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, wrote a scientific article proposing that strong winds across the narrow, shallow Gulf of Suez could have lowered the Red Sea by 10 feet, allowing the Israelites to cross to safety and then swallowing up an Egyptian army within a few minutes when the wind stopped, just as the book of Exodus says.

Nof, who described himself as a nonreligious Jew, said he hopes that critics will realize that he is an "equal opportunity miracle buster" who has taken on both Moses and Jesus.

"This isn't going to convince a believer not to believe, and nobody's trying to do that. At least, I'm not trying to do that," he said. "I personally believe that all these biblical stories are based on some truth."

To develop their theory of what they call "springs ice" on the Sea of Galilee, Nof and Paldor teamed up with Ian McKeague, a statistician at Columbia University. Their 23-page paper appears in this month's edition of the Journal of Paleolimnology, a peer-reviewed publication on the history of lakes.

In recent years, possible scientific explanations have also been proposed for several other Bible stories, including Noah's flood (seawater surging from the Mediterranean into the Black Sea as glaciers melted at the end of the last Ice Age) and Joshua's destruction of the walls of Jericho (an earthquake).

The reaction yesterday among biblical scholars to Nof's theory ranged from bemused detachment to real irritation.

"When I look at those verses, I don't need a scientific explanation. I'm a religious man, and I believe that God can do whatever he wants to do, that Jesus could do whatever he wanted to do," said Stanley M. Burgess, professor of Christian history at Regent University, an evangelical Christian school founded by Pat Robertson in Virginia Beach.

But Burgess added that he has "no problem at all" with scientists propounding alternative explanations for miracles. Rather than undercutting religious belief, such explanations may strengthen the faith of people who accept the gospel message but have difficulty accepting "signs and wonders" at face value, he said.

"If you need miracles to prop up your faith, then maybe your faith is weak to begin with," he said.

Wendy Cotter, professor of scripture at Loyola University Chicago, a Roman Catholic school, wrote her doctoral dissertation 15 years ago on biblical accounts of Jesus's stilling the wind and walking on the sea. When she heard about Nof's theory, she said, her first thought was: "Anything's possible -- but that's not what the writer means."

To the Romans, she said, the sea was "the ultimate force of nature, which was why the Caesars always claimed control over it." Jews in the time of Jesus also feared the sea and, moreover, were familiar with the Book of Job, in which God is described as the one who can "walk on the sea," she said.

In attributing to Jesus the power to walk across the waves, "Christians were using the imagery that had previously been used by both the Romans and the Jews to show that a person has been given authority by God," Cotter said. "Water, or ice, is not the point."

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...501709_pf.html