Physics professor endorces Intelligent Design

[phank]

Considering the many models consistent what what we can see, and considering the limits of our vision, I think the notion of some sort of phase change makes the most sense. Our best observations suggest that the phase (and locale of that phase) we currenty inhabit DID have a beginning.

Consider a crystal growing in a solution. Did the crystal have a starting point? Sure. Before that point, did the crystal exist? Nope. Is that crystal the whole universe? I suppose, if we define each crystal as a universe. If we expand our definition of a universe, then all we can say is we don't know.

[seer]

And we have come full circle! What is the evidence that the universe began with the Big Bang?

So you don't believe this universe began with a Big Bang? What is your alternative?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

So you don't believe this universe began with a Big Bang? What is your alternative?

I never made any such statement. You claimed that the universe began with the Big Bang and that there is evidence for this position. I asked you what this evidence is.

[seer]

I never made any such statement. You claimed that the universe began with the Big Bang and that there is evidence for this position. I asked you what this evidence is.

I gave a link for classic big bang cosmology. What exactly do you disagree with.

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the early development of the universe.The key idea is that the universe is expanding. Consequently, the universe was denser and hotter in the past. Moreover, the Big Bang model suggests that at some moment all of space was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe. Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I gave a link for classic big bang cosmology. What exactly do you disagree with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Well, for one, I disagree with the idea that an Appeal to Wikipedia is viable evidence. For another, I would say that the Wikipedia article is presenting a popular misconception regarding the implications of Big Bang cosmology. Can you point to any actual cosmological journals which state that the Big Bang definitively marks the past-temporal boundary of the universe?

[Jedidiah]

Well, the biblical God in Genesis constructs a firmament. That would be the most economical and practical device if the earth and its inhabitants were the purpose of creation. What we see in the universe is very different, meaning that we are no longer thinking about the God of Genesis who makes things and gets tired and is conscious of the time it takes and so on and therefore must be economical.

If you forego the economics of Biblical creation you also abandon the Genesis God.

The enormous size of the universe is the most surprising thing ever discovered. Nothing in the Bible prepared us for that discovery. It is shocking but it leaves you with a stark choice between the telescope and the Bible. People who try to use both inevitably get muddled.



True.


The evidence is what we find in our telescopes and microscopes. In my view, science can discover what God is and is already making progress in that direction. He inhabits the same space that you do, like the TARDIS it is bigger on the inside, infinite but physically the precise dimensions of your own skull.

I can not even begin to deal with the level of "muddled" that you exhibit with this post. It is beyond facepalm.

[shunyadragon]

So you don't believe this universe began with a Big Bang? What is your alternative?

Steinhardt's model, and other theorems and models that the universe began from a preexisting state, black hole or a singularity are possibilities, but there is no evidence of any sort of absolute beginning, and no one that I know of physics and cosmology makes that claim.

[firstfloor]

I can not even begin to deal with the level of "muddled" that you exhibit with this post. It is beyond facepalm.

It would make perfect sense to a Whovian.

[phank]

Steinhardt's model, and other theorems and models that the universe began from a preexisting state, black hole or a singularity are possibilities, but there is no evidence of any sort of absolute beginning, and no one that I know of physics and cosmology makes that claim.

Would you say that we face two data problems: First, that current technology can only see so far, beyond which lies models. And second, that even inflationary models cannot do any more than propose conditions that may have triggered inflation (that is, be consistent with it) as we model it?

As I read it, not really knowing what sorts of preconditions might give rise to separate universes makes it difficult even to say what those conditions could not have been.

[shunyadragon]

Would you say that we face two data problems: First, that current technology can only see so far, beyond which lies models. And second, that even inflationary models cannot do any more than propose conditions that may have triggered inflation (that is, be consistent with it) as we model it?

As I read it, not really knowing what sorts of preconditions might give rise to separate universes makes it difficult even to say what those conditions could not have been.

True, but nonetheless our knowledge in Quantum Mechanics is improving the models and some end up in the trashcan.

[seer]

Steinhardt's model, and other theorems and models that the universe began from a preexisting state, black hole or a singularity are possibilities, but there is no evidence of any sort of absolute beginning, and no one that I know of physics and cosmology makes that claim.

That is your problem Shuny, you can not show that the beginning of our universe is not the beginning of everything. For there is zero evidence for anything else. All we know is that this universe exists and it is finite. Everything else is speculation.

[seer]

Well, for one, I disagree with the idea that an Appeal to Wikipedia is viable evidence. For another, I would say that the Wikipedia article is presenting a popular misconception regarding the implications of Big Bang cosmology. Can you point to any actual cosmological journals which state that the Big Bang definitively marks the past-temporal boundary of the universe?

Nonsense Boxing. There is nothing wrong with the Wikipedia link. And you know it.

This is from the Berkeley Cosmology Group:

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/about.html

The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity.

From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born.

It is hard to imagine the very beginning of the Universe. Physical laws as we know them did not exist due to the presence of incredibly large amounts of energy, in the form of photons. Some of the photons became quarks, and then the quarks formed neutrons and protons. Eventually huge numbers of Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium nuclei formed. The process of forming all these nuclei is called big bang nucleosynthesis. Theoretical predictions about the amounts and types of elements formed during the big bang have been made and seem to agree with observation. Furthermore, the cosmic microwave background (CMB), a theoretical prediction about photons left over from the big bang, was discovered in the 1960's and mapped out by a team at Berkeley in the early 1990's.

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Educat...ng_Primer.html

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Nonsense Boxing. There is nothing wrong with the Wikipedia link. And you know it.

Actually, I know the precise opposite, as I already stated.

This is from the Berkeley Cosmology Group:

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/about.html

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Educat...ng_Primer.html

Hurray, another oversimplification of complex physics which is targeted towards laymen.

I asked for physics or cosmology journals which describe the Big Bang as the absolute temporal past boundary of the universe. You know, the ones that actually have to present and interpret data rather than try to translate complex topics into a form that people outside the field can understand.

[shunyadragon]

That is your problem Shuny, you can not show that the beginning of our universe is not the beginning of everything.

Argument from Ignorance, and you cannot prove the negative.

For there is zero evidence for anything else. All we know is that this universe exists and it is finite. Everything else is speculation.

We do not know the universe is finite. You have been asked by a number of Twebbers and still have not presented the evidence that our physical existence has an absolute beginning (from nothing?!?!?!). Still waiting . . .

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense Boxing. There is nothing wrong with the Wikipedia link. And you know it.

This is from the Berkeley Cosmology Group:

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/about.html



http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Educat...ng_Primer.html

Nothing wrong with the Wikipedia link, but it does not refer to evidence for an absolute beginning of everything.

Be specific please to reference that describes or defines evidence of an absolute beginning of our physical existence.


No brass ring nor cigar, this reference does not refer to an absolute beginning of everything. Yes, 'it is hard to imagine the very beginning,' because we have no evidence for the very beginning. Please note that in this theorem the singularity exists prior to the 'Big Bang' of our universe, therefore the Big Bang is not the absolute beginning of our physical existence. Yes, in this model something exists before the 'Big Bang.'