For the alternative theorists:

What does the record show, that has escaped everyone ellse's notice?

An alien evolution just like the virus? It has no place in our Tree of Life. Yet here it is!

You have permission to rephrase it any way you like. I just want a clear answer to a simple question.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

there is no proof the universe began.
the energy required for such an event would be unimaginable.

what's so puzzling about my posts, maybe i can alleviate your concerns.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I answered the question in what was pretty text book stuff. (You didn't ask me the question though.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

read the referenced article in "science" and find out.

 

I'm not so concerned with arguing, I'm curious as to what you'd think other than the Big Bang model.

 

When will you ever learn. There is no 100% proof with regards to scientific theory.
But the BB/Inflationary model, is so well evidenced, that like SR, and GR, any future QGT or similar, will almost certainly encompass all three...ie the BB, SR and GR.

The Universe just maybe the ultimate free lunch [which you have refused to comment on] which makes any deity requirement fully redundant.

 

Of course. You quoted it.

Okay.

Of course it does.

Okay.

 

He can't and won't answer that, as admitting the Universe-space-time did have a beginning, leads to evolutionary and Abiogenesis deductions.

 

Yet either way evolution is not invalidated and Abiogenesis remains a logical certainty.

 

I uderstand and agree. It is Leopold who seems to question accepted science and logically tested hypotheses.

I am curious how he sees the scope and function of the universe and its constants.

 

"The following was taken from "http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/"
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Are There Other Scientifically Valid Explanations?

The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 150 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; AAAS 2006; GSA 2009; NAS 2005; NCSE 2012; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.




. there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.

I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "

- Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988),
from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

 

yes, because of the article i found in "science".
the alleged retraction not printed in "science", nor has "science" issued ANY kind of errata concerning the referenced article.
the attacks on lewin, calling him a liar, some even called him a creationist which he isn't.
read the article buddy, then start asking questions about it.

oh, about like everyone else does i guess.

 

Of course, it does.

 

My text book, I believe, has a lot more peer review than what you stated: "science."

I haven't looked at the article you mention, but like... I think you'd be arguing with a text book: Fundamentals of Physics 8th Edition.

(I haven't really looked at the other one I have.)

 

Exactly. Meaning of course, exactly the point that Evolution and Abiogenesis is not invalidated. Just to clear your meaning up dmoe. No one argues about some uncertainties in details and fine tuning...Some more fine tuning may even be required for the BB.
But these details creationists clutch for dear life, are scraping the bottom of the barrel in their continuing incessant efforts to invalidate Evolution or Abiogenesis, which they do not come close in doing.

One Swallow does not a Summer make.
You are continually focusing on one supposed, probably misinterpreted negative. If it at all exists, while ignoring the Mnt Everest of supporting data for the same thing.
And you still deny having an agenda?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

don't let "peer review" fool you.
don't ever think "it can't happen here".
dig around and find out how the peer review process is being manipulated by lobbyists, politics, and big bucks.

 

i don't remember reading this stuff in the article.
i DO know ayala and gould was apparently there.

well, why didn't you purchase the issue the article was taken from and post it?

and STILL no corrections and or errata from "science" concerning said article.