Big Bang - Big Dud

The "laws" of physics are not external constraints or obligations on the behavior matter and energy -- rather they are human descriptions of how matter and energy behave. What we call the laws of physics are actually properties of matter and energy.I know that this is just semantics, but sometimes the words we use to describe things can have huge effects on how we understand them.

This, of course, is irrelevant to the issue of whether evolution is a good description of life on earth.I seem to recall that you denied that there is any evidence in favor of evolution. I not only supplied a link that describes over two and a half dozen separate, independent lines of evidence in favor of evolution, but I even wasted an entire half hour composing what is my favorite line of evidence in favor of evolution.The question is:Do you agree that all known species can be classified in a nested heirarchical pattern? If not, why not?If so, do you agree that this classification is not arbitrary, but is a pattern that will emerge no matter which characteristics we use to classify species? If not, why not?If so, do you agree that if the theory of evolution were a fact, then life would exhibit this sort of heirarchical classification? If not, why not?If so, the do you agree that this heirarchical classification is evidence for the theory of evolution? If not, why not?

quote:

---

The orginal matter all of sudden appearing is the whole foundation for the Big Bang, am I wrong?

---

Yes, you are wrong. The Big Bang Model currently does not speak about the origin of matter, or even if there was an origin to matter. Our current knowledge of physics only allows us to speak of the universe after about 10 to the minus 14 th of a second after the alleged origin. The first 10 to the minus 14 th of a second is, so far, beyond our ability to understand, although people are working on this.The foundation of Big Bang is the observation that the distant galaxies are receding from one another, as we would expect if the universe were expanding. The foundation of Big Bang is the existence of a more-or-less uniform background microwave radiation, as we would expect if the universe were, at some time, very hot and very dense. The foundation of Big Bang is the observation that the universe very, very far away looks very, very different than the universe nearby, as we would expect if distance=time (from the finite speed of light) and if the universe has a history.As usual, the foundation for Big Bang is the observations that we make in the here and now, and that our knowledge of physics allows us to understand how the observations are consistent with an ancient universe that was once very hot and dense.

You are quite right. I got this thread mixed up with another one. My apologies. Before I leave off, though, I would like to take the opportunity to invite sog345 to return to that thread to discuss whether there is or is not evidence for evolution.

However, it is an example of mass being converted to energy.If energy has been released in a nuclear reaction, then the initial nuclei have a greater mass than the final set of nuclei -- the energy comes from the difference in mass.I guess mass is not quite the same as "matter", heh.

This has just been posted on another message board. New Scientist has an article about the "Crisis in Cosmology" conference just held in Portugal by the Alternative Cosmology Group, and the creationists are predictably excited about it.Does anyone know anything about this group? Are the challenges to "Big Bang" really that serious? Even if it is, should creationists really take comfort in this?Edited to fix link.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 29-Jul-2005 12:52 AM

quote:

---

It's the usual supsects with Arp at the top.

---

Arp is still at it? Still with the "quantized" red shifts? Or has he got something new?How I miss Hoyle. Even as his theories got shot down, at least he could move on and think of something new.