Divine Definition
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

My (unpalatable) views are based on current scientific thinking. The
mistake that you, and Wally, are making is that you assume that I am a
religious fanatic. You really need to read my posts again. I'm not
very
religious.

I've read your posts but I have no idea what you "view" is. Perhaps you
can
state it clearly.


OK! I'll state it again.

I can only see three possibilities for the creation of the Universe

1) It has always existed - and therefore must be continually expanding and
contracting.
2) It came into being in a spontanaeous event.
3) God created it.


1) seems unlikely because current observations suggest that the rate of
expansion is accelerating. That means that the Universe is never going to
contract again. Therefore a cycle is ruled out.


2) is based on the idea that the Universe is composed of equal amounts of
matter, and anti-matter. The theory states that *nothing* was actually
created in the Big Bang, and therefore no explanation is really necessary.
Steve Hawkins described this in his famous book.



3) Is more likely than the other two.


If you have an alternative theory, then I would like to hear it. Despite
my apparent arrogance, .. I *do* listen to evidence.

Regards


Donal
--

Divine Definition
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

My (unpalatable) views are based on current scientific thinking. The
mistake that you, and Wally, are making is that you assume that I am a
religious fanatic. You really need to read my posts again. I'm not
very
religious.

I've read your posts but I have no idea what you "view" is. Perhaps you
can
state it clearly.


OK! I'll state it again.

I can only see three possibilities for the creation of the Universe

1) It has always existed - and therefore must be continually expanding and
contracting.
2) It came into being in a spontanaeous event.
3) God created it.


1) seems unlikely because current observations suggest that the rate of
expansion is accelerating. That means that the Universe is never going to
contract again. Therefore a cycle is ruled out.


2) is based on the idea that the Universe is composed of equal amounts of
matter, and anti-matter. The theory states that *nothing* was actually
created in the Big Bang, and therefore no explanation is really necessary.
Steve Hawkins described this in his famous book.



3) Is more likely than the other two.


If you have an alternative theory, then I would like to hear it. Despite
my apparent arrogance, .. I *do* listen to evidence.

Regards


Donal
--

Divine Definition
 

"Donal" wrote in message
...
I've read your posts but I have no idea what you "view" is. Perhaps you
can
state it clearly.


OK! I'll state it again.

I can only see three possibilities for the creation of the Universe.

1) It has always existed - and therefore must be continually expanding and
contracting.
2) It came into being in a spontanaeous event.
3) God created it.


1) seems unlikely because current observations suggest that the rate of
expansion is accelerating. That means that the Universe is never going to
contract again. Therefore a cycle is ruled out.


2) is based on the idea that the Universe is composed of equal amounts of
matter, and anti-matter. The theory states that *nothing* was actually
created in the Big Bang, and therefore no explanation is really necessary.
Steve Hawkins described this in his famous book.


I was right. You've given two overly simplified possibilities, reduce to a few
words, and declared that you don't understand them so they are "ruled out."
You've ignored the infinite possibilities that will come in the future, instead,
you've implied that you don't believe you would ever accept them.




3) Is more likely than the other two.


Sorry Donal, this is the lamest "proof of the existance of God" I've every
heard. You're saying, "I'm stupid. Therefore, God must exist."


If you have an alternative theory, then I would like to hear it. Despite
my apparent arrogance, .. I *do* listen to evidence.


How about, "The modern science of cosmology is less then 100 years old. We've
learned a lot already but much of it doesn't make sense. Maybe in another 1000
years or so we'll have a better handle on it."

Divine Definition
 

Donal wrote:

My (unpalatable) views are based on current scientific thinking.

Just which peer reviewed "Scientific" journal should I peruse to read articles
which would suggest that "current scientific thinking" is no longer in accordance
with the Theory of Evolution"?

Cheers
Marty

Divine Definition
 

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:

My (unpalatable) views are based on current scientific thinking.

Just which peer reviewed "Scientific" journal should I peruse to read
articles
which would suggest that "current scientific thinking" is no longer in
accordance
with the Theory of Evolution"?

Sorry about taking so long to reply. I have a huge amount of unread posts to
catch up on!

I didn't mean to imply that scientists agreed with me. I was trying to say
that my arguements are based on scientific thinking.

IOW, I am not relying on religious beliefs to back up my contentions.

Scientists agree that Man could not have evolved in the available time
unless there were periods of *intense* development.

They try to suggest that man underwent extreme development during periods of
intense radiation. This theory is completely discredited by practical
observations.


Regards


Donal
--

Divine Definition OT
 

"Donal" wrote

Scientists agree that Man could not have evolved in the available time
unless there were periods of *intense* development.

That's the first time I heard that and doubt its factuality considering that
a new species of moth evolved in 'Blymie' in less than one human lifetime.
The original species was white matching the bark of a type of tree. A few
'mutants' were varigated but that was a disadvantage (made them more visible
to birds) so few survived to breed.

Come industry, soot from then new factories darkened the bark making white
moths more visible and vulnerable to birds than their varigated brothers and
sisters and the whites disappeared from the region whilst the varigated
thrived and evolved into a new species that cannot breed with their
anticedents any more than we can breed with other mammals. The much-older
white species still exists - just not in industrial England.

It follows that, if a brand new species of insect can evolve in less than a
century then man could easily evolve in millions of years, and I doubt many
'scientists' agree otherwise.

OTOH an Artic expedition experimenting to find the optimum length of their
artificial day discovered that 25 hours was about right. This argued that,
unlike Earthly species, we had evolved elsewhere - probably Mars. It also
explained why it's so hard to get up in the morning (c: