cej@ll1.UUCP (Chuck Jones MMOCS) (09/11/84)
[What a cruel god, to knowingly make an Eve that will eat the apple.] > As far as the age of the universe is concerned, I believe the > current estimate is 15 Billion years. I suppose *something* had > to be around back then, but what was there before that? One of > the puzzles that has plagued me is that all light has a source > somewhere. If you went back far enough in time, it seems that > you should theoretically reach a point where there was no light in > existence. Since the speed of light is the constant by which we > measure time, could there be any such thing as "time" where there > is no light? I digress. > > Paul Dubuc {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbscc!pmd It may plague you Paul, but it doesn't plague cosmic evolutionists (those who hold that the universe evolved from a single cosmic event, reguardless of the origin of life on this planet). It simply interests them. According to the latest theories, (sorry, but I don't believe that it would presently be falsifiable), there was a point at which all the matter/energy in the universe was in/at a single point, and the forces of the universe were, for a moment unified. At this point there was extreme warping of the time/space "fabric". Just prior to this was the situation you envision. For a timeless moment time and space did not exist. What caused the great blast of energy that "formed" time and space is still anybody's guess, but the only "natural" answer (and I have a very natural god) is that the oscillating universe theory is the closest to what happened. Catch you next time cycle Chuck Jones ...mgnetp!ll1!cej
hardlj@drutx.UUCP (09/12/84)
[] > As far as the age of the universe is concerned, I believe the > current estimate is 15 Billion years. I suppose *something* had > to be around back then, but what was there before that? One of > the puzzles that has plagued me is that all light has a source > somewhere. If you went back far enough in time, it seems that > you should theoretically reach a point where there was no light in > existence. Since the speed of light is the constant by which we > measure time, could there be any such thing as "time" where there > is no light? I digress. > > Paul Dubuc {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbscc!pmd Carl Sagan wrote an interesting chapter about time before he wrote the more celebrated book 'Cosmos'. Unfortunately I can not remember the book's name in which it appeared. Sagan presented the view that time in the negative direction might be an infinite regression. definition of infinite regression by example: Suppose you are standing one mile from your house and every ten minutes you walk half way from where you are currently standing to the house. How long does it take you to reach home? Get the picture? According to Sagan's theory, there is no absolute beginning. ihnp4!drutx!hardlj
tynor@gitpyr.UUCP (Steve Tynor) (09/22/84)
Paul DuBois: > > I have a question, the purpose of which is to see where > evolutionists on the net stand in regard to what I am > allowed as a basis for asserting a creationist viewpoint. > > The statement "God created" clearly may be interpreted in a > religious manner. Is it allowed as a starting point? That is, > is it scientifically acceptable to the evolutionists on the net > to postulate a Creator, and then make predictions using naturalistic > processes on the basis of that postulate? Or is that, too, a > religious statement, and therefore disallowed? It's probably a religious statement that should not be allowed. I say probably, because it's possible (I'm giving you every benifit of the doubt) that when you aren't so foolish as too suppose that science can accept the notion of a supernatural Creator. Such a creator would be capable of *anything*, and therfore not bound by the naturalistic processes that you wish to impose (which a scientist *must* impose on anything). It is no good to argue that evolution is full of holes and not provide an acceptable alternative. Divine creation can never be considered scientific because it relies (even if only for the initial creation) on supernatural intervention into the natural world. Let us suppose that your Creator is not a supernatural one, but mearly some sort of highly advanced 'alien' who decided to create the earth and it's fauna and flora. Do you have scientific evidence that such a being exists? If so, then your statement should not be dissallowed. If you merely wish to assume that such a being exists (a fact which the rest of us must take on faith...) then I see no reason why your argument should be considered scientific. Steve Tynor Georgia Institute of Technology ihnp4!gatech!gitpyr!tynor