Dan wrote: If you really believe that, then you would throw most of evolutionary > theory out, beause we've only been making good scientific measurements over > a very limited scope of time, say the last 150-200 years.
The difference in limits of scope between evolution on earth and universal evolution, if you will, are vast. We have data points from near the beginning of life on earth to the present, but in UE we have comparatively few data points. Beyond that, where in EE we can observe and experiment upon the entire real time scope, in UE we must make our observations from a minuscule point within the system. I return to my analogy about the tiny observer 1000 feet beneath the sea. How much of earths evolution could that observer deduce? > > > But, in evolution, we make inferences concerning time by all sorts of > different methods. I consider them valid measurements. Just as I consider > orbiting telescope measurements valid measurements of distant, past events. > But, there is no scientific arguement that can possibly counter "Last > Thursdayism". > > But, if we limit ourselves to science modeling what we observe, then having > both the universe and life on earth evolve over billions of years makes > sense. > > The next assumption that I would make is that the earth is not in a > phenomenally unique position in the universe. I think entropy is a good > model to see what I mean. Take for example, a glass full of milk > delecately balance on the edge of a counter. A draft of air hits it; it > falls, and hits the carpet. The glass is broken an the milk is spilled, > soaking the carpet. > > At a microscopic level, each process involved is reversible. There is an > extrodinarily samll but very real chance that macroscopic phenomenon would > reverse, and the milk would unsoak, regather; the glass would reattach > itself and the glass of milk would find its way back on the counter. > > The arguement against this is entropy, but that's statistical. The chance > of this happening is 1 in 10 to the zillinth power, but not zero. Isn't this kind of a straw man? A fair coin will come up heads half the time, but an unfair coin is far from inconceivable. Positing that our galaxie is not in a unique place in the universe is akin > to this. It would be arguing that we happen to be at the very center of > the universe, and the highly isotropic nature of the observed universe in > all directions is merely a result of this. You can't disprove this > assumption, but we know no reason to accept it. So, models assume that our > galaxy is not singular in its position. Ah, but if you read the article on the cosmological principal you would have found in the last section (sorry about the font): Standard assumption that the observed high-degree of isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation> (CMB), combined with the Copernican principle<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle>, necessarily forces the universe to be homogeneous (i.e., the *cosmological principle*), is seriously undermined by some recent investigations.[2]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_Principle#cite_note-Undermining_the_cosmological_principle:_almost_isotropic_observations_in_inhomogeneous_cosmologies-1> In 2008, researchers studying fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background caused by the scattering of its microwave photons by hot X-ray-emitting gas inside clusters of galaxies found that the 700 clusters reaching out up to 6 billion light-years are all moving nearly 3.2 million km/h toward a 20-degree region in the sky between the constellations of Centaurus and Vela. This flow is difficult to explain by gravitation and may be indicative of a tilt exerted across the visible universe by far-away pre-inflationary inhomogeneities.[3]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_Principle#cite_note-2> [edit<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cosmological_principle&action=edit§ion=4> ] > Finally, I assume that modern physics (say from SR on) is correct, and we > do not live in a Newtonian/Maxwellian universe. If you give me that much, > I can show why the principal alternatives to the big bang have far bigger > problems in matching data than does the big bang (especially as modified by > inflation). You don't have to show me, I'll take your word for it. That merely makes the Big Bang the most correct of all the _proposed_ possibilities and says nothing about the possibilities we can't even imagine because our powers of observation and our ability to conduct experiments is so abysmally limited. What you could help me understand is how well the Big Bang works if the universe is not homogeneous and isotropic? Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
