"World Traveler" wrote in message nk.net...

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ...
World Traveler wrote:

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ...

Duane Bozarth wrote:


Tim Daneliuk wrote:


wrote:


[snip]


Oh really. Then do clarify my obvious lack of cosmological
sophistication. Just where, pray tell, did the massive
amounts of energy/mass/gooey-stuff-that-populated-the-universe
come from? Last I looked, the Big Bang is posited to be
the demarcation of the Beginning Of The Universe -i.e.,
It is the moment in time when things got rolling. [snip]


Not so. The best and clearest explanation I've seen is in Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos. The Big Bang took place after
some preconditions were met, and he includes a timeline in the explanation. Regards --



And these preconditions arose from where?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Read the book. It looks like you'd prefer an endless loop, which can just as well be tied to the ID nonsense. If there's an
intelligent designer, then who created the intelligent designer? And if that, then who created . . . etc.


It's silly to believe in a God because you assume he needs a moment
in time to have begun but it makes sense to believe unguided forces
led to everything coming into existence? Makes sense to me!


To have any rationale discussion of ID, there first has to be a rationale hypothesis explaining the ID format.


What would a ID format be. The Intelligent Designer was/is intelligent?


So far, I've only seen snippets that basically repeat items from the Old Testament, for which fossil records, cosmological tests
and observations, etc., are in disagreement.


No one can force you to look but why profess your unfamiliarity?


Now, if someone wanted to develop an ID scenario that some intelligent designer created the structure that led to the Big Bang,
and kept hands off from that point, as the universe evolved in a unified way, that would be one thing, but so far, no one is
suggesting that


See above. But how would that be less supernatural? I don't follow.



and there's no evidence to support it. There is a wonderful symmetry about the coordination between gravity, time, energy, space,
etc., that ties everything together.



No there isn't. Look up 'unified theory' sometime.


ID doesn't fit in the observable development of the universe.


That's you opinion, of course.


The current arguments for ID are contradicted by physical observation of the development of species, fossil records, and a variety
of tests and experiments on the behaviour of energy, time and gravity. ID is irrelevant to the testing, experimentation and
results in cosmology that have been taking place since early in the 20th Century.


Can you name some of the conradictions?



And if you're actually interested in this subject rather than passing time in an uninformed way, do take a look at Greene's works
and others that have good discussions on time, gravity, the Big Bang and related theories. Fabric of the Cosmos is not only a good
read, but it's a credible and understandable explanation of the interaction between gravity, time, energy, etc.


Why are physicists still struggling for a unified theory if someone has
it published already?