You know, guys, this has turned into a two person, nearly unreadable
exchange. Why don't you take it to regular email and spare the rest of us.
If you come to an agreed position, let us know.

Steve

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

...in response to Fletis's complaint that early formulations of "Big
Bang" have one or more singularities...

I didn't complain about it. I didn't even say it.

You wrote "In other words, the math doesn't work out yet."

How does that equate to what you said I said?

I interpreted that as you were talking of the commonly cited problem in
cosmological models.

That's what science is---one certainly is hopeful that one's area
of
research will turn out to be fruitful. It's never certain a
priori, but
there has been much progress and I see no reason to think it will
not
eventually reach fruition.

True, but we don't teach that string theory will explain everything
any more than we should teach that everything will have a
materialistic answer...someday...hopefully.

What we teach of string theory is very dependent on the level--it
takes
a pretty well advanced student to have much of any chance to do more
than read a popular synopsis of present state, and even those are
not
really readily accessible to many. This is unfortunate, but seems
to be
the way in which physics is leading us at present. Many, including
myself, hope for an eventual path out of the wilderness, so to
speak,
that will indeed have some much less complex, elegant way of
reaching
the same eventual conclusion. At present, it doesn't seem possible.

It is this inacessibility I think which contributes greatly to the
lack
of acceptance by many.

Acceptance of what? You aren't clear.

Modern cosmological physics.

I think most people are more concerned about who's humping who in
Hollywood but that it isn't relevent either.

You lost me there...it seems relevant to me that a reason for many
people being willing to accept the ID or other argument _as science_ is
that they are unable to easily comprehend the bases of much of modern
physics.

...

So you are basing your beliefs on a estimated learning potential?
Fine, but that isn't science either. So why object to ID?

That's the definition of science...the continual search for an
explanation for physical processes by a following the scientific
method.

I was addressing your assertion, not the scientific principle.

I'm lost again...my assertion is that the scientific principle _is_ the
thing...

...
Any math. Any context.

2+2 = 4. That seems to work. You're making absolutely no sense
now...

To the contrary, you took issue with my comment that the math doesn't
work out yet, you took issue with it, while reafirming my statement.

I didn't understand the point you were trying to make--and still don't.

...

I guess if you can't accept basic arithmetic, I have to respond "any
theory".

I see a pattern here. You can't seem to discuss this honestly.

I can't follow the argument you're trying to make which seems to move
from one response to another...

I was "underneath the impression" (to quote a malaprop from a
former colleague ) that we were sorta' talking about the origin of
the universe and whether it is theoretically possible to learn the
"how"
of that and the subsequent evolution of the solar system and what we
observe around us.

Yes, we were. So why the comment about simple math?

Because you made a comment about "any math" which left me befuddled
about what you were talking about...

The difference is whether one has a fundamental belief that there is no
possibility for a scientific explanation or not. I see nothing that
implies to me that we are fundamentally prevented from coming to that
understanding. The "why" and if there is a "who" is outside the realm
of science.

I thought that why something happened was part of the scientific process.
Your faith is greater than mine but I don't see your point here.

No, the initial "why" is a philosophical question, not scientific. It
can answer a the "why" of why an apple falls down instead of up, but not
the metaphysical "big why" which is the one which I was assuming was the
one under discussion.

So I come back to the question I asked before. Did this designer do
the
design before the beginning of the construction phase or during it in
your philosophy?

My personal views on how or why the designer worked is irrelevent to if
one exists. I've said that many times now. I don't want to play the "my
religious views are better than your religious views" game.

I don't give a rat's patootie about your personal views per se, although
it's hard to know how to respond to an argument when one can't determine
what the argument is. I'm simply trying to find out what is the
position of this "I" in the ID which you're saying you believe is the
correct scientifid basis of everything. Unless one knows what that
position is, it's impossible to know what one is arguing for or against.

...