Aslan and Pericles,

Evolution

Evolution is not a science as Popper defines science. Nonetheless, the axiom (principle) can be broken down into falsifiable sciences. Moreover, science avoids “conclusive” positions.

Aslan, what are these “divergent and contradictory phylogenies, pertaining to all forms of life”? Relatedly, Alsan, regarding your deliberation with Pericles, please note Popper is asserting himself as being a purist with respect to how a scientific theory should be constructed. Herein, he is saying evolutionary theory is not falsifiable – at a high level. He is not saying the theory is false in line with your conclusion, which is based on biology.

Cosmology

The more popularly accepted version among cosmology is that the universe is expanding and still expanding at a speed greater than speed of light (and faster than c), now. Light travels “through” the expanding universe, so contemporary physics is non-violated. Also, be aware "c" and the speed of light are not always exactly the same.

Hawking holds a position opposite to Trefil, based on modelling and COBE. The existence of galaxies is tentatively explainable.

About my comment, Aslan contributes, “No idea where you dreamed up the idea of 13 hours [light radius of the solar system]”. I dreamt the following: 8.7 billion miles over 186,300 miles per second (The sun’s heliosphere over the speed of light in a vacuum) = 46,698 seconds or about 13 hours. I still need read the Scientific American article. :-)

Paul Davies and Stephen Hawking have written reliably on topics such as Red Shift and Doppler. Further, Hubble wasn’t “as” mistaken as the answersingenesis site might have one believe. Hubble's basic Spectrum Shift ideas are today being applied to the measurement of energy leakage from cosmic matter.

Guys,

Fatigue

Any comment on Philo’s contribution regarding Christianity/Islam and God being “fatigued” or “unfatigued”? What is your expectation of Deity?

--- Cheers O.

Aslan,

You [Oliver] clearly have not understood the articles I referenced. Humphreys' White Hole Cosmology does not involve a "preferential timeframe for the Earth" nor a different "space-time frame".

“It is important to realise that this description requires that the universe have a preferred frame of reference” (Harnett’s Model 3], which concurs with Humphey’s White Hole Cosmology, p. 99, from Aslan's article.

Have you had an opportunity to review your position?

Pericles,

Nice try, but your criticism is baseless because you (deliberately) misquoted me. You intentionally left out (as shown by ellipsis) my condition: "If organic evolution is science, in the Popperian sense, and therefore subject to potential falsification,..."

In case you still don't get it, the point I am making is that if evolution is true science it is falsifiable. However, there is still no known mechanism that can produce new genetic information and many so-called example of evolution (Darwin's finches, Haeckel's embryo drawings, Miller-Urey experiment, Peppered moths etc etc) have turned out to be wholly inadeqate or outright fraudulent. And of course, evolutionists themselves admit that evolution is totally incapable of explaining the origin of life. So it seems fair to say that evolution has been effectively falsified. See also my comments to Oliver on this below.

Oliver,

You said: "the axiom (principle) can be broken down into falsifiable sciences."

Yes, this is the standard response from evolutionists ie. "Evolution is a fact - but how it actually occured is still being discovered and debated." However, as I said to Pericles, most of the fundamental components (your "falsifiable sciences") that make up the theory of evolution have been falsified (at least to the extent that evolution employs them). Eg. mutations. This is one of the core concepts of evolutionary biology, but there is no known mutation which has caused a net information increase in the genome. All mutations (even those that are to some extent beneficial) destroy genetic information. This is not some minor point - it is the very CORE of evolutionary theory! How then can you one say that evolution is in any sense factual, scientific or even a general principle? If the component theories that make up evolutionary biology are falsified then is it not logical to conclude the overarching "principle" is falsified? If not, then evolultion is a mystical religion.

"Moreover, science avoids “conclusive” positions."

You've got to be joking! Read Kuhn's book again.

Oliver,

You have a knack for citing totally irrelevant factoids in a bid to deflect my points.

I said light takes 8 mins to travel from the Sun to Earth and cited a page from Cornell's astrophysics dept. You respond with a calculation for the time light takes to travel to the extent of sun's heliosphere. What does this have to do with the time it takes light to reach earth? Nothing!

I said: "Humphreys' White Hole Cosmology does not involve a 'preferential timeframe for the Earth' nor a different 'space-time frame'".

You quote Hartnett's article which says: "this description requires that the universe have a preferred frame of reference."

Oliver, can you not see that a "preferred frame of reference" and a "preferential timeframe for the Earth" or different "space-time frame" are totally different things? Hartnett's quote does not even mention TIME! The preferred frame of reference he is talking about is the assumption that earth and Milky Way are at, or near, the centre of the universe. This assumption has been confirmed by the quantisation red-shifts. The difference in clocks on earth and those on outer reaches of the universe has nothing to do with being in a different time frame. It is caused by gravitational time dilation and the presence of a Euclidean (timeless) zone when the universe began to expand.

I doubt you can cite any notable cosmologist who thinks the universe is still expanding at greater than c. Humour me.

"be aware "c" and the speed of light are not always exactly the same"

Huh? c, by definition, is the speed of light! Do you mean c may not always have been 300,000 km/s? A creationist suggested that c might have slowed down in the past but was ridiculed for it. A couple of years ago, Paul Davies (and some other guy) suggested something similar and it was heralded as innovative science...Go figure.

What opposite position does Hawking hold from Trefil? Hawking does not doubt the quantization of red-shifts - this is verified, repeated observational evidence.

"existence of galaxies is tentatively explainable"

Care to elaborate?

Aslan,

I am elsewhere very occupied at the moment but I feel am very able to provide further information to substantiate what I said. In the interim I mention that sometimes the models physicists work with are not fully in tune with popular science books: e.g., the "c" and speed of light thing. egarding the radius of the solar system, this was mentioned because your cited author mentioned it in context with the extent of the localised phenemenon. Herein, light takes 13 hours not 8 hours to cross the (approximate) radius of the solar system. Lastly, I wasn't ignoring your retraction regarding the 8 hours / 8 minutes thing, we posted to the Forum at around the same time. I didn't see it.

Most cosmologist hold that "frabric" of the universe expanded faster than light in the very early universe and that the universe recedes at a speed faster than light. Whether locally the frabric expands faster than light is a matter for debate amongst the physists. The figure of 1.8 c has been suggested.

There is no centre of the universe in a 3-D sense, the redshift retreat is a universally (pun alert ;-) ) perceived phenomenon.

You didn't address the issue of the superpropagated liminal waves after these waves left the the special zones and reached regular space.

The above is just off the top of my head. I will provide support I have more time.

Aslan, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel here aren't you.

"You intentionally left out (as shown by ellipsis) my condition: "If organic evolution is science, in the Popperian sense, and therefore subject to potential falsification,...""

Look again, I quoted you in full. And to make absolutely certain I also referred to it as "the above 'if-then' exercise."

More than anything, it is the sneering and condescending tone of your argumentation that gets up my nose. To me, it doesn't matter one whit whether evolution is the answer. But it does concern me when folk like you deny that there is even a question.