Aslan,

You said: "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."

-- That could be your conclusion based on the evidence as you see it.
Popper I think would prefer to look at all the little bits rather than the overarching theme. Herein, he is talking about the ability to falsify at a macro level. Marxism, religion and pychoanalysis (Freud) and Jung receive the same treatment by Popper.

My recollection of Kuhn is that he sees periodic paradigm shifts (I think actually coined the word) in science. Happy to revisit.

"I think" as a rule of thumb the larger the entity of generic material the more likely it is that it will not propagate. Thus, genes can be be very long living replicated across many generations. Gene and lesser genetic material are less stable. I will need to with Richard Dawkins to confirm. If there is some form of disintegration this would seem to be consistent with the second law of themodymics, but remember there are constructive counter properties too: e.g., Messenger DNA. Otherwise, we couldn't be here.

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

I was not referring the above but rather the probability of existence of galaxies. The relationship between vacuum energy and matter density allow this [galaxy formation]in some manifestations of space in our universe (Hawking).

Friends,
I have not entered your closely defined debate, mainly because I have not done the research in physics. But I could define my personal opinion.
1. I believe in an ordered solar system.
2. Designed ionic chemistry
3. A planned DNA that manifests in life and decay.
2.Because of the interdependence of some microscopic life form upon developed species reveals an instant creation of species, and evolution within species.
2. I believe there is a deliberate creational plan for man.
3. I do not believe in a 6 day a>z creation of the entire universe.
4. I believe in a massive impact upon the Earth fracturing the Earth into moving land plates and creating a world wide tsunami.
5. Man as a cizilised intelligent being does not have more history than 10,000 years.
My impressions hold both instant creational and time evolving models.

Philo,

Thanks for your thoughts.

It has struck me Bishop Ussher's 4004 BC date would be an approximation of when Sumer started started using writing, so I would be comfortable with your 8-10,000 years ago (6-8000 BC) for the commencement of larger not soley kin based social organisations. I think anthropoligists hold that in the Middle Eastern hemisphere there was a transitionary Garden Culture period between purely nomadic existence and organised cities. People might settle for a few years, then move-on after exhausting resources. Maybe, this could push us back 12-15,000 BP years. Before then would have been familial-based nomadic systems going back tens of thousands of years. Some suspect that if a typical human from 50,000 years ago were to live today that person would have our intellence level. Sorry, I can't give you a source as my anthopology books are in storage.

Regards,

O

The Question remains:
Personally I believe there were a identical DNA couple (Adam & Eve) who were the original of the present human species that had a higher awarness of an intellectual and spiritual dimention to life. These humans began with a longer nurturing and educating period of their young about 5 - 6 years. These human had a hairless body following an increase in some event of radiation exposure(certainly not survival of the most robust of species compared with animals). The Bible talks about God breathing into the man who He had made an image of himself, that gave him distinction from all other creatures. God does not breathe oxygen so the concept is intelligent and spiritual life above other life forms.

Philo,

I think we should know more about the DNA matter in a year or two. The National Geographic Society is presently conducting a wide-wide study with the view of tracing the level of DNA commonality in the past. That is the level of respective convergence to a small pool of common ancestors. But, I think, we would be looking back to those people surviving the the last Ice Age. Thus, if confirmed, being an order of magnitude greater than biblical record.

Aslan,

WHAT NO TIME?

You said: 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.

Reply: Such a preferred zone cannot exist outsie of four-dimensional space-time. Euclidean geometry is only proximal. Image two cars travelling together at the same speed say 100 kph, relevative to each other the other car seems stationary, if you ignore external cues. Relatedly, a triangle really doesn't have 180 degrees, its only that the observer and the triangle are moving through space that makes it appear so:

The lesson is an Euclidean zone cannot existsverally in 4-D space time. How can there be motion without time? In support Roger Penrose states;

"Einstein's general theory of relativity tells us that the geomentry of our world [universe] does deviate from Euclidean geometry"... Here, "Euclidean geometry seems to reflect the structure of 'space' has fooled us". Aslan, that is 3-D space does not exist, without time. If it did everything would be motionless.

I am suprised a trained physicist would not recognise the above. Herein, I think Pericles has pint point about creationist bias by authors contributing to genesis site. Perhaps, dot-edu sites would be more reliable. The articles I have read from the genesis site seem to slant towards a priori positions.

KUHN

Kuhn states paradigms are held in "normal science" UNTIL such time as there is a crisis, then paradigm must change.

LIGHT

"C" is the speed of light in a vacuum. No message can travel faster than this speed given known wave propagations. Some exotic particles having mass do travel at and maintain the speed of light whether in space or travelling "through" matter such as a planet. The particles are slowed (and the speed of light) when the particles interact with matter.