tgamble

An old earth creationists wrote:

"Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, so that even now, 15 thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate?

If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundren thousand million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reaches its present size.

The initial rate of expansion would have had to be chosen so precisely for the rate of expansion still be be so close to the critical rate needed to avoid recollapse. This means that the initial state of the universe must have been very carefully chosen indeed if the hot big bang model was correct right back to the beginning of time."

How accurate is this? What's this critical rate of expansion and has it remained constantant and how could one tell?

It's just a lame argument from design but that's not a rebuttal that will be convincing.

Thanks.

Jonesy

well, as I have said before, we can ignore facts all we want (of incredible complexity) and still hold on to the belief that "very complex" processes can have no "intelligent cause" - but nothing will change REALITY. I promised not to mention certain links here, but you can ask the administrators, maybe they can tell you why my informative links don't qualify for these forums.

Simple logic:

Increasing complexity means increasing chances of design taking place, eg, the human eye or the big Bang.

Dark Jedi

Or perhaps:

Increasing complexity means complexity is increased. Nothing more.

Dr Rick

We really shouldn't ignore "facts" if we want to form coherent and rational ideas. For instance, it is a fact that there is no objective evidence to support Intelligent Design beliefs, and it is a fact that no scientific or technological advance has arisen from any theory or hypothesis formulated upon ID beliefs. That is reality.


<strong> Simpler concept: "Increasing chances" of an event or thing lacking any substantiation or quantified probability is pointless.

Rick

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Starboy

Ok Thiaoouba,

If it is so simple then what can you predict with it. Can you tell me the name and address of the designer? Can you tell me if he likes Monty Python? If your theory has no predicitive power, then as a theory it is useless. You may derive comfort from it, but there is nothing to learn from it. If you manage to come up with some new science, not just the same old science reinterpreted to support you pet theory, let me know.

Starboy

Starboy

Hi tgamble,

I am no expert, but that is bleeding edge science. There are several competing theories, and conflicting findings such as: dark matter, new repulsive force, Modification of Newtonian Dynamics. If there was a designer, he ain’t telling anybody how he did it. The designer argument is a religious argument not a scientific one. If you want to do science, you wouldn’t give it a moment’s notice. If you want to do religion, it would not be adequate. The whole thing is silly. Why waste your time on it.

Starboy

Aethernaut

Double post.

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: Schrodinger's Kitten ]</p>

Aethernaut

That's a positive assertion. Prove it.

-SK