Changes

: Claims about the age of the universe rely on assumptions and are often not even scientific, as there is no way to falsify such speculation.  See [[Karl Popper]].  I don't have a problem with a section at the end that reviews speculation by some scientists, as long as it is not overstated and does not attempt to convert a liberal opinion into a statement of proven fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:41, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: Claims about the age of the universe rely on assumptions and are often not even scientific, as there is no way to falsify such speculation.  See [[Karl Popper]].  I don't have a problem with a section at the end that reviews speculation by some scientists, as long as it is not overstated and does not attempt to convert a liberal opinion into a statement of proven fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:41, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::No. They aren't speculation and they are falsifiable. If you'd like, I'll be glad to show you how all evidence gathered points to a 14.6 billion year old universe and even explain how they're falsifiable. As far as I see it, rejecting the current accepted cosmological views because you view them as speculation would necessitate rejecting almost every current scientific view since they're based on "speculation." After all, who's seen an electron? <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font>^{<font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font>} 01:58, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::No. They aren't speculation and they are falsifiable. If you'd like, I'll be glad to show you how all evidence gathered points to a 14.6 billion year old universe and even explain how they're falsifiable. As far as I see it, rejecting the current accepted cosmological views because you view them as speculation would necessitate rejecting almost every current scientific view since they're based on "speculation." After all, who's seen an electron? <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font>^{<font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font>} 01:58, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:: The issue with the quotes as they are included in this article is that they are just the single line quotes.  I would be curious to see the full text of the quote in http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/295/5555/605 rather than just the "... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong." The citations as they are and the links they go to is just a page of quotes.  Nothing of the article in there itself.  I also question the use of the quote "“We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186. -- That is 20 years ago.  There has been much progress since then.  If one is to provide a quote, it should be linked to the full text of the article.

:: The issue with the quotes as they are included in this article is that they are just the single line quotes.  I would be curious to see the full text of the quote in http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/295/5555/605 rather than just the "... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong." The citations as they are and the links they go to is just a page of quotes.  Nothing of the article in there itself.  I also question the use of the quote "“We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186. -- That is 20 years ago.  There has been much progress since then.  If one is to provide a quote, it should be linked to the full text of the article.