Changes

::::That last paragraph in particular cracks me up. "In this model, the laws of physics are suspended while creation is in progress..." followed two sentences later by "No non-physical requirements are placed on the model."  Brilliant! [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 09:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::::That last paragraph in particular cracks me up. "In this model, the laws of physics are suspended while creation is in progress..." followed two sentences later by "No non-physical requirements are placed on the model."  Brilliant! [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 09:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Sid, I would point out that Occam's razor is applied is a [[Ceteris paribus]] principle and perhaps you should consider that this is a complicated issue (for example the Big Bang theory has a starlight problem) and not write in stone that the "constants" have not changed in the past.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:34, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

Sid, I would point out that Occam's razor is applied is a [[Ceteris paribus]] principle and perhaps you should consider that this is a complicated issue (for example the Big Bang theory has a starlight problem) and not write in stone that the "constants" have not changed in the past. I would also cite this information: Recent news headlines have been buzzing with reports of research purportedly showing that fundamental constants of nature may have changed, including the fine structure constant, which is related to the speed of light....

A research team led by John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, intend to publish their research on August 27 in Physical Review Letters. (Many scientists frown on media announcements before the proper peer review / publication process is complete).[http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/fine_structure.asp][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:34, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

==The value of what?==

==The value of what?==