Changes

On the question of life:  The origin of life (not any subsequent changes thereto, just the simple origin problem alone) poses an insurmountable problem to materialist origin of life researchers.  There is not the slightest possibility of any stochastic mechanism alone providing satisfactory explanation for the incredible sequence of events required to form even the simplest of living cells (particularly on earth amidst the extremely hostile conditions which are known to exist here at physical life's beginning) during the known-to-be finite timespan (and everyother-span) of this universe.

On the question of life:  The origin of life (not any subsequent changes thereto, just the simple origin problem alone) poses an insurmountable problem to materialist origin of life researchers.  There is not the slightest possibility of any stochastic mechanism alone providing satisfactory explanation for the incredible sequence of events required to form even the simplest of living cells (particularly on earth amidst the extremely hostile conditions which are known to exist here at physical life's beginning) during the known-to-be finite timespan (and everyother-span) of this universe.

On fallacies:  The preeminent fallacy committed by typical science researchers today is the idea of methodological-naturalism, I.E., You can make no appeal to any causation beyond the boundaries of observable nature.  That is implicitly a biased point-of-view, and is a fundamentally flawed agenda if the actual goal is the pursuit of truth no matter where it leads--ostensibly the sovereign goal of science research itself (I know, I know...I'm probably just a naive idealist  :^)  All other current reasoning errors in science and philosophy research stem from this basic issue.

On fallacies:  The preeminent fallacy committed by typical science researchers today is the idea of methodological-naturalism, I.E., You can make no appeal to any causation beyond the boundaries of observable nature.  That is implicitly a biased point-of-view, and is a fundamentally flawed agenda if the actual goal is the pursuit of truth no matter where it leads--ostensibly the sovereign goal of science research itself (I know, I know...I'm probably just a naive idealist  :^). All other current reasoning errors in science and philosophy research stem from this basic issue.

Finally, on the 'Bouncing-Universe': This ancient Hindu notion has pervaded much of modern philosophy, but it no longer has any real weight in science research, other wishing thinking and longing for 'the good old days'... :^)  There was a research satellite named COBE (published in 1992), which provided 2 major findings in cosmology.  The most important one for this issue is it showed definitively that the universe as a whole is a "perfect black-body radiator".  These accuracy of the measurements leading to this finding have since been greatly enhanced, and strongly confirmed this finding:  The universe as a whole radiates all it's energy (100%). Do a little mechanics analysis and you realize- There's no energy left over to provide a so-called 'bounce'.

Finally, on the 'Bouncing-Universe': This ancient Hindu notion has pervaded much of modern philosophy, but it no longer has any real weight in science research, other than possibly as wishing thinking and longing for 'the good old days'... :^). There was a research satellite named COBE (published in 1992), which provided 2 major findings in cosmology.  The most important one for this issue is it showed definitively that the universe as a whole is a "perfect black-body radiator".  These accuracy of the measurements leading to this finding have since been greatly enhanced, and strongly confirmed this finding:  The universe as a whole radiates all it's energy (100%). Do a little mechanics analysis and you realize- There's no energy left over to provide a so-called 'bounce'.

Additionally, it is now known that not only is universe expanding, but that it's ''rate'' of expansion is '''increasing'''.  If gravitational braking alone was the only action taking place, you would expect a ''decrease'' in it's rate, not an ''increase''.  And, even accounting for Dark Matter, the universe is ''far'' short of the critical mass-density required to gravitationally halt it's expansion, even if Dark Energy wasn't in fact the dominant factor.

Additionally, it is now known that not only is universe expanding, but that it's ''rate'' of expansion is '''increasing'''.  If gravitational braking alone was the only action taking place, you would expect a ''decrease'' in it's rate, not an ''increase''.  And, even accounting for Dark Matter, the universe is ''far'' short of the critical mass-density required to gravitationally halt it's expansion, even if Dark Energy wasn't in fact the dominant factor.

--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 18:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)

--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 18:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)