Changes

::I don't think we can say this; last I heard, "those who believe in an old universe" don't believe in an old universe. Latest theory says there is more than one universe, perhaps an infinte number of universes.  Of course this is a contradiction, because the term "uni" limits it to only one.  See, these brilliant geniuses painted themselves into a box with this endless speculation which isn't anything more than trying to say there is no God.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::I don't think we can say this; last I heard, "those who believe in an old universe" don't believe in an old universe. Latest theory says there is more than one universe, perhaps an infinte number of universes.  Of course this is a contradiction, because the term "uni" limits it to only one.  See, these brilliant geniuses painted themselves into a box with this endless speculation which isn't anything more than trying to say there is no God.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::: My apologies, but ''what?!'' None of this has any implication on the existence of God.  Nor does trying to argue from a word coined in ancient Latin suggest that there is only one (this time confusing definitions and theories).  Science itself is about speculation, making hypothesis, and then trying to prove or disprove those.  I believe that it is perfectly fair to say that the the implications for those who believe in an old universe.  --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:46, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::: My apologies, but ''what?!'' None of this has any implication on the existence of God.  Nor does trying to argue from a word coined in ancient Latin suggest that there is only one (this time confusing definitions and theories).  Science itself is about speculation, making hypothesis, and then trying to prove or disprove those.  I believe that it is perfectly fair to say that the the implications for those who believe in an old universe.  --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:46, 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.