Jump to content


Photo

Question For Creationists


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#21 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 20 January 2010 - 04:02 PM

This is definitely a time waster thread. Strawman after strawman.

#22 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • NYC

Posted 20 January 2010 - 04:03 PM

Have you ever considered that a significant portion of "Evolutionists" are HINT HINT: not atheists? So if it's okay to ask a Biologists about the Big Bang, wouldn't it be more okay to ask a Physicist about it? Why don't you go do that?

#23 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 20 January 2010 - 04:06 PM

Have you ever considered that a significant portion of "Evolutionists" are  HINT HINT: not atheists?  So if it's okay to ask a Biologists about the Big Bang, wouldn't it be more okay to ask a Physicist about it?  Why don't you go do that?

View Post



When a Creationist discusses the Big Bang they are hint hint: Discussing with atheist, because they are talking about God, not necessarily evolution.

That's why we wouldn't, because it defeats the purpose of talking to atheist in the first place. Why ask a none atheist these questions??? It's called evangalism.

Of course if the Physicist is atheist and actually believes in the Big Bang then we'd ask them the questions too and more specifically so.

#24 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • NYC

Posted 20 January 2010 - 04:13 PM

When a Creationist discusses the Big Bang they are hint hint: Discussing with atheist, because they are talking about God, not necessarily evolution.

That's why we wouldn't, because it defeats the purpose of talking to atheist in the first place.  Why ask a none atheist these questions???  It's called evangalism.

Of course if the Physicist is atheist and actually believes in the Big Bang then we'd ask them the questions too and more specifically so.

View Post


So does that mean you'll refuse debates of the Big Bang with a theist? There are an uncountable number of "Big Bang Theorist" that are not atheist.

I've also met a few atheists who's never even heard of the Big Bang Theory. Good luck debating them on that. Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with atheism.

In any case, I'm done with this thread. Like a previous poster said this has been a huge waste of time.

#25 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 20 January 2010 - 04:20 PM

So does that mean you'll refuse debates of the Big Bang with a theist?  There are an uncountable number of "Big Bang Theorist" that are not atheist. 

I've also met a few atheists who's never even heard of the Big Bang Theory.  Good luck debating them on that.  Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with atheism. 

In any case, I'm done with this thread.  Like a previous poster said this has been a huge waste of time.

View Post


Well that's exactly what happens you use straw man arguments. I've debated alot of Atheist, your opinion doesn't simply make them or the debates vanish... Especially the debates that weren't completely made of straw arguments.

#26 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 20 January 2010 - 04:34 PM

Hi,

I have a few questions about some of the fallacies that Creationists make and would like to hear some honest feedback.

View Post


Oh you will get honest feedback from me, because everything you are saying is a fallacy.

Many Creationists often confuse the various field of sciences which seem to be the bases of many of your straw-man arguments.


This is a complete strawman argument.

When talking about evolution, creationists inevitably like to bring up the Big Bang Theory.  I would like to let you guys know that the Big Bang Theory has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.


This is the equivocation falacy. You have just used the word "evolution" with two distinct different meanings. And you ar incorrect when you say that BBT has nothing to do with evolution.....from wiki....

Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the Universe since that instant.


It seems like you don't know what you are talking about.

One theory falls under biology, the other falls under cosmology.  They are completely unrelated to each other so I don't understand why Creationists like to talk as if they are the same thing.


This is another strawman argument. Christians understand that BBT is about the evolution of the universe. Apparantly you are ignorant of this fact.

Creationists also like to bring up chemical evolution.  Hate to break it to you but there's no such thing as chemical evolution; only Chemistry.  Lighter elements do not evolve into heavier ones, they fuse.  Again this has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. 


This is another strawman argument. I hate to break it to you, but there is such a thing as chemical evolution. You may want to do a little reading and educate yourself just a little. ;)

And again you equivocate on the term evolution.

Abiogenesis also isn't Evolution but at least we are getting close.  Abiogenesis deals with the synthesis of non-living matter to living matter.  It actually falls under the category of Chemistry and has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.


Oh really? Hummm let's see...from wiki again

In the natural sciences, abiogenesis is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments, which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.

The first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure).[1] The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), approximately one billion years after the formation of the Earth itself.[2][3] By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[4][5] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[6][7]


Do you see those two bolded statements. They are contradictory and are fallacious. Just like your statements. Every abiogenesis hypothesis relies on evolution and natural selection of chemicals. If you educate yourself you will realize the fallacy that you are espousing.

How do Creationists expect anyone to take you guys seriously if you can't even get your field of sciences correct?


I wouldn't expect someone like yourself whose brain is trained to accept fallacies to take any Christian seriously. (at least six fallacies in this short post) Everything we say is just foolishnes to you. HMMMM, I think there is a bible verse about this...... :)

#27 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 20 January 2010 - 05:16 PM

Hi,

I have a few questions about some of the fallacies that Creationists make and would like to hear some honest feedback.  Many Creationists often confuse the various field of sciences which seem to be the bases of many of your straw-man arguments.

When talking about evolution, creationists inevitably like to bring up the Big Bang Theory.  I would like to let you guys know that the Big Bang Theory has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.  One theory falls under biology, the other falls under cosmology.  They are completely unrelated to each other so I don't understand why Creationists like to talk as if they are the same thing.

Creationists also like to bring up chemical evolution.  Hate to break it to you but there's no such thing as chemical evolution; only Chemistry.  Lighter elements do not evolve into heavier ones, they fuse.  Again this has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. 

Abiogenesis also isn't Evolution but at least we are getting close.  Abiogenesis deals with the synthesis of non-living matter to living matter.  It actually falls under the category of Chemistry and has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

How do Creationists expect anyone to take you guys seriously if you can't even get your field of sciences correct?

View Post

Hey Flatland,
What you may be encountering from some creationists is the underlying objection of naturalism, in both the big bang, abiogenesis, and evolutionary biology. That complex systems arise from less complex with no initiator or guidance, but by only the elements, laws, molecules etc. themselves.

I don't want to deviate, but I think we need to define creationist at this point also. There are creation scientists who work full time on creation research. Most of those who are in the movement forefront are credentialed experienced PhDs with years of experience, and many of them are former evolutionists.

Then there many, many Bible believing Christians who work in science fields. As well as research scientists, many of them are on the industry side of science, medical, and either in Bible college science departments --high school and/or elementary science teachers.

For instance, the Bible college I went to--the head of the science department had a M.S. in Botany and was working on his PhD last I saw him. He had done years of plant research at the University of Illinois. He was an evolutionist who turned creationist. That's why he was teaching at a Bible college.

I just wanted to clear the air on this, in case there is any stereo typing here. I go to church with 2 chemical engineers, a medical doctor, and a geologist. They are all creationists because of their personal relationship with Christ. Once you have met Him, there's no more doubt about how to interpret the evidence! :)

#28 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 January 2010 - 05:24 PM

Ron does not believe that the Big Bang Theory and The Theory of Evolution are the same... I expect that he will demand an apology also for your lack of understanding.

View Post


Scott, I would never ask for an apology from someone that deep in denial. Even if such a person was just an arrogant misinformationists. It's just not worth it...

One has to wonder if they really don't get it, or that they know it and just can't deal with it.

#29 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 January 2010 - 05:51 PM

Plus, I've never heard of chemical evolution?  Chemistry to my knowledge doesn't even deal with organic biological evolution.  Of course, unless... it's dealing with organic substances.

View Post


Hi Scott,

I was skimming this thread and I saw this, I don't think anyone has replied, but sorry if this is a repeat. Chemical evolution is sometimes used instead of 'abiogenesis', and I think that is the most common use for chemical evolution in the evo-creo debate. But chemical evolution can refer to fusion and fission of elements via nucleosynthesis, and it can refer to molecular evolution; which is looking at the chemicals involved in the DNA/RNA processes of evolution (i.e. mutations).

#30 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 21 January 2010 - 07:47 AM

Ah Yorzhik, still stuck on the 2nd law.

View Post

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh I think you don't understand who's stuck.

#31 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 21 January 2010 - 07:51 AM

The OP is simply asking what the creation arguments are.  Since you declare that the OP does not know creationist arguments could you fill us in on what they are?

To answer your other question I would like more information such as:

1.  What kind of turtle?
2.  Is this turtle real?
3.  How high is the fencepost?
4.  Is this fencepost isolated from other near by objects?
5.  How big is the turtle?
6.  Is this fencepost in an area known for extreme climates?

View Post

The OP asked no such thing. It simply stated that we don't know what we are talking about, with strawmen as evidence. The OP may simply not understand so I answered in such a way as to help dispel the misunderstanding.

The answer to all 6 of your questions is self evident within the story.

#32 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 21 January 2010 - 08:08 AM

No no no, you completely misunderstood the topic.  What I'm asking is why do Creationists like to bring up unrelated fields of sciences when talking about Evolution?  You guys do it so often that it's hard to follow you sometimes.  One second you'll be talking about Evolution, the next second you'll be talking about the Big Bang Theory and the next second about Nebula Theory.  Which theory are you trying to argue against exactly?  And why do you mix them all together as if they were part of 1 theory?  In fact, I've never seen the Big Bang Theory and Evolution mentioned in the same sentence until I came across Creationists. 

All I'm saying is that you should at least get the subject of science correct before you argue against it.

View Post

You need to learn to have a discussion before can understand the other side. I understood the OP but you apparently didn't understand my response. I even answered this post with my first response. Let's try again. This time, note the questions on the bottom and if you answer them we'll have a "back and forth" in which I'll attempt to help you understand. Again, I'm sorry you don't know creationist arguments which is why I'm trying to help.

Perhaps we can get through your misunderstandings and move on to a discussion between creation and evolution.

Let's start with this: can evolution happen without mutations? If you saw a turtle on a fencepost would you assume it violated the 2nd law and got up there on its own?

#33 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 22 January 2010 - 06:57 AM

performedge said...

Do you see those two bolded statements. They are contradictory and are fallacious. Just like your statements. Every abiogenesis hypothesis relies on evolution and natural selection of chemicals. If you educate yourself you will realize the fallacy that you are espousing.


The two bold statements are:

1. It should not be confused with evolution, (because it is referring to inanimate matter before the start up of life)

2. perhaps evolved from protobionts (which is in reference to organic molecules)

The first statement is accurate and there is so far no contradiction. Now added with the second statment one may assume that it is in contradiction, but they would be wrong. Organic molecules are the basic compounds and chemicals of life. Organic molecules are NOT alive, but are essential for life to exist (as we know it). When you know this, these two statements are no longer in contradiction or fallicous, but needed for abiogenesis to work. Your second bolded statement seems entirely disengenous as well when shown with its preceding sentence:

"The first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts"

Now the way to know that this is not contradictory is if you know how evolution works. Evolution works in populations NOT individuals. Abiogenesis does not rely on evolution and natural selection of chemicals. The chemicals were simply obeying the physical laws and this has been shown to be the case even today in lab experiments. I do believe that your wiki quote should have not used evolution like it did as it defines it in a slightly incorrect manner. There are better sources available for free that have a more detailed and better definition of the mechanisms.


The answer to all 6 of your questions is self evident within the story.


Yorzhik,

How is the answer evident within the story? I'm asking because the question, if to be taken seriously, needs much more information and here's why; I understand that this is off topic.

1. What kind of turtle?

The type of turtle in the story would give clues to the geographical location of said turtle, which would then be compared to extreme climates to answer question.

2. Is this turtle real?

If the turtle is fake then one could deduce that is an ornamental turtle put on the fence post for some sort of asthetic value. If it is real then the other questions will help solve the problem.

3. How high is the fencepost?

Is the fence post almost completely broken to where it is only a few inches off the ground? If this is the case you could assume that the turtle crawled onto it as turtles are known to climb small rocks for sunning. If it is not then the other questions will help answer the problem.

4. Is this fencepost isolated from other near by objects?

Like is it near a group of over hanging rocks? If it was then the turtle could easily have crawled onto the fence post. If not then the other answers will help solve the problem.

5. How big is the turtle?

If the turtle is small it could have been picked up by a bird and taken to a fence post to be eaten. If the bird gave up due to the tough shell then the bird would leave the turtle behind. If not then the other answers will help solve the problem.

6. Is this fencepost in an area known for extreme climates?

If this fencepost is near the coast storm surge could submerge it. It is also known that sea life is brought in with storm surges. The type of turtle would especially help solve this problem.

#34 Wallace

Wallace

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Age: 22
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Portsmouth

Posted 22 January 2010 - 08:39 AM

There are creation scientists who work full time on creation research.  Most of those who are in the movement forefront are credentialed experienced PhDs with years of experience, and many of them are former evolutionists.

Then there many, many Bible believing Christians who work in science fields. As well as research scientists, many of them are on the industry side of science, medical, and either in Bible college science departments --high school and/or elementary science teachers. 


However many "Bible believing Christians" there are that are trained in science and are creationists, they are outnumbered by "Bible believing Christians" who accept evolution.

The most honest creationists admit they believe what they do for theological rather than scientific reasons. Kurt Wise would be one such example;
http://en.wikipedia....s_and_criticism
http://pandasthumb.o...t-creation.html

Todd Wood is another;
http://toddcwood.blo...-evolution.html

Another example (although he didn't make his views so public) is Andrew Snelling who made it quite clear at the Sixth International Conference on Creationism in 2008.
"What if there was absolutely no evidence that the universe was young? No scientific evidence the universe was young. Would you still believe that it was young? Why? Because God's word teaches it. That's the only reason you need to have to believe the universe is young. God's word says it, therefore I believe it. That's not to say the evidences are not important. Of course they are. Because we're commanded to have a reason for the hope, and to give reasoned answers for what we believe and why we believe it. But we must always remember our Biblical foundations.

So often we fight over the scientific evidence, but are we winning by leaving out our Biblical foundations? Too much of our creation apologetics has therefore been based on the evidence alone. We need to keep arguing from the level of world views. Because ultimately the problem that people have is spiritual, the deliberate rejection of God's word."

Here are the slides from his presentation;
http://www.math.jmu....sm/DSC00413.JPG
http://www.math.jmu....sm/DSC00412.JPG

Sorry, these people can have all the PhDs going but they aren't scientists. The second they sign that 'statement of faith' at AIG or ICR they have renounced all right to be referred to as scientists.

An awful lot of professional creationists, who make presentations to the public etc, have no training at all in any field. Here's a prime example - . It's pretty embarrassing really.

#35 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 22 January 2010 - 09:15 AM

Cosmological Evolution is not evolution.  There is no "Theory of Cosmological Evolution"

View Post


I understand your point. Astronomers use the word evolution in describing their theory. It is an absurd assumption.

Mystery Behind Galaxy Shapes Solved

Now scientists have used dark matter theory to predict the menagerie of galaxies found in the universe. Their new model reproduces 13 billion years' worth of cosmic evolution, resulting in a surprisingly accurate tally of the different kinds of galaxies we see.


The fallacy of affirming the consequent (i.e., after the prediction, therefore because of the prediction) lurks to undermine any prediction – as does the problem of underdetermination of theories by data (i.e., there are always multiple theories that can account for the same data). Doubts should escalate when unobservables (like dark matter) are thrown into a model to make it work. None of these concerns disprove the theory presented in this article, but should turn on caution blinkers on the victory lap.

Turn on a computer, make a program after you have observed the phenomena, create an unknown, untested and unobservable phenomena called dark matter to explain it, than call it evolution.

#36 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 22 January 2010 - 09:22 AM

Bruce V. are you saying that dark matter has not been observed or has been observed?

#37 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 22 January 2010 - 09:38 AM

However many "Bible believing Christians" there are that are trained in science and are creationists, they are outnumbered by "Bible believing Christians" who accept evolution.

The most honest creationists admit they believe what they do for theological rather than scientific reasons. Kurt Wise would be one such example;
http://en.wikipedia....s_and_criticism
http://pandasthumb.o...t-creation.html

Todd Wood is another;
http://toddcwood.blo...-evolution.html

Another example (although he didn't make his views so public) is Andrew Snelling who made it quite clear at the Sixth International Conference on Creationism in 2008.
"What if there was absolutely no evidence that the universe was young? No scientific evidence the universe was young. Would you still believe that it was young? Why? Because God's word teaches it. That's the only reason you need to have to believe the universe is young. God's word says it, therefore I believe it. That's not to say the evidences are not important. Of course they are. Because we're commanded to have a reason for the hope, and to give reasoned answers for what we believe and why we believe it. But we must always remember our Biblical foundations.

So often we fight over the scientific evidence, but are we winning by leaving out our Biblical foundations? Too much of our creation apologetics has therefore been based on the evidence alone. We need to keep arguing from the level of world views. Because ultimately the problem that people have is spiritual, the deliberate rejection of God's word."

Here are the slides from his presentation;
http://www.math.jmu....sm/DSC00413.JPG
http://www.math.jmu....sm/DSC00412.JPG

Sorry, these people can have all the PhDs going but they aren't scientists. The second they sign that 'statement of faith' at AIG or ICR they have renounced all right to be referred to as scientists.

An awful lot of professional creationists, who make presentations to the public etc, have no training at all in any field. Here's a prime example - . It's pretty embarrassing really.

View Post


Evolutionist are generally avoiding debating Intelligent Design scientists. They prefer to pick on patsies and get surprised that they have a difficult time with those not properly trained.


US8f1w1cYvs&

This is what happens when evolutionist debate someone credible.

Stephen Meyer Debates Peter Atkins

#38 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 22 January 2010 - 09:43 AM

Bruce V. are you saying that dark matter has not been observed or has been observed?

View Post


link

The universe is thought to be made up of mostly dark matter, a mysterious substance that does not reflect light, so is invisible. Scientists cannot detect it directly; the only way they know it's there is by measuring its gravitational tug on regular matter.

Over 70 percent of the mass of most galaxies, including the Milky Way, is thought to be made up of this elusive material. Dark matter seems to shroud the remaining visible matter in giant spheres called haloes.



#39 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 22 January 2010 - 09:46 AM

I understand that. It's just when you read this

Doubts should escalate when unobservables (like dark matter) are thrown into a model to make it work.


it makes it sound like you're saying it hasn't been observed.

#40 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 22 January 2010 - 10:06 AM

I understand that.  It's just when you read this
it makes it sound like you're saying it hasn't been observed.

View Post

I thought I answered that question. We have not observed dark matter, we have observed the phenomena that dark matter may have created. Maybe you know something I don't. I posted a relatively new article from space that more or less came to the same conclusion.

Interesting a debate of sorts occurred in Nature several years ago about dark matter.

Unseen Universe: Welcome to the dark side

Unseen Universe: A constant problem

The pro argument:

No one knows what dark matter is, but they know what it’s not.  It’s not part of the ’standard model’ of physics that weaves together everything that is known about ordinary matter and its interactions.  The standard model has been hugely successful, but it also has some problems, and in trying to fix these, theorists have predicted hordes of new fundamental particles.  At first, these hypothetical particles were viewed as unwelcome additions, but now some of them are leading candidates for dark matter.  “These days a theory without a dark-matter candidate is not considered an interesting one,” says [Leszek] Roszkowski [CERN].  “The existence of the dark-matter problem is perhaps the most convincing evidence for physics beyond the standard model.”

The other side:

This sort of anthropic argument irks many scientists.  Critics say such reasoning is almost impossible to verify and doesn’t provide any deeper insight into the cosmos.  “Anthropics and randomness don’t explain anything,” says Paul Steinhardt, a theorist at Princeton University in New Jersey.  “I’m disappointed with what most theorists are willing to accept.”
    The trouble is that no other approaches are proving any more fruitful.  Some suggest that the problem lies with Einstein’s idea of gravity, which they then seek to modify in a way that fits in with dark energy.  “It would be very fortunate if the dark energy were a modification of gravity,” says Georgi Dvali of New York University, “because it would address fundamental questions of physics.“ But others see little mileage in such changes.  Leaving aside the cosmos, “it’s not so easy to get those theories to be consistent with our Solar System”, says [Michael] Turner [U of Chicago].....
    In general, the theoretical side of the debate is not a pretty thing.  “We’ve tried a whole bunch of things and nothing has sprung forward,” says Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.

For now, many in the field are left with a sense of unease: the tantalizing clue they thought they had discovered has turned into an exasperating mystery.  And with no clear explanation of something that could be up to three-quarters of everything out there, it’s hard not to feel like you’re missing a big part of the picture, Susskind says.  “We could be wrong about cosmology for the next thousand years. Deeply wrong.”






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users