Originally posted by sonofbabylon
alternatives to the big bang which is quickly losing it's credibility because of the latest discoveries in cosmology, physics, DNA and archaeology.
DNA and archaeology have nothing to say about the Big Bang theory (please reference some sources if you feel differently) I also have a feeling that you're mistaking refinement and debate over the earliest moments of the universe as refutation of the Big Bang theory. Regardless, the Big Bang theory posits nothing about the existence or non-existence of God, so I don't see where refutation demonstrates proof of God.
http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~mackie/royal_society/nzst_article/universe.htm
His basic premise is that creation involves consciousness and it is also affecting events from the now into the past and future. The simple double-slit experiments at the photonic scale and the ones at the macroscopic scale using gravitational lensing show that a conscious observation changes the results--even of light that is still lightyears away.
You're speaking of the subjectivist Cophenagen interpretation whereby observation collapses the wave function of a quantum particle in superposition. There are, however, alternative theories and problems with the subjectivist approach:
Remember the bright dots on the scintillating screen in the interference experiment and the trajectories that became visible in cloud camber. Is there any necessary reason to think that things would happen differently if we did not observe the dots or trajectories? Not at all. It is obvious that it is the interaction between scintillating crystal and the electrons and not our observation that causes these events.
WHO gave to this observer-independent and purely physical process the name position measurement? We did . The nature doesn’t care if you call it measurement or not. What happens is apparently a transition of the wave function from one state to another one in an interaction with the atoms in the scintillating crystal. So what we should just say is “Under certain OBJECTIVE circumstances the wave function seems to make an apparently indeterministic transition to another state. The question What these circumstances are is a scientifically correct question that should be investigated before giving up and introducing an obscure concept of measurement as a fundamental irreducible concept in the axioms of the theory.
http://physics-qa.com/html/kqm07.htm
Summarized the problem of the subjectivist approach is two fold:
1.It is not clear when an event should be considered as observation(man, dog, insect? Which area of brain?).
2. There is no way to test its claim i.e. one cannot conduct an experiment without observation to see if of observation plays a role or not. The claim is unfalsifiable therefore nonscientific according to Thomas Kuhn’ s citeria.
http://physics-qa.com/html/kqm07.htm
For reference, also see
http://www.staff.fh-vorarlberg.ac.at/tb/tbSYNTHESE.pdf
Still the theory is indeed interesting and would necessitate conscious interaction for the universe to exist. Consciousness would also have to exist independently of physical existence since a purely physical observer is also the result of these same quantum events.
If anything, however, I find this to be at odds with the standard concept of "God". Indeed it would indicate that all observers are "God", involved daily with the creation of the universe.
Another example is the mathemetician at the Meru Foundation who is agnostic. He has discovered incredibly complex mathematical formulae embedded in the creation event as shown in the Hebrew Torah which pictures geometric structures depicting symmetry to chaos and back again.
This one is a bit off, in my opinion. In the Northern Hemisphere alone there are almost 8000 observable stars, pick any three and you have a triangle. That's 8.5301336E10 triangles. For the Star of David, taking into account 6 points, you can draw 3.6340670561780217E20 6 pointed stars. That some of these triangles and 6 pointed stars are geometrically "perfect" is not very surprising, much less suggestive of anything.
In addition, while the triangles, by definition, lie on the same plane the 6 pointed configurations definitely do not. Thus they only look like a star from a great distance away from a particular location in space. If you move in any direction except directly "away" from this configuration it's proportions will change.
Last, the stars are not fixed in position. These stars were not in the same configurations 100,000 or a couple million years ago. Poor reference points as the site you gave suggests they are.
Still another example is archaeological finds … which may rewrite history.
I see references to Stonehenge, the Long Man, etc. Many ancient cultures were great at astronomy and they built structures in accordance with their knowledge and perhaps as observatories. I don't see any special significance here.
The subjective Copenhagen approach is indeed interesting. The other sites you pointed to definitely seem lacking. Most of these types of mathematical games fail to take into account the size of the numbers quickly reached with geometric progression and permutation. Given a few objects (locations, letters, stars, etc.) the number of permutations is relatively huge. (e.g. a set of 52 cards yields 8.06581751709439E67 possible series). When finding patterns in these permutations the significance of patterns is usually overestimated, failing to take into account the number of possibilities.
~Raithere
