The truth about the mainstream cosmologist establishment

We'd have to have definitions of Macro evolution and "witness".Personally I accept that marcro evolution (at any level you care to define) has been "observed" -- not the same word as "witness".I will take witness as meaning happening in front of ones eyes (which for some levels of marco-E is close enough to true). However observation can be done in other ways. We "observe" the after effects of something for example.The biological definition of "macro-E" involves speciation. This has been seen to be happening right now.There are other definitions but they would have to be defined first. I've read some creationist material on "kinds" but they seem to have trouble being very clear on what the heck that means. Every definition that I've read that is semi clear is a case where we have "observations" for it. (and some start to tread into having humans and the great apes in the same kind :-) This seems to be part of the reason that a good definition is avoided. lol ).(I'm feeling this is getting off topic, but the topic seems to be pretty broad and we are in "Is It Science?" so I guess this is ok. The mathematics of black holes came decades before any possibility of observation existed. However, my limited understanding is that we now have observations that can only be explained by the black hole model. Is someone saying these observations can be explained in other ways?ABE Darwin did have some (not a lot compared to today of course) evidence for macroevolution before he published his theory. It is this that his model was attempting to explain.I would say that there is no "forced" at all. If you think there is please point it out.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-25-2005 16:36 AM

Observed Instances of SpeciationThis page starts with a discussion of the definition of species then carries on with examples.

It has not such assumption anywhere in it. It simply talks about how populations of living things have changed and what processes were involved. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about a creator. Evolution discusses living things and only living things. It has nothing to do with where they came from originally. The theory of gravity we have works rather well under a wide range of conditions.There are observed things about the universe which aren't totally explained. Therefore they are, as I think you might be suggesting, hypothoses for now. One hypothosis is that there is additional matter. Another might be other forces. We will need more work to pick between them.BTW I can't get to the "next page" on the post number 1's referenced site. There is nothing on the first page to support what is said.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-26-2005 02:32 AM

I think someone is going to have to supply the details of what they expect to be covered. Many cosmolgists are physicists. I know that even at the undergraduate level they will have covered electromagnetic field theory in some considerable depth. This is, in some schools at least, extended in grad school at the master's level.I'm not sure there is a lot to cover after that as they specialize in cosmology. What is it that is missing?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-03-2005 10:18 AM

I don't know enough about the model or the observations to say.