Posted on 10/15/2014 7:16:12 AM PDT by fishtank
Really. Where do you get your information from? If you said, "Ken Ham", try again.
bookmark
That “hum” is consistent with red-shifted emanations from a, well, big bang long ago. There might be a few nuances we haven’t resolved, but that explanation makes a whole lot more sense than “it may be [insert random casual biased guess here]”.
We DO have an idea what the Universe is: open your eyes and LOOK AT IT. When you think long & hard about what’s happening and what you see, you can model what it is. We KNOW there’s a flaming ball 93 million miles away that we go around. We KNOW that there are similar balls, by the gazillions, far away and arranged in ways that couldn’t possibly exist on the small scale your “young Earth” model demands to make any kind of sense. We examine substances here on Earth, and find they exhibit nuanced behaviors ... then we look at the sky, and see similar nuances, and their deviations match predictable & observed deviations we see in local experiments (like red-shift). If you think about everything you see - REALLY see - then it only makes sense that certain behaviors and distances and times explain what we see. Sure we don’t have it all figured out, but it does make a whole lot of sense if you think about it without biases like “whatever it is, it’s all gotta fit in a 10,000 year model”).
Otherwise, the consequence of your assertion is either (A) you can’t understand enough about the universe to even tell if you exist, or (B) God is flat-out lying to us by making things look like what they aren’t. Are you contending that God forged the Universe’s birth certificate?
10^53 kg, dark matter not included.
’m surprised that scientists have not concluded that the missing matter (dark matter) and the missing energy(dark energy) from our Universe are in ‘black holes’.
If that were the case, stuff around the black holes would behave very differently (like get sucked in a lot faster).
Well, in fairness: Hawking believes dark matter makes up 90% of the universe, and we have no idea what dark matter is. But then, Hawkins has been useless ever since he found out the pope wasn’t scandalized by the Big Bang theory, and allowed his all-consuming need to disprove a First Cause to turn him into a hack.
Hawkins, Hawking. *pounds head on desk*
Two objections to an infinite and eternal universe.
A "realized infinity" is a philosophical absurdity.
Olbers' Paradox. The night sky is dark. If the universe were infinite and eternal, and ALSO if stars were more or less uniformly distributed throughout that infinite and eternal universe, the night sky would be ablaze from horizon to horizon. No matter where you pointed, there would be a star, and given infinite time, its light would have reached the Earth. But we observe that the night sky is dark. Even if the universe is infinite in extent, it hasn't existed "forever," because light from stars in that supposed infinite universe hasn't yet reached the Earth.
That's part of what annoys me about these ICR articles (when they're not outright lying). They ignore all the things a theory does explain. It's like there's a conversation:
"Secular science": "We've observed A, B, C,...P. We have a theory for why we observe those things. If the theory is correct, we should also be able to observe Q, R, and S. We've observed Q and R. And hey, it looks like we've just observed S! Oh wait a minute, maybe we haven't observed S yet after all."
ICR: Hah! That means your theory is no good for A through R! And therefore God!"
Exactly.
And their “scientific” retorts amount to: “We don’t like C because it violates our axiom. In one isolated case we see C’ which does fit, so we’ll throw out C and declare C’ true, and refuse to consider whether C’ contradicts observations D thru P.”
Just to throw a monkey wrench in their thinking:
Consider that the “cosmic background radiation” is light (albeit relatively low frequency). That means (tautologically) that it does not experience time! For that radiation, the moment it emerged is the same moment it hit our sensors (or wherever it stopped), with no time passing despite the vast distance. So...all the sniveling against “billions of years” is for naught, as is much of the complaints about “the universe can’t be that old” or “time must have behaved exactly like I perceive it right now without taking proven relativistic factors into account”. Universe is billions or thousands of years old? meh, for “ancient” light that crossed the intergalactic void from the possible (whatever it really is) remnants of the Big Bang, not even a second has passed.
Yes, the ICR DOES DO RESEARCH:
Of course, it is deeply into Christian apologetics. It would do more research if not abused by “evolutionary indoctrinated” accreditation groups that don’t dare allow anyone with a paradigm differing from their own to be allowed to award degrees.
“It should be a scandal in the church to teach this youngearthism, but it’s not.”
Well, it should actually be “heresy” against God and Scripture to teach anything else but youngearthism....but it is not. We have freedom of religion in this country. So, you won’t be tried as a “heretic.” However, you are essentially saying creationists are heretics. You are a foolish man and (if you claim to be a Christian)...you are the one that brings shame.
No they don't. Did you actually read the "research" at that link? First thing I clicked on was a book review of a book on Indian folklore, with the review arguing (the actual book doesn't) that it's possible that American Indians lived alongside dragons. If you think an unsourced, highly speculative book review is science, you have no idea what science is.
As opposed to what? Astrologers?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.