Posted on 01/30/2009 10:54:50 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Since the Big Bang story of the origin of the universe has been refuted by a host of external observations and internal contradictions,1 secular science has been forced to postulate additional, exceedingly improbable events to keep it afloat. One of these is “inflation,” which attempts to explain the apparent uniformity of the universe.2 But new observations by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe are forcing cosmologists to revamp inflation, at the cost of inventing yet another miraculous event to prop it up...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Are you now declaring that any disagreement with “religious” beliefs equals insincere or dishonest?
Probably came up with a new method of accounting for the observed red shift.
How about none, including those proposed by philosophical naturalism masquerading as science?
WEll... evolution will condinue to develop as they are able to isolate additional variables, but I do think the basic mechanics are there.
Ranchers and farmers use directed evolution to create that hamburger from McDonalds.
O.K., We don’t kick the really tender spots..for now. But as I said, I don’t see that, “In the Beginning...” has time associated with it or “day” must be 24 hrs. and since I have hope for you, I won’t be mean.
This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Technically-educated people should be capable of recognizing fallacy in their own thinking if they have been taught how to think, rather than what to think.
Critical-thinking skills do not generally persist once a belief in evolution is accepted, however.
I have hope for you too. Perhaps that is why we get along so well (outside of AIDS :o)
I believe that DallasMike is working on a word-study to explain how the terms 'evening' (ereb) and 'morning' (boqer) as applied to the use of the word for day (yom) are absolutely, positively inappropriate for 6 literal 24-hour days of creation in Genesis.
What are you channeling Coyote man?
Exactly. The latest theory is that an infinite number of universes were created, and we happen to live in the one that allows life.
Unless it involves 6 literal 24-hour days of creation and a young creation, in which case absolute terror enters into the hearts of men.
LOL!!!!
There have been articles posted here that maintained that either expansion had stopped, or some that even said that it had never happened.
It is relevant in some cases, including this one, for the following reason: The main argument used in favor of evolution, both here on FR and in the wider society, goes like this, "EVERYONE believes in the theory of evolution, except for a few toothless, barefoot, hillbillies who are too stupid to understand it."
The number of people who believe in evolution becomes a relevant issue in that case. And the fact is, most people do not. Despite decades of coercive propaganda, you have not been able to make your case to most Americans.
Others maintain that red-shift/blue-shift is intrinsic and does not represent velocity. Halton Arp lost his right to telescope-time because he insisted on documenting what he considered anomalous red-shift measurements.
I would be interested in such a study. It’s an interest of mine.
While I think the universe is much older than GGG does, it must be said that what we are trying to do is look at a shoe and try to figure out what shape of foot went into it.
Some shapes and sizes will fit better than others but until we see the foot we don’t know for certain and arrogant assertions that imperfect models based upon very incomplete information are “fact” is folly.
The YEC have a point in that Darwinism has required very long times for evolution to work so any age of the universe has to allow for at least that much time in their view.
But where I fault the YEC is in saying the time of the “days” of Genesis must incorporate “In the Beginning..” and hence the creation of the whole universe or “world” as the article says.
I’ll give you that one too
==But where I fault the YEC is in saying the time of the “days” of Genesis must incorporate “In the Beginning..” and hence the creation of the whole universe or “world” as the article says.
A straightforward reading of the Genesis 1 is obviously what the context calls for. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (along with light, and the separation of the same) all within the space of what the Bible describes as an evening and a morning.
I really don’t see any wiggle room here. Is it your position that God began before the beginning?
No space? Space being nothing, that would be no nothing. How does one quantify that? I think I've got the Big Bang down very well. It requires a critical amount of something to start it and that something has to be attracted to itself, thus all in one spot.
So DallasMike, how does it feel now that you know that Augustine was talking about you? Did the fidgety-Ross convince you that Augustine was on the side of his Old-Earth compromise with the God-hating peers you kiss up to?
Augustine—The City of God Against the Pagans:
II Of the Falseness of the history which ascribes many thousands of years to times gone by
“Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. … They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.”
Are you going to let Augustine get away with that? He’s calling your arguments PAGAN. What say you?
Oh, and right back at you :o) LOL...
From Augustine, to DallasMike:
“Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”
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.