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 ...
==No, we’re scientists who have had to clean up after the mess that you’ve made.
You a scientist? After all the stupid mistakes you have made! Just goes to show that a certain amount of incompetents find their way into every field. And just like you, they all seem to gravitate to non-Reasons to believe.
==Am I a little rough on this issue? Yes. Read Galatians, the books to the Corinthians. Paul was extremely blunt. Read the Gospels, Jesus was no shrinking violet.
Exactly. As Augustine might say, bring it on Mr. “Pagan.”
A problem arises when we consider an expanding universe. Suppose everything in the universe were to double in size. The distances between galaxies would double, the size of the Earth would double, the size of all our meter sticks would double, and so on. It would seem to an observer (who will also have doubled in size) as if nothing had happened at all. So what do we mean by saying the universe expands?
The author is trying to fool gullible and unknowledgeable people.
Why do post things that are so easily refutable by anyone with even a tiny bit of science education? Read this article and watch the movies. It does a pretty good job of explaining expansion in layman's terms. If you want something more scientif, then I can certainly oblige.
Expansion is not a theory. It is a fact that is measured on many objects on a daily basis.
==I’ve had to help restore faith to people who have been duped by the movement you’re so proud of
Well seeing how you have proven yourself to be both ignorant and dishonest...You probably have no idea the damage that you and the fidgety-Ross are doing to the cause of Christianity (or do you?).
Do you even have the faintest clue what is meant by inflation?
No need to answer, as your ignorance of the subject has become PAINFULLY clear. Believe it or not, I’m actually starting to feel sorry for you.
I make the assumption (yes, that word again!) that terms and words chosen were chosen for a reason. And while we can debate about such things we, at a minimum, have to be talking about the same things.
I see no reason that an earth older than what the YEC believe is not in line with what the Bible says, in fact I think the Bible clearly indicates such.
But why that should amount to giving a pinch of incense to Darwinism I don’t know.
In other words, I believe that not just the doctrine that man physically is like God (as if God were physical) but indeed most all of the doctrines and traditions of men result from man’s attempt to understand God with his own mind.
To God be the glory, not man, never man.
At the root, you agree on Christ and you agree on brotherly love - the truly important things.
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. - Matt 22:37-40
For instance, when Paul and Barnabas split up over their irreconcilable differences and went their separate ways, the Gospel spread further and faster. – Acts 15:39-41
Or to put it another way, even though you cannot speak with the same voice, perhaps there are some that the one of you could reach that the other could not?
Thanks for your response. I’m not trying to be snarky or facetious, I’m just having trouble wrapping my thoughts around these questions. I guess I am just thinking in limited terminology because I believe that to have an “up”, you have to have a corresponding “down”, a “right” for a “left”, and an “inside” must have an “outside”. Thus, since we are “inside” the universe, and it is expanding, then there must be, in my limited thought processes, an “outside” for it to expand in to. Another poster to my question has said that outside the universe is God, and that is good enough for me. I appreciate you taking time to reply, but I am not sure how much I was able to take from it. I will think on it some more and pray I am not overwhelmed.
Thank you for your reply. I can accept that God is outside the universe just as He is inside for His essence permeates the whole of creation.
“....inflation is theorized to have occurred in the instant prior to the solidifying of the physical laws of the universe.”
So they can just throw out the physical laws of the universe in order to keep their theory valid? That’s not science. That’s miraculous. Just say the universe has always existed. That makes more sense. But then an intelligent creator makes a lot more sense.
"Blessed are the peacemakers..." -- Matthew 5:9
Additional FReepmail response headed for you, dear Sister...
I prefer, Perhaps it's best to say that time, matter, space, and energy came into being with "God created...".
OTOH, we agree, I expect, that "Big Bang" appears to be the best effort man has made -- so far -- at describing what happened when "God created..."
Of course I do. Inflation is the first few milliseconds after the Big Bang. Yes, things happened in those first few milliseconds that have not happened since, but inflation is nothing more than the first milliseconds of the ongoing expansion expansion.
And, by the way, inflation theory agrees extremely well with the observed facts.
Spare me the hystrionics. Take a look at the garbage that you posted. I said that the first sentence was a lie, was called to back up my statement, and did so.
You ask me questions and I answer them. Why do you refuse to tell me your educational and work background?
Perhaps you should read the first part of Augustine's quote:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. 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...
In other words, if Christians do not understand the facts of science, then they should not talk nonsense on these topics. Why? Because it keeps non-believers from coming into the faith.
You are assuming that Augustine had perfect knowledge of the universe and thus, by his own words, I'm a pagan. But tell me about the state of science in Augustine's day:
Of course not.
Augustine's knowledge was limited. If he were living today you can bet that he would be slamming you for "talking nonsense on these topics" about which you have no understanding.
You are way out of your league in posting this garbage because you don't have the capability to sort out fact from fiction. He called Christians "disgraceful and dangerous" who talk about subjecta they know nothing about.
You dislike me because you're embarassed at how I point out the flaws in what you've posted or written.
Why do you think that there has to be choice between the existence of God and the Big Bang? Why not both? You have put forth the logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
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.