Posted on 08/24/2009 9:23:30 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
August 23, 2009 — An alternative cosmology that doesn’t require dark energy may have the effect of putting the Milky Way near the center of the universe. That’s not the only interpretation, but it is being considered....
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
OK
God did indeed create life in a habitable place, the earth.
But on other planets? No reason from the Scriptures to think so, so whether creationists would spend billions of dollars hunting for life on a planet that has given no evidence for life in its past, distant or otherwise, is questionable, to say the least. I won’t speak all creationists.
As to motives and beliefs driving the present search for ET life, it’s been made abundantly clear that it is the desire of Darwinists to demonstrate that life could and did arise sans God on earth.
Really deep purple!! :-)
“The current evo-atheist Big Bang cosmology was specifically designed to demote our position in the Universe.”
—No, it was first proposed (by a priest) because Relativity seemed to demand it (indeed, Einstein specifically proposed the “cosmological constant” to “fix” that “problem”) - and then it later became popular because of a string of specific predictions that it made over the next few decades which came to pass. And it became popular despite a dis-taste by most atheist scientists, not because of them.
“As for evolution being a strictly biological concept, nothing could be further from the truth. Ever hear of Cosmic Evolution?”
—It’s a bit odd to try to conflate the two merely because they have the word “evolution” in the name. As fields of science go, you don’t get much farther apart and unrelated than “Cosmological evolution” and “biological evolution”. When and how our Sun will become a red giant doesn’t have much to do with what fish tetrapods evolved from during the Devonian. You may as well argue that “Cosmological evolution” is related to “cultural evolution” and the “evolution of the automobile”, or that string theory is related to a string quartet.
At least cosmic evolution and the evolution of the automobile uses pretty much the same definition for “evolution”. If Darwin had his way, it wouldn’t even be called “evolution” (which is why the word “evolution” doesn’t appear in Origin, instead he called it “descent with modification”.) One of the unique ideas of Darwin was that his theory of “evolution” was nonprogressional and nondirectional - i.e. non-evolutionary. For much of the 19th century, if you said “biological evolution”, people would think you meant embryological development. This made sense as the term “evolution” essentially means a predictable progressive development. The term also was used for Lamarckism and Haeckelism as in both cases they argued that the history of life followed a largely predictable progressive path. Darwin argued that the history of life was not evolutionary at all (instead it is one of increasing diversity) but people were too used to calling it “evolution” and so it was inevitable that it was going to be called “evolution” regardless of how innaccurate a term it is - so biologists had to completely redefine the term for their field. Cosmologists, otoh, use the term the way it was intended to be used - e.g. the “evolution of stars”, which follow predictable path.
“But (life) on other planets? No reason from the Scriptures to think so...”
So what? Should we base all scientific inquiry on what’s intimated in Scripture? Where’s the scriptural reference to FM radio? Contact lenses? Chemotherapy?
No reason from the scriptures not to find life on other planets either. Consider how much life is on earth, from volcano vents on the ocean floor to bacteria in the stratosphere -- it seems like God likes life a lot.
==I’m sorry, GGG, but the Big Bang theory was developed by a Christian to explain observed facts.
Did I not make it abundantly clear that I was referring to evo-atheists like Stephen Hawkings et al who openly admit that they scrapped the empirical observations of Lamaitre et al (which point to our galaxy being at or near the center of the Universe) for purely ideological reasons?
No, actually that's not the definition of Christianity (today) either.
Try again.
As you've been told time and again, it's much much simpler than that.
Yes, It seems He does.
I believe God created the Universe and all that is in it in spectacular fashion. I do not know how long one of God's days are, but we could still be in the 6th day of creation as he molds us into his image. We are intelligent and creative souls with a thirst for knowledge. If our perfect God accurately anticipated the efforts and ends we would go to understand all that we can, he has anticipated our exploration and provided for our thirst.
I do not believe humans will ever find the answer to the question, "Where did matter originate that once started the cosmic chaos?" I believe God has built in a limit to our knowledge in order to always provide us with the opportunity to have faith.
And speaking of faith, I have no reason to believe God would tell us how it all began in Genesis and how He created man and yet not really mean exactly what He said. In other words I have faith that He's powerful enough to get His message to us, and indeed tell us that message exactly as He intended.
It wouldn't have been difficult at all for Him to simply tell us that He made people in the image of...well apes (and whatever creatures came before apes, and before that and so on and so on back to the first single cell)...over alot longer than 6 days.
You're right about science, it's limited and will always be limited. (See my tagline).
Excellent tagline, Tpanther!
Why do you abuse and insult biblical creationists in the same way the evo-atheists do if the disagreements you have with us are “trivial compared to our agreements”? After all, you know that the language you used in #78 is offensive and potentially nuclear, so why use it? Why not just stick to the arguments and let the chips fall where they may?
GodGunsGuts in his 12th century goat-herder's tent is apparently unaware of the fact that Hawking and the "evo-atheists" didn't throw out the geocentric model of "Lamaitre" (sic), Lemaître himself did when he realized that a big-bang model was a far superior model.
Lemaître incidentally was a Roman Catholic Priest and an honorary prelate (a "Monsignor"), and was never to my knowledge accused of being an "evo-atheist."
Do you have any links to back up your assertion, Mr. Goat Herder?
So everything that exists is in the Bible? Pulsars are in the Bible? H1N1 swine flu is in the Bible? Quantum mechanics are in the Bible?
And when we read "In the beginning God created the heaven and the [planet] earth" did God just forget to mention the billions of other planets He created (hundreds of whom we have observed)?
Your theology is worse than your science. When you read the Bible, which you have hopefully read, did you make it all the way to Job? You should know the dangers of thinking you understand God.
Darwinian evolution is a biological concept. Why would biologists care about the cosmos or cosmic centers?
The idea is patently ridiculous. It's not their field.
lol...
Just curious, what specific part of our galaxy is the exact center of the universe?
Give me a break.
You throw around LeMaitre's name, obviously too ignorant and ill-read to know that after he posited a non-homogenous universe with earth at its center, he discarded his theory and INVENTED the big bang theory?
In fact, the Standard Model of big bang Cosmologists is called the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric in his honor.
You're a charlatan, and you'll have much better luck herding goats and warding off witchcraft in your neighborhood than you will taking us back to before the time of Galileo.
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.