Posted on 05/30/2017 10:44:18 AM PDT by fishtank
Big Bang Blowup at Scientific American
by Jake Hebert, Ph.D. *
The February 2017 issue of Scientific American contains an article by three prominent theoretical physicists from Princeton and Harvard who strongly question the validity of cosmic inflation, an important part of the modern Big Bang theory.1 They argued that inflation can never be shown to be wrong—it cannot be falsified—and therefore inflation isn’t even a scientific hypothesis.
Inflation theory was proposed by physicist Alan Guth to solve a number of serious problems in early versions of the Big Bang model. Supposedly, the universe underwent an extremely short period of accelerated expansion right after the Big Bang.
However, physicists later realized this version of inflation theory was too simplistic.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
What happens at Meyer’s place, stays at Meyer’s place. :)
Giant wishful leap, there, Skippy!
There is a funnier version...
"First there was nothing.
Then it exploded!"
Interestingly, the medieval mystic Julian of Norwich, in one of her “showings” (visions), was shown something about the size of a hazelnut. She was told that this was all that was created. She asked how something that small could survive, and was told that “it survives because God loveth it.”
The size of a hazelnut? All that was created? How did that turn into this? Could Julian have gotten a vision about the Big Bang without realizing it?
I agree absolutely.
Discuss
At one time it was both.
I clearly remember learning of several now mainstream beliefs; Cognitive dissonance comes to mind.
By the time the "global cooling/global warming/climate change" fraud came along, the once respected publication had lost all credibility for me and I had long before cancelled my subscription.
It had succumbed to political correctness/consensus fake science.
The new abominable religion.
Your view is pretty much like mine. What caused it was God. But most scientists, being materialists, won’t go there.
Materialist science can easily be refuted, however. I prefer “science within consciousness.”
Please, do continue with the argument I’m not involved in...
Shouldn't that be part of the global cooling/global warming/climate change faith??
A very good description of how science is supposed to work. The problem with some folks is if you believe that a particular book is 100% the unerring word of God then you cannot allow even one tiny part of it to be shown inaccurate or your whole world view is demolished. They then project that onto scientific theory, attempting to say that if any part of a theory has problems it disproves the whole. Science doesn’t work that way, but you cannot argue with a closed mind, be it religious faith or global warming pseudo science.
And Globull(shit) warming too.
If the universe has a finite size, and is the only thing in existence, then its size can only be described as relative to itself and the things in it. In which case its actual size doesn’t matter. Just like when people ask “what is the universe expanding into?”, its a non sequitur because it’s expanding relative to itself and nothing else. But this is like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Theoretically the known universe was once far smaller than a single atom, and expanded to the size of a grape fruit in the tiniest fraction of a second. All the matter and energy in the universe phase changed at this point from the quantum vacuum. Is anyone really willing to say it’s impossible for God to have done this?
When I was young, I said to God, ‘God, tell me the mystery of the universe.’ But God answered, ‘That knowledge is for me alone.’ So I said, ‘God, tell me the mystery of the peanut.’ Then God said, ‘Well George, that’s more nearly your size.’ And he told me.
If one thinks it is all random and by chance, you can not apply science. you can’t replicate an experiment as it is all random. The results will be different every time.
Beautiful story!
It's no wonder that it's Asimov's personal favorite of all his own works...
I (don’t)believe science can tell us about God. One is a painter and the other is a painting, metaphorically. You can’t know Picasso by studying his paintings.
Question: “What is general revelation and special revelation?”
Answer: General revelation and special revelation are the two ways God has chosen to reveal Himself to humanity. General revelation refers to the general truths that can be known about God through nature. Special revelation refers to the more specific truths that can be known about God through the supernatural.
In regard to general revelation, Psalm 19:1-4 declares, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.” According to this passage, God’s existence and power can be clearly seen through observing the universe. The order, intricacy, and wonder of creation speak to the existence of a powerful and glorious Creator.
https://www.gotquestions.org/general-special-revelation.html
Regarding Picasso, I have some thoughts about him after observing his paintings...............
Somewhere, wherever he may be, Diogenes just smiled...
Yes I agree God can make himself known by watching the sunrise, contemplating the stars, or immersing yourself in the beauties of nature. The Bible also tells us to worship the God of nature instead of nature itself. You shouldn’t confuse the two.
I can appreciate the position you have outlined on this thread and would agree that we can’t or shouldn’t take the Bible OR Science on Faith alone.
“Because the Bible says so”, isn’t enough for me.
Simultaneously, “Because the Science says so”, when we consider the self admitted “Work in progress” nature of “Science” and its proponents over other considerations, the Bible, leaves one to their faith.
This is particularly troubling when our so called scientists accept and promote theories that don’t even adhere to their own scientific method.
At some point, upon any serious and thoughtful deliberation, you are left with three choices.
1. There is no Truth.
2. The truth lies within.
3. The truth lies without and has yet to be discovered.
Just like National Geographic, now a liberal trash rag.
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.