1. Big Bang Cosmology/General Relativity VS. What the Bible says:
The first suggestion that laid the groundwork for the 'Big Bang Theory' was by none other than Albert Einstein. His field equation of general relativity predicted an expanding universe. Whether our universe will expand forever or eventually collapse is still debated among cosmologists. In either case, the actual density of matter in our universe is within a factor of ten of the so-called critical density, the point of exact balance between permanent expansion and eventual contraction. But to be so close to this critical density after some 20 billion years of expansion suggests intelligent design. What?!? Yeah, there must have been precise tuning in the earliest moments of the Big Bang for it to work at all. At 10 to the minus 43 seconds after the Big Bang, for instance--the so-called Planck time--the density must have been equal to the critical density to one part in 10 to the 60. If it had been ever so slightly higher, the universe would have collapsed quickly and there would have been no opportunity for life to form. On the other hand, had the density been ever so slightly smaller, the universe would have expanded rapidly and no galaxies, stars, or planets would have formed. Again, no life. Thus, life is the result of fine tuning the density of matter-energy at the Planck time to one part in 10 to the 60!8 But it was the result of an accident, eh?
I've taken the liberty of color-coding this portion of your post in order to make the following points clearer.
While you apparently wanted to give the impression that you wrote the above passage yourself, in fact for the most part it is clearly "borrowed" without credit from other sources.
The blue portion of your text, for example, is, um, "remarkably" similar to the following passage from this creationist page:
Historically, the first suggestion that would propose the idea [of the Big Bang] came in 1916 from Albert Einstein's field equation of general relativity predicting an expanding universe.But that by itself would only merit a raised eyebrow. Coupled with what follows it, however...
The portion of your text which I have highlighted in green is a VERBATIM COPY of the exact same long passage on this creationist web page.
All you did was insert five words of your own into the middle (marked in black), and one short question on the very end. Amusingly, your five words in the middle were inserted cleanly into the middle of a sentence of the original. Right smack in the middle of the following original sentence:
But to be so close to this critical density after some 20 billion years of expansion [*], there must have been precise tuning in the earliest moments of the Big Bang for it to work at all....you inserted your own five words ("suggests intelligent design. What?!? Yeah") at the point I've marked with an "*". Hardly much of an original contribution.
So unless your name is Robert C. Newman (author of the original work), this appears to be a case of plagiarism.
I point this out for two reasons:
1. Uncovering creationist plagiarisms has become something of a hobby of mine. It's fun detective work, and it's astonishing how often creationists plagiarize rather than make technical arguments in their own words. History may repeat itself, but creationists repeat each other. Part of the reason I track these things down is that it helps me understand why creationists so often go around recirculating and repeating the same old debunked nonsense, instead of learning something new from primary sources or personal reflection.
2. You made a big point twice now on this thread to belittle the practice of simply parroting something that one has "heard". From your posts:
"Oh really? How so? Be specific please. And ignorant restatings of what you 'heard' do not count." [From your post #213]But haven't you just done that yourself in this post via cut-and-paste?"For all the chest-beating and things you may have heard the Bible says..." [From your post #222]
3. Your post was in answer to RA's question, "How much and to what level of big bang cosmology, general relativity, stellar evolution, and planetary formation are you familiar with?" It seems ironic, then, that rather than describing in your own words how much you might know about each of those topics, you chose to just cut-and-paste some paragraphs from creationist websites. Or *is* looking stuff up on creationist websites and repeating them the extent of your scientific knowledge? I'm not being facetious here -- in my experience, far too many creationists and/or anti-evolutionists have learned everything they know about science/evolution from pretty much *only* creationist sources. That's rather like relying entirely on Tom Daschle for information on President Bush's policies and record.
Are you about to tell me this contradicts the Biblical account? Not really.
*That* part? No, because the Bible doesn't say anything about cosmological constants one way or the other. But then, that's not the issues that RA was talking about.
For all the chest-beating and things you may have heard the Bible says, in reality the Hebrew word used to refer to the astronomical universe is shamayim. That word is used in conjunction with the phrase 'stretch out' several times in the Old Testament. The concept being that the cosmos is not static and used with the verb natah as an active participle form indicates that the process is ongoing.
Now there you go again...
From the same web page referenced earlier in relation to your "blue-tagged" text:
The word shamayim is used in the Bible to refer to the astronomical universe. The word itself is connected with the phrase stretched out eleven times in the Old Testament [...] The concept here is that the cosmos is not static but the verb natah is used in an active participle form indicating that the process is ongoing.Sound familiar?
In any case, it's rather a stretch (no pun intended). Taking Isaiah 40:22, for example: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in". The "spreading" is clearly in the context of covering the Earth with the "tent" of the sky (which ancient man thought was actually a hard dome over the Earth itself), not a multi-dimensional expansion of the structure of spacetime itself.
If there's any "ongoing" verb tense involved (and as with the "past" Hebrew tense, it's really ambiguous and up to interpretation), it was probably meant just in the sense that God keeps the sky "stretched" over the Earth so that it doesn't fall down, in the same sense that he "makes" the Sun rise and set (even though gravity and inertia ensure that it would continue to do so even if God went on vacation).
I like this quote regarding the idea of the 'big bang.' In Parade magazine, February 4, 1996, Marilyn vos Savant had a reader who expressed this view as follows: "I assume that you, like most intellectual types, are not a religious person. So what do you think of the Big Bang theory." Ms vos Savant responded: "I think that if it had been a religion that first maintained the notion that all the matter in the entire universe had once been contained in an area smaller than the point of a pin, scientists probably would have laughed at the idea."
Compare with the account from this creationist website:
In Parade magazine, February 4, 1996, Marilyn vos Savant had a reader who expressed this view as follows: "I assume that you, like most intellectual types, are not a religious person. So what do you think of the Big Bang theory." Ms vos Savant responded: "I think that if it had been a religion that first maintained the notion that all the matter in the entire universe had once been contained in an area smaller than the point of a pin, scientists probably would have laughed at the idea."
Verbatim copy. Even your conclusion is just restated from theirs:
Silly but typical. Assume the data is valueless because of the viewpoint of the speaker, but I digress.
Their version:
We believe there is a major point to be made in this exchange: when a proposal is made that is creative or imaginative, one should not reject it just because of the vantage point of the author.But you managed to turn it into a broadside swipe instead of a lesson to be learned. Gee, thanks.
Are you going to propose that the Bible claims all creating on the part of God is over? Therefore viewing new stars being formed is somehow a contradiction? Ha!
And yet, creationists bristle at the notion that new life is being continuously formed. Go figure.
It's nearly 7 PM here and my wife is going to shoot me.
Man, I know *that* feeling...
For your files, a Google on "boy from Tukana." "Tukana" is a misspelling of "Turkana" as in Richard Leakey's "Lake Turkana Boy" find.
No, I wasn't trying to "appear" like I was the author. Geez Ichneumon, did I say I was an expert? No I clearly said I was not one. You try to paint me as intellectually dishonest. That is not true. I wasn't aware this was a research paper, demanding footnotes, I thought we were in an internet discussion! Of course I searched and did a cut and paste. You smirk and ooze condescension at my "contributions" which only show that I digested the info. I am impressed with RA, he is an intelligent man that seems to be fair minded. I try to be fair minded. I spent quite a bit of time at pro-evolution websites and read their best criticisms to formulate my response sir.
Are you about to tell me you don't rely on other people's arguments when they seem to express it well? If so, then you are quite the articulate fellow on many subjects.
When I said: "For all the chest-beating and things you may have heard the Bible says..." I was trying to ensure we didn't degenerate into something not quoted from the text.
In any case, congratulations. My HUGE secret is exposed! I actually use the internet to find information to help me express myself.
I can't believe that no one has yet pointed out that I followed this introduction with *three* reasons, conveniently numbered. *blush*