Inflation Hypothesis Doesn't Measure Up to New Data (growing body of evidence contradicts Big Bang)

ICR ^ | January 30, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[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...

[DallasMike]

I will think on it some more and pray I am not overwhelmed.

Thanks for your attitude and prayerful thoughtfulness. The idea that there was nothing until God initiated the Big Bang is a very tough concept to grasp. I understand it but really can't put my mind around it either. Remember that it took decades for the western world to grasp the concept of zero.

[demshateGod]

“Why do you think that there has to be choice between the existence of God(?)”

For a lot of reasons. The first 66 reasons are found in the Bible. The 67th reason is the big bang is stupid.

[DallasMike]

“Physicists have tried for decades to formulate theories that could eliminate both the questionable assumptions and the problematic particles associated with the standard big bang model. Currently the only plausible candidate is a theory called inflationary cosmology”

You call people names and then run away and refuse to answer questions.

Exactly what is wrong with that quote? Specifics, please -- don't just say that I'm boot-licking at the Temple of the Cult of Darwin and run away. If you have such a superior intellect and I'm so stupid, show me exactly what is wrong so that I may learn. You see, I'm not afraid of knowledge.

I have answered your questions on this post and many others. Why won't you tell me your work and educational background?

[DallasMike]

But why that should amount to giving a pinch of incense to Darwinism I don’t know.

Because evolution is an observable fact. Like I said, Google the Bird Flu virus.

I haven't made it clear in this post but I do not buy into all of the teachings of evolution. Why? Because, as it stands now, it does not do a very good job at predicting all of the facts.

[DallasMike]

The 67th reason is the big bang is stupid.

Really? So why don't you explain to me exactly how the Big Bang is stupid?

Calling names, running away, and refusing to answer questions is GGG's modus operandi. Surely you have some facts to back you your claim. Or do you?

[GourmetDan]

"GD - "IIRC, the entire solar-system is supposedly exempt from this expansion."

"Sorry, but that is incorrect. It's probably another myth pushed by Young-Earth Creationists."

Sorry, but you are incorrect. It's probably another myth pushed by long-age naturalists.

"...consequently there is no evidence for local (~1AU) scale expansion of the solar system."

[DallasMike]

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?

Well put, Alamo-Girl. BTW, I've enjoyed reading your research for years. You have a real talent.

The real problem is that I am a scientist by training and career. Young-Earth Creationists make it difficult for me to witness to my peers. Thanks in part to the mainstream media, many non-Christians believe that all Christians are ignorant and scientifically illiterate. I have to get around that when talking to someone about Christ who has a science background. Atheists love Young-Earth Creationists because it gives them the opportunity to point out what they believe is the foolishness of Christianty.

Why should non-believers with a science background believe me about the saving power of Jesus Christ when so many Christians make the ludicrous claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old?

Not only that, but I have seen people who were raised to believe in Young-Earth Creationism who lost or damaged their faith when they encountered the real world. The Bible has much to say about putting a stumbling block in front of people. I see Young-Earth Creationism as a huge stumbling block that has tripped many.

I am passionate about the subject because I have witnessed firthand what a dangerous thing Young-Earth Creationism is. If I were in another field, I might not feel as strongly.

Take care and thank you again for your kind and wise post.

[count-your-change]

I read what was said about the gene exchange and mutations.

So there are different varieties of the virus? Will it, given enough mutations, become something other than a virus?

Mutations and gene swapping have been happening in virus’ for hundred of millions (or billions and billions) of generations yet has any virus become more than a virus? So what fact of evolution am I to observe here?

[GourmetDan]

"A reason I can see is the earth might’ve had to cool from a molten state and adsorb a number of meteor hits like the moon has before the earth reached the condition of Gen.!:2."

But then you are assuming the naturalist's POV that the earth was formed in a molten state. Add another assumption to your model.

"If you’ll do that then we can take our discussion a bit further. Agreed?"

Looks like you are in line with what I said in my initial post, so go ahead and get to your point.

[GourmetDan]

"Did I miss something, or did DallasMike flee his own word study challenge? Typical fidgety-Rossite."

Yeah, his attempt at misdirection failed, so he abandoned it.

[GourmetDan]

"No. You have completely -- perhaps unknowingly -- distored things. Read the first two chapters in Genesis from the perspective of someone standing on planet earth and what they would have seen. It all falls into line."

You have completely -- perhaps unknowingly -- distorted things. The first two chapters of Genesis were never understood as communicating long-ages until man's opinion of the existence of long-ages became popular.

At that point, a certain segment of Christianity began to argue for long-ages because they put more faith in the words of men than in the Word of God. It all falls into line.

[DallasMike]

"...consequently there is no evidence for local (~1AU) scale expansion of the solar system."

You are correct. However, you don't realize that the theory applies on an intergalactic scale, not a local scale.

If you hold a basketball, there is actually a gravitational attraction between you and the basketball. But you cannot feel it. Does that mean that gravity does not exist? Of course not.

Wikipedia actually does a good job of explaining expansion and the overwhelming evidence for it. If you want something a little more technical, there are plenty of peer-reviewed, published papers on the internet.

[GourmetDan]

"By the way, the notion of the expansion of space is something that is easily proved by observation. It's a fact that is not even in question."

What's not in question is the fact that you cannot distinguish between observations and the interpretation of those observations.

[GourmetDan]

"You are correct. However, you don't realize that the theory applies on an intergalactic scale, not a local scale."

Yes, I am correct. And what you don't realize is that I understand that the theory is *assumed* to apply on an intergalactic scale even though it is *invisible* on a local one. It's those hidden assumptions that are the problem with your position and with most 'Christian' attempts to compromise the Word of God with the word of man. People must do a lot of work to understand where those hidden assumptions are and their impact on the 'theory'.

Expansion is invisible where it can be measured yet assumed where it cannot. It's that 'little' difference between observation and the interpretation of those observations that you, Wiki and most scientists don't understand that causes you to completely -- perhaps unknowingly -- distort things.

"If you want something a little more technical, there are plenty of peer-reviewed, published papers on the internet."

I just gave you about as technical an article as you can get on the lack of observational evidence for expansion, but you insist on believing in it anyway. Probably because you fail to understand the difference between actual observation and the interpretation of those observations.

[count-your-change]

I'm not assuming a naturalist view if I see the formation of the earth taking place in steps anymore so than the progressive steps of the creative days.

But I will assume that you haven't found what create, set, or form mean as used in Genesis and that rather prevents us going further to my point. In your previous post you mistook one term for another and as long as you do we're talking about two different things.

As for my assuming that the earth was formed in a molten staten state, do you assume it wasn't? Are you keeping score by tallying assumptions? Two for you and three for me, the lessor wins something?

If you are not going to do what I asked as a favor to aid our discussion, O.K., but if you don't understand the terms used in Genesis, it going to make it very difficult to continue.

[TXnMA]

GD: "IIRC, the entire solar-system is supposedly exempt from this expansion."

GD: "...consequently there is no evidence for local (~1AU) scale expansion of the solar system."

~~~~~~~~~~

Thank you for parading your ignorance and dishonesty for all on FR to see.

You used the same dishonest YEC trick they use in quoting scripture, You excerpted and cited a scientific paper (wrongly) out of context. Here is the entire statement:

"The search for a time variation in the gravitational constant results in \dot G/G=(4 +/- 9) x 10^{-13} yr^{-1}, consequently there is no evidence for local (~1AU) scale expansion of the solar system."

You obviously do not know what an Astronomical Unit is. (It is considerably smaller than the scale of the solar system as a whole.) Look it up; you might actually learn something...

If you were capable of comprehending powers-of-ten notation, you would understand that, with currently-available measurement techniques, we admit that we are simply unable to measure inflation at scales on the order of 1AU -- no matter where we measure. That does not invalidate measurements at greater scales. Nor does it imply that our solar system is a "special case". (Just because you can't "put a ruler to" the diameter of an electron, does that mean you can't know how many miles you drove? Or know how many miles it is from Phoenix to Boston -- even if you are in LA?)

At least scientists -- even Christian ones -- (unlike your ilk) have the intellectual honesty and integrity to admit and publish the limits of their abilities, their measurements, their data -- and their understanding...

[js1138]

Applause.

[TXnMA]

!

[TXnMA]

"But then you are assuming the naturalist's POV that the earth was formed in a molten state. Add another assumption to your model."

~~~~~~~~

And does your assumption about Genesis 2

"And the Earth was without form..."

Lead you to believe otherwise?

(Take care; you are dealing with believing Christians who also just happen to be scientists...)

[GodGunsGuts]

==Of course I do. Inflation is the first few milliseconds after the Big Bang.

What a weasel. You obviously didn’t know the difference between expansion and inflation. And now you have the audacity to retroactively amend your ignorance and pass it off like you knew it all the time. You are about as good at lying as the fidgety-Ross. Here is the categorical statement you made, based on the link that YOU provided:

“Scientists have observed inflation since 1929. It’s real and it’s measurable.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2175104/posts?q=1&;page=201#229

You obviously didn’t know the difference between expansion and inflation; and if you had bothered to read your own link you would have actually LEARNED the difference between the two. Instead, you directly contradicted YOUR OWN LINK! And then you went on to call creation scientists liars based on your OWN IGNORANCE:

“There, I’ve proved to you that the very first sentence is a lie.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2175104/posts?q=1&;page=201#229

You have lost all credibility in my eyes. Like your mentor, fidgey-Ross, you accuse creation scientists of what you yourself are guilty of—LYING. I am compiling an ever growing list of your ignorance and lies, and I will be posting them for all to see every time you decide to insert your wormtongue into my threads. Have a great day, Mr. “Pagan”.