Posted on 04/25/2002 2:34:20 PM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts
How did the universe begin, and how will it end? Among cosmologists, the mainstream belief is that the universe began with a bang billions of years ago, and will fizzle out billions of years from now. But two theorists have just fired their latest volley at that belief, saying there could be a timeless cycle of expansion and contraction. It’s an idea as old as Hinduism, updated for the 21st century.
THE “CYCLIC MODEL,” developed by Princeton University’s Paul Steinhardt and Cambridge University’s Neil Turok, made its highest-profile appearance yet Thursday on Science Express, the Web site for the journal Science. But past incarnations of the idea have been hotly debated within the cosmological community for the past year — and Steinhardt acknowledges that he has an uphill battle on his hands.
“It will take people a while to get used to it,” he told MSNBC.com. “This introduces a number of concepts that are quite unfamiliar, even to a cosmologist.”
TINKERING WITH THE COSMOS
Years ago, Steinhardt played a prominent role in formulating what is now the most widely accepted scientific picture of the universe’s beginnings, known as inflationary Big Bang theory: that a vanishingly small quantum fluctuation gave rise in an instant to an inflated region of space-time, kicking off an expansion that is now picking up speed.
The model has weathered repeated experimental tests, including studies of patterns in the microwave “afterglow” of the Big Bang.
“All the competing models were knocked off,” Steinhardt said. “So we had a situation where it looked as if we had converged on a single idea. But I was always disturbed by the idea that there were no competitors around.”
Click here for complete article
What then defines an evening and a morning?
Have you thought about my original comment? I was merely stating my belief (i.e. no evidence required) that for all anyone knows, the force that initiated "The Big Bang" could have been nothing more than an idle thought or a snap of the fingers by a sufficiently omnipotent entity. Call it God if you wish.
My statement was an attempt to illustrate that a belief in The Big Bang and a belief in a Supreme Being are not mutually exclusive.
And how was I taking "Let there be light" out of context? It is precisely in the context of the article I posted. That being the beginning of it all. You know...Life, the Universe and Everything.
First, it's not a theory. It is a belief.
Second, no it doesn't.
I simply stated that the Big Bang was very possibly the mechanism by which Almighty God began the Creation...as in "Let there be light".
How do you suppose he did it?
The Big Bang may simply be the physical manifestation of what we see as the Creation as laid down in the opening verses of the Bile. Get it?
How did you manage to see otherwise from my reply #7?
Oh, and then from there He used a more conventoinal method?
Where does the bible imply that there was any sort of "bang" from God's words?
Do you feel free to just imply it?
Was there also a bang after He made the grass, and after He made man?
There must have been. If you can imply one at the creation of light, one can only assume that there was more than one-that wold be one per event, right? Or is it only light that bangs? Personally, I've never heard light bang, do you have an example?
Luke 8:25 And he said unto them, Where is your faith? And they being afraid wondered, saying one to another, What manner of man is this! for he commandeth even the winds and water, and they obey him. 2TM 3:8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
Proof beyond measure abounds in the Universe of his creation. Man shall live by Faith not by sight, and all of GOD'S wise children said......AMEN! & AMEN!
That is a good question, but we know that it was not the sun and the moon. They were created in Genesis 1:16, along with the other stars, on the 4th day.
For all we know, God just manifested a light by His own will to separate the light from the darkness.
We know that in Gen 1:2, darkness was on ththe face of the deep, and in 1:3 He said'Let there be light".
This follows the pattern that the day actually begins at sundown, as the Jews still observe it. We are told at the end of each day of creation that the (1) evening and the (2) morning were the first day.
Because God is so smart, He knew that He had to place the creation of the sun after the creation of the vegatation, just to silence those who might attempt to scientificly make a biblical attempt at saying that the days were longer than one day.
They could not have been, as the grass, which is supposed to procreate after it own kind would not have survived to the 4th day over a long period of time.
"God is God, am I am not", to quote Steven Curtis Chapman. I cannot answer to why He placed the light on the first three days, or what it was. I suppose that as a minimum He felt it propheticall mportant to lay out the creation in some sort of prophetic guide?
Perhaps that lght came from a non-physical source? If God is God, and we all know that He is, He can place a light anywhere He feel like placing one. We are told that God said "Let there be light", but are not told that He actually made one. It was apparantly temporal, whereas, we see that He made the sun, moon and stars, after He said he wanted a greater and lesses light in the sky.
First of all, you refused to engage me on anything past the first day, so you have already disqualified yourself in that debate.
You want to use ONLY the opening verses, but refuse to take the journey through the remaining verses. I wonder why?
Secondly, the "big bang" theory implies a lack of order, but we see from the biblical account that the Maker was very methodical in His plan.
Get it?
Read your bible. It takes about 15-minutes to read the entire creation account.
I have already attempted to take you through the latter verses, but you basically said you were interested in no verse besides Gen 1:3.
The reason why is because the rest of the text does not support your argument.
Why would God divide light from darkness twice?
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.
If you spent the time reading me, you'd see that God had two different sources of light.
The one in Genesis 1:3 could not have been the big bang, because there were three full-days days before the creation of the sun. If we say that there was a big bang on the first day, based on the fact that God said, "Let there be ligt", then we have to fully accept that there was a big bang also on days two and three.
The reason for this is that we know that days one, two and three had the same source of light.
Anyone who can read knows that He created the sun and the moon, along with the other stars on the fourth day. How difficult is that to understand?
If you feel inclned to believe that the "Let there be light" light of the first day was the big bang, then you have to tell me why it cam back also on the second and third day to provide light.
Oh, and then from there He used a more conventoinal (sic) method?
For the purposes of the discussion of who or what caused the Universe to spontaneously come into being, meaning the very point of creation, the microsecond when light began, it is immaterial.
Where does the bible imply that there was any sort of "bang" from God's words?
Obviously, nowhere. I did not coin the phrase Big Bang and do not imply that the event made any sort of noise at all.
Do you feel free to just imply it?
No. See previous response. Whenever I use the phrase "Big Bang" I utilize capital letters to imply that it is, in fact, a commonly used phrase. Again, this is you being intenionally obtuse or at the least, disingenuous.
Was there also a bang after He made the grass, and after He made man?
Once again, attempting to keep within the parameters of the original topic, any or all events that came after the exact moment of creation, the point at which it all began, I say it is immaterial.
There must have been. If you can imply one at the creation of light, one can only assume that there was more than one-that wold (sic) be one per event, right?
I've already covered the whole 'banging noise in a vacuum' that you keep going on about, so I won't waste anymore time on this one, except to say that you assume too much since your assumption is based on a flawed assumption.
Or is it only light that bangs? Personally, I've never heard light bang, do you have an example?
What the frell are you talking about? Go have another hit on that bong.
Pretty simple. First there was nothing. Then there was light. That light did not go away. We know that light produces matter and matter produces light. God made matter from the light. Some of this matter turned back into light. Those are stars among other things.
God being infinite and timeless is no respecter of time, in other words time does not limit God. So when he talks of time there is no prerequisite for him to follow our convention. Thus Jesus can say --- Jhn 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
First of all, you refused to engage me on anything past the first day, so you have already disqualified yourself in that debate.
I have not refused to engage you on anything at all. Though I will do so shortly. I have been trying to get it through your thick skull that my original statement in reply #7 was refering to the very moment of Creation when the first instance of light of any kind began flooding the void. That light would have come from an extremely large release of energy. A release that I believe to have been precipitated by the words of our Almighty Creator..."Let there be light". My resistance to go beyond that point, into the succeeding verses of Genesis stems from the fact that we are not at odds. We believe in the same thing here and debating who did or did not create man or grasses is pointless for the very small scope of the topic I was commenting on. Besides, it would take years to cover it all.
You want to use ONLY the opening verses, but refuse to take the journey through the remaining verses. I wonder why?
Certainly not because I don't believe in them but rather, because I simply do not wish to debate, ad nauseum, over the finer points of Genesis.
Secondly, the "big bang" theory implies a lack of order, but we see from the biblical account that the Maker was very methodical in His plan.
The Big Bang theory, to me, implies a...well...Big Bang. An enormous release of energy and mass where none existed before. Besides, how can you say it implies a lack of order when you have absolutely no idea whatsoever exactly what the Almighty had planned? With a breath from his nostrils he parted the Red Sea. Perhaps with a wink of his eye he unleashed that which we tiny, insignificant humans refer to as "The Big Bang".
Get it?
No, it's a Hoover ®
I am not a vacuist, and I do not favor vacuism.
Yes. But it isn't safe to say you know which ones won't be answered.
Not safe, but I can suggest one: Assuming God exists, who or what created God?
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.