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
Tell us, wha was the light on day two and three.
Do you share AndrewC's laughable theory that there were stars on days two and three?
If one wants to believe this, why do they say that the biblical record supports it?
No kidding.
Genesis also tells us that the Lord created the sun, moon and stars on day four.
If you feel free to place the Book of Genesis in the record, you certainly placed a record against yourself.
Genesis 1:14
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Genesis 1:15
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Genesis 1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.
Genesis 1:17
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Genesis 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.
Genesis 1:19
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Now, do you still want to use the biblical account for evidence?
He made the stars on the fourth day.
It does not say that he made some stars. It says that He made the stars.
One more time-what was the light on days two and three?
I answered that. It stayed around. You can't destroy light. That is fact.
Do you know how to read Hebrew? Do you know what a whale is? Do you know that the Hebrew word tanniyn is translated to whales 3 times but is translated to dragon 21 times, serpent 3 times and sea monster once? Did you know that tanniyn or whales in Gen 1:21 is what Aaron's rod became in Exodus 7:9 and 7:10, namely tanniyn or serpent?
And by the way God is still creating stars, and He did rest.
I...don't...know. I never have professed to know.
Conversly, why don't you tell me what event took place when He uttered the words, "let there be light"...?
Something happened. One would presume that there was light.
You are being so intractable by insisting that there was nothing at the very moment of creation that could have resembled what many refer to as "The Big Bang". What are you afraid of? Entertaining the possibility that the Lord started the whole thing with an explosion of matter and energy where none existed before, does not make you an unbeliever. It is merely being human by trying to explain the unexplainable. It does not deny Faith by trying to do so.
Once again, going back to my original statement, I was only trying to reconcile the two by stating it as a personally held belief that the two events share a commonality.
That is my belief. Not a theory or an argument. You won't convince me otherwise. End of discussion.
What it really comes down to is that you can't explain yourelf out of this.
We know that there was light for days 2 and three. That was the same source as the "Let there be light" light of the first day.
God never said "let there be light" again. We also know that the light of the first day was seperated by the light of the second day. The same thing happened between days two and three.
I've heard you say that the first day light was the big band, but then we have the light on the second day. You cannot explain where it came from if you hold to the notion that it was the result of the big bang- That is too funny, as darkess separated the light of the first three days, and God only said "Let there be light" one time.
Then, you attempted (as did AndrewC) to tell me that the light on days 2 and 3 were stars.
You are too funny. I made it perfectly clear that the light from those days could not be stars, as He made them on day 4.
Tell me now-biblicly speaking, were you right or wrong about the possibility of the day 2 and day 3 light being stars? YES or NO
You calim that you are attempting to explain the unexplainable, but you do all you can to insert the creation of stars on day 2, and went through the trouble in the early part opf this thread to tell me that you were not interested in looking at anything past day one. Do I need to point tht out one more time?
You are not explaining the unexplainable-you are inserting the uninsertable. He made the stars on day 5, against your statement otherwise. Darkness separated the light on days one, two and three (and actually four, since the sun, moon and all the stars were created at the nd of the day).
Really?
It is obvious that you were wrong on at least two accounts:
- You claim that the first light was a big bang, but cannot explain why it returned on day two and also on day three, although separated by darkness.
- Then, you claim that it was the stars, ignoring (or more likely, not knowing) that the Lord created them on day four, along with the sun.
It is one thing for you to say that you have a belief, but it's another thing to attempt to attribute the belief to the Lord.
I am very sad to see that you go through the trouble to be attribute the big bang to God, but then openly tell me that you do not want to discuss anything after day one.
After all of this, I am glad that you were honest in saying that "You won't convince me otherwise".
You spoke volumes.
Do you realize that the burden of proof is on you?
I can drag this discussion out as long as you feel the need to do this.
I am prepared.
Did God create stars on day two? YES or NO
You attempted that route, but can't come close to demonstrating it biblically. I have challenged you on the comment, but you won't take me up on it. All you do is come with some ludicrous statement that about me saying that God did nothing on day one.
Actually, God did create something on day one-TIME.
He set the standard for the length of the day. It is all summed up by the statement which followed on all seven days that "Evening and the day were the ___day". He did not create the light previous to day one, did He? Also, He did not wait until the sun, moon and stars were created to set the standard for the day.
They were set up for the seasons, and timing issues, but as we have developed over the last 6000-years, we know that even the sailors, farmers and others have made use of them-they are farther reaching than the first light.
Egad, you task me. I never have and never will feel the need to explain my beliefs to you. So I won't.
Fine. You win. I'm an ignoramus. I won't waste anymore time trying to make you see one small point when you are too blinded by the larger picture.
Have a nice day.
I proved that.
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.
God did something the first "day" in my reading. What did God do in your reading on the first "day"?
Too funny. In all of your reading, you seemed to overlook the fact that He created time.
Is that too small a task for you? Let's go back to the main questions once again:
1-What was the light on day 2 and 3?
2-Did God create the stars before day 4?
The answers to those questions are damaging your report, aren't they?
The larger picture is that you can't take the bible out of context, isn't it?
It wasn't my goal to win. It was my goal to see that the scriptures were properly applied.
There is no victory for anyone if you determine to claim you believe in divine creation, then believe only the parts you choose to believe.
See you around.
I do believe it all. But you took exception to my beliefs regarding the big bang and Genesis and then got your knickers in a twist when I didn't feel compelled to explain myself to you.
You really should try those cotton panties that don't bunch up so badly and also give you the comfort you love so much.
See ya, bye.
No, because I have now answered that question 3 times by saying again that light is not destroyed. It hangs around. That is a law of physics and thereby of God, although if he chooses he may ignore. Which is precisely what he did on "day" one by creating light from nothing. When I answered you "more stars", you rejoined with "You have spoken volumes", therefore you understood my answer to mean that stars were created prior to "day" four. The only "days" prior are "days" 1,2, and 3 so you are being disingenuous when you repeatedly ask the same question that I have answered. You may not accept it, so say so and move on. We disagree on the interpretation of the Bible. We can sort that out when we see Jesus, until then I know that THE stars were not all created on "day" four because we can see stars in the process of creation and stars of different sizes and ages in God's universe. I have asked you questions that you have not deigned to answer, and which I do not press for you to answer. I have also pointed out that God is timeless and does not answer to you or anyone else's conception of time.
Gen 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
"of time" in the cited verse is Yom in Hebrew. That is the same Yom that is used as "day" in Genesis 1. So you can see that indefinite periods of time are designated by the same word as day. Now if you have a definite sequence of indefinite periods of time, how do you communicate that? Like this..
The first indefinite period.
The second indefinite period.
The third indefinite period.
The fourth indefinite period.
The fifth indefinite period.
The sixth indefinite period.
The seventh indefinite period.
Or alternately
The first time
The second time
The third time
The fourth time
The fifth time
The sixth time
The seventh time
Or as in the Bible
The first "day"
The second "day"
The third "day"
The fourth "day"
The fifth "day"
The sixth "day"
The seventh "day"
cranial flatulence
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.
