|
|
#41
06-14-2007, 08:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Whats the Universe expanding into?
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you limit your God to a very brief period of time billions of years ago? [/ QUOTE ] You obviously haven't read many of my posts. 
|
|
#44
06-14-2007, 12:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Whats the Universe expanding into?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Whats the Universe expanding into? [/ QUOTE ] I don't know - I can't form a concept of everything there is getting larger - or at least farther apart. But I looked at Wiki out of curiosity and found something else: [ QUOTE ] Accordingly, the question "why is the universe expanding?" is now answered by understanding the details of the inflation decay process which occurred in the first 10-32 seconds of the existence of our universe. It is suggested that in this time the metric itself changed exponentially, causing space to change from smaller than an atom to around 100 million light years across. [/ QUOTE ] Now I don't know the first thing about the physics of this but just going on what the above seems to be saying - that in way less than 1 second after the big bang the universe had the appearance of being 100 million years old - I have to wonder if that would affect our calculations of the age of the universe as it now is. [/ QUOTE ] NR, It is clear that the scale of expansion at the very beginning was far greater than occurs now. So if the calculated age of the universe is off, it can't be by much (100 million years isn't much), since we now have empirical evidence of the rate of expansion. All of you ID types are chumps for trying to find ways to (mis)fit science into your ill-conceived notions of theology. You should be focusing on the cause/creator of the quantum singularity that produced the big bang, and not the derivative processes that lead to the specific forms of life we have now, including humans. For the key which you ID types miss, *is that the master design is incorporated into the laws of physics*. And that includes randomness as well, in both the movements of particles on a quantum level and genetic mutations. Also you might review the Wiki article on the Big Bang where you will find near the end the following quote: A number of Christian and traditional Jewish sources have accepted the Big Bang as a possible description of the origin of the universe, interpreting it to allow for a philosophical first cause. Pope Pius XII was an enthusiastic proponent of the Big Bang even before the theory was scientifically well-established, and consequently the Roman Catholic Church has been a prominent advocate for the idea that creation ex nihilo can be interpreted as consistent with the Big Bang. This view is shared by many religious Jews in all branches of rabbinic Judaism. There can be no conflict between true science/reason and true faith. So if you have a conflict, then you might look to the theology of other denominations that don't have one, and which is because they don't try to contort science to fit misconceptions of theology. David has a point to a degree in his past posts about religious belief and physicists. While most physicists are atheists/agnostics (but who haven't met the criteria David gave of throroughly studying religion so as to be able to give an "expert evidence evaluator" opinion on same), those who are or for the deceased, have been, both religious believers and scientists who fully accept modern physics and evolution, are mostly catholics or jews (or other non-fundamentalist christians). And you might want to investigate why that is so.
|
|
#45
06-14-2007, 12:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Whats the Universe expanding into?
[ QUOTE ]
All of you ID types are chumps [/ QUOTE ] You RC type chumps always assume things with no evidence whatsover. [ QUOTE ] A number of Christian and traditional Jewish sources have accepted the Big Bang as a possible description of the origin of the universe, [/ QUOTE ] I believe the Reformed theologian Augustine was the first to propose the Big Bang. I'm not aware that any Reformers have ever denied it. [ QUOTE ] both religious believers and scientists who fully accept modern physics and evolution, are mostly catholics or jews (or other non-fundamentalist christians). [/ QUOTE ] Anyone who thinks one common ancestor evolution is as well established as physics is a loony. You might want to think about why Schroeder, who is a Jew, says what he does. Don't break your brain trying.
|
|
#46
06-14-2007, 12:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Whats the Universe expanding into?
[ QUOTE ]
I did and saw something by Perakh which I mentioned. Perakh is a militant atheist who hangs out on atheist web sites and has written a book called Unintelligent Design, reviewed as follows: One review: [ QUOTE ] Overall Unintelligent Design lives down to a very low standard. It’s an intemperate 459 page encyclopedia filled with contempt, logical errors, misrepresentations and a lot of shock value material. If this book was healthy, it would only be 200+ pages and well balanced. More specifically, Mark Perakh fails to make important distinctions and misleads the reader by lumping together a small number of actual ID proponents with a large number of fringe Bible commentators. The willingness to use a technique such as this would tend to reflect a strong bias and malicious intent. Mark Perakh also doesn’t appear to have made any effort to contact his opponents - at all. This results in free-floating and unjustified comparisons such as those described above. Moreover, the tone of this book while sometimes calm and rational is also hostile, belligerent and obnoxious. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] And your review comes from ideacenter.org. Gee, who's that? The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center. Surprise, they aren't very favorable to the book. The point should be not the tone of the book but that validity of its science. That should hold true for any science book or commentary, Perakh's or Schroeder's. Tone affects only the persuasiveness of the ideas, not the validity. I admit it's tough to be persuasive when you're insulting the reader. Sure, go ahead and read the books, I'm sure you'll enjoy them, because they support your Weltaunschaung. Hardly the goal of science, but you go have a good time.
|
|
#47
06-14-2007, 12:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Whats the Universe expanding into?
[ QUOTE ]
And your review comes from ideacenter.org. Gee, who's that? The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center. Surprise, they aren't very favorable to the book. [/ QUOTE ] Does anyone else see the inconsistency between the above sentence and the very next one? [ QUOTE ] The point should be not the tone of the book but that validity of its science. That should hold true for any science book or commentary, Perakh's or Schroeder's. Tone affects only the persuasiveness of the ideas, not the validity. I admit it's tough to be persuasive when you're insulting the reader. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#49
06-14-2007, 01:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Whats the Universe expanding into?
[ QUOTE ]
I believe the Reformed theologian Augustine was the first to propose the Big Bang. I'm not aware that any Reformers have ever denied it. [/ QUOTE ] I hope that's not a serious comment.
|
|
#50
06-14-2007, 01:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Whats the Universe expanding into?
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who thinks one common ancestor evolution is as well established as physics is a loony. You might want to think about why Schroeder, who is a Jew, says what he does. Don't break your brain trying. [/ QUOTE ] The overall theory of evolution *is* as well-established, even if the specifics of the line of evolution of various species aren't. And further, there are no *scientifically reputable* alternative theories.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
