Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Inflating the Evidence
Institute for Creation Research ^ | 2007 | David F. Coppedge

Posted on 06/27/2012 8:49:56 PM PDT by lasereye

In their quest to disprove design in the universe, scientists have produced evermore speculative models of cosmology. Big Bang cosmology, for example, relies heavily on a process called inflation, an ad hoc speculation that remains highly controversial 26 years after it was first proposed.

By the 1980s, cosmologists were struck by the homogeneity and flatness of our universe. In other words, matter appears to be uniformly distributed on a large scale, and the average density of matter in the universe is balanced against its expansion rate to a high degree of precision. These and other properties appear too finely tuned to be a matter of chance.

Uncomfortable with this apparent design, scientists sought a naturalistic explanation. In 1981, Alan Guth proposed the first inflationary cosmology, postulating that "the universe expanded exponentially for a tiny fraction of a second very early in its history--growing from a patch as small as 10-26 m|eter|, one hundred billion times smaller than a proton, to macroscopic scales on the order of a meter, all within about 10-35 s|econd|."1 This expansion theoretically flattened space-time with a quick stretch, masking any inhomogeneities in the original fireball.

Cosmologists jumped on this hypothesis as a way for the finely-tuned state of the cosmos to appear "natural," meaning that scientists might characterize its initial conditions and the laws governing its evolution. "If any system should be natural, it's the Universe," said Sean M. Carroll in Nature. "Nevertheless, according to the criteria just described, the Universe that we observe seems remarkably unnatural." 2

Does inflation make the universe's apparent fine-tuning a "natural" outcome? Carroll answered that despite its popularity, "there is a skeleton in the inflationary closet, at least as far as entropy is concerned."3 Such rapid expansion would need extremely low entropy. He concluded that "it would seem that the conditions required to start inflation are less natural than those of the conventional Big Bang."4 Inflation, therefore, is a step backward in explanatory power.

On the question of matter, Guth concluded that resonances between quantum fields produced it: "Large numbers of particles would be created very quickly within specific energybands," he said. "This dramatic burst of particle creation would affect space-time itself, as it responded to changes in the arrangement of matter and energy."5 So within a tiny fraction of a second, a material universe inflated by 26 orders of magnitude and filled itself with matter. Hardly a "natural" explanation.

Guth's original model was shown to be unworkable, but others arose to take its place: chaotic inflation, spontaneous inflation, and even eternal inflation. "Needless to say, proposals of this type are extremely speculative, and may well be completely wrong," Carroll stated.6

In short, inflation is no help to the Big Bang theory. It assumes the flatness of the universe rather than predicting it, relegating the idea to an untestable speculation that says nothing more than "strange things happen."

There is one form of inflation that matches the observations perfectly, but is never considered by secular cosmologists. This model alone, however, has the initial conditions and power to explain all the properties of the universe:

He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion. (Jeremiah 10:12, emphasis added)

Observed design makes sense when the Designer is not arbitrarily excluded from the model.

References

1. Guth, A. H. and D. I. Kaiser. 2005. Inflationary Cosmology: Exploring the Universe from the Smallest to the Largest Scales. Science. 307 (5711): 884-890.
2. Carroll, S. M. 2006. Is our Universe natural? Nature. 440: 1132-1136.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Guth, Inflationary Cosmology.
6. Carroll, Is our Universe natural?

* Mr. Coppedge works in the Cassini Program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The views expressed are his own.


TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: atheism; bigbang; creation; physics

1 posted on 06/27/2012 8:50:01 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lasereye

big surprise, secular types doing their best song and dance to avoid the obvious....

cant wait to hear their typical responses here...


2 posted on 06/27/2012 8:57:07 PM PDT by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
Uncreated big bang and young earth creation are hardly the only theories of the origin of the universe out there, of course. Here is one version of old earth creationism.
3 posted on 06/27/2012 9:01:11 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (let me ABOs run loose, lew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
The father of the big bang was a Catholic Priest and scientist, and it is a theory of Creation. Materialism predicted an eternal static universe. Materialism was wrong.
4 posted on 06/27/2012 9:28:38 PM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
I was under the impression that at the point of singularity, the laws of physics, as we understand them, simply didn't apply. If that's the case, the search for an answer that supersedes physics seems to suggest those seeking that answer think the laws of physics are carrying the day. So far, I agree.
5 posted on 06/27/2012 9:51:41 PM PDT by econjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
Big Bang is bad physics and bad theology rolled into a package. Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes, nothing would ever "bang" its way out of that.

Likewise for a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent God to suddenly, at some specific point in time, decide it would be a cool thing to do to create a universe whereas the idea had never occurred to him prior to that moment, is basically idiotic and it doesn't even matter whether the moment in time was 6000 or 17 billion years ago.

Big Bang is junk science, nearly as bad as evolution itself.

6 posted on 06/27/2012 10:03:41 PM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

Theology vs. Science.

Such polite and considerate conversation should ensue.

: )

(Now, I’ll go read the article. Looks interesting)


7 posted on 06/27/2012 10:34:33 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
is basically idiotic and it doesn't even matter whether the moment in time was 6000 or 17 billion years ago.

That's what I keep saying.

8 posted on 06/27/2012 11:13:53 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
Materialism predicted an eternal static universe.

Well, certainly not static. But 'eternal' ? I don't believe that they have eliminated that.

Materialism was wrong.

Ah... well... everyone is wrong, even now.

9 posted on 06/27/2012 11:23:08 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
Well, certainly not static. But 'eternal' ? I don't believe that they have eliminated that.

By static it is meant that the universe was a closed system without interference from anything beyond it. Which certainly materialism did predict. I am not trying to say that materialism predicts that the universe does not have changes within it due to natural processes...for the sake of brevity I anticipate some due diligence on the reader to apply context.

Ah... well... everyone is wrong, even now.

If you mean by wrong that nobody has the entire truth entirely correct (save God if He exists) than sure, everyone is at least somewhat short of the truth in regards to a modeling of the universe (although somebody can be entirely correct in regard to a mathematical statement). However that hardly means that all models are of equal use and equally close to the truth...which would imply that progress in the sciences was not possible. To save materialism from the devastating blow to its core principals dealt it by the big bang, one is forced to expand the very definition of nature to extend beyond the universe itself...and one must by blind faith cling dogmatically to the presumption that nothing beyond the universe resembles a super-nature.

10 posted on 06/28/2012 12:58:52 PM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
Likewise for a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent God to suddenly, at some specific point in time, decide it would be a cool thing to do to create a universe whereas the idea had never occurred to him prior to that moment

You are talking as if that God were within the arc of time rather than outside it. An author of a book does not need to dwell in the timeline of the book he writes, nor is he subject to it. I don't think any competent theologians think that God is so limited within the timeline of the nature we live in.

11 posted on 06/28/2012 1:05:12 PM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: varmintman; UCANSEE2; lasereye
and it doesn't even matter whether the moment in time was 6000 or 17 billion years ago.

It matters. The LORD gave us His account in The Bible. The creation account in The Bible is directly tied into every other doctrine and intrinsic interpretation of the entire Bible. It is foundational, as it is plainly written. If people were really studying Scripture, praying for and with God's Spirit guiding, they would see this in a crystal clear manner. Are you?

12 posted on 06/28/2012 1:48:40 PM PDT by Bellflower (The LORD is Holy, separated from all sin, perfect, righteous, high and lifted up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
I don't think any competent theologians think that God is so limited within the timeline of the nature we live in.

Psalm 90:2 — from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.

13 posted on 06/28/2012 9:17:02 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Bellflower
If people were really studying Scripture, praying for and with God's Spirit guiding, they would see this in a crystal clear manner. Are you?

Crystal clear ? Yes. God told me that since there was no 'day' nor 'year' when he started 'creation', and that since 'creation' continues non-stop throughout the Universe, and since I had no 'personal experience' of what 6000, 17 million, or 17 billion years were like, that I should not waste a drop of my sweat trying to 'pin down' a date. He said there were much more important things to deal with, and all of them happen during my 'lifetime'.

The LORD gave us His account in The Bible.

Inspired by God, written by men, to be understood by men in terms (such as 'day') that they had experienced and understood.

So... what 'date' did God create the Universe, and exactly where is that in Genesis?

14 posted on 06/29/2012 8:49:24 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
Big Bang is junk science,

I always found it odd that once scientists came up with the BIG BANG theory, there wasn't enough 'matter' in the 'known and detected' Universe to support their theory. That's when they came up with Dark Matter and Dark Energy (otherwise known as 'the Dark Side of the Force').


15 posted on 06/29/2012 8:54:43 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
By static it is meant that the universe was a closed system without interference from anything beyond it. Which certainly materialism did predict. I am not trying to say that materialism predicts that the universe does not have changes within it due to natural processes...for the sake of brevity I anticipate some due diligence on the reader to apply context.

For the sake of brevity, you could just have responded with "That is true."

If you mean by wrong that nobody has the entire truth entirely correct (save God if He exists) than sure, everyone is at least somewhat short of the truth in regards to a modeling of the universe (although somebody can be entirely correct in regard to a mathematical statement). However that hardly means that all models are of equal use and equally close to the truth...which would imply that progress in the sciences was not possible.

Again, for the sake of brevity, you could just have said, "I know what you mean."

An aside: (save God if He exists)

I absolutely believe, and know, that God exists (IS).

To save materialism from the devastating blow to its core principals dealt it by the big bang, one is forced to expand the very definition of nature to extend beyond the universe itself...

Is the Universe finite or infinite ?

...and one must by blind faith cling dogmatically to the presumption that nothing beyond the universe resembles a super-nature.

Using religious terms to describe how an 'atheist' thinks seems odd.

16 posted on 06/29/2012 9:10:26 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
I don't like to favor brevity at the expense of either clearing up what I think to be an important point...particularly if I can in my own conceited estimation look "smart" while so doing.

In regard to "if He exists", I am speaking from a perspective of argument which does not assume He exists or that Christianity or the Bible are necessarily correct. Although I am convinced He does, and that Christianity is correct (by which I mean Christ's version of Christianity, as all us mortals have a less than perfect understanding of it), many Freepers may not share this belief and some of those may be reading what we write. Assuming the Bible is correct was never very convincing to me as a reason to believe the Bible when I was an agnostic. I like to mention some of the things that convinced me along my journey in the hopes that it will help someone else discover the truth.

I like to use the same terms in describing the doctrines or theories of any philosophy...to put them on an equal footing in regard to irrational prejudices built into language and habit. Particularly since so many modern materialists seem not to rationally consider whether a philosophy is correct or not but whether it fits in the "religious" bucket (which they meet with irrational skepticism) or the "modern" bucket (which they meet with irrational gullibility).

17 posted on 06/29/2012 1:10:30 PM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
Yes. God told me that...

God did not tell you, you told yourself and attributed it to God. God does not contradict His Word. I hope that you reread Genesis, and for that matter the whole Bible, from beginning to end. Bow your head and pray each time before you read The Bible asking God to help you to understand what you are reading by the Spirit of God. Also, find a church that teaches and preaches directly out of The Bible. Try to go to a good Bible study where those that are leading really understand Scripture and truly know God.

God did not write large sections of The Bible to be discarded as not important. Every word of Scripture is important. Scripture is built upon the foundational truths of Scriptures that came before. Scripture supports Scripture. Important doctrines and truths are birthed out of previous truth, which are reality.

May The LORD bless you and help you, as He loves you with a perfect and everlasting love.

______________________________________________

2Timothy 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

______________________________________________

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.........

18 posted on 06/29/2012 7:22:32 PM PDT by Bellflower (The LORD is Holy, separated from all sin, perfect, righteous, high and lifted up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
Here's something you Could enjoy. Give it a look.

Enjoy: http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx

19 posted on 06/29/2012 7:26:21 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson