Posted on 01/30/2009 10:54:50 AM PST by 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...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
The number of models is not limited to the Big Bang. There are others that seem to explain a bit more than the BB.
When our first background radiation satellite went up, it appeared that the background radiation was uniform in all directions. As our sensors become more .um...sensitive, we begin to see a more detailed picture of the background radiation and the theories will change or be scrapped to accomodate the more detailed information.
The more recent measurements have shown that the galaxies appeared much earlier than the initial BB theory would dictate and other models have been proposed to explain the “graininess” of the early universal expansion.
The assymetry spoken of in this article will also lead to other models being proposed.
If not A then only B is not a model for science, but a philosphical statement.
Second and third generation apostles, and their students did it 300 years before the Roman Catholic apostasy crushed the church, leading to the "dark ages."
Ahem.
The Roman Church never defined the shape of the Earth. Most people who thought about the issue had understood the world was round since the time of Alexander or earlier.
Background density is symetrical as observewd from Earth, which fits Humphreys’ model, but not the Big Bandaid.
Well, they made some observations and it didn’t fit.
So they invented “dark matter”.
Then they found that the dark matter theory didn’t some new observations.
So they invented “dark energy”.
Pretty soon, they’ll make more observations that contradict both ideas.
Then we’ll have “in the dark scientists”.
As long as they adhere to Einsteins theories unmodified, they will never find the correct model.
Which Bible do you read? - The one that I read contains references to the curvature of the Earth’s surface that were recorded over 4500 years ago.
==YEC cosmology is a “fringe group” with almost absolute zero credibility, IMO.
You mean zero credibility amongst their chief religious rivals in the Temple of Darwin. However, amongst fellow YEC Scientists, not to mention over 50% of the US population, Creation Scientists have far more credibility than the materialist religionists who currently control the ideology of science.
3-2-1
Next argument:
“Which of the 45,000 creation myths in every culture should we teach in school?”
Darwin has nothing to do with this.
If the space through which a beam of light is traveling (at light speed) is simultaneously stretching, then there doesn't have to be a change in the speed of light for light to traverse more than one light year per year.
Picture two ants, walking on the surface of an expanding balloon, for example.
But the underlying philosophy does, as Stephen Hawkings et al admit.
That's what I was thinking, but you said it really well.
Only flat in the minds of the writers and readers of the Bible.
The oldest book in the Bible has always maintained.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
NAsbU Job 26:7 "He stretches out the north over empty space
And hangs the earth on nothing.
Citation please on Stephen Hawkings....
Darwin did not begin the philosophy or practice of science, he simply made some observations and theorized based upon those observations. Same as had been done for centuries.
He was also using dull tools and ours a considerably better.
This is from the NASA web site:
“Five Year Results on the Oldest Light in the Universe
WMAP 5-year Results Released - March 7, 2008
A third major finding arising from the new WMAP data places tight constraints on the astonishing burst of growth in the first trillionth of a second of the universe, called “inflation”, when ripples in the very fabric of space may have been created. Some versions of the inflation theory now are eliminated. Others have picked up new support.
“The new WMAP data rule out many mainstream ideas that seek to describe the growth burst in the early universe,” said WMAP principal investigator, Charles Bennett, of The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Md. “It is astonishing that bold predictions of events in the first moments of the universe now can be confronted with solid measurements.”
There is more information at the site.
Regarding this comment from the article:
“Cosmologies other than, and better than, Big Bang are currently being investigated, and several of them predict the young world as described in the Bible”.
There may lots of cosmologies better (or worse) than the BB but, “In the Beginning....” is silent on the question of time as to the creation of the heavens and earth as I assume that is what is meant by the term “world” above.
Your brian is gibberish.
were we anywhere but in the approx center, there should be a blow-by situation, with a denser direction where everything came from, and a less dense direction, where everything is going to.
Looking outward, all thing would be less dense, as inverse to the cube of distance
Too bad for the Big Bandaid people, huh?
brian = brain
==Darwin did not begin the philosophy or practice of science, he simply made some observations and theorized based upon those observations. Same as had been done for centuries.
Darwin was not a scientist, nor did he follow the scientific method. He attempted to write the entire history of biology based an a few minor variations between finches, and not a shred of additional evidence. This is about as unscientific as you can get. Not only that, the actual evidence has been thwarting Darwinist and neo-Darwinist explanations ever since. But that does not dampen the fervor of the Temple of Darwin. Which just goes to show that the NDToE is more a religious movement than anything else.
==Citation please on Stephen Hawkings....
9. The big bang presupposition
In their influential but highly technical book, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Stephen Hawking and George Ellis introduce their section on the big bang cosmology with the following general remarks:
‘However we are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology. In the earliest cosmologies, man placed himself in a commanding position at the centre of the universe. Since the time of Copernicus we have been steadily demoted to a medium sized planet going round a medium sized star on the outer edge of a fairly average galaxy, which is itself simply one of a local group of galaxies. Indeed we are now so democratic that we would not claim that our position in space is specially distinguished in any way. We shall, following Bondi (1960), call this assumption the Copernican principle’ [emphasis added].45
This notion used to be called the ‘Cosmological principle’.46,47 Note carefully that Hawking and Ellis call it an ‘assumption’ and an ‘admixture of ideology’—a presupposed idea not required by observations. Their phrase ‘we would not claim …’ is actually a dogmatic claim: the Earth is not in a special position in the cosmos. They go on to say:
‘A reasonable interpretation of this somewhat vague principle is to understand it as implying that, when viewed on a suitable scale, the universe is approximately spatially homogenous’ [emphasis added].48
‘Spatially homogeneous’ means ‘uniformly spread throughout all available space’. Hawking and Ellis are claiming that at any time space is completely filled with matter-energy. There never were any large empty volumes of space, and there never will be, they say.
They make this leap of faith because observations show that the universe is isotropic or spherically symmetric around us, meaning that from our vantage point it looks much the same in all directions. Ordinarily, Hawking and Ellis point out, this would mean, ‘we are located near a very special point’ 49—such as the centre. That conflicts with their desire that the Earth not be in a special location, so they seek a less troubling cosmology,
‘… in which the universe is isotropic about every point in space time; so we shall interpret the Copernican principle as stating that the universe is approximately spherically symmetric about every point (since it is approximately spherically symmetric around us).’49
As they then show, cranking this rather bizarre assumption into the mathematics of general relativity results in the various forms of the big bang theory.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1570/
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.