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 ...
What’s to get a grip about? I completely agree. The evidence AGAINST the Big Bang is continually mounting, whereas the evidence FOR YEC cosmologies is also mounting. It’s not my fault the Big Bang is not living up to the hype, and instead is being forced by the accumulating evidence against it to go out with a long overdue whimper.
I cannot see it as “choose a or b” situation.
Do you think Godless liberals have agendas or are they always somehow objecive when it comes to science?
Or anything at all for that matter?
Sometimes you just witness a difference in interpreting the data and sometimes you witness a response to an agenda, and not necessarily an agenda.
It's important to know what you're indeed witnessing!
You miss the point. Science is about mechanics.
And evolution.
Why should we? You don't listen to reason. You ignore the vast body of evidence against your position. You don't grasp the concept of the need to do word studies in the Bible. And you call anyone who disagrees with you an advocate of "atheist science" and accuse them of "worshipping at the Temple of Darwin Cult.
You have no idea of the damage that you do to Christianity.
From Augustine:
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
Augustine is describing the young-earth creationists, but you don't even understand that you -- not scientists -- are the ones hurting the cause of Christ and preventing others from believing.
That is untrue and you know it.
Get some water! Try reading up on Origen (Alaexandria) and the Synod of Carthage in AD 397. Both were in Northern Africa. Oh, and Luther's text sourced Desiderius Erasmus, who put together the "Textus Receptus" as it is now known. But I can't read German. :-)
Are you implying I should parse what I observe according to your specific guidelines and beliefs?
I think one of the problems is the global warming movement that is such garbage. It has painted all science with a broad brush of political agenda when the opposite is true.
Which is why, I think, more and more scientists are coming out as opposing GW. It’s hurting their profession and studies.
They should have acted earlier.
What are you talking about? This article has nothing to do with "liberalism" or evolution. The article is a fundamental mischaracterization of what science does, and what it means to refine and adjust a theory to fit new data.
I have tried to tell GodGunsGuts the same thing many times. He refuses to reason. The Big Bang theory was originally rejected by scientists because many thought that it sounded too close to what the Bible describes in Genesis. In fact, the name "Big Bang" was used to mock the theory, but the moniker stuck.
In the meantime, people like GodGunsGuts make it very difficult for we Christians who happen to be scientists to witness to others in our field. The wacky theories and flat-out lies by Young-Earth Creationists turn off technically-educated people and they assume that all Christians are stuck in the Dark Ages.
For example, assume that Ahmadenejad understands economics well and suggests tax cuts to help the American economy. No one will listen to him because he's so whacked out in other areas of his beliefs. Same with the Young-Earth Creationists. They prey upon gullible people.
What scientific theory better explains the origins of the universe compared to those used by modern cosmology?
Ok. You are free to disbelieve in god all you like. Good luck with that.
I agree with you.
I hope you get this....
My wife asked me whether I believed in Adam and Eve. I said yes. I then added “I also feel that evolution is quite real”.
I find no problems with this statement.
I just read the article. The first sentence is a flat-out lie. The rest is devoted to mischaracterize and miscontrue the observations.
Why do you post crap like this? It’s just like the garbage that AlGore writes.
By the way, I’ve told you my educational and work background. Why don’t you tell me yours? What in your life gives you the competency to determine what is real science and what is junk science?
Ah, so what "true science" better explains the origins of the universe, if modern cosmology is "guessing."
Augustine--The City of God Against the Pagans:
II Of the Falseness of the history which ascribes many thousands of years to times gone by
"Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. … They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed."
http://books.google.com/books?id=ReU2M8cLtGcC&pg=PA511&lpg=PA511&dq=Let+us,+then,+omit+the+conjectures+of+men+who+augustine&source=web&ots=wiAokxvGEb&sig=5blUfiE5bl5szUaDhYKvswTPbUg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA512,M1
So it's GGG's fault you don't have much success? How convenient.
"The wacky theories and flat-out lies by Young-Earth Creationists turn off technically-educated people and they assume that all Christians are stuck in the Dark Ages."
As opposed to the wacky theories and flat-out lies by old-earth evolutionists that 'turn on' technically-indoctrinated people who assume philosophical naturalism 'a priori' and mistake that for critical-thinking skill?
Augustine calls your arguments pagan. How do you repond?
So what scientific theory does a better job than those currently used by modern cosmology? If big bang theory fails completely, it should be pretty obvious what the alternative theory should be.
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.