Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Barf! Subtle Distortion in Universe's Oldest Light: Swirls in Remnants of Big Bang
Science Daily ^ | Dec. 13, 2013

Posted on 01/05/2014 8:22:25 AM PST by GodAndCountryFirst

South Pole Telescope scientists have detected for the first time a subtle distortion in the oldest light in the universe, which may help reveal secrets about the earliest moments in the universe's formation.

The scientists observed twisting patterns in the polarization of the cosmic microwave background -- light that last interacted with matter very early in the history of the universe, less than 400,000 years after the big bang. These patterns, known as "B modes," are caused by gravitational lensing, a phenomenon that occurs when the trajectory of light is bent by massive objects, much like a lens focuses light.

(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: cosmicinflation; creation; science; stringtheory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last
A friend sent me this nonsense.

You know what? If scientists want to use their own money to try to find evidence for the discredited "big bang" nonsense, that's fine. But the South Pole Telescope was funded with our tax dollars!

Funny how you can't use tax money to fund creation science - somebody might be offended - but there seems to be unlimited money to chase unproven non-Biblical theories. I guess it's alright to use tax money if it offends Christians!

I KNOW the origin of the universe! God, who designed and built the universe, told us how he did it. I don't need money used to try to disprove God's Word! What a huge waste of money.

1 posted on 01/05/2014 8:22:25 AM PST by GodAndCountryFirst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GodAndCountryFirst

Pie Ala Mode.... YES

B Modes...No!


2 posted on 01/05/2014 8:25:39 AM PST by MeshugeMikey ( a Safe..and Sane....2014 To All!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodAndCountryFirst

Remember God also gave us minds and curiosity.


3 posted on 01/05/2014 8:26:03 AM PST by Mike Darancette (Do The Math)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodAndCountryFirst
I KNOW the origin of the universe! God, who designed and built the universe, told us how he did it. I don't need money used to try to disprove God's Word! What a huge waste of money.

I'm a Christian.

I disagree with you. Completely. We're investigating the Clockmaker, taking apart the clock, examining it, and in the process, we will only confirm that He exists. It's a great use of the money.

We should spend more.

The sciences: Chemistry, biology, physics--are only confirming that this is an ordered universe.

Why the fear? Relax. It's all gonna work out to be fine. It was always planned to. ;)

4 posted on 01/05/2014 8:31:23 AM PST by sauron ("Truth is hate to those who hate Truth" --unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodAndCountryFirst

Another commie plot by commie scientists? Oh, nooo!!!


5 posted on 01/05/2014 8:32:22 AM PST by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodAndCountryFirst

It was playful for God to create a Universe 10,000 years ago with abundant evidence of being more than 10 billion years old.


6 posted on 01/05/2014 8:34:53 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Doing the same thing and expecting different results is called software engineering.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodAndCountryFirst

I smell fear.


7 posted on 01/05/2014 8:36:32 AM PST by null and void (It is as if they all had one head. Too bad they don’t all have one neck.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodAndCountryFirst

“I KNOW the origin of the universe! God, who designed and built the universe, told us how he did it.”

I agree, but He did not explain why the early light was polarized in different ways, we have to learn that ourselves. I expect it will lead to a greater understanding of His universe.

He also did not tell us that bacteria cause diseases, and that antibiotics can help with that. He gave us the tools to learn about that, and probably guided the scientists who did discover that..


8 posted on 01/05/2014 8:36:45 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauron

Hmmmm. I’m not the only one apparently...


9 posted on 01/05/2014 8:37:15 AM PST by null and void (It is as if they all had one head. Too bad they don’t all have one neck.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
Another commie plot by commie scientists? Oh, nooo!!!

Don't make the mistake of confusing bogus "climate change" science with legit science.

10 posted on 01/05/2014 8:38:25 AM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodAndCountryFirst
"...to try to find evidence for the discredited "big bang" nonsense"

Seriously? Every glance into the universe does nothing but confirm the Big Bang.

11 posted on 01/05/2014 8:38:38 AM PST by MeanGreen2008
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauron
I disagree with you. Completely. We're investigating the Clockmaker, taking apart the clock, examining it, and in the process, we will only confirm that He exists. It's a great use of the money.

Thank you. This is an incredible discovery. It's a threat to the ignorant, not those who believe in God.

12 posted on 01/05/2014 8:40:34 AM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sauron
I disagree with you. Completely.

Same here. Furthermore, I am troubled by the growing anti-science mentality that is co-opting conservatism as of lately. It is embarrassing to see people trumpet ignorance as though it is a badge of honor.

It's gotten so bad that I fully expect every candidate running with an (R) after their name will be asked how old they think the earth is in an effort to drive away educated, suburban voters.

13 posted on 01/05/2014 8:41:19 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
There ARE in fact several serious fundamental problems with the standard Big Bang model.

They are as follows...

Problems with the Big Bang

The hot big bang theory has been extremely successful in correlating the observable properties of our Universe. However, there are some difficulties associated with the big bang theory. These difficulties are not so much errors as they are assumptions that are necessary but that do not have a fundamental justification. The required discussion is technical, so we will be content with a rather superficial statement of the three basic problems that are associated with the big bang and how they might be cured by a new idea that arises from considering the implications of elementary particle physics for cosmology.

The Horizon Problem
We have already encountered the horizon problem in conjunction with the discussion of the cosmic microwave background: when we look at the microwave background radiation coming from widely separated parts of the sky, it can be shown that these regions are too separated to have been able to have ever communicated with each other even with signals travelling at light velocity. Thus, how did they know to have almost exactly the same temperature? This general problem is called the horizon problem, because the inability to have received a signal from some distant source because of the finite speed of light is termed a horizon in cosmology. Thus, in the standard big bang theory we must simply assume the required level of uniformity.

The Flatness Problem
The experimental evidence is that the present Universe has very low geometrical curvature in its spacetime (it is nearly flat). Theoretical arguments that are well established but too complex to go into here suggest that this is a very unlikely result of the evolution of the Universe from the big bang, unless the initial curvature is confined to an incredibly narrow range of possibilities. While this is not impossible, it does not seem very natural.

The Monopole Problem
The only plausible theory in elementary particle physics for how nuclei in the present universe were created in the big bang requires the use of what are called Grand Unified Theories (GUTs). In these theories, at very high temperatures such as those found in the instants after the Universe was created the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces were (contrary to the situation today) indistinguishable from each other. We say that they were unified into a single force. Although there is as yet no certain evidence for the validity of such theories, there is strong theoretical reason to believe that they will eventually turn out to be essentially correct. Our current understanding of elementary particle physics indicates that such theories should produce very massive particles called magnetic monopoles, and that there should be many such monopoles in the Universe today. However, no one has ever found such a particle. So the final problem is: where are the monopoles?

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/bbproblems.html

14 posted on 01/05/2014 8:41:56 AM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodAndCountryFirst
I KNOW the origin of the universe! God, who designed and built the universe, told us how he did it.

When did he do that? Who designed and built him? It seems you should know these things.

15 posted on 01/05/2014 8:44:30 AM PST by rickmichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodAndCountryFirst

Yes scientists are wasting their time on these silly things like the origins of the universe

They should study really important stuff like this:

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/01/04/study-dogs-relieve-themselves-in-line-with-earths-magnetic-field/


16 posted on 01/05/2014 8:44:56 AM PST by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
Re: There ARE in fact several serious fundamental problems with the standard Big Bang model.

Moreover, the supposed "cure" to 'fix' the standard BB theory (ie, Inflation theory) is even more flawed than the BB...

The Inflationary Universe

The preceding problems with the big bang can be alleviated all at once (at least in principle), by a new kind of cosmology called the inflationary universe.

The Theory of Inflation

In the corresponding theory of inflation, the Universe, because of properties of elementary particles not accounted for in the standard big bang models, expands for a fleeting instant at its beginning at a much higher rate than that expected for the big bang. This period, which is called the inflationary epoch, is a consequence of the nuclear force breaking away from the weak and electromagnetic forces that it was unified with at higher temperatures in what is called a phase transition. (An example from everyday life of a phase transition is the conversion of ice to liquid water.)

This phase transition is thought to have happened about 10-35 seconds after the creation of the Universe. It filled the Universe with a kind of energy called the vacuum energy, and as a consequence of this vacuum energy density (which plays the role of an effective cosmological constant), gravitation effectively became repulsive for a period of about 10-32 seconds. During this period the Universe expanded at an astonishing rate, increasing its size scale by about a factor of 1050. Then, when the phase transition was complete the universe settled down into the big bang evolution that we have discussed prior to this point. This, for example, means that the entire volume of the Universe that we have been able to see so far (out to a distance of about 18 billion light years) expanded from a volume that was only a few centimeters across when inflation began!

Solution of the Problems of the Big Bang by Inflation

If this inflationary epoch really took place, it could cure all the problems of the big bang mentioned above. Briefly,
  1. The tremendous expansion means that regions that we see widely separated in the sky now at the horizon were much closer together before inflation and thus could have been in contact by light signals.

  2. The tremendous expansion greatly dilutes any initial curvature. Think, for example, of standing on a basketball. It would be obvious that you are standing on a (2-dimensional) curved surface. Now imagine expanding the basketball to the size of the Earth. As you stand on it now, it will appear to be flat (even though it is actually curved if you could see it from large enough distance). The same idea extended to 4-dimensional spacetime accounts for the present flatness (lack of curvature) in the spacetime of the Universe out to the greatest distances that we can see, just as the Earth looks approximately flat out to our horizon. In fact, the inflationary theory predicts unequivocally that the Universe should globally be exactly flat, and therefore that the average density of the Universe should be exactly equal to the closure density. It is this prediction that we alluded to earlier when we said that there were theoretical reasons to believe that the density of the Universe was exactly equal to the critical closure density.

  3. The rapid expansion of the Universe tremendously dilutes the concentration of any magnetic monopoles that are produced. Simple calculations indicate that they become so rare in any given volume of space that we would be very unlikely to ever encounter one in an experiment designed to search for them.
As if this were not enough, the theory of inflation also presents an unexpected bonus.

A Bonus: Density Fluctuations as Seeds for Galaxy Formation

In addition to (potentially, at least) solving the preceding problems of the big bang, the theory of inflation presents a bonus: detailed considerations indicate that inflation is capable of producing small density fluctuations that can later in the history of the Universe provide the seeds to cause matter to begin to clump together to form the galaxies and other observed structure. See the subsequent discussion of structure growth in the Universe.

Problems with Inflation

Although inflation has many attractive features, it is not yet a proven theory because many of the details still do not work out right in realistic calculations without making assumptions that are poorly justified. Probably most cosmologists today believe inflation to be correct at least in its outlines, but further investigation will be required to establish whether this is indeed so.
17 posted on 01/05/2014 8:48:26 AM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodAndCountryFirst

Those swirls may be when God zapped mankind for not obeying his commands.


18 posted on 01/05/2014 8:49:36 AM PST by jayrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodAndCountryFirst
You know what? If scientists want to use their own money to try to find evidence for the discredited "big bang" nonsense, that's fine.

Uhh, dude. You seem to be as confused about BBT as many evolutionists are.

BBT is essentially a restating of Genesis 1:1. Suddenly, the Universe and Time came into existence from nothing.

BBT says nothing at all about what caused the Universe to come into being. It is entirely compatible with the Bible's account.

19 posted on 01/05/2014 8:51:37 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I agree. You are correct.

“let there be light. . .” = instantaneous creation = Big Bang.


20 posted on 01/05/2014 8:57:57 AM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GodAndCountryFirst
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (Catholic Online) -- Intelligent Design reduces and belittles God’s power and might, according to the director of the Vatican Observatory. Science is and should be seen as “completely neutral” on the issue of the theistic or atheistic implications of scientific results, says Father George V. Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory, while noting that “science and religion are totally separate pursuits.” Father Coyne is scheduled to deliver the annual Aquinas Lecture on “Science Does Not Need God, or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution” at Palm Beach Atlantic University, an interdenominational Christian university of about 3,100 students, here Jan. 31. The talk is sponsored by the Newman Club, and scheduled in conjunction with the Jan. 28 feast of St. Thomas Aquinas. Catholic Online received an advance copy of the remarks from the Jesuit priest-astronomer, who heads the Vatican Observatory, which has sites at Castel Gandolfo, south of Rome, and on Mount Graham in Arizona. Christianity is “radically creationist,” Father George V. Coyne said, but it is not best described by the “crude creationism” of the fundamental, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis or by the Newtonian dictatorial God who makes the universe tick along like a watch. Rather, he stresses, God acts as a parent toward the universe, nurturing, encouraging and working with it. In his remarks, he also criticizes the cardinal archbishop of Vienna’s support for Intelligent Design and notes that Pope John Paul’s declaration that “evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis” is “a fundamental church teaching” which advances the evolutionary debate. He calls “mistaken” the belief that the Bible should be used “as a source of scientific knowledge,” which then serves to “unduly complicate the debate over evolution.” And while Charles Darwin receives most of the attention in the debate over evolution, Father Coyne said it was the 18th-century French naturalist Georges Buffon, condemned a hundred years before Darwin for suggesting that “it took billions of years to form the crust of the earth,” who “caused problems for the theologians with the implications that might be drawn from the theory of evolution.” He points to the “marvelous intuition” of Roman Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman who said in 1868, “the theory of Darwin, true or not, is not necessarily atheistic; on the contrary, it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of divine providence and skill.” Pope John Paul Paul II, he adds, told the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 that “new scientific knowledge has led us to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis.” He criticizes Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna for instigating a “tragic” episode “in the relationship of the Catholic Church to science” through the prelate’s July 7, 2005, article he wrote for the New York Times that “neo-Darwinian evolution is not compatible with Catholic doctrine,” while the Intelligent Design theory is. Cardinal Schonborn “is in error,” the Vatican observatory director says, on “at least five fundamental issues.” “One, the scientific theory of evolution, as all scientific theories, is completely neutral with respect to religious thinking; two, the message of John Paul II, which I have just referred to and which is dismissed by the cardinal as ‘rather vague and unimportant,’ is a fundamental church teaching which significantly advances the evolution debate; three, neo-Darwinian evolution is not in the words of the cardinal, ‘an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection;’ four, the apparent directionality seen by science in the evolutionary process does not require a designer; five, Intelligent Design is not science despite the cardinal’s statement that ‘neo-Darwinism and the multi-verse hypothesis in cosmology [were] invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science,’” Father Coyne says. Christianity is “radically creationist” and God is the “creator of the universe,” he says, but in “a totally different sense” than creationism has come to mean. “It is unfortunate that, especially here in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis,” he stresses. “It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God. The universe is not God and it cannot exist independently of God. Neither pantheism nor naturalism is true.” He says that God is not needed to explain the “scientific picture of life’s origins in terms of religious belief.” “To need God would be a very denial of God. God is not a response to a need,” the Jesuit says, adding that some religious believers act as if they “fondly hope for the durability of certain gaps in our scientific knowledge of evolution, so that they can fill them with God.” Yet, he adds, this is the opposite of what human intelligence should be working toward. “We should be seeking for the fullness of God in creation.” Modern science reveals to the religious believer “God who made a universe that has within it a certain dynamism and thus participates in the very creativity of God,” Father Coyne says, adding that this view of creation is not new but can be found in early Christian writings, including from those of St. Augustine. “Religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly.” He proposes to describe God’s relationship with the universe as that of a parent with a child, with God nurturing, preserving and enriching its individual character. “God should be seen more as a parent or as one who speaks encouraging and sustaining words.” He stresses that the theory of Intelligent Design diminishes God into “an engineer who designs systems rather than a lover.” “God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world which reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity,” he said. “God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He does not intervene, but rather allows, participates, loves.” The concludes his prepared remarks noting that science challenges believers’ traditional understanding of God and the universe to look beyond “crude creationism” to a view that preserves the special character of both. - - - Copyright © 2006 by Catholic Online (www.catholic.org). All Rights Reserved.
21 posted on 01/05/2014 9:01:20 AM PST by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

You are naive. These are atheist scientists trying to prove that the universe is godless. I don’t want to pay for that.


22 posted on 01/05/2014 9:02:48 AM PST by GodAndCountryFirst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sauron

God might reply, study My Creation,
I have made it Understandable
I have Given you Reason and Logic

One might say that we Honor God by Honoring His Creation
By Studying it and using it Prudently.
We Honor God by being Good Stewards of
the Gifts of Logic and Reason.

Always Honoring the Giver of the Gifts
In all Gratitude and Humility.
And Knowing that ALL is Freely Given Gifts.


23 posted on 01/05/2014 9:03:09 AM PST by HangnJudge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

Clearly God didnt like your post as HE made it unreadable


24 posted on 01/05/2014 9:03:24 AM PST by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Hulka

There are particles in so-called “empty space” that spontaneously pop in and out of existence all the time. Turns out space isn’t really empty at all, but rather seething with quantum energy.


25 posted on 01/05/2014 9:03:43 AM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ETL

“There are particles in so-called “empty space” that spontaneously pop in and out of existence all the time”

I call those particles “reality TV stars”. . .


26 posted on 01/05/2014 9:05:21 AM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Same here. Furthermore, I am troubled by the growing anti-science mentality that is co-opting conservatism as of lately.


Yup, me too. If some had their way, they would shut down all scientific research in this country. Close down labs, close astronomy observatories, stop the teaching of science in high schools and universities, the whole works.


27 posted on 01/05/2014 9:08:13 AM PST by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

well said


28 posted on 01/05/2014 9:09:26 AM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey

THE “BIG BANG” IS PURE SPECULATION: LET”S SEE SOME PROOF!


29 posted on 01/05/2014 9:10:07 AM PST by upcountryhorseman (An old fashioned conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodAndCountryFirst
These are atheist scientists trying to prove that the universe is godless.

Some of the brightest I've come across seem to leave room for the possibility of a creator. One such scientist, Lothar Schafer, an expert in quantum mechanics, frequently makes connections between how the mind works and how the universe works at the most fundamental level (the realm of quantum mechanics). He's written several books on the subject. Another one is cosmologist Paul Davies, author of The Matter Myth.

30 posted on 01/05/2014 9:11:50 AM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GodAndCountryFirst
You are naive.

You are dogmatic.

31 posted on 01/05/2014 9:13:12 AM PST by rickmichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Hulka

More like pieces of the ‘brains’ of reality TV stars.


32 posted on 01/05/2014 9:15:17 AM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sauron

Fundamentally physics and mathematics; information imprinted on the universe such as in DNA layering.

More difficult for atheists by the day.


33 posted on 01/05/2014 9:17:53 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
"It was playful for God to create a Universe 10,000 years ago with abundant evidence of being more than 10 billion years old."

Jesus's first miracle was to create something with the appearance of age, wine.

If God decides to hang stars and galaxy's in the sky for lights and to tell the seasons by, why do you imply any other motive?

He wanted them, He made them. He gave us the timeline of creation. The fact that we don't understand how he did it or why he created them a certain way, and then we try to impose natural causes, and conclude that they must be old, is not His problem.

34 posted on 01/05/2014 9:18:32 AM PST by DannyTN (A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ETL

There are particles in so-called “empty space” that spontaneously pop in and out of existence all the time. Turns out space isn’t really empty at all, but rather seething with quantum energy.


Which leads to the question of what created those particles and quantum energy.


35 posted on 01/05/2014 9:19:01 AM PST by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GodAndCountryFirst

We need to quit science and just study the Bible. All the answers are in the Bible.


36 posted on 01/05/2014 9:19:12 AM PST by Sawdring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodAndCountryFirst

Something created the Universe. Who’s to say God didn’t use a big bang to do it?


37 posted on 01/05/2014 9:21:47 AM PST by Las Vegas Ron ("Medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism" Vladimir Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauron
I KNOW the origin of the universe! God, who designed and built the universe, told us how he did it. I don't need money used to try to disprove God's Word! What a huge waste of money.

...............

I'm a Christian.

I disagree with you. Completely. We're investigating the Clockmaker, taking apart the clock, examining it, and in the process, we will only confirm that He exists. It's a great use of the money.

We should spend more.

The sciences: Chemistry, biology, physics--are only confirming that this is an ordered universe.

Why the fear? Relax. It's all gonna work out to be fine. It was always planned to. ;)

Ditto. I see absolutely no conflict with religion and the aggressive, open-minded exploration of our world.

Note - I'm talking about the real scientific method as opposed to idiots who say things like "the science is settled."

38 posted on 01/05/2014 9:21:51 AM PST by MV=PY (The Magic Question: Who's paying for it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Respectfully, I for one do not find religion and science to be in conflict. It is the misguided proponents of either who are in conflict.


39 posted on 01/05/2014 9:22:32 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Doing the same thing and expecting different results is called software engineering.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ETL

Thanks for the great post. For all the believers in God, and I am one, every discovery we make makes me revere The Lord all the more and and it reinforces how precious life and knowledge is.


40 posted on 01/05/2014 9:23:50 AM PST by Nuc 1.1 (Nuc 1 Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GodAndCountryFirst

“These are atheist scientists trying to prove that the universe is godless.”

I’m a scientist and I know scientists, all of the scientists that I know are not atheist in any sense of the word. Investigating God’s work is very enlightening and brings us closer to Him.

To forbid basic research into the universe out of fear that it may contradict our current understanding shows lack of faith in God and his works.


41 posted on 01/05/2014 9:23:52 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GodAndCountryFirst

God gave many human beings an insatiable curiosity about the nature of His creation. How those of us who are so inclined choose to study that creation is a matter of personal choice. I happen to be a life scientist—meaning that the theory of evolution informs all of my research.

There is no need to feel threatened by those of us who are inspired to study and understand God’s work.


42 posted on 01/05/2014 9:24:13 AM PST by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sawdring

I forget, is the passage on p-n junctions in Leviticus or Corinthians?

:)


43 posted on 01/05/2014 9:29:44 AM PST by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GodAndCountryFirst
the discredited "big bang" nonsense

Really? Tell me...how long was the first day? The second day? Earth was created on the third day. So was the second day 24 hours? Could it have been 25 hours long? Or 30? Or 3 million hours? Or 15 million years?

Answer that one and you'll have a better grasp on what you see when you look skyward.

Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible

44 posted on 01/05/2014 9:29:59 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts ("Gun horror is not a productive emotion, it's learned helplessness disguised as moral superiority.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodAndCountryFirst
God believers:
God created the universe.

Atheists:
Prior natural conditions led to the creation of the universe.

God believers:
God created the prior conditions that led to the creation of the universe.

45 posted on 01/05/2014 9:36:40 AM PST by mjp ((pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, natural rights, limited government, capitalism}))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upcountryhorseman; Hulka
THE “BIG BANG” IS PURE SPECULATION: LET”S SEE SOME PROOF!

At this point in time it's largely a matter of faith. It depends on whether or not you believe the Biblical account. As pointed out by Hulka in post #20.......

46 posted on 01/05/2014 9:37:29 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (Damn ObamaCare, full speed ahead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GodAndCountryFirst
the discredited "big bang"

When was the big bang discredited?

47 posted on 01/05/2014 9:38:31 AM PST by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

That post needs a big BIG bang !


48 posted on 01/05/2014 9:39:55 AM PST by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GodAndCountryFirst
"You know what? If scientists want to use their own money to try to find evidence for the discredited "big bang" nonsense, that's fine. But the South Pole Telescope was funded with our tax dollars!"

Discredited??? By whom?? The people who want the "Big Bang" discredited are atheists who want to deny the creation, of which said "Big Bang" is one of the greatest proofs.

What about "Let there be light" is hard to understand?

49 posted on 01/05/2014 9:39:58 AM PST by Wonder Warthog (Newly fledged NRA Life Member (after many years as an "annual renewal" sort))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upcountryhorseman

“LET”S SEE SOME PROOF!”

OK! Let’s use telescopes and microwave detectors and radiotelescopes to see what there is to see, then we’ll analyze the data and make sense out of it!

Scientists see Creation events as testable hypotheses- so if there were a Big Bang (no universe, POP, universe) then we might expect to see [some data] as a result, is it there?


50 posted on 01/05/2014 9:42:02 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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