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

Skip to comments.

A Brief History of Intolerance in Modern Cosmology
AiG ^ | January 21, 2009 | Dr. Jerry Bergman

Posted on 01/23/2009 8:11:29 AM PST by GodGunsGuts

A Brief History of Intolerance in Modern Cosmology

by Dr. Jerry Bergman

January 21, 2009

Abstract

A review of some recent well-documented cases of intolerance in the cosmology field illustrates a common problem in science. Many relate to the Big Bang theory, such as the case of Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge and Halton Arp. None of the accounts involved Intelligent Design advocates or creationists. This selection removes this compounding factor from the evaluation, but the cases have direct relevance to both Intelligent Design and creationism because both groups face the same resistance. It was concluded that it is critical for science to advance that new ideas must be evaluated on the evidence and not because they challenge established science. This problem has persisted during the entire history of science, the most well known example being Galileo...

(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: bigbang; burbidge; cosmology; creation; evolution; haltonarp; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

1 posted on 01/23/2009 8:11:29 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

ping!


2 posted on 01/23/2009 8:13:36 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC; antonia; aristotleman; Carilisa; commonguymd; dozer7; Dustbunny; Eaker; ForGod'sSake; ...
Intolerance of other theories in modern Cosmology... PING!

If you want on or off the Electric Universe Ping List, Freepmail me.

3 posted on 01/23/2009 8:48:00 AM PST by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE is "AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


4 posted on 01/23/2009 8:53:19 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop; metmom; LeGrande; editor-surveyor

Any thoughts on the Cosmologists who question the Big Bang (and what would seem to be the fanatical persecution of the same)?


5 posted on 01/23/2009 8:57:07 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Seven blind men went to see the elephant...

Peer review? Why that's ONLY for those already in agreement with whichever prevailing orthodoxy reigns supreme.

Gotta problem with that? Then you just don't understand how science *works*. Obviously, you must be an idiot, and all your ideas are just so many idiot offspring, not falling too far from the tree...


6 posted on 01/23/2009 10:05:15 AM PST by BlueDragon (the beatings will continue until morale improves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The ability to confer the mantle of scientific respectability, if not truth, upon a view creates great power in and over our society right down to the grassroots prols.

Here on FR when discussions turn to religion and philosophy vs. the current pronouncements of scientific theory, to say, “That's not scientific” or some such is a pejorative that the utterers appear to think renders all dissent futile.

Here that sort of thing provides fuel for debate but when the person saying it can put a choke hold on one’s career by restricting research facilities and therefore the mother's milk of publication, peer review, then it's quite a different story.

7 posted on 01/23/2009 10:13:35 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

It’s a conspiracy. Cosmologists are part of the bigger conspiracy of scientists who want to make ignorant people look dumb.


8 posted on 01/23/2009 10:16:18 AM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; betty boop; metmom; LeGrande; editor-surveyor; MHGinTN; TXnMA
Any thoughts on the Cosmologists who question the Big Bang (and what would seem to be the fanatical persecution of the same)?

Cosmic measurements since the 1960's have ever been tested against the big bang/inflationary universe model. And because the model has held up to all those tests, most scientists accept the big bang/inflationary universe model. And no doubt the peer-reviewers would be extremely skeptical of theories which cannot explain away that ever increasing volume of measurements.

Hostility may follow, but I doubt to the extreme of the Intelligent Design issue.

There is a difference.

Evolution biology is a historical science much like anthropology, archeology and Egyptology. They do not have a complete record to view - i.e. not every thing that ever lived left a fossil and an artifact. So in these disciplines, the theory is the paradigm to explain the quantization of the historical continuum and is "the" test for any evidence which accumulates thereafter. Intelligent Design questions the paradigm per se claiming that "certain" features are best explained by an intelligent cause.

One could argue that physical cosmology is a historical science as well. But physical cosmology proposes many blueprints (theories) which fit the physical evidence. However, unlike evolution biology, there is no single paradigm theory for physical cosmology. Theories include imaginary time, multi-verse, multi-world, ekpyrotic, cyclic and many more. The "paradigm" in that field consists of this universe's physical laws, physical causation and physical constants themselves.

However, if a scientist questioned that paradigm, e.g. denied the second law of thermodynamics, he might expect not only extreme skepticism but hostility as well.

In his fascinating essay, Refereed Journals: Do they ensure quality or enforce orthodoxy?, Tipler questions whether revolutionary theories (e.g. relativity) would have ever made it through the peer review process.

That is an interesting question because truly whenever a scientist assails a paradigm as opposed to a theory, he effectively attacks the entire discipline and therefore should expect the defense to include self-righteous indignation.

Conversely, as cosmologist Delaporte once noted (paraphrased): science has grown so large and become so specialized that there are precious few big thinkers these days. Or to put it another way, there are precious few scientists who are truly qualified to peer review a revolutionary theory.

I do understand the value of peer review however I strongly aver that every scientist should have an outlet for his theories, no matter how revolutionary they might be - and that he should never be punished for thinking outside the box, i.e. the paradigm.

The Founders should have specified "Freedom of Thought" instead of letting it be inferred from "Freedom of Speech." However, in their defense, they probably did not anticipate the pervasive "political correctness" of today's world.

A final point: the big bang theory itself is the most theological statement ever to come out of modern science (Jastrow.) Genesis 1 and John 1 both declare "In the beginning."

All physical cosmologies require space and time for physical causation. In the absence of time, events cannot occur. In the absence of space, things cannot exist. None can obviate the need for God the Creator, the First Cause of "all that there is" who is neither time bound nor space bound, uncreated.

No matter how far back they theoretical push the historical record (e.g. multi-verse theories) - they are always relying on space and time for physical causation. Without speaking of God, they can never say how much less why there is something instead of nothing at all.

When my brothers and sisters in Christ theologically question the big bang, they are discounting this important argument. Nevertheless, we must all declare the Truth as we have received it.

I agree with Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder - God's revelation in Scripture and in Creation agree when one considers relativity and the big bang/inflationary model. From the inception of this universe to now, six days have elapsed relative to the inception - though from our space/time coordinates, billions of years have elapsed. The two are not mutually exclusive, they are relative. Or to put it another way, Genesis 1 is written from the Creator's perspective - not the perspective of a creature. In my view, the perspective of Scripture does not change to man's until Adam is banished to mortality.

9 posted on 01/23/2009 10:20:39 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

The inquisition lives on. What will be next, house arrest? Too bad so many people assume white labcoats confer objectivity. Indeed, it would seem the field of science is one of the last bastions still capable of fooling the public into believing they are immune to human frailty. But alas, I suspect the days of being able to rely on naive public trust are rapidly coming to a close.


10 posted on 01/23/2009 10:24:35 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

Excellent reply. But I am a bit confused by what you mean by “So in these disciplines, the theory is the paradigm to explain the quantization of the historical continuum...” Could you elaborate?


11 posted on 01/23/2009 10:34:24 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

You know I do, right? I think alot of the creationists’ ideas on cosmology are nonsense and have said so more than once but never have I suggested that they or their sources not be allowed to publish along side the big bang, etc. theories.

Why should someone with academic degrees be told he can no longer look through a telescope just because he thinks he sees a young universe or something? If the Emperor has no clothes, putting blindfolds on the crowd won’t dress him.


12 posted on 01/23/2009 10:35:40 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

Something can’t be created from nothing; which leads us to either conclude that something always existed or the whole thing is a collective illusion, or something like that. :)


13 posted on 01/23/2009 10:58:49 AM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Something can’t be created from nothing; which leads us to either conclude that something always existed or the whole thing is a collective illusion, or something like that. :)

I subscribe to the "something always existed" angle. Matter and energy can be converted back and forth, manifested in various forms of each, but can neither be created nor destroyed.

14 posted on 01/23/2009 11:02:40 AM PST by TChris (So many useful idiots...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
I agree with Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder - God's revelation in Scripture and in Creation agree when one considers relativity and the big bang/inflationary model. From the inception of this universe to now, six days have elapsed relative to the inception - though from our space/time coordinates, billions of years have elapsed. The two are not mutually exclusive, they are relative. Or to put it another way, Genesis 1 is written from the Creator's perspective - not the perspective of a creature. In my view, the perspective of Scripture does not change to man's until Adam is banished to mortality.

2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Time dilation addressed in Scripture thousands you years before science got there....... again.

Needs to be repeated often and to the evos, although you'll no doubt be accused of stretching things, twisting Scripture, not being literal, being too literal, whatever, to invalidate your comment.

ABG-Anything But God.

I find it by far the best explanation to reconcile the difference between what God tells us and what we observe.

Thanks for putting it so concisely.

15 posted on 01/23/2009 11:03:23 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
If the Emperor has no clothes, putting blindfolds on the crowd won’t dress him.

LOL!

But that's exactly what they're doing.

16 posted on 01/23/2009 11:05:55 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

I don’t have time to go into any kind of depth at the moment, but I’d be curious to find out which creationist ideas re: cosmology you categorize as nonsense.


17 posted on 01/23/2009 11:11:59 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; betty boop; metmom; LeGrande; editor-surveyor; MHGinTN; TXnMA
Thank you so much for your encouragements!

But I am a bit confused by what you mean by “So in these disciplines, the theory is the paradigm to explain the quantization of the historical continuum...” Could you elaborate?

Certainly.

A continuum is coherent whole.

A quantization is one instance in the continuum.

The geologic record is a historical record which has captured certain quantizations, e.g. the remains of certain creatures became fossils which are contained in the geologic record.

Likewise, the geologic record contains artifacts, records and structures left by humans which evidently existed long ago.

The historical sciences look at these quantizations of the historical record as data points (quantizations) in their blueprint, theoretical continuum.

Darwin's tree of life is "the" theoretical continuum into which one of the fossils would be fit.

Archeological theory concerning the Mayans is "the" theoretical continuum into which one of the artifacts would be fit.

In these historical science disciplines, the theory is not merely one alternative explanation but rather "the" paradigm for the discipline.

Egyptology, for instance, presupposes a linear progression of Egyptian civilization in its theoretical continuum.

Another way to look at it would be to envision a big blueprint (tree of life) into which the scientist fits whatever he finds. The historical scientist is focused on the data.

Physical cosmology - like physics and chemistry etc. - works differently. They don't have a paradigm theory. Theories (more than one usually) are built to explain what is observed.

It is a fundamental difference:

The Physics of Symbols: Bridging the Epistemic Cut

4. Biologists' views of the relation of biology to physics

Many biologists consider physical laws, artificial life, robotics, and even theoretical biology as largely irrelevant for their research. In the 1970s, a prominent molecular geneticist asked me, "Why do we need theory when we have all the facts?" At the time I dismissed the question as silly, as most physicists would. However, it is not as silly as the converse question, Why do we need facts when we have all the theories? These are actually interesting philosophical questions that show why trying to relate biology to physics is seldom of interest to biologists, even though it is of great interest to physicists. Questioning the importance of theory sounds eccentric to physicists for whom general theories is what physics is all about. Consequently, physicists, like the skeptics I mentioned above, are concerned when they learn facts of life that their theories do not appear capable of addressing. On the other hand, biologists, when they have the facts, need not worry about physical theories that neither address nor alter their facts. Ernst Mayr (1997) believes this difference is severe enough to separate physical and biological models: "Yes, biology is, like physics and chemistry, a science. But biology is not a science like physics and chemistry; it is rather an autonomous science on a par with the equally autonomous physical sciences."


18 posted on 01/23/2009 11:28:25 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
LOLOL! Actually, there are a few theories like that in currency.
19 posted on 01/23/2009 11:30:57 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

A lot of the heavyweights appears not to buy the big bang idea: http://www.cosmologystatement.org


20 posted on 01/23/2009 11:31:57 AM PST by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Thank you oh so very much for your encouragements, dear sister in Christ!

Needs to be repeated often and to the evos, although you'll no doubt be accused of stretching things, twisting Scripture, not being literal, being too literal, whatever, to invalidate your comment.

ABG-Anything But God.

Indeed. Happens all the time and evidently for that very reason.

21 posted on 01/23/2009 11:34:47 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Glad you brought up house arrest. The Wholly Objective New Inquisition will not be so merciful to “your kind”. (no offense intended, I,m offensive enough unintentionally)

Here's a scenario: You, being a believer in a young earth, naturally teach your children the same as fact, it's what you believe reality to be, right? So why not?

The kiddie’s school science course’ approved and vetted teaching is that the some version of the “BiG Bang” (hereafter BB) is fact and truth and reality. But your kiddies aver not and explain Dad says ‘au contraire!’ to BB.

But if the BB really is fact, and you, being familiar with the BB, deny that reality, isn't that a fair definition of mental imbalance? Denying reality in the face of overwhelming fact? Hmmm. Infinite possibilities here!

But you, being an adult, the school psychologist says may believe any error you wish but teaching craziness to little Johnny or Johnette is child abuse and must be reported to “The Proper Authorities”.

Bring in the skinny broad social worker clutching a clipboard to her chest because she “knows how men are!” to quiz the kiddies about “all the other abuse” and you can finish the story.

You will believe, the truth is out where?

22 posted on 01/23/2009 11:38:45 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I don't have a problem with the Big Bang Theory. Why not just consider it the "First Day", in Genesis. We have no idea how long God's 'days' might be. It would be hubris on our part to limit God to OUR time frame.

Scientists may not know what caused it, but folks who believe in God can assume that He brought it into being.

23 posted on 01/23/2009 11:53:29 AM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
I agree with Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder - God's revelation in Scripture and in Creation agree when one considers relativity and the big bang/inflationary model. From the inception of this universe to now, six days have elapsed relative to the inception - though from our space/time coordinates, billions of years have elapsed. The two are not mutually exclusive, they are relative. Or to put it another way, Genesis 1 is written from the Creator's perspective - not the perspective of a creature. In my view, the perspective of Scripture does not change to man's until Adam is banished to mortality.

I hadn't read your comments, before I posted mine, and I've never heard of Gerald Schroeder, but it seems I was thinking the same thing as he!

24 posted on 01/23/2009 11:56:01 AM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
Indeed! I hope you will continue to investigate his views!
25 posted on 01/23/2009 12:03:51 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

we’ve plowed this ground before but when you wish give a shout and I’ll gird my loins, draw my sword, lace up my boots, jump in the saddle, aahhh.....what have I left out?


26 posted on 01/23/2009 12:30:55 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ; Alamo-Girl

The Age of the Universe
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576941/posts

The link to this thread has been posted in crevo debates several times with very little response to it.

Notice the original thread has very little evo participation. What little there is is mostly derision, as expected.

For all the demands by evos to back up Scripture with science, they are clearly not interested in seriously considering the matter.


27 posted on 01/23/2009 1:04:55 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; Swordmaker

Hell must have frozen over, but I agree with you GGG.

Science now seems to be more about funding and grants than anything else.

Also Swordmakers ideas on the Electric Universe seem to fit the facts better than the standard cosmology.


28 posted on 01/23/2009 1:14:27 PM PST by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you can’t reason someone out of something that they didn’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker; GodGunsGuts
Thanks for the ping to this long but interesting article. The upshot if it all??? Confusion reigns when the Scientific Community™ unknowingly or unwittingly sets out to determine how God does things, like creating the universe for example -- and all that's in it. Their ill advised efforts to eliminate their confusion when facing the work of an Almighty God, all the while trying to make a name for themselves, is fool's errand.

More answers might manifest themselves if they would only ask Him, but I dunno. God will reveal to us what He wants to revealed to us, nothing more.

That said, I don't begrudge the Scientific Community™ their desire to explore. I enjoy hearing and reading about new discoveries and Man's tilting at frontiers. God gave us an inquisitive mind and the freedom to let it roam. I submit we, in the main, may not use it altogether in the way He intended. But freedom is all about making choices...

29 posted on 01/23/2009 1:44:30 PM PST by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its socks on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Meant to add on my previous reply that 44’s apparent enamorment with the Scientific Method™, but more specifically to the Scientific Community™, is indicative of the sad state of science. Science can now best be described as Political Science.


30 posted on 01/23/2009 1:57:08 PM PST by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its socks on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I’ve been arguing for a while that science is not immune to godless liberals (hijacking evolution theory) no more than anything else:

journalism
law
politics
history
etc.


31 posted on 01/23/2009 2:25:01 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

==we’ve plowed this ground before but when you wish give a shout and I’ll gird my loins, draw my sword, lace up my boots, jump in the saddle

Nothing like that. I was just curious which creationist cosmologies you consider nonsense. Who knows, I might even agree with you. But then again, I don’t recall crossing swords with you on this issue, so perhaps you know a little something about what my response will be that I don’t :o)

All the best—GGG


32 posted on 01/23/2009 4:20:09 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Alamo-Girl
I wonder if those who want to doubt what science believes to be the age of the universe, either because they believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis, or because the scientists who are positing the theories of the Big Bang seem to assume it simply appeared one day, lo those billions of years ago, have considered another possibility.

Maybe God is revealing Himself slowly to those non-believers, using their intellect and the disciplines they have decided to study, to show not only how He created the Universe and everything in it, but the sheer beauty of each system of life as it came into being, and adapted along the way.

In the meantime, we, who already believe He can do all things, can rejoice that those who have difficulty accepting Him through faith alone, can begin to believe through their own careful scientific observations. I'll rejoice for them, when they come to believe, even if they, as Thomas did, have to 'touch' Him in order to do so.

33 posted on 01/23/2009 4:47:01 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande

Time to breakout the iceskates :o)


34 posted on 01/23/2009 5:31:32 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The accounting for starlight from far distant stars with an explanation that says, if I understand it, that the stars are old but the light from them is young to us.

And the wet version of the big bang, wherein the universe was a ball of water 2 light years in diameter, collapsed to form everything. It takes a judo on Genesis to make it support this. As propounded by Dr. Humphreys.

35 posted on 01/23/2009 6:32:10 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Thank you so much for the link! Indeed, threads that actually require a discussion of the issues tend to go to crickets very quickly.
36 posted on 01/23/2009 10:01:32 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
Thank you so very much for sharing your beautiful testimony and insights!
37 posted on 01/23/2009 10:03:18 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; Alamo-Girl
The accounting for starlight from far distant stars with an explanation that says, if I understand it, that the stars are old but the light from them is young to us.

So the further out we see, the further back in time we're looking. And what information about the beginning is that showing us?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

The age of the universe is about 13.7 billion years, but due to the expansion of space we are now observing objects that are now considerably farther away than a static 13.7 billion light-years distance. The edge of the observable universe is now located about 46.5 billion light-years away.

Estimates of the matter content of the observable universe indicate that it contains on the order of 10 [to the 80th] atoms. The vast majority of the energy density is contributed by dark matter and dark energy.

38 posted on 01/24/2009 5:15:17 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
So transparent even a caveman knows the difference.


"Grog say.......Warning!
This is a Meta-article that contains no
site-specific scientifc data or research whatsoever
and is produced by an obscure, unrecognized, non-scientific
internet group attempting to pass off their agenda as scholarly.
Buyer Beware!"

39 posted on 01/24/2009 5:51:42 AM PST by DoctorMichael (Creationists on the internet: The Ignorant, amplifying the Stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom

One thing it tells us is that there was a beginning, not an easy concept for some, I guess. Another is that if the farthest objects are 13 billion years old we can’t really say much about their condition at this moment seeing they’ve had 13 billion years to change or not.


40 posted on 01/24/2009 7:59:12 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; GodGunsGuts
Genesis 1 is written from the Creator's perspective - not the perspective of a creature. In my view, the perspective of Scripture does not change to man's until Adam is banished to mortality.

Excellent observation, dearest sister in Christ! Thank you so very much for your insightful essay-post!

41 posted on 01/24/2009 10:07:10 AM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: metmom; count-your-change; betty boop; Suzie-Q; GodGunsGuts
There are a few things often overlooked in "age of the universe" debates on this forum.

First, that space/time itself expands. Thus a photon sent out when a star was just a billion light years away may not reach us until ten billion lights later. The photon traveled at the speed of light. For it, no time elapsed (null path.) But it took longer to get here because space/time itself expanded. In the inflationary phase of this universe, space/time itself expanded faster than the speed of light.

Second, that the rules which apply to relative velocities in special relativity - e.g. that relative velocities cannot increase past the speed of light - do not apply to relative velocities in comoving coordinates. If you could engineer a space vehicle which folds four dimensional space/time and tunnels from one side to the other and move through it, you would be traveling faster than the speed of light without violating the speed limit.


42 posted on 01/24/2009 10:16:52 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you so very much for your encouragements, dearest sister in Christ!
43 posted on 01/24/2009 10:55:03 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop
"Genesis 1 is written from the Creator's perspective - not the perspective of a creature. In my view, the perspective of Scripture does not change to man's until Adam is banished to mortality."

As you are aware, we have always agreed on your first sentence. To be truthful, I had never tried to pinpoint the change from God's (dictated/revealed) viewpoint to man's -- as you have in your second one.

Your second sentence makes sense, too -- it is just new to me right now, yet I find no argument against it.

Bottom line: thank you, dear Sister, for another beautifully-presented insight!

44 posted on 01/24/2009 11:05:55 AM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
You're quite welcome and thank you for all your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!


45 posted on 01/24/2009 11:12:41 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ; Alamo-Girl; betty boop
For me, (physical chemist, born again, creationist -- but not YEC) discovering Schroeder many years ago was one of those genuine, "Aha! So I'm not alone in my comfort with both my science and my religion!!" moments...

I re-read Schroeder from time to time -- to see if his viewpoint has improved even further... ;-} And I recommend his writings...

46 posted on 01/24/2009 11:15:10 AM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
Yeehaw! I'm honored to be in your company.
47 posted on 01/24/2009 11:38:40 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA; Alamo-Girl

Thanks for the recommendation about Gerald Schroeder. I just checked our library system, and there are four of his books available at various locations. I can order them up and have them sent to our local library! I sent the link from the system to my hubby, SirKit, and he’s gonna let me know which ones to order up.


48 posted on 01/24/2009 11:53:39 AM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
IMHO, Schroeder's "Genesis and the Big Bang" is a good place to start...
49 posted on 01/24/2009 12:25:50 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ; TXnMA; Alamo-Girl
the recommendation about Gerald Schroeder.

Here is a Primer by Gerald Schroeder.

Dr.Gerald Schroeder Genesis & The Big Bang Theory

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
50 posted on 01/24/2009 12:42:24 PM PST by Uriel-2012 (Psalm 78:35 And they remembered that God was their ROCK, And the Most High God their Redeemer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 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