Posted on 03/20/2014 1:46:53 PM PDT by smoothsailing
MATTERS OF FAITH
March 19, 2014
An Israeli physicist says the breakthrough scientific discovery of further evidence of the Big Bang theory, which some are calling “cosmology’s missing link,” confirms the universe was created.
“One thing the announcement does do is make it clear that the universe had a definite starting point – a creation – as described in the book of Genesis,” Bar Ilan University physics Professor Nathan Aviezer told the Times of Israel.
“To deny this now is to deny scientific fact.”
A team of scientists headed by astronomer John M. Kovac of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announced Monday it had found the evidence it was seeking to support the theory that the universe had a beginning.
The New York Times’ headlined it story “Space ripples reveal Big Bang’s smoking gun.”
The report said radio astronomers had confirmed they had detected the beginning of the Big Bang, and a theory by physicist Alan Guth, now at MIT, regarding “inflation” appeared to be correct.
Guth’s hypothesis was that the universe was “wrenched violently apart when it was roughly a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second old.”
Kovac’s study detected ripples in the fabric of space-time, what some are calling gravitational waves, as a signature of the creation event....
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
You really piqued my curiosity with that bit! As an Archaeological Steward for the State of Texas, I define "artifact" as
"an object with evidence of being formed, modified or used by an intelligent being".
AFAIK, "Intelligent being", is basically limited to the genus, Homo.
~~~~~~~~~~~
If you have actual data re artifacts from planets / satellites other than Earth, please share them...
Neither do I. So I guess we agree about something.
However, FWIW, I do not regard the Holy Scriptures as an "Instruction manual" as you asserted in Post #80.
I drive various people to despair, but this is the first time I've driven a man into exegesis.
I appreciate what you wrote, and I understand most of it.
I'm self-taught in cosmology and paleontology and actually only began to study them after I was in my sixties.
I'm afraid I completely wasted my first 50 years consumed by passion for current events and political history.
Although I have never been a spiritual person, I come from a deeply religious background, and I appreciate and understand a well thought out religious argument.
Thanks for the time and effort you put in to this.
I am absolutely sure that Angels are intelligent beings. As beings I would apply the axioms as often offered by Alamo_Girl on these threads: 'without space things do not exist; without time events do not occur.'
Except that even with the new confirmation of gravitational waves, we still do not have the slightest clue what was happening at any time before the big bang. So scientifically, I don’t think we can say that the universe has been proven to be created. Maybe it collapsed on itself and bounced. I’m sure there are other hypotheses.
Nonsense. Before time there was no action and before space there was no thing ... ein sof ... God’s name is I AM.
I'm afraid I don't quite follow that logic, -- BUT...
Please remove my constraint restricting the definition of "intelligent being" to the genus , homo.
Now, the "working" definition of "artifact" is still,
"an object with evidence of being formed, modified or used by an intelligent being".
Again -- If you have actual data re artifacts from planets / satellites other than Earth, please share them...
No
I see God's copyright notice all over the cosmos in the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in natural sciences (Wigner). I'm seeing it again in the recent observation of gravitational waves.
And back in the 1960's when observations first showed there was a real beginning of space and time (the universe is expanding) - that too was a artifact of The Intelligent Creator ex nihilo.
I also see the artifact in the anisotropy of the early universe (thank you, TXnMA) - and in information (successful communication) in molecular biology, and the very existence of space/time, inertia, consciousness/mind and soul/spirit.
But, alas, people who do not look - or cannot see - or refuse to see - or see but resent God the Creator - will ever be looking for ways to posit a naturalistic explanation no matter how absurd it might be (emphasis mine:)
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. " - Lewontin in reviewing Sagan's book
On the contrary, it makes complete sense. The Bible is not a cosmology reference in the scientific sense. Theologically, you may certainly claim that the universe has a certain origin and nature because the Bible says so, but the article author asserts that gravitational waves are scientific proof of creation. It’s not. That the universe was created is certainly a possibility, but there are others.
The simple reasoning of before things there was 'no thing' is what the thread is actually all about ... the discovered radiation bespeaks an origin from 'no thing'. If you want to hold two opposite premises simultaneously so be it, but that is not the logic I use so we cannot have an intelligent discussion with so much open drain to sweep away the logic.
Some will never be willing to give up their fond notion that God is unknowable in any sense, when He has assured us that He IS and is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
And His Name is I AM!!!
I have read the article and all the comments. Your whole argument is theological claims - that God created the universe per the verbatim account of Genesis. It’s pretty much the antithesis of science.
LOL!! That's the first time my scribblings have been called, "exegisis"!
~~~~~~~~~~
As I implied, I had planned to write something like that, anyway; you just stimulated me to go to my HTML editor and (finally) start typing. Please accept my thanks (and apologies) for allowing me to "use" you as a "straight man". '-)
You have conflated my posts with the rest of the thread: “Your whole argument is theological claims”. Was that intentional or accidental?
Don't be so certain of that "antithesis of science" bit. I'm a scientist, I find those Genesis claims -- and the sequence in which they are claimed -- to be testable, and I'm testing them.
I recommend and request that you read my
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3135491/posts?page=84#84
(again) and get back to me...
"If the data regarding artifacts all over our solar system are real (and I have no reason to doubt that they are real), then at the time Genesis was written down, these artifacts were already very old and evidence of a much more advanced civilization existing before Genesis was written. "
Your response to a sincere request to back up your statement by sharing your "data" was
"No"?!?
Perhaps it would be helpful to Jack of all Trades if he were to understand that you are comparing and cross-correlating two (of four) of God's Revelations to man: The Book of Holy Scripture (i.e., Genesis in this case) and the Book of Nature, a/k/a the Creation, a/k/a the natural world. And they do not contradict each other.
Your Post #84 should have made that clear to him by now. Maybe he needs to (re)read it more carefully....
The point is, there is nothing in science that contradicts God's revelation in Genesis. In fact, to the contrary, increasingly the latter seems only to confirm the former; e.g., Georges LeMaitre's Singularity, Alan Guth's cosmic inflation....
Just sayin'. Your illuminating Post #84 is the fruit precisely of your scientific testing! Thank you ever so much (again) dear Brother for posting it!
Jeepers, are we talking of the legendary Atlantis or Lemuria here???
What gives, dear MHGinTN? WHAT advanced civilization???
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.