Why is the universe NOT homogeneous?

_{David L. Hagen

January 11, 2013

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The largest large quasar group LQG ever has been discovered, stretching an enormous 4 billion light years from end to end. That is 40,000 times larger than our Milky Way galaxy which is only 100,000 light years across. This LQG contains 73 quasars!

See: Largest Structure in the universe discovered

“The quasar group appears to violate a widely accepted assumption known as the cosmological principle, which holds that the universe is essentially homogeneous when viewed at a sufficiently large scale.”

Original publication: Astronomers discover the largest structure in the universe
Royal Astronomic Society, Monthly Notices, January 11, 2013.

If stochastic homogeneity is disproved, is there an intelligent design based argument for the existence of such an enormous Large Quasar Group?

Comments

Finally we see some scientists realizing and publicly admitting that there is much data in just our solar system alone that the Big Bang just cannot explain. From Science Daily: By Maggie McKee Planetary science: Caught in the act "We may be seeing some of the Solar System's most striking objects during rare moments of glory." Of course, this idea has been vehemently rejected by cosmologists for philosophical reasons, but the evidence that we really do live in "special times" just keeps adding up and is getting so strong that it is hard to deny the obvious any longer.
Her first two paragraphs elaborate why this is unsettling for some: Ever since Copernicus evicted Earth from its privileged spot at the centre of the Solar System, researchers have embraced the idea that there is nothing special about our time and place in the Universe. What observers see now, they presume, has been going on for billions of years — and will continue for eons to come. But observations of the distant reaches of the Solar System made in the past few years are challenging that concept. The most active bodies out there — Jupiter’s moon Io and Saturn’s moons Enceladus and Titan — may be putting on limited-run shows that humans are lucky to witness. Saturn’s brilliant rings, too, might have appeared relatively recently, and could grow dingy over time. Some such proposals make planetary researchers uncomfortable, because it is statistically unlikely that humans would catch any one object engaged in unusual activity — let alone several.
Quote taken from crev.info (Rare Moments of Glory: Planetary Scientists Admit Seeing “Lucky” Circumstances)
"she quoted Jeff More (NASA-Ames) who explained that “Geologists like things to be the same as they ever were” because it’s “philosophically comforting because you don’t have to assume you’re living in special times.” Why that should be “comforting” was not explained.
The wording is interesting isn't it? Why use the word "comforting"? Comforting in the aspect that as long as it can be claimed that we don't live in "special times", Materialists think they can escape the God hypothesis. Comforting because they don't have to face the unsettling idea of a Creator to whom we must give account perhaps? There are many aspects of the universe and even our own solar system alone that just do not fit the billions of years hypothesis and they clearly challenge the Big Bang Theory. In the commentary section of the crev.info post, he closes with this:
If Saturn’s rings, Enceladus, Io and Titan were the only problem worlds, they might have hope to rescue their beliefs someday. Unfortunately, the problems mount for uniformitarianism when one considers Mercury, Venus, Earth, the Moon, Mars, Jupiter and its moons, Uranus and its moons and rings, Neptune and its moons and rings, Pluto and the trans-Neptunian objects, comets, asteroids, dust – the whole system. There is hardly any planet or moon that met their uniformitarian expectations.
How is it that scientists can honestly call the Big Bang a real scientific theory? As mentioned, these observations seriously challenge the whole idea of uniformitarianism that the Big Bang cosmology is built on. Uniformitarianism in any science can be nothing more than an arbitrary assumption! Just as evidence of the flood challenges geological uniformitarianism, so these hard facts seriously challenge uniformitarianism assumptions in cosmology.tjguy_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT}

One measure of the strength of a scientific hypothesis is the number of auxiliary hypotheses required. David Coppedge crev.info "Titan and Mercury: Challenges to Billions of Years
This can and should be applied to the Big Bang as well. BA, here is another good article from crev.info: http://crev.info/2013/01/titan-and-mercury/tjguy_{January 21, 2013
January
01
Jan
21
21
2013
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT}

It seems to me that if standard big bang cosmology and following nucleosynthesis of elements in stars is correct that level of elements found ought to be predicable and verifiable. Am I wrong? Another way of putting it is, how was Hoyle able to make his famous prediction? Perhaps I should ask the following question: To what extent is stellar nucleosynthesis dependent on big bang cosmology?Mung_{January 20, 2013
January
01
Jan
20
20
2013
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

@DLH
What evidence for a “big bang” or origination event? 1) Principle of Causation 2) Red shift & outward galaxy speed 3) Background microwave radiation 4) Relative abundance of H2 & He.
I grant that the Big Bang does have some explanatory power, but it does not mean it is strong enough that we should accept it as true and read it into the Bible. Really, when it comes down to it, the big bang model is nothing more than an attempt to describe the formation of the entire universe by processes currently operating within the universe by materialists. With this origin/foundation, why would non-materialists think it has any validity or think it worthy of saving? It seems like a materialist "just-so" explanation for the universe riddled with scientific problems and in need of special ad hoc assumptions (or as IDers believe - in need of supernatural intervention at key points) to keep it afloat. I think we all agree that the Principle of Causation points to a Creator. Everything that has a beginning(as Dr. Craig often points out) has a cause. This avoids the problem of a beginning for God who is the Eternal First Cause of all things. Yes, this fits with the Big Bang theory, but so could many other scenarios, including ex-nihilo creation, so it really isn't evidence for the accuracy of the Big Bang. 2. Red Shift Yes, one interpretation for the red shift we see is an expanding universe and there are verses in the Bible that seemingly could be used to support this.(However, these verses are all in the poetic portions of Scripture so it is not a sure thing.) But the red shift also has other explanations/interpretations. Halton Arp, (not a creationist by any means) quoted in an article entitled "Big Bang bashers" in Scientific American in 1987 says "quasars, for example, whose large red shifts suggest they are the most distant objects in the universe, are actually no more distant than galaxies…." Here is why: According to red-shift data, one quasar was inferred to be splitting, and each half was receding from the other at ten times the speed of light—an impossibility (Jueneman 1990, Quasar! R and D Magazine, May, p. 53.) It is evidence such as this that led Arp and his colleague, John W. Campbell, to come up with a different interpretation of the red shift data. They claim that quasars must be our galactic neighbors. Campbell concluded that the major red shift observed is caused by the galaxy’s gravitational pull on the light trying to escape the quasar, which causes the light to convert much of its energy into heat. So isn't it possible that stellar motion, gravitation, second-order doppler effect, or photon interaction or any combination of these four possible alternative explanations could be responsible for the red shift? Anyway, there are other ways to explain the red shift data as well as problems with the expanding universe explanation of the red shift data so the idea of an expanding universe is not a done deal nor can it be used as solid evidence for the Big bang. 3. Background microwave radiation But this is much more uniform than the Big Bang predicted. It should not be smooth in a universe that is far from homogeneous as this new discovery provides more evidence of. Plus, measurements showing the relative constancy of cosmic microwave background radiation temperature throughout the universe presents problems for the big bang as well because even big bang estimates of the age of the universe do not allow enough time for the temperature to reach a steady state. NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe detected extremely tiny fluctuations in CMBR thought to represent slight temperature variations. But again this is just an assumption they must make in order to prop up the theory. Interpreting the data in a way to support the Big Bang involves many assumptions such as this. It is assumed that these tiny irregularities in density were the gravitational “seeds” around which galaxies formed, but it is also possible that they could be caused by intervening material. The article on Science Daily entitled "Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test" presents yet another problem with WMAP and CMB. The problem means that the CMB radiation may not be “behind” distant galaxies, but in front of them, meaning they are much closer than previously assumed. 4. Relative abundance of H2 & He. There are other explanations for the abundance of helium in the universe. Eric Lerner happily weaves it into the plasma theory. Many Christians understand that God created it that way like the Bible says. Plus, you have the “baryon number problem.” Assuming the big bang did create matter (H2 & H), then according to experimental physics, such a reaction should also produce antimatter. And this is still missing. The theorized existence of antimatter is just another ad hoc assumption that is used to save the theory from the dust bin. Other problems with the Big bang include: Uniqueness of earth Where did the singularity come from? What caused it to explode? The trend of finding mature looking galaxies as far back as we can see leaving cosmologists little time to go from random particles to “lumpy” structures like stars and galaxies. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6101/1442.summary It cannot really explain star formation adequately. http://crev.info/2011/02/is_star_formation_understood/ It takes a lot of faith to believe that the known universe was once condensed into a point of zero dimensions. Where is the evidence for this assumption? Missing population III stars - stars(the earliest stars) that should be composed of only 3 of the lightest elements - H2, H and lithium. But these stars are missing. And the Big bang cannot explain how nearly 90 of the other naturally occurring elements appeared. The Bible tells us that there was water from the beginning, meaning that there was oxygen from the beginning. This does not fit the Big Bang theory. God has the capability of creating heavy elements from nothing just like He can create light elements from nothing. It is not a scientific explanation, but we are not bound to material explanations and we have the added evidence of the testimony of God's Word. God created lots of heavy elements early on in creation so this alone invalidates the Big Bang. Read the numerous articles with the cosmology label on crev.info which BA often quotes from to see evidence of big bang cosmology problems. So, yes, the Big Bang has some explanatory problems, but it still has a lot of unexplained problems. On top of that, it clearly goes against the written record of creation in God's Word which I know ID is not allowed to factor into the equation. But for those of us who are free to do that, it is another mark, in fact a big mark against the theory.tjguy_{January 20, 2013
January
01
Jan
20
20
2013
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

DLH, BA says he does not believe in a totally materialistic version of the Big Bang. I was simply asking him to explain what he does believe. ID is often criticized as being a God of the gaps theory. I guess that depends on the version of ID that people hold to, but I do believe that ID can discern signs of design and so avoid that problem. Signs of design are very clear in biology. But I think ID science has a bigger challenge in avoiding a God of the gaps Big Bang theory. BA doesn't seem to want to discuss that. That is his prerogative I guess, but I'm disappointed he has chosen not to explain his views. Sure causation implies a beginning(for all things that have a beginning like we know the universe had), but it doesn't imply that the universe began as "an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity." This idea comes from a materialistic worldview and is a guess based upon materialistic principles and assumptions so my question is why do IDers automatically support it even though the science isn't there? Why do they think they need to rescue it by calling in God to explain the problems with it? Even a growing number of secular cosmologists question it. (cosmologystatement.org) BA recognizes the problems with the materialistic version of the Big Bang and he rightly rejects it. But he says he still believes in some sort of a Big Bang cosmology, but sometimes he makes posts that do not support the Big Bang so I got confused and simply asked for clarification. I'm simply asking him to explain what he does believe and why he has chosen that version of the Big Bang. I think that is fair. He refused to answer, not only that question, but a lot of my other questions. Refusing to answer can be seen as a type of answer I guess, but it makes it seem like either he is unable to explain his view or he is embarrassed to spell it out concretely because he can't support it. (Or then again, he might just want to ignore me because I annoy him, but I hope that is not the case.) He is my brother in Christ I am sure and we are not enemies, we are on the same team. We just have a different opinion about the details of creation.tjguy_{January 20, 2013
January
01
Jan
20
20
2013
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT}

DLH, the principle of causality cannot tell us that everything which exists must have begun to exist. If it did, we could reason that God must have begun to exist. So either God began to exist, or the principle of causality is false. So please consider removing "the principle of causation" from your list of evidences for a "big bang" or origination event. thanksMung_{January 18, 2013
January
01
Jan
18
18
2013
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT}

tjguy Please focus on the ID vs materialistic challenges. What evidence for a "big bang" or origination event? 1) Principle of Causation 2) Red shift & outward galaxy speed 3) Background microwave radiation 4) Relative abundance of H2 & He. e.g. a popular summary: Big Bang From ID, throughout science we appeal to causation. Consequently causation from a cause appeals to the foundational principles of logic, science & experience than origination from nothing or no cause. Ongoing discoveries are an ongoing challenge to the details of the big bang theory, such as the evidence above. How do you distinguish between "natural means" and "intelligent causation" in the Big Bang/Origination? Especially when measurements are challenging existing theories? See the Anthropic Principle: e.g., Evidence of the Design of the Universe through the Anthropic Principle The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery By Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay Wesley Richards PS Note that bornagain77 was not ignoring you but answered "No" Are your questions answerable?DLH_{January 17, 2013
January
01
Jan
17
17
2013
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

I see. Here we are again at the same point. You are again ignoring my posts. When push comes to shove and you have to defend your beliefs, when inconsistencies with your beliefs are pointed out, you just refuse to go any further. I simply asked for you to spell out your beliefs in the Big Bang. Why is that such a hard thing for you to come clear on the specifics of what you believe? Isn't that a fair request? My guess is that it is because you have no evidence for when and how God intervened. So in the end, you are just the same as creationists when it comes to cosmological evolution. You too oppose "mainstream science" like we do. It seems like you like to attack the materialist view of the Big Bang when talking with materialists and then, when talking to creationists, you you like to defend the Big Bang, at least your version of the Big Bang who no one really knows but yourself. Anyway, it is hard to discuss the Big Bang with you because you won't tell us what you really believe. That doesn't say much for your confidence level in your beliefs. Bottom Line is this for me: If the Big Bang could not have happened by totally natural means which you and I both believe, then how do you know it actually happened?tjguy_{January 17, 2013
January
01
Jan
17
17
2013
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

tjguy, No!bornagain77_{January 17, 2013
January
01
Jan
17
17
2013
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

BA, I like Eric's summary of the Big Bang and am happy to see that he is not putting all of his marbles behind it. Just because the universe had a beginning does not mean the Big Bang is true. We need to be careful not to jump on the scientific bandwagon and read that into Scripture when it still has so many problems.
Eric, to put is simply, I’ve never held to purely materialistic ‘big bang cosmologies’ and find them to be absurd.
I see, but this is very confusing to me. You accept the Big Bang even though it doesn't work scientifically. I suppose your belief is then that God intervened to work out these problems in order to save the theory. It is like a God of the gaps Big Bang view. I guess I wonder then why you even bother to support the Big Bang instead of invoking God's involvement. You could take the anomalies as scientific evidence against the Big Bang just as easily, right? OK, so can you please do us all a favor here and clearly explain exactly what version of the big bang you do hold to? Just how does the supernatural and the natural interact in your version of the Big Bang? Can you please describe that for me as well as present evidence for why you believe this? Thanks.tjguy_{January 17, 2013
January
01
Jan
17
17
2013
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

BA @ 37
tjguy, Excuse me? I do not hold a young earth interpretation to be a correct exegesis. I had put scripture exegesis aside specifically to show you that as far as the science itself is concerned, without any a priori religious bias, there are severe problems for postulating variance in the fundamental constants of the universe, such as the speed of light, just so to try to make the evidence fit your preconceived YEC answer.,,,
BA, why is it that you think that YECers have to postulate variances in the fundamental constants of the universe like the speed of light in order to uphold their view? I know Barry Setterfield in the past brought this up as a possibility, but for the most part, that idea never took hold. Actually there were even some Darwinists who were also toying with that idea so it isn’t a totally YEC position. If you are claiming this is a YEC position, I think you had better double check that idea. There may be some YECs who hold to this position, but I don't know of any myself.
As far as scripture exegesis itself goes though, I find the argument between YECs and OECs quickly becomes a game of whose authority is bigger. SO what? I don’t care that you think your consensus of experts can interpret Hebrew better than I think the OEC experts can interpret it.
BA, it isn’t hard to see what is happening here. How many Hebrew experts were there (pre-Lyell, Hutton, etc.) who upheld the OEC position? It would be very difficult to indeed to find them. But lo and behold, now they are coming out of the woodwork. What changed? Nothing but the adoption of uniformitarianism which cannot be proven. So, to be honest, I don’t pay them much attention. Nor do you find any early church fathers who thought the earth was old or that Genesis taught an old earth. I just find it very difficult to believe that God wrote Genesis in such a careless manner as to mislead people for thousands of years. I also find it impossible that Jesus himself could be wrong about when Adam & Eve were created.(Mk 10:6)
“I only care what you can prove by empirical evidence.,,,”
Yes, this is the crux of the matter. You give precedence to “empirical evidence” over eye-witness revelation.
It is much the same problem with debating Darwinists in that they refuse to put their preconceived notions aside so to look directly at the evidence itself in an unbiased fashion, but instead choose, no matter what the evidence says to the contrary, to say that ‘evolutiondidit’. Although I have to admit, I understand the bias of YECs much more readily than I understand the Darwinist’s bias. ,,, i.e. What is the payoff for them? Nihilism?
You call it preconceived notions, I call it revealed truth. It is not arrogant to stand on God’s truth in opposition to the interpretations of nature based on methodological naturalism. In fact, I would think that is what God expects us to do no matter how much modern day "scientists" ridicule us and claim we don't do science. “No matter what the evidence says to the contrary?” I understand that you see it this way. I do not. Evidence does not interpret itself. It must be interpreted. And dating old things requires making assumptions that we cannot prove. Evolutionary dating is not near as accurate or precise as you seem to think. You obviously believe that your interpretation of the evidence that you are standing on is correct. But, I don’t because I believe they were derived based on evolutionary assumptions and using methodological naturalism. Yes, YECers have a bias and they are up front about it. It is based on revelational truth without which no scientist will ever be able to come up with the right interpretation of nature – like the issue of the flood shows. You are correct that there is also a religious foundation to Darwinism. In fact ALL scientific reasoning is ultimately based on certain axioms or presuppositions that cannot be proven so are therefore metaphysical, subjective, and biased by nature. This includes ID reasoning as well because there is no truly ‘neutral’ scientific arena within which to interpret the evidence related to the past. You are making it sound like you have no bias when you approach the evidence, but that simply is not true. BA, why do you believe the accounts of the resurrection or the virgin birth? After all, science tells us that these things are impossible. Yet here you are willing to go against science. Why not with Genesis? What is the difference? I mean you could go with the whole idea of a spiritual resurrection only or something like that to get around it, but you clearly are willing to believe in miracles, so why not in Genesis? Or, here is another one. When it comes to historical problems with the OT, do you also take the secular position and say the Bible is wrong? For instance, there are some archeological findings which support biblical history, but there are others that do not. How do you handle this? Do you take the position that the Bible is mistaken here too? Why or why not? Just curious. If the Bible makes mistakes when it comes to things like science and history, how do you know you can believe it when it comes to spiritual teachings? Just curious how you handle these challenges to your faith. Jesus gave the same challenge to Nicodemus when He said in John 3:12 “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?”
The following articles are solid critiques of the Young Earth Creation view of evidence:
Thanks. I’ll read them, or at least some of them.
“Thus one decides the photon shall have come by one route or by both routes after it has already done its travel” John A. Wheeler
Wow! You lost me on that one. I’m not impressed at all. I seriously doubt you can rationalize Dembski's theodicy through science. I’m aware of Dembski’s ideas on the retroactive nature of death before the fall, but that is not taught in the Bible. So I think the burden is on him to show that the Bible doesn’t mean what it says. He is reading his own preconceived ideas into the text there, but at least he does see the problem that his OEC view causes. He uses the cross of Christ, the effects of which reach both backwards in time and forwards in time to support his view, but that idea is clearly spelled out in the Bible. However, his idea of the effects of sin are no where presented like that in the Bible. So I think he is walking on very thin ice here and is definitely reading his scientific ideas into the Bible. However, I do think this is the most feasible solution to the death before the fall problem from an OEC perspective. But there are many more problems that just don't fit the Bible. The order of creation is a mjor problem. I don’t think much of Rich Deem’s site at all. I have seen it before and he just destroys a lot of strawmen. His site really turns me off, but I am not familiar with Rodney Whitfield and his writings which I see you linked to so I will read some of that.tjguy_{January 17, 2013
January
01
Jan
17
17
2013
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

Eric, to put is simply, I've never held to purely materialistic 'big bang cosmologies' and find them to be absurd.bornagain77_{January 16, 2013
January
01
Jan
16
16
2013
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT}

BA77 @25: Thanks for your thoughts. I'm not exactly sure what you think we are disagreeing on, but perhaps I can attempt to provide a meaningful review of where we are at.
Eric, As far as my two cents count for anything, I have already pointed out that if homogenity were to an extreme, as you somehow seem to think it ought to apply in a strict manner, then the privileged planet would not apply. That’s a pretty straightforward fact. i.e. How much inhomogenity is allowed or not allowed in your loosely defined presupposition? i.e The privileged Planet principle requires a certain level of inhomogenity in order for it to work as a inference.
I thought it was clear we were talking about what Big Bang cosmology attempts to explain, namely the origin and subsequent expansion and development of the universe. I'm in complete agreement with you that there is, objectively, inhomogeneity in the universe, which is precisely why I think Big Bang cosmology is not as secure as many people tend to think.
As to the Big Bang itself, it’s the instantaneous origin of the universe that is ‘design friendly’ to put it mildly. The subsequent development of the universe. after its instantaneous origination, as far as materialistic conjectures accounting for its subsequent development are concerned, are fraught with difficulties . . .
Agreed, if we limit our acceptance of Big Bang cosmology to the initial 'bang' itself. However, I think we still have reason to be cautious about the bang. Think of it this way: It is not the case that the Big Bang was discovered and then people hypothesized that the universe should be expanding, for example. It was the other way around: discovery of data that led to the hypothesis that there was an origin to the universe, which was further hypothesized as a singular explosive event, which came to be known as the Big Bang. In other words, it is the naked fact of the universe having a beginning that could possibly lead one to a design inference (although even there, it really just leads one to conclusion that the universe had a 'Cause'; the Cause in question still being hotly debated among cosmologists). Whether it turns out to have been the specific process postulated as the Big Bang or some other process is really secondary to the question of whether the universe had an origin. Meaning that, if at some future point it turns out that the current concept of the Big Bang falls out of favor, in whole or in part, it does not necessarily mean that the universe did not have an origin. Thus, I suggest we might be cautious and not put all our marbles in the Big Bang basket as we currently know it. Ultimately, we have the following logical possibilities for the universe: 1. The universe always existed in some form. 1.a. The universe has developed to its current state through purely natural and material processes. 1.b. The universe has developed to its current state through processes that included, at least in part, intelligent intervention. 2. The universe has not always existed, but came into being at some point. 2.a. The universe came into being in a cataclysmic explosion along the lines of what is currently termed the Big Bang. 2.a.1. The universe then developed to its present state through purely natural and material processes (i.e., the naturalistic view of Big Bang cosmology). 2.a.2. The universe then developed to its present state through processes that included, at least in part, intelligent intervention. 2.b. The universe came into being through some process other than what is currently termed the Big Bang. 2.b.1. The universe then developed to its present state through purely natural and material processes. 2.b.2. The universe then developed to its present state through processes that included, at least in part, intelligent intervention. ------ If I understand you correctly, you hold to 2.a.2. This position would allow us to say that we accept the Big Bang, insofar as the initial origin of the universe goes. But it also requires us to reject Big Bang cosmology, at least in the sense it would be typically understood (2.a.1.). One could argue that the evidence for the Big Bang is strong enough that we should hold to 2.a.2, rather than, say, 2.b.2. We could perhaps debate that, but even if it is, then when design proponents talk of the Big Bang, they should be clear they are not talking about what is normally understood to be a purely natural and material Big Bang cosmology, but rather they are referring simply to the naked fact of the universe having an origin. Anyway, I hope that made sense. I think we are essentially in agreement on the substance. Perhaps just an issue of tying down the terminologyEric Anderson_{January 15, 2013
January
01
Jan
15
15
2013
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT}

InVivoVeritas @34: There are indeed good arguments for design in the cosmos. Yet there is arguably a stronger case in biology. It is not just a question of degree (although that exists). It is also a question of kind. Code, language, information, semiotics. None of this exists in the cosmos (at least not that we have discovered yet). Perhaps the case in cosmology would be comparable to the case in biology if we were just looking at gross morphological features and functions (before the bioinformatics revolution; say, in Paley's day). But today the argument in biology is much stronger than it was a century or two ago. None of this takes away from the case for design in cosmology -- just that biology has come farther -- and I do appreciate your impassioned defense of design in cosmology. Although I don't think the case is as strong as it is in biology, I agree there is much of value there.Eric Anderson_{January 15, 2013
January
01
Jan
15
15
2013
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT}

Hello Timaeus Not much has changed since I last posted. I haven't done much reading since that time other than "Is God just a human invention" by Sean McDowell. I may be looking for something new to read but I lost track of the thread to be honest. I mostly read internet articles which can be helpful or hindering at times. I wouldn't mind touching base but as I mentioned before, I would rather do it off thread. I can send an email address or something.JLAfan2001_{January 14, 2013
January
01
Jan
14
14
2013
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

JLAfan2001 (12): I was wondering if you were still out there. It's been a long time since we exchanged thoughts. I was wondering about the latest developments in your personal faith struggle. I'm about 3 to 5 months behind on events, I think. If I recall, several people here offered you some suggestions to aid you in your wrestlings. I'm curious to know whether you found any of the suggestions helpful, or, if not, whether you found something else that was. Best wishes for a Happy New Year.Timaeus_{January 14, 2013
January
01
Jan
14
14
2013
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Note 1 Old Earth Creationism and the Fall, William Dembski - Christian Research Journal, volume 34, number 4(2011). Excerpt: My solution (to Theodicy) in my book “The End of Christianity is to argue that, just as the effects of salvation at the cross reach both forward in time (saving present day Christians) and backward in time (saving Old Testament saints), so the effects of the fall reach forward in time as well as backward. What makes the argument work is the ability of God to arrange events at one time to anticipate events at a later time.,,, http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAF4344.pdf Many people object to Dr. Dembski's Theodicy by saying that it is absurd to think that a present free will choice could reach back in time and effect the past, but despite what may seem to be absurd to some people on the surface, it is now found that Dr. Dembski has been vindicated and does have a plausible mechanism to appeal to to support his case: Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles "have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm "Thus one decides the photon shall have come by one route or by both routes after it has already done its travel" John A. Wheeler Alain Aspect speaks on John Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment - video http://vimeo.com/38508798 Note 2 The evidence for a fairly recent worldwide flood is growing far stronger than what is commonly believed: Humanpast.net Excerpt: Worldwide, we know that the period of 14,000 to 13,000 years ago, which coincides with the peak of abundant monsoonal rains over India, was marked by violent oceanic flooding - in fact, the first of the three great episodes of global superfloods that dominated the meltdown of the Ice Age. The flooding was fed not merely by rain but by the cataclysmic synchronous collapse of large ice-masses on several different continents and by gigantic inundations of meltwater pouring down river systems into the oceans. (124) What happened, at around 13,000 years ago, was that the long period of uninterrupted warming that the world had just passed through (and that had greatly intensified, according to some studies, between 15,000 years ago and 13,000 years ago) was instantly brought to a halt - all at once, everywhere - by a global cold event known to palaeo climatologists as the 'Younger Dryas' or 'Dryas III'. In many ways mysterious and unexplained, this was an almost unbelievably fast climatic reversion - from conditions that are calculated to have been warmer and wetter than today's 13,000 years ago, to conditions that were colder and drier than those at the Last Glacial Maximum, not much more than a thousand years later. From that moment, around 12,800 years ago, it was as though an enchantment of ice had gripped the earth. In many areas that had been approaching terminal meltdown full glacial conditions were restored with breathtaking rapidity and all the gains that had been made since the LGM were simply stripped away…(124) A great, sudden extinction took place on the planet, perhaps as recently as 11,500 years ago (usually attributed to the end of that last ice age), in which hundreds of mammal and plant species disappeared from the face of the earth, driven into deep caverns and charred muck piles the world over. Modern science, with all its powers and prejudices, has been unable to adequately explain this event. (83) http://humanpast.net/environment/environment11k.htm Various Broadly Accepted Catastrophic Mega-Floods approximately 13,000 years before present from around the world https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sXjqFo9osUO4pWfxsx3Brb565KvqfVIaP1vtDGa95tg/editbornagain77_{January 14, 2013
January
01
Jan
14
14
2013
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT}

corrected link: Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science? GREG MOORE The RATE conclusions are based on a compounded set of assumptions. These assumptions are not derived from empirical data, but from the young-earth view of Earth history. Until the RATE team can demonstrate the validity of these assumptions, the study findings do little to prove the accelerated decay hypothesis. http://www.reasons.org/Media/Default/Page/participate/chapters-and-networks/seattle/200708.pdfbornagain77_{January 14, 2013
January
01
Jan
14
14
2013
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT}

tjguy, Excuse me? I do not hold a young earth interpretation to be a correct exegesis. I had put scripture exegesis aside specifically to show you that as far as the science itself is concerned, without any a priori religious bias, there are severe problems for postulating variance in the fundamental constants of the universe, such as the speed of light, just so to try to make the evidence fit your preconceived YEC answer.,,, As far as scripture exegesis itself goes though, I find the argument between YECs and OECs quickly becomes a game of whose authority is bigger. SO what? I don't care that you think your consensus of experts can interpret Hebrew better than I think the OEC experts can interpret it. I only care what you can prove by empirical evidence.,,, It is much the same problem with debating Darwinists in that they refuse to put their preconceived notions aside so to look directly at the evidence itself in an unbiased fashion, but instead choose, no matter what the evidence says to the contrary, to say that 'evolutiondidit'. Although I have to admit, I understand the bias of YECs much more readily than I understand the Darwinist's bias. ,,, i.e. What is the payoff for them? Nihilism? The following articles are solid critiques of the Young Earth Creation view of evidence: Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science? GREG MOORE The RATE conclusions are based on a compounded set of assumptions. These assumptions are not derived from empirical data, but from the young-earth view of Earth history. Until the RATE team can demonstrate the validity of these assumptions, the study findings do little to prove the accelerated decay hypothesis. http://216.177.75.97/resources/non-staff-papers/DotheRATEFindingsNegateMainstreamScience Helium Diffusion in Zircon: Flaws in a Young-Earth Argument, Part 1 (of 2) http://www.reasons.org/age-earth/rate-study/helium-diffusion-zircon-flaws-young-earth-argument-part-1-2 Genesis One and the Age of the Earth - What does the Bible (really) say? http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_one_age_earth.html Is the Young-Earth Interpretation Biblically Sound? Excerpt: Warning! It is not with much joy that I have created this page. It was created in response to attacks and complaints about my position on the age of the Earth by fellow Christians. My purpose in writing this page is not to create controversy or division within the Christian community or even convert you to an Old-Earth viewpoint if you take a Young-Earth stance. I do feel it is important that those who are adamant that the young-earth position is the only biblical interpretation of Genesis look at the rather formidable scriptural problems in their interpretation before judging others on their "non-scriptural" views. http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.html What does “yom” mean in Genesis 1 ? by Rodney Whitefield, Ph.D. Excerpt: Conclusion: What does all the foregoing mean for understanding Genesis 1? 1) The uniqueness of the Hebrew numbering of the creative “yom” actually supports the view that the creative “yom” are not ordinary (24-hour) days. 2) The numbering of the creative “yom” does not exclude the “extended period” or “age” meaning of the Hebrew word “yom” when referring to the six creative times. The unique numbering of the creative times adds support for the “extended period” or “age” meaning. 3) There are no other applicable examples of the numbering of a sequence that is equivalent to the numbering of the creative “yom.” Assertions which attempt to interpret numberings which read “yom” “second” using numberings which read “in yom” “the second” are flawed. http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yom_with_number.pdf Reading Genesis One - book Excerpt: The first 35 verses of the Bible describe the history of planet Earth from its beginning through the appearance of Adam (mankind). These 35 verses employ less than 100 different Hebrew words augmented by the prepositional prefixes and the suffixes representing pronouns. As a consequence, the description must omit much detail. Based on the substantiated verb and word use, this book establishes and explains that: 1. Genesis One does not say that the Earth is “young,” i.e., about 10,000 years old. This fact is established independent of any interpretation about the length of the six “days” of creation. 2. The translation chosen for the Hebrew word “yom” is shown to not determine the age of the Earth, or the age of the universe. It is also shown that the time between the first “And God said” of Genesis 1:3 and the completion stated in Genesis 2:1 is not limited to 144 hours. An interval of 144 hours (six 24-hour days) is not a required consequence of interpreting the creative “yom” as six 24-hour days. When this fact is understood, many of the often encountered arguments are found to be pointless exercises. 3. Genesis One and the established physical history of planet Earth are not in conflict. There remains a conflict with the interpretations of Darwinism. 4. READING GENESIS ONE explains and critiques the typical arguments by which advocates of the “Young Earth” position arrive at their conclusion. This is a book about God’s creation. This book is a powerful tool for resolving creation issues in Christian witness. Why? Because its readers can study and understand the first 35 Hebrew verses of the Bible directly, for themselves. They can free themselves from dependence on asserted “expert” opinion. http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Genesis-One-Rodney-Whitefield/dp/0972878203 The Days of Genesis: An Old-Earth View - Paul Copan http://paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/revised-genesis-science.pdf Age of the universe – William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyOZRMIe768 This following article is excellent for reconciling death preceding the fall of man: Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science: William A. Dembski http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdfbornagain77_{January 14, 2013
January
01
Jan
14
14
2013
01:34 AM
1
01
34
AM
PDT}

BA @ 30
For me the one thing, all scripture exegesis aside,
Well, of course you put scripture exegesis aside! That's the whole problem. If you don’t do that, you won’t arrive at the views you hold to. And that is the fundamental difference between our views. I am willing to live with some unanswered questions in order to preserve the authority of God’s Word. You would rather take the current in vogue scientific theories and read them into Scripture to avoid those unanswered questions. But to do so, you have to live with unanswered questions in the exegesis area. I would rather trust God’s Word, believing that since we are dealing with historical science here, there is much we just do not know. So, even if there are some as yet unanswered scientific questions, I think God knew what He was talking about when He inspired the writer of not only Genesis, but all the books of the Bible. For you the highest authority is “science” and for me it is God’s Word. Like I mentioned in our past conversation, I believe that Scripture must inform how we interpret the evidence. So, the knowledge that a worldwide flood took place is indispensable to coming up with a correct understanding of geology – like the video by Steve Austin shows. But scientists instead use uniformitarian assumptions rather than Scriptural assumptions when they interpret the history of the rocks so of course they come up with a different theory. I understand that ID cannot do this because it tries to remain neutral and qualify as real science, but still the fact of the matter is, that ignoring the clues God’s Word gives us will not lead us to an accurate understanding of earth’s history.
that argues very forcefully against the YEC model is the speed of light constant:
OK, give me some time to digest everything you wrote here. I’m not sure I understand why this argues against YEC model at this point, but like I said, I would rather challenge the ideas of modern day scientists who make atheistic assumptions about the past to arrive at their theories as opposed to challenging the word of the Creator Himself or playing exegesis games and twisting the Scriptures to try and make the two fit.tjguy_{January 13, 2013
January
01
Jan
13
13
2013
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT}

Hmm. You ridicule the global flood and catastrophism in post 32 and then post a video that shows the effects of a global flood and catastrophism in post 33! You are a hard one to figure out.tjguy_{January 13, 2013
January
01
Jan
13
13
2013
10:59 PM
10
10
59
PM
PDT}

BA @ 32
As to: “like your belief in a worldwide flood while at the same time believing the fossil record is a record of millions of years of history that somehow withstood the catastrophic effects of the flood.” HMMM, catastophism instead of uniformitarism?
BA. You sure are a hard one to pin down on what you believe. Now you make it seem like you reject the worldwide flood, but in our last conversation you claimed that you believed the Scriptural account. Which is it? Can you tell me why uniformitarianism is better than catastrophism? You seem to be ridiculing the idea of catastrophism. Why? You no longer believe that catastrophes happen? Catastrophism has a bit more evidence to support it than the blind assumption of uniformitarianism. For instance, there is Moses’ testimony in Genesis 6-8 which he probably learned through the written records that Noah left behind, Peter’s inspired testimony in II Peter 3:3-6, and of course, Jesus’ testimony in Luke 17:26-27. So when God tells us that He judged the whole world with a flood, how do you take that? You just outright reject it because the flood would qualify as a catastrophe? Sorry. I don’t follow the logic. If believing in a worldwide flood makes me a catastrophist, then yes, I qualify. But even current day uniformitarians recognize that catastrophes did play a part in the formation of the earth’s surface and strict uniformitarianism is no longer in vogue. The problem with uniformitarianism is the same as the problem with biological evolution. No one saw how these things formed so we have to try and piece together the evidence as best as we can, but it is not as precise or exact as operational every day science that we do in the lab. Creationists assume a worldwide flood, based on the testimony of eyewitnesses, Jesus, and Peter. Scientists assume uniformitarianism. Both have unproven assumptions. The question is, which assumptions have more evidence and better explain what we see.tjguy_{January 13, 2013
January
01
Jan
13
13
2013
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT}

Eric Anderson, Thanks for your response at #19. I believe I found a better way to express the idea of coherence between finding proofs of a Designer at the micro (life) scale and the cosmic (astronomic) scale. Fundamentally it is not more ABSURD to affirm A. below than to affirm B. below: A. The life originated after million (many) years of random natural events supported only by the natural physics and chemistry laws. B. The Earth originated after million (many) years of evolution of cosmic material created at the Big Bang and being subjected only to the natural laws of physics and chemistry. As you mentioned, today we have extremely significant and incontestable proofs of the existence of a Designer in the biological world – replete with a growing list of marvelous molecular machines in the cell, unexplainable complexity of biological and informational systems integrated hierarchically with other such biological and informational systems that form full organisms. And this biological terrain is the realm of research for armies of scientists, doctors, microbiologists and bioinformaticians and the proofs are at hand for all of them and through them to all of us. The cosmological realm is significantly harder to access, is more limited to measurements and to strong, scientific determinations and characterization because of the huge distances and the magnitude of phenomena and energies involved. However, among the many discoveries in astronomy, cosmology, astrophysics, planetary systems I think it is becoming absolutely clear that our planetary system including the Sun, the Moon, the asteroid belts and especially the Earth can be seen as an extremely exquisite machinery made of many complex sub-systems (we should mention the structure of the Earth with its magnetic, hot iron core, tectonic plates, oceans, the Earth-wide water circulation system, the atmosphere engines and mechanisms of temperature control, Earth rotation around the Sun on an almost circular route) –all these can be seen and understood as astronomical-scale intricate machinery made of complex, integrated and exquisitely fine-tuned systems. And there is strong, justified speculative but justified thinking that this planetary and Earth environment was purposefully created by the Super Designer as the proper environment where He created the marvel of life and that made it possible. So we see a continuum of rich exceptional design patterns and machinery starting from the largest astronomical, cosmic scale and going to the smallest accessible to science atomic scales. This cannot be critically explained but only by postulating the manifest presence of a Super Designer who, by His creation accomplished at least two magnificent goals: 1. Created us in the midst of millions of other creatures of the natural world, in a most marvelous environment and corner of the Universe. 2. Showed us through this creation that He, the Designer exists and he has exceptional powers and exceptional designer abilities that cannot be missed by any attentive and honest observation of this creation. InVivoVeritas_{January 13, 2013
January
01
Jan
13
13
2013
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

Where Darwin Went Wrong - geology video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3darzVqzV2obornagain77_{January 13, 2013
January
01
Jan
13
13
2013
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

As to: "like your belief in a worldwide flood while at the same time believing the fossil record is a record of millions of years of history that somehow withstood the catastrophic effects of the flood." HMMM, catastophism instead of uniformitarism?bornagain77_{January 13, 2013
January
01
Jan
13
13
2013
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

as to: "He is talking about star formation from the Standard Cosmological Model. If the Big Bang is wrong, this type of evidence of course becomes meaningless." Actually his presupposition is that God set the limits for Galaxy formation, he is definitely not presupposing this is a 'natural' result: as to: You often quote from Ross who supports the Big bang, but then you often quote from David Coppedge at crev.info(post 27) who is a young earth creationist that obviously does not support the Big bang. Uhh, Steven Meyer supports the 'Big Bang', William Dembski supports the Big Bang, Michael Behe etc.. (Not to compare myself personally to any of those guys),,, Yet I'm sure those Christians don't buy the failed materialistic scenarios that try to describe the origination of the universe, nor do I believe that they buy the failed materialistic scenarios trying to describe the subsequent development of the universe after its instantaneous origination,,, you seem to be confused (on some level) that if someone believes in the Big Bang then that makes them a materialist and slave to all the outlandish scenarios materialists put forth trying to describe the Big Bang:: The Big Bang and the God of the Bible - Henry Schaefer PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5222493 Entire video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSThtmA1J_U "The Big Bang represents an immensely powerful, yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space and time. All this is accomplished within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws. The power and care this explosion reveals exceeds human mental capacity by multiple orders of magnitude." Prof. Henry F. Schaefer - closing statement of part 5 of preceding videobornagain77_{January 13, 2013
January
01
Jan
13
13
2013
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

For me the one thing, all scripture exegesis aside, that argues very forcefully against the YEC model is the speed of light constant: time, as we understand it temporally, would come to a complete stop at the speed of light. To grasp the whole 'time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light' concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same 'thought experiment' that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into e=mc2. Albert Einstein - Special Relativity - Insight Into Eternity - 'thought experiment' video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/ "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." Richard Swenson - More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12 Though there are many experiments confirming time dilation, the easiest way to understand this higher dimension, 'eternal', inference for the time framework of light is because light is not 'frozen within time' yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light. The only way to solve the paradox is to realize that time at the speed of light is, in fact, of a higher dimensional nature: Please note the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as a 'hypothetical' observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.) Approaching The Speed Of Light - Optical Effects - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/ of related note: Dr Quantum - Flatland (2D vs 3D) (4D Relevant) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKfd9i7r26s Moreover, of interest to the unchanging nature of the transcendent universal 'information' constants which govern this universe, it should be noted that the four primary forces/constants of the universe (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces) are said (by materialists) to be 'mediated at the speed of light' by mass-less 'mediator bosons', yet the speed of light constant is shown to be transcendent of any underlying material basis in the first place. GRBs Expand Astronomers' Toolbox - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: a detailed analysis of the GRB (Gamma Ray Burst) in question demonstrated that photons of all energies arrived at essentially the same time. Consequently, these results falsify any quantum gravity models requiring the simplest form of a frothy space. http://www.reasons.org/GRBsExpandAstronomersToolbox I would also like to point out that since time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light this gives these four fundamental universal constants the characteristic of being timeless, and thus unchanging, as far as the temporal mass of this universe is concerned. In other words, we should not a-prori expect that which is timeless in nature to ever change in value. Yet contrary to what would seem to be so obvious about the a-piori stability of constants that we should expect, when scientists actually measure for variance in the fundamental constants they always end up being 'surprised' by the stability they find even though it is not to be a-priori expected that there should be change in the constants: Dark energy alternatives to Einstein are running out of room - January 9, 2013 Excerpt: Last month, a group of European astronomers, using a massive radio telescope in Germany, made the most accurate measurement of the proton-to-electron mass ratio ever accomplished and found that there has been no change in the ratio to one part in 10 million at a time when the universe was about half its current age, around 7 billion years ago. When Thompson put this new measurement into his calculations, he found that it excluded almost all of the dark energy models using the commonly expected values or parameters. If the parameter space or range of values is equated to a football field, then almost the whole field is out of bounds except for a single 2-inch by 2-inch patch at one corner of the field. In fact, most of the allowed values are not even on the field. "In effect, the dark energy theories have been playing on the wrong field," Thompson said. "The 2-inch square does contain the area that corresponds to no change in the fundamental constants, and that is exactly where Einstein stands." http://phys.org/news/2013-01-dark-energy-alternatives-einstein-room.html Materialists/Atheists and Young Earthers do not seem to realize that if 'unpredictable variance' were actually to be found in any of the fundamental constants this would spell the end of our ability to stably rely on mathematics to accurately describe reality: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.htmlbornagain77_{January 13, 2013
January
01
Jan
13
13
2013
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

BA, In post number 6, you list a whole lot of references from Ross. Many of his evidences for fine-tuning are dependent on or intertwined with the Big Bang Standard Cosmological Model. For instance, I clicked on the first link you gave and here is what came up:
The following parameters of a planet, its planetary companions, its moon, its star, and its galaxy must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for physical life of any kind to exist. References follow the list. Galaxy cluster type ? if too rich: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt solar orbit ? if too sparse: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for a long enough time Galaxy size ? if too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun’s orbit and ignite too many galactic eruptions ? if too small: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for long enough time Galaxy type ? if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy element build-up for life chemistry
He is talking about star formation from the Standard Cosmological Model. If the Big Bang is wrong, this type of evidence of course becomes meaningless. It is interesting. You often quote from Ross who supports the Big bang, but then you often quote from David Coppedge at crev.info(post 27) who is a young earth creationist that obviously does not support the Big bang. So, I'm a bit confused as to what you actually believe. That's why the confusion. It seems a bit inconsistent - like your belief in a worldwide flood while at the same time believing the fossil record is a record of millions of years of history that somehow withstood the catastrophic effects of the flood. At least Ross is consistent. He denies the worldwide flood for that very reason. So, are you a believer in the Big Bang or not? Just curious. I appreciate your posts and am not your enemy, but I'm just trying to figure out how you fit all these different views together.tjguy_{January 13, 2013
January
01
Jan
13
13
2013
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

nivek_nailgun, my contact information is at the bottom of the page which is linked to my user name.bornagain77_{January 13, 2013
January
01
Jan
13
13
2013
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT}

This article is a bit more to the point: Inflation Again: This Time with Feeling - July 9, 2012 Excerpt: The problem is that once inflation starts, it is nearly impossible to stop. Even in the tiny pre-inflation cosmos, quantum fluctuations ensured that the inflaton field had different energies in different places — a bit like a mountain having many balls balanced precariously at different heights. As each one starts rolling, it kicks off the inflation of a different region of space, which races away from the others at speeds above that of light. http://crev.info/2012/07/inflation-again/bornagain77_{January 13, 2013
January
01
Jan
13
13
2013
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply