New Light on the first verses of Genesis?
Uncle Davey
Science breakthrough of the year: proof of our exploding universe
Tim Radford, science editor
Friday December 19, 2003
The Guardian
Welcome to the dark side. Around 73% of the universe is made not of matter
or radiation but of a mysterious force called dark energy, a kind of gravity
in reverse. Dark energy is listed as the breakthrough of the year in the US
journal Science today.
The discovery - in fact a systematic confirmation of a puzzling observation
first made five years ago - paints an even more puzzling picture of an
already mysterious universe. Around 200bn galaxies, each containing 200bn
stars, are detectable by telescopes. But these add up to only 4% of the
whole cosmos.
Now, on the evidence of a recent space-based probe and a meticulous survey
of a million galaxies, astronomers have filled in at least some of the
picture.
Around 23% of the universe is made up of another substance, called "dark
matter". Nobody knows what this undetected stuff could be, but it massively
outweighs all the atoms in all the stars in all the galaxies across the
whole detectable range of space. The remaining 73% is the new discovery:
dark energy. This bizarre force seems to be pushing the universe apart at an
accelerating rate, when gravitational pull should be making it slow down or
contract.
"The implications for these discoveries about the universe are truly
stunning," said Don Kennedy, the editor of Science. "Cosmologists have been
trying for years to confirm the hypothesis of a dark universe."
Sir Martin Rees, Britain's astronomer royal, called it a "discovery of the
first magnitude".
The findings were made by an orbiting observatory called the Wilkinson
Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). This measured tiny fluctuations in the
cosmic microwave background, in effect the dying echoes of the Big Bang that
launched time, space and matter in a tiny universal fireball.
These painstaking measurements were then backed up by the telescopes of the
Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which mapped a million galaxies to see how they
clumped together or spread out. Both confirmed that dark energy must exist.
The findings settle a number of arguments about the universe, its age, its
expansion rate, and its composition, all at once. Thanks to the two studies,
astronomers now believe the age of the universe is 13.7bn years, plus or
minus a few hundred thousand. And its rate of expansion is a bewildering
71km per second per megaparsec. One megaparsec is an astronomical measure,
totting up to 3.26m light years. Something latent in space itself is acting
as a form of antigravity, exerting a push on the universe, rather than a
pull.
Dark matter was proposed more than 20 years ago when it became clear that
all the galaxies behaved as if they were far more massive than they seemed
to be. All sorts of explanations - black holes, brown dwarfs and
undetectable particles that are very different from atoms - have been
suggested. None has been confirmed.
But dark matter exists, all the same. The dark energy story began in 1998
when astronomers reported that the most distant galaxies seemed to be
receding far faster than calculations predicted. A study of a certain kind
of supernova confirmed that they had not been misled: the universe was
indeed expanding ever faster, rather than decelerating.
The discovery that some unexpected and undetectable force was pushing the
fabric of space apart seemed to confirm a famous observation decades ago by
the British scientist JBS Haldane: "The universe is not only queerer than we
suppose. It is queerer than we can suppose." It once again raised profound
questions about the nature of the universe: about space, and time, and
energy, and matter. And it set the theorists on the hunt first for an
explanation, and then for an experiment that would confirm their hypothesis.
So they turned once again to the original evidence for the Big Bang, the
cosmic microwave background radiation. This is the original blaze of
creation, cooled to minus 270 C - just about 3 C above absolute zero.
Several lines of research, including experiments in the Antarctic and from
high-flying balloons, began to provide a clearer picture: the universe
simply had to consist of something more than just atoms and so-called dark
matter.
"But WMAP, with superbly precise data beamed back from a little spacecraft a
million miles away, has made the evidence more precise," said Sir Martin, of
the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge.
"The dark energy is spread uniformly through the universe, latent in empty
space. Its nature is a mystery. Whereas there's a real chance of learning
what the dark matter is within the next five to 10 years, I'd hold out less
hope of understanding the dark energy unless or until there's a unified
theory that takes us closer to the 'bedrock' of space and time."
ps...@groundlink.net
"Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1110212,00.html?79%3A+Int
> ernational+news+%2D+guardian
>
> Science breakthrough of the year: proof of our exploding universe
>
> Tim Radford, science editor
> Friday December 19, 2003
> The Guardian
>
<snip>
> This bizarre force seems to be pushing the universe apart at an
> accelerating rate, when gravitational pull should be making it slow down or
> contract.
>
<snip>
I'm confused now. I thought evolution claims that the rate of expansion
is slowing and eventually will collapse in on itself. This throws into
question all of the supposed "facts" that evolution has supposedly
proven.
Pat Jacobs
--
a disclaimer!
My boss told me to put "a disclaimer" on my posts so I did.
The ground is earth.
Dana Tweedy
<ps...@groundlink.net> wrote in message
news:psgj-164EFA.2...@news06.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <bs028p$6p2$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>,
> "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> wrote:
>
> >
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1110212,00.html?79%3A+Int
> > ernational+news+%2D+guardian
> >
> > Science breakthrough of the year: proof of our exploding universe
> >
> > Tim Radford, science editor
> > Friday December 19, 2003
> > The Guardian
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> > This bizarre force seems to be pushing the universe apart at an
> > accelerating rate, when gravitational pull should be making it slow down
or
> > contract.
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> I'm confused now. I thought evolution claims that the rate of expansion
> is slowing and eventually will collapse in on itself. This throws into
> question all of the supposed "facts" that evolution has supposedly
> proven.
Evolution says nothing about the rate of expansion of the universe. It
deals only with living organisms, not the universe in general. Also,
nothing in science is ever considered "proven".
DJT
Charles C.
>In article <bs028p$6p2$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>,
> "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1110212,00.html?79%3A+Int
>> ernational+news+%2D+guardian
>>
>> Science breakthrough of the year: proof of our exploding universe
>>
>> Tim Radford, science editor
>> Friday December 19, 2003
>> The Guardian
>>
>
><snip>
>
>> This bizarre force seems to be pushing the universe apart at an
>> accelerating rate, when gravitational pull should be making it slow down or
>> contract.
>>
>
><snip>
>
>I'm confused now. I thought evolution claims that the rate of expansion
>is slowing and eventually will collapse in on itself. This throws into
>question all of the supposed "facts" that evolution has supposedly
>proven.
>
>Pat Jacobs
Evolution claims? Who would name their kid Evolution?
"I, Evolution Maximilian claim. . . . "
Charles
Remove the underscores to contact me.
Creationism: Sci-Fi for the soul
Lenny Flank
> In article <bs028p$6p2$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>,
> "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1110212,00.html?79%3A+Int
>>ernational+news+%2D+guardian
>>
>>Science breakthrough of the year: proof of our exploding universe
>>
>>Tim Radford, science editor
>>Friday December 19, 2003
>>The Guardian
>>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>This bizarre force seems to be pushing the universe apart at an
>>accelerating rate, when gravitational pull should be making it slow down or
>>contract.
>>
>
>
> <snip>
>
> I'm confused now. I thought evolution claims that the rate of expansion
> is slowing and eventually will collapse in on itself. This throws into
> question all of the supposed "facts" that evolution has supposedly
> proven.
>
> Pat Jacobs
>
Thanks for once again demonsrtating to everyone that creationists are
too stupid and uneducated to know the difference between "biology" and
"cosmology".
Oh, and they are also too dumb to understand any of the latest
cosmological theories concerning "omega".
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
raven1
<no...@jose.com> wrote:
<snip>
May I ask what your point is?
---
ROT-13 on Email to reply.
Frank Reichenbacher
> "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> wrote:
>
> >
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1110212,00.html?79%3A+Int
> > ernational+news+%2D+guardian
> >
> > Science breakthrough of the year: proof of our exploding universe
> >
> > Tim Radford, science editor
> > Friday December 19, 2003
> > The Guardian
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> > This bizarre force seems to be pushing the universe apart at an
> > accelerating rate, when gravitational pull should be making it slow down
or
> > contract.
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> I'm confused now. I thought evolution claims that the rate of expansion
> is slowing and eventually will collapse in on itself. This throws into
> question all of the supposed "facts" that evolution has supposedly
> proven.
Don't you even like watch the Discovery Channel or anything?
So how is a theory about the origin of species relevant to the origin of the
cosmos?
Frank
AC
> In article <bs028p$6p2$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>,
> "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1110212,00.html?79%3A+Int
>> ernational+news+%2D+guardian
>>
>> Science breakthrough of the year: proof of our exploding universe
>>
>> Tim Radford, science editor
>> Friday December 19, 2003
>> The Guardian
>>
>
><snip>
>
>> This bizarre force seems to be pushing the universe apart at an
>> accelerating rate, when gravitational pull should be making it slow down or
>> contract.
>>
>
><snip>
>
> I'm confused now. I thought evolution claims that the rate of expansion
> is slowing and eventually will collapse in on itself. This throws into
> question all of the supposed "facts" that evolution has supposedly
> proven.
Tell me something, do you have the vaguest idea that cosmology and evolution
are seperate scientific disciplines? Do you ask your auto mechanic to fix
your washing machine as well.
BTW. The evidence points towards expansion speeding up.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
eyelessgame
> "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> wrote:
>
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1110212,00.html?79%3A+Int
> > ernational+news+%2D+guardian
> >
> > Science breakthrough of the year: proof of our exploding universe
> >
> > Tim Radford, science editor
> > Friday December 19, 2003
> > The Guardian
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> > This bizarre force seems to be pushing the universe apart at an
> > accelerating rate, when gravitational pull should be making it slow down or
> > contract.
I will note that gravitational force is behaving normally. The fabric
of the universe itself is expanding (and, we now know, at an
accelerating rate); within that fabric, gravity operates as we always
thought it did. The acceleration is surprising, certainly, and has
implications for how the universe will *end*, but it changes only
certain details about the mainstream model of how it began.
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> I'm confused now. I thought evolution claims that the rate of expansion
> is slowing and eventually will collapse in on itself. This throws into
> question all of the supposed "facts" that evolution has supposedly
> proven.
>
> Pat Jacobs
My word, but that's a lot of misconception all strewn into a single
paragraph.
1. "Evolution" is a biological science. What you're looking for is
'cosmology'. Biology and cosmology are separate disciplines, like (for
example) medicine and plumbing. (That's not to say there's zero
overlap. Doctors can advise on how to make plumbing hygenic, and warn
us to avoid lead pipes. Cosmology can inform biology by making some
predictions about the elemental makeup of the primordial Earth, and
can give some hints about possible extraterrestrial events that could
have caused various extinction events.)
2. Cosmology's working hypothesis regarding the rate of expansion was
that it was slowing. This was a natural hypothesis based on what we
knew at the time. It turned out it wasn't true. When it was
discovered it *wasn't* slowing, this required that we go look for
*why* it wasn't slowing. Changing the accepted explanations to fit
the facts is what science does. Every statement of science should be
considered "as far as we know at the time"; "proof" is for
mathematicians and other drunkards.
3. The expansion rate of the universe has butt-all to do with anything
"evolution" demonstrates. Further, it doesn't call into question
anything about the mainstream cosmological, geological, and biological
models that discomfit young-earth creationists. The universe is still
13.7 billion years old. The earth is still 4.55 billion years old.
Life is still descended from a common ancestor. None of this depends
even a tiny bit on whether the rate of expansion of the fabric of
spacetime is accelerating or decelerating.
4. The underlying assumption seems to be that "if one thing is wrong,
everything must be wrong". I find this particular "brittleness of
truth" notion to be characteristic of certain sorts of conservative
faiths; it is foreign to science and observation. (It's found, for
example, in the fundamentalist claim that if a single contradiction is
found in the Bible, or a single biblical story can be found to be
false, then faith must crumble; hence the vehement and absurd
insistence that every single thing in the bible must be literally true
-- hence YECism.) If new data shows that a given model of a given
phemonenon is wrong, we replace that one model with something that
fits the new data. Phenomena that aren't related to that data don't
have to be revised.
To compare to the medicine/plumbing analogy: when we discover some
unexpected detail about a new disease, it may lead to a new or revised
understanding of the human immune system -- but it doesn't call into
question whether water still flows downhill. And it would be a very
odd thing indeed to claim it as vindication for those who believe in
finding water with divining rods.
eyelessgame
Bobby D. Bryant
> 4. The underlying assumption seems to be that "if one thing is wrong,
> everything must be wrong". I find this particular "brittleness of
> truth" notion to be characteristic of certain sorts of conservative
> faiths; it is foreign to science and observation. (It's found, for
> example, in the fundamentalist claim that if a single contradiction is
> found in the Bible, or a single biblical story can be found to be false,
> then faith must crumble; hence the vehement and absurd insistence that
> every single thing in the bible must be literally true -- hence YECism.)
Yes, the primary rhetorical tool for "my sect is right and yours is wrong"
is to nitpick some specific aspect of creed or ceremony, preferably with
steaming heaps of false dichotomy, appeals to authority, quote mining, and
all the other stuff we see here.
Watching fundamentalists in t.o. and elsewhere indicates that they try to
practice science the same way they practice their sectarian conflicts.
It's doubtful, IMO, that even 1% of the evolution deniers active on the
internet even know what science is trying to do, let alone how it works.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Piorokrat
Użytkownik "raven1" <cflpurq...@synfuznvy.pbz> napisał w wiadomości
news:7se7uv422g4ur35ou...@4ax.com...
This is a news group, that was news, I addressed it to the groups that I
expected to receive some intelligent commentary from.
Of course, not everyone will be able to, I expect that.
Uncle Davey
Pastor Dave
<twe...@cvn.net> spake thusly:
Wrong. There are six major kinds of evolution.
>Also, nothing in science is ever considered "proven".
You should tell that to all of the evolutionists who
claim that it has been proven.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Lenny Flank
Don't bullshit us, Davey.
Pastor Dave
Actually, "dark mass" which was speculation and still
is, used to be assumed to have almost no mass, until
they needed something to explain the problem of missing
mass. In later years, they realized that in order for
this idea to make sense, they had to claim that it had
much more mass than previously thought. Still
speculation.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the
universe without concluding that there must be design
and purpose behind it all... The better we understand
the intracacies of the universe and all it harbors,
the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent
design upon which it is based... To be forced to
believe only one conclusion --- that everything in the
universe happened by chance --- would violate the very
objectivity of science itself... What random process
could produce the brains of man or the system of the
human eye? They (evolutionists) challenge science to
prove the existence of God. But must we really light
a candle to see the Sun? ... They say they cannot
visualize a designer. Well, can a physicist visualize
an electron? ...What strange rationale makes some
physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real
while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on
the ground that they cannot conceive Him?"
- Dennis R. Petersen, Unlocking the Mysteries
of Creation, Vol 1
Jack Dominey
wrote:
>
>Użytkownik "raven1" <cflpurq...@synfuznvy.pbz> napisał w wiadomości
>news:7se7uv422g4ur35ou...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:34:14 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
>> <no...@jose.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
The first message in the thread refers to:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1110212,00.html?79%3A+International+news+%2D+guardian
>> May I ask what your point is?
>This is a news group, that was news, I addressed it to the groups that I
>expected to receive some intelligent commentary from.
Hmm. News to you, I guess? For folks with a mild interest in science,
dark matter and dark energy have been interesting topics for at least
a couple of years now. The breakthrough was confirmation of what had
been expected for some time before.
The work cited demonstrates a couple of useful things: One, that in
science, observation trumps theory, and Two, that surprises can await
*within* a well-established theoretical framework like the Big Bang.
Regarding the thread name - As a talk.origins reader I can only answer
the question as 'yes' in the sense of "first verses of Genesis" as a
metaphor for the beginning of the observable universe. I don't see
this cosmological work as offering any illumination on the actual
text.
>Of course, not everyone will be able to, I expect that.
>
>Uncle Davey
I await with interest your own comments on the article.
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
raven1
<pior...@autograf.pl> wrote:
>
>Użytkownik "raven1" <cflpurq...@synfuznvy.pbz> napisał w wiadomości
>news:7se7uv422g4ur35ou...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:34:14 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
>> <no...@jose.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> May I ask what your point is?
>> ---
>>
>> ROT-13 on Email to reply.
>>
>
>This is a news group, that was news, I addressed it to the groups that I
>expected to receive some intelligent commentary from.
And your agenda in doing so was...?
>
>Of course, not everyone will be able to, I expect that.
>
>Uncle Davey
>
---
ps...@groundlink.net
aa...@oro.net (eyelessgame) wrote:
eyelessgame,
thanks for replying. This does clear up some confusion on my part. In
high school and the few college courses I have had that covered
evolution, they (Instructors) made it seem (or my mind perceived it this
way, it has been a few years) as if Evolution was a broad model that
covered a variety of sciences, not just biology. After looking up the
definition of evolution (no offense, I never believe something unless I
verify) I see that you are correct about it being a biological science
only. I could have looked this up myself before I posted (no dumb
questions, just lazy ones), but my preconceived notion prevented me from
even thinking about it.
I have no problem with most of cosmology. No problem with the "age" of
the universe being 13.7 billion years old. I haven't yet decided if the
evidence supports an old earth, 4.55 billion years old, or a young
earth, but I don't believe either choice effects my "world view" so I
have not spent a lot of time investigating the topic (time economics).
The only issue that I have with cosmology is the Big Bang. I lean
towards an alternative theory (I forget the name) which hypothesis's
that the universe is created because of a white hole rather than a Big
Bang. My understanding is that the data collected supports a white hole
as much as the Big Bang theory. Actually, the predictions about data
that both theory's provide as essentially the same.
This white hole theory is something that I am interested in knowing more
about. Do you know of any sources that discuss it or compare the Big
Bang verses a white hole?
> 4. The underlying assumption seems to be that "if one thing is wrong,
> everything must be wrong". I find this particular "brittleness of
> truth" notion to be characteristic of certain sorts of conservative
> faiths; it is foreign to science and observation.
> If new data shows that a given model of a given
> phemonenon is wrong, we replace that one model with something that
> fits the new data. Phenomena that aren't related to that data don't
> have to be revised.
>
> To compare to the medicine/plumbing analogy: when we discover some
> unexpected detail about a new disease, it may lead to a new or revised
> understanding of the human immune system -- but it doesn't call into
> question whether water still flows downhill. And it would be a very
> odd thing indeed to claim it as vindication for those who believe in
> finding water with divining rods.
I would agree that this should be foreign to science and observation.
Science is a series of hypothesis, testing, revision, but obviously a
little more involved then that. After rereading my last sentence I
realize that it was more sarcastic then I intended.
> (It's found, for
> example, in the fundamentalist claim that if a single contradiction is
> found in the Bible, or a single biblical story can be found to be
> false, then faith must crumble; hence the vehement and absurd
> insistence that every single thing in the bible must be literally true
> -- hence YECism.)
>
> eyelessgame
>
Well where I agree that this is true for science, I have to respectfully
disagree when it comes to the christian religion. I seems rather simple
to me rather than absurd. By definition God/Jesus is perfect.
God/Jesus' word is therefore perfect otherwise throw it out the window.
In my experience every thing that various people have claimed to be
biblical contradictions have turned out to not be contradictions at all
once logic, context and culture have been taken into consideration. I
am open to any claims of contradiction in the Bible, but I fear that
they would turn out to be like all the others, not contraditions at all.
Of course this is a topic for another thread.
Thank you for responding so patiently,
ps...@groundlink.net
"Frank Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote:
> <ps...@groundlink.net> wrote in message
> news:psgj-164EFA.2...@news06.east.earthlink.net...
> > In article <bs028p$6p2$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>,
> > "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1110212,00.html?79%3A+Int
> > > ernational+news+%2D+guardian
> > >
> > > Science breakthrough of the year: proof of our exploding universe
> > >
> > > Tim Radford, science editor
> > > Friday December 19, 2003
> > > The Guardian
> > >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > This bizarre force seems to be pushing the universe apart at an
> > > accelerating rate, when gravitational pull should be making it slow down
> or
> > > contract.
> > >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > I'm confused now. I thought evolution claims that the rate of expansion
> > is slowing and eventually will collapse in on itself. This throws into
> > question all of the supposed "facts" that evolution has supposedly
> > proven.
>
> Don't you even like watch the Discovery Channel or anything?
Not very much.
>
> So how is a theory about the origin of species relevant to the origin of the
> cosmos?
>
> Frank
Thanks to eyelessgame, who was gracious enough to patiently explain the
difference I now know they are not related. Please see my reply to
eyelessgame.
Pat
ps...@groundlink.net
Pastor Dave <nospam-...@minister.com> wrote:
What are the six if you would care to explain?
AC
This is also a newsgroup populated by a number of people who know
significantly more about issues of the expansion of the universe than you or
I, and who also, due to the kinds of Creationist posters here, get more than
a little curious about someone who posts about cosmology with the subject
"New Light on the first verses of Genesis?"
Lenny Flank
Why oh why do creationists feel this irresistable need to give us their
Divine Holy Judgement on matters they know nothing at all about?
Desertphile
(Cut)
> "The dark energy is spread uniformly through the universe, latent in empty
> space. Its nature is a mystery. Whereas there's a real chance of learning
> what the dark matter is within the next five to 10 years, I'd hold out less
> hope of understanding the dark energy unless or until there's a unified
> theory that takes us closer to the 'bedrock' of space and time."
This might bode ill for humanity, if we discover a way to "tap into"
this energy. Human-induced global warming would likely become a
critical problem if such energy were east to "tap." Conversely, if
this energy could be used in space craft, a tiny portion of humanity
could perhaps leave Earth (I volunteer).
--
http://desertphile.org
The I.C.R. Cult Exposed: http://holysmoke.org/icr-cult.htm
observa
<ps...@groundlink.net> wrote in message
news:psgj-67A081.1...@news06.east.earthlink.net...
The "Big Bang" is simply a label. It was applied by Fred Hoyle when the
expansion of the universe was first suggested. His intention was to
ridicule the idea as his prefered theory was a steady state one where new
matter was constantly coming into existance. On the idea of matter coming
into existance, he was not entirely wrong (Google "Vacuum fluctuations").
Some people, including Steven Hawking have suggested the "Big Bang" may have
been either a vacuum fluctuation, or a white hole (or even both as they are
not mutually contradictory - simply different stages - vacuum fluctation
first, followed by white hole). The problem we have is that we do not know,
yet, what could trigger a vacuum fluctuation that maintained itself long
enough to allow for the creation of the matter we now see. Vacuum
fluctuations, generally, create "virtual partcles" that have very short
"lives". So a vacuum fluctuation, that stayed one, would appear a poor
candidate for the initial state of the universe, unless it "evolved" into
something else pretty damn quick. And one of the candidates is a white
hole.
Alan Jeffery
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/2003
Lenny Flank
The length of time that a virtual particle can exist is inversely
proportional to its mass-energy. Hence, the less energy is has, the
longer it can exist.
There are some indications that the total energy of the universe is, in
fact, zero. Which would allow it to exist indefinitely as a virtual
particle.
Frank Reichenbacher
<ps...@groundlink.net> wrote in message
news:psgj-67A081.1...@news06.east.earthlink.net...
God lord. Were you paying any attention at all?
After looking up the
> definition of evolution (no offense, I never believe something unless I
> verify) I see that you are correct about it being a biological science
> only. I could have looked this up myself before I posted (no dumb
> questions, just lazy ones)
FYI, lazy questions are worse than dumb questions.
, but my preconceived notion prevented me from
> even thinking about it.
How many more preconceived notions do you have that are preventing you from
understanding the world around you?
>
> I have no problem with most of cosmology. No problem with the "age" of
> the universe being 13.7 billion years old. I haven't yet decided if the
> evidence supports an old earth, 4.55 billion years old, or a young
> earth, but I don't believe either choice effects my "world view" so I
> have not spent a lot of time investigating the topic (time economics).
>
> The only issue that I have with cosmology is the Big Bang. I lean
> towards an alternative theory (I forget the name) which hypothesis's
> that the universe is created because of a white hole rather than a Big
> Bang. My understanding is that the data collected supports a white hole
> as much as the Big Bang theory.
You are talking about Lee Smolin's conjecture that was bastardized into a
nutjob creationist vehicle by Humphreys. Smolin, who has a very good article
in January's Scientific American, has since discounted his hypothesis.
Humphreys hasn't because he is bent on using it to accomplish his
preconceived notions about the inerrancy of Genesis.
In any case, I would have to ask what understanding is it that you think you
have? I would submit that you are in no position to presume any
understanding sufficient to allow for an opinion of any kind. And yet you
say you think you understand enough to have an opinion. Would it not be much
more likely that you are simply attracted to notions that woud seem to
support your preconceived notions? You need a *lot* more information to have
an opinion.
Actually, the predictions about data
> that both theory's provide as essentially the same.
How would you know? Yesterday you didn't even know that evolution is a
theory of biology. Now you think you know what the data on universal
cosmology says?
Here is the foundation of your preconceived notions. You simply will have to
find a way to shoehorn every observation into this ridiculous model, won't
you?
Frank
ps...@groundlink.net
"observa" <obs...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
Alan, I appreciate your time in explaining this.
respectfully,
syvanen
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:34:14 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
> <no...@jose.com> spake thusly:
>
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1110212,00.html?79%3A+International+news+%2D+guardian
> >
> >Science breakthrough of the year: proof of our exploding universe
> >
> >Tim Radford, science editor
> >Friday December 19, 2003
> >The Guardian
> >
> >
> >"The dark energy is spread uniformly through the universe, latent in empty
> >space. Its nature is a mystery. Whereas there's a real chance of learning
> >what the dark matter is within the next five to 10 years, I'd hold out less
> >hope of understanding the dark energy unless or until there's a unified
> >theory that takes us closer to the 'bedrock' of space and time."
>
> Actually, "dark mass" which was speculation and still
> is, used to be assumed to have almost no mass, until
> they needed something to explain the problem of missing
> mass. In later years, they realized that in order for
> this idea to make sense, they had to claim that it had
> much more mass than previously thought. Still
> speculation.
Do you have any idea how stupid you sound? Your babble is just random
phrases. Who do you think your audience is? Are there lurkers out
there who see any sense in this nonsense? Please come forward and
explain what it is that you think this is all about.
Mike Syvanen
Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
>> >Evolution says nothing about the rate of expansion of the universe. It
>> >deals only with living organisms, not the universe in general.
>>
>> Wrong. There are six major kinds of evolution.
>
>What are the six if you would care to explain?
1) Cosmic Evolution
2) Chemical Evolution
3) Stellar and Planetary Evolution
4) Organic Evolution
5) Macro Evolution
6) Micro Evolution
You can look them up.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Part of the message of salvation, is the Creation.
Believing in the Creator. When Paul preached to
those worshipping nature and said... "turn from
these vanities unto the living God, which made
heaven and earth and the sea and all things that
are therein:" - Acts 14:15 Paul believed it too.
Pastor Dave
(syvanen) spake thusly:
You can make any claim about me that you wish.
However, even the quoted material offered no solid
support and what I said is true.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Frank Reichenbacher
news:bs1kla$b2p$1...@news.onet.pl...
It is obvious from the thread title you chose that you believe that some
aspect of this report somehow confirms the creation myths in Genesis. Pray
tell, how do you accomplish this bit of mental gymnastics?
Frank
>
> Uncle Davey
>
>
ps...@groundlink.net
Pastor Dave <nospam-...@minister.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:34:48 GMT, ps...@groundlink.net
> spake thusly:
>
>
> >> >Evolution says nothing about the rate of expansion of the universe. It
> >> >deals only with living organisms, not the universe in general.
> >>
> >> Wrong. There are six major kinds of evolution.
> >
> >What are the six if you would care to explain?
>
> 1) Cosmic Evolution
>
> 2) Chemical Evolution
>
> 3) Stellar and Planetary Evolution
>
> 4) Organic Evolution
>
> 5) Macro Evolution
>
> 6) Micro Evolution
>
> You can look them up.
Well since the origional post was about cosmology, I decided to do a
google search on Cosmic Evolution and Stellar Evolution.
Under Cosmic Evolution one of the first links listed was:
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html
Under Stellar Evolution one of the first links listed was:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/textbook/se.html
So I am correct in that evolution spans a lot of different sciences
(including cosmology) and not just biology. Hmmm, I wonder why so many
that replyed to my posts were so adamant about cosmology and evolution
not being related?
respectfully,
Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
You are correct and the reason is, that they know if
they're honest and tie them together, that they have to
explain abiogenesis and why they believe in a theory
that was proved wrong long ago, by people like Pasteur.
I.e., they'll have to think about God and they don't
like that. You can call me crazy if you wish, but as
you asked, why so adamant that they aren't connected,
when it is scientifically true that they are? In fact,
the Cell Theory tells us that a living cell only comes
from another living cell. Biogenesis tells us this and
yet, they would have you believe that biogenesis and
abiogenesis are not contradictions against each other.
Does it make sense to accept Pasteur's concept of
biogenesis, which he shows rejects abiogenesis and then
accept biogenesis also? Just FYI, when you put an "a"
in front of a word, it simple means the opposite.
Biogenesis = life only comes from life
Abiogenesis = life coming from non-living matter,
spontaneously, all by itself.
Abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) - the now
discredited idea that living organisms can arise
spontaneously from inanimate matter. This theory was
supported by such observations as maggots appearing on
rotten meat left outdoors, which led to the mistaken
conclusion that the meat itself, rather than adult
flies laying eggs in the meat, created the maggots.
- Dictionary of Theories
Abiogenesis -- the origination of living organisms from
lifeless matter -- called also "spontaneous
generation." - Miriam Webster Third New International
Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged.
Spontaneous generation (Biol.), the fancied production
of living organisms without previously existing parents
from inorganic matter, or from decomposing organic
matter, a notion which at one time had many supporters;
abiogenesis. - Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
******************************************************************
From Mary Shelly's Introduction to Frankenstein or the
Modern Prometheus, 1818 - Modern evolutionists have
taken issue with this, claiming that they do not
believe in spontaneous generation, but believe in what
they term abiogenesis, that life can come from
non-living matter through purely naturalistic means,
but that this process takes place over a vast period of
time.
This is a rather devious tactic and there are a few
problems with this explanation by the evolutionists.
First, for all practical purposes, the two terms are
all but synonymous. Spontaneous does not necessarily
mean instantaneous, it simply means, according to my
old Random House Dictionary (1975):
1. coming or resulting from a natural impulse or
tendency; without effort or premeditation.
2. (of a person) given to acting upon sudden impulses.
3. (of natural phenomena) arising from internal forces
or causes [i.e. no outside intervention]
4. produced by natural causes. And the definition for
spontaneous generation in this same dictionary is
abiogenesis. Historically this was the case, and this
was the term used by evolutionists up until Pasteur.
Now they have switched terms, but the meaning is still
the same.
Second, the formation of the first living cell by
hypothetical abiogenic means would have had to have
been virtually instantaneous anyhow, and they
(evolutionists) have absolutely no evidence that this
ever occurred. The science, as far as the needed
reducing atmosphere for this hypothetical event to have
taken place, is against this happening, and Pasteur, in
his classic experiments in the nineteenth century,
disproved the notion. Pasteur proved his theory of
biogenesis, that life only comes from pre-existing
life. This was one of the most significant discoveries
of the nineteenth century, and is pretty much passed
over by evolutionists with their fanciful stories. A
cell is a dynamic, amazingly complex living computer
and warehouse of thousands of moving parts all working
together with incredible speed, harmony and precision.
It would have to "hit the ground running" from the very
start of it's existence in an instant of time, with
everything precisely in place and fully functional,
processing thousands of bits of information each and
every nano-second to have any chance of surviving in
the primitive and hostile environment that
evolutionists believe existed for their theory to work,
with a fully functional cell wall protecting it while
allowing only beneficial material to pass through it's
barriers. The odds against all of that happening
through "natural selection" or any other naturalistic
means without the intervention of an intelligent power
are astronomical, in fact, impossible. The only real
word for this to have happened would be miracle.
*************************************************************
Fact: The evolutionist believes in a miracle, without a
miracle worker.
Fact: Darwin believed that single celled organisms were
just blobs of plasm and this was proven wrong, when we
were able to view them. So what does the evolutionist
do? Moves the goal posts and says, "Oh, but they
weren't before." and yet, the evolutionist hasn't one
shred of proof for that statement.
Now watch for those who tell you that "evolution has
been proved", when no such thing is true. Watch out
especially for those who say, "evolution has been
proved beyond any doubt". Those are the real nut
cases. :)
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/bryanp/Evolution/Gre.Sci..htm
Frank Reichenbacher
news:psgj-4CA417.1...@news06.east.earthlink.net...
Patient? I guess so. That is a virtue of his that I appreciate.
I find it truly incredible that a person so completely bereft of any sort of
fundamental information and basic knowledge should feel somehow still
qualified to post on an Internet newsgroup, the purpose of which is to
engage in debate over the origins of life, and presume to be able to tell
anyone anything, or even to ask an intelligent question. I would have been
too embarassed to do so.
Frank
eyelessgame
I'm very glad to have prompted this bit of self-correction on your
part. I encourage you to read more.
> I have no problem with most of cosmology. No problem with the "age" of
> the universe being 13.7 billion years old. I haven't yet decided if the
> evidence supports an old earth, 4.55 billion years old, or a young
> earth, but I don't believe either choice effects my "world view" so I
> have not spent a lot of time investigating the topic (time economics).
No prob. If you decide you're interested enough to research it,
you'll find the evidence for 4.55 billion year old earth is
overwhelming and unambiguous -- but you're off to an excellent start
in not taking my word for it.
> The only issue that I have with cosmology is the Big Bang. I lean
> towards an alternative theory (I forget the name) which hypothesis's
> that the universe is created because of a white hole rather than a Big
> Bang. My understanding is that the data collected supports a white hole
> as much as the Big Bang theory. Actually, the predictions about data
> that both theory's provide as essentially the same.
In the last decade or so there's been a lot more evidence gathered and
a lot more work done on the theoretical models. While the math is
daunting and the physical models of particle physics are beyond
counterintuitive, I recommend you start with Hawking's _A Brief
History Of Time_; there's really no peer to that work for explaining
mainstream cosmology comprehensibly.
But I'm curious. If the predictions are the same, why do you lean
toward a different explanation? Aesthetics?
> This white hole theory is something that I am interested in knowing more
> about. Do you know of any sources that discuss it or compare the Big
> Bang verses a white hole?
I'd go with Hawking. The biggest problem with white holes is that
they, while theoretically consistent, don't seem to exist.
> > 4. The underlying assumption seems to be that "if one thing is wrong,
> > everything must be wrong". I find this particular "brittleness of
> > truth" notion to be characteristic of certain sorts of conservative
> > faiths; it is foreign to science and observation.
>
> > If new data shows that a given model of a given
> > phemonenon is wrong, we replace that one model with something that
> > fits the new data. Phenomena that aren't related to that data don't
> > have to be revised.
> >
> > To compare to the medicine/plumbing analogy: when we discover some
> > unexpected detail about a new disease, it may lead to a new or revised
> > understanding of the human immune system -- but it doesn't call into
> > question whether water still flows downhill. And it would be a very
> > odd thing indeed to claim it as vindication for those who believe in
> > finding water with divining rods.
>
> I would agree that this should be foreign to science and observation.
> Science is a series of hypothesis, testing, revision, but obviously a
> little more involved then that. After rereading my last sentence I
> realize that it was more sarcastic then I intended.
Yah -- as one who has been reading talk.origins, I'll say you should
definitely expect everyone to jump all over you for it. I'm glad your
actual position is far more open-minded and thoughtful than that one
sentence came across.
> > (It's found, for
> > example, in the fundamentalist claim that if a single contradiction is
> > found in the Bible, or a single biblical story can be found to be
> > false, then faith must crumble; hence the vehement and absurd
> > insistence that every single thing in the bible must be literally true
> > -- hence YECism.)
> >
> > eyelessgame
> >
>
> Well where I agree that this is true for science, I have to respectfully
> disagree when it comes to the christian religion. I seems rather simple
> to me rather than absurd. By definition God/Jesus is perfect.
> God/Jesus' word is therefore perfect otherwise throw it out the window.
> In my experience every thing that various people have claimed to be
> biblical contradictions have turned out to not be contradictions at all
> once logic, context and culture have been taken into consideration. I
> am open to any claims of contradiction in the Bible, but I fear that
> they would turn out to be like all the others, not contraditions at all.
> Of course this is a topic for another thread.
That is, in a way, a exactly the brittleness I'm talking about.
However, rather than debate it -- and it is certainly for another
thread -- I'll note that so long as the bible can be considered
metaphorical or symbolic in parts, it's rather pointless to talk about
contradictions; there is no particular logical problem in recognizing
harmony in superficially contradictory metaphors. Is a given metaphor
"correct"? Sure, if it means something to the reader.
I've generally eschewed the contradiction game. I'm content to say
that the bible has a lot more meaning to some other people than it
does to me -- and anyone who recognizes it's not a science book can
revere it as much as they want. It's only the ones who insist on a
global flood, on separate creation of different living things, or on a
recent creation of the universe, earth, or life who piss me off.
Now, some of the bible deeply offends me (I consider Numbers 31:18 the
single most chillingly evil moment, though there are hundreds of other
atrocities), though the offense is greatly tempered by the fact that
it is an ancient history of ignorant barbarian goatherders, and the
world has been a nasty place for most of history; the bible shows no
more of this than happened anywhere. And Ecclesiastes rocks; many
biblical literary sins are forgiven for the inclusion of that
magnificent short work of poetry and philosophy.
> Thank you for responding so patiently,
Not at all. Thank you for your answer.
eyelessgame
Frank Reichenbacher
It is obvious from the thread title you chose that you believe that some
ps...@groundlink.net
"Frank Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote:
I'm curious about something. This is my first thread in either of these
news groups and so far I have some civil discussions with some like
eyelessgame, who has been helpful. But others as yourself have been
very rude. Do you really think that I will take you seriously when you
come out in attack mode right off the bat, even though I have not given
any reason for it?
Frank Reichenbacher
<ps...@groundlink.net> wrote in message
news:psgj-67A081.1...@news06.east.earthlink.net...
Just to clarify my position a little bit (and I don't think observa, Lenny
Flank, and Kyle Maxwell would disagree), I don't have an 'opinion,' as such,
about the Big Bang theory. Those of us who are trained in science, but who
are not trained in physics and cosmology know enough to understand how
little we know. We understand how much work it takes to achieve a thorough
understanding of *any* field of science, and we are not about to insult
those who have spent their professional lives studying it by expressing an
opinion, as if we were qualified to have one.
I form no judgement. I will provisionally acccept the Big Bang because it is
apparently supported by a *lot* of work, and I would have no basis for
disputing the theory. I might read conjectures like Smolin's, or
speculations on superstring and brane theories with interest, I would never
presume to argue in his favor as opposed to anything else.
I take the same approach to other fields in which I am not trained. Thus, I
won't dispute the theory of plate tectonics either. Since I haven't analyzed
the data, it would be presumptuous of me to presume to do so.
This is what is meant when we say that science is based on evidence; it
works for science as a whole, and for particular scientists, as well. I
haven't analyzed the evidence in regard to the origin of the universe (and
neither have you), therefore, I defer to the hard work and occasional
brilliance of those who have.
Frank
<snippage>
Desertphile
> I'm confused now.
Obviously, judging by what you then wrote:
> I thought evolution claims that the rate of expansion
> is slowing and eventually will collapse in on itself.
Do you really believe "evolution" made such a claim? Why are you
confusing cosmology with evolutionary theory, and astrophysics with
evolution? My eight-year-old nephew knows the difference.
Now and then I grieve for the future of humanity when I see the poor
state of education throughout the world. Fortunately there are many
fine examples of knowledge and education increasing in some parts of
the world, which gives me hope.
Desertphile
<no...@jose.com> wrote:
ZERO mention of the Bible at all, let alone "the first verses of
Genesis." I suggest you put down the mescal bottle before reading, and
certainly before cult-and-pasting.
ps...@groundlink.net
"Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote:
> <ps...@groundlink.net> wrote in message
> news:psgj-164EFA.2...@news06.east.earthlink.net...
> > In article <bs028p$6p2$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>,
> > "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1110212,00.html?79%3A+Int
> > > ernational+news+%2D+guardian
> > >
> > > Science breakthrough of the year: proof of our exploding universe
> > >
> > > Tim Radford, science editor
> > > Friday December 19, 2003
> > > The Guardian
> > >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > This bizarre force seems to be pushing the universe apart at an
> > > accelerating rate, when gravitational pull should be making it slow down
> or
> > > contract.
> > >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > I'm confused now. I thought evolution claims that the rate of expansion
> > is slowing and eventually will collapse in on itself. This throws into
> > question all of the supposed "facts" that evolution has supposedly
> > proven.
>
> Evolution says nothing about the rate of expansion of the universe. It
> deals only with living organisms, not the universe in general. Also,
> nothing in science is ever considered "proven".
>
> DJT
>
>
Thanks for the reply explaining the difference. Please see my responce
to eyelessgame.
To those of you that I replied to I would like to thank you for
patiently explaining the difference. To those of you that I did not
reply to well my momma used to say, "If you can't say anything nice
don't say anything at all."
Pat
ps...@groundlink.net
Lenny Flank <lflank...@ij.net> wrote:
Where in any of the above did I claim to be a creationist (I am but that
is besides the point) or where did I try to give "Divine Holy
Judgement"? And if you say this wasn't directed at my then why reply to
my post? Either way why post something that has absolutely nothing to
do with my post? I think your prejudices are showing.
Pat Jacobs
Lenny Flank
>
>
> Well where I agree that this is true for science, I have to respectfully
> disagree when it comes to the christian religion. I seems rather simple
> to me rather than absurd. By definition God/Jesus is perfect.
> God/Jesus' word is therefore perfect otherwise throw it out the window.
> In my experience every thing that various people have claimed to be
> biblical contradictions have turned out to not be contradictions at all
> once logic, context and culture have been taken into consideration. I
> am open to any claims of contradiction in the Bible, but I fear that
> they would turn out to be like all the others, not contraditions at all.
> Of course this is a topic for another thread.
>
Thanks for expressing your religious opinions. I have just one question
regarding them:
What exactly is the source of your religious authority. What exactly
makes your (or ANY person's) religious opinions more (or less) valid
than anyone else's. Why should anyone pay any more attention to my
religious opinions, or yours, than we pay to the religious opinions of
my next door neighbor or my gardener or the guy who delivered my pizza
last night. It seems to me that no one alive would or could know any
more about God than anyone else alive does, since there doesn't seem
to be any potential source of such knowledge that isn't equally
available to everyone else. You pray; I pray. You read the Bible; I
read the Bible. You go to church and listen to the pastor; I go to
church and listen to the pastor. So what is it, exactly, that makes
your religious opinion any more (or less) valid than anyone else's.
(I should perhaps note that I am not referring to "you" as in any
particular individual; I mean "anybody, anybody at all". I should
also perhaps point out that I am NOT, repeat NOT, N-O-T, an atheist,
nor am I "attacking religion" in any way shape or form.)
I am very interested in getting answers to these questions,
particularly from you as our resident "True Christian <tm> (c)".
observa
"Lenny Flank" <lflank...@ij.net> wrote in message
news:3fe4e...@corp.newsgroups.com...
That may be the current situation. It could not have been during "the first
3 minutes" (read Steven Weinberg's book by the same name). It is still
accepted that, early on, and within those first 3 mins, there was a high
energy plasma, and that it expanded very quickly as well (the inflationary
epoch). To maintain a vacuum fluctuation for those first three minutes
would have stopped the inflationary epoch, and also the development of the
hydrogen that we see now. As well, the cosmic background radiation would
not exist - not enough energy for it to survive this long.
Alan Jeffery
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ===============================================
> Lenny Flank
> "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> Creation "Science" Debunked:
> http://www.geocities.com/lflank
>
> DebunkCreation Email list:
> http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
observa
>
> I'm curious about something. This is my first thread in either of these
> news groups and so far I have some civil discussions with some like
> eyelessgame, who has been helpful. But others as yourself have been
> very rude. Do you really think that I will take you seriously when you
> come out in attack mode right off the bat, even though I have not given
> any reason for it?
>
> Pat Jacobs
Pat.
Many of the folks here are used to creationists coming into the group with
apparently rational arguements, at the start. They get responded to
politely, and then start rubbishing the responses. Or snipping out of
context. I'm afraid the fact that such behaviour has been going on as long
as t.o. has existed has meant that some members (myself included often) have
developed something of an automatic reaction to anything that looks even
slightly like creationist ignorance, misunderstanding, etc.
If you are prepared to hang around, and ask questions. And generally take
part in the threads that interest you, you'll learn a lot. But, be warned,
it is Usenet, and some folks do have a tendency to go for the throat.
Alan Jeffery
>
> --
> a disclaimer!
>
> My boss told me to put "a disclaimer" on my posts so I did.
>
> The ground is earth.
>
Lenny Flank
<snip>
> I'm curious about something. This is my first thread in either of these
> news groups and so far I have some civil discussions with some like
> eyelessgame, who has been helpful. But others as yourself have been
> very rude. Do you really think that I will take you seriously when you
> come out in attack mode right off the bat, even though I have not given
> any reason for it?
>
When you show yourself to be an ignoramus, by the very nature of the
question you ask, then you are simply not worth taking seriously. <shrug>
How "seriously" would YOU take someone who comes into a Christian
apologetics newsgroup and loudly proclaims, in his first posting, "Jesus
was wrong because Buddha lived in China !!!!!!!!"
Lenny Flank
Lenny Flank
I prefer a different version of that folks aying.
My version goes: "If you don't know what you are talking about, then
shut the hell up."
I like my version better.
Frank Reichenbacher
<ps...@groundlink.net> wrote in message
news:psgj-FAEDEF.2...@news02.east.earthlink.net...
<snip>
> > >
>
> I'm curious about something. This is my first thread in either of these
> news groups and so far I have some civil discussions with some like
> eyelessgame, who has been helpful. But others as yourself have been
> very rude. Do you really think that I will take you seriously when you
> come out in attack mode right off the bat, even though I have not given
> any reason for it?
The purpose of this newsgroup is to debate. Period. If you want information,
go to a goddamn library, or better yet, get an education.
Frank
r norman
<fr...@bio-con.com> wrote:
>
><ps...@groundlink.net> wrote in message
>news:psgj-FAEDEF.2...@news02.east.earthlink.net...
>> In article <1_GdnZBqxfe...@speakeasy.net>,
>> "Frank Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>> > >
>>
>> I'm curious about something. This is my first thread in either of these
>> news groups and so far I have some civil discussions with some like
>> eyelessgame, who has been helpful. But others as yourself have been
>> very rude. Do you really think that I will take you seriously when you
>> come out in attack mode right off the bat, even though I have not given
>> any reason for it?
>
>The purpose of this newsgroup is to debate. Period. If you want information,
>go to a goddamn library, or better yet, get an education.
>
The Oxford Universal Dictionary has as the first definition for
debate: "Strife, dissension, quarrelling,..." along with the notation
that such usage is archaic Middle English.
It seems like many in this news group are bringing back the old
definition.
Frank Reichenbacher
"r norman" <rsn_@_comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4dqcuvsuuk4t36vfd...@4ax.com...
Anybody got any thumbscrews?
Frank
>
>
Earle Jones
r norman <rsn_@_comcast.net> wrote:
*
This is the kitchen -- that's where the heat is.
There are some more comfortable rooms around. If you don't like the
heat here, try alt.jesus.any.day.now.
earle
*
Sverker Johansson
> In article <e707421e.03121...@posting.google.com>,> > news:<psgj-164EFA.2...@news06.east.earthlink.net>...
> > > In article <bs028p$6p2$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>,
> > > "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1110212,00.html?79%3A
> > > > +Int
> > > > ernational+news+%2D+guardian
> > > >
> > > > Science breakthrough of the year: proof of our exploding universe
> > > >
> > > > Tim Radford, science editor
> > > > Friday December 19, 2003
> > > > The Guardian
> > > >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > This bizarre force seems to be pushing the universe apart at an
> > > > accelerating rate, when gravitational pull should be making it slow down
> > > > or
> > > > contract.
> >
> > of the universe itself is expanding (and, we now know, at an
> > accelerating rate); within that fabric, gravity operates as we always
> > thought it did. The acceleration is surprising, certainly, and has
> > implications for how the universe will *end*, but it changes only
> > certain details about the mainstream model of how it began.
> >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm confused now. I thought evolution claims that the rate of expansion
> > > is slowing and eventually will collapse in on itself. This throws into
> > > question all of the supposed "facts" that evolution has supposedly
> > > proven.
> > >
There are several "White hole theories" out there. White
holes used to be discussed as possible causes of quasars,
but quasars turned out to be black holes instead.
White holes have also been proposed as possible initiators
of Big Bang. Both of these are (or were) legitimate science,
but not in any reasonable sense alternatives to Big Bang.
There is, however, also the white hole theory of
Russell Humphreys, which he claims as an alternative
to Big Bang and an old universe. It is fully described in
his book "Starlight and Time", and briefly described in
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp
But Humphreys' white hole theory is total bunk.
Even some of his fellow creationists recognize the
problems with it, e.g. in these two articles:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml?main
http://www.icr.org/starlightandtime/pdf/rh_connpage1.pdf
[snip]
Best regards
Sverker Johansson
Desertphile
<lflank...@ij.net> wrote:
> ps...@groundlink.net wrote:
>> To those of you that I did not reply to well my momma
>> used to say, "If you can't say anything nice don't say
>> anything at all."
Since it is rather difficult to find anything "nice" to say about, for
instance, Pol Pot, typhoid feaver, poliomyelitis, George Bush2, blunt
head trama, Scientology, and gonorrhea, is one supposed to not
complain about such evils?
> I prefer a different version of that folks saying.
>
> My version goes: "If you don't know what you are talking about, then
> shut the hell up."
>
> I like my version better.
Then all Creationists would be silent. Where's the fun in that?
--
http://desertphile.org
The I.C.R. Cult Exposed: http://holysmoke.org/icr-cult.htm
"Scientology: the 'science' of making money." http://holysmoke.org/theta.htm
Desertphile
<lflank...@ij.net> wrote:
> ps...@groundlink.net wrote:
> <snip>
> > I'm curious about something. This is my first thread in either of these
> > news groups and so far I have some civil discussions with some like
> > eyelessgame, who has been helpful. But others as yourself have been
> > very rude. Do you really think that I will take you seriously when you
> > come out in attack mode right off the bat, even though I have not given
> > any reason for it?
This behavior certainly isn't unique to talk.origins. It kind of falls
under the "Why are you so bitter?" complaint FidoNet's HOLYSMOKE echo
used to get by the hundreds each month.
> When you show yourself to be an ignoramus, by the very nature of the
> question you ask, then you are simply not worth taking seriously. <shrug>
Even more to the point, Creationists make the same false assertions
over and over again, often dozens at a time, day after day, year after
year, and NEVER LEARN FROM BEING CORRECTED. The well-deserved angst
Creationists (who later come along) receive is due to the frustration
generated.
Talking to Creationists is much like talking to idiot children. One
must tell them over and over and over again that 2+2 equals 4, and
does not equal 2, nor 22, nor 7, nor 82, nor 40, nor 10.... just to
have antirely new waves of idiot childred (Creationists) flood into
the room asserting 2+2 does not equal 4. An idiot child (Creationist)
will often also assert that is isn't even POSSIBLE to know what 2+2
equals, therefore only gods can add.
Is it any wonder Creationists are met with ire and frustration?
> How "seriously" would YOU take someone who comes into a Christian
> apologetics newsgroup and loudly proclaims, in his first posting,
> "Jesus was wrong because Buddha lived in China !!!!!!!!"
A better analogy would be: How seriously should one take someone who
claims "2+2 does not equal 4 because Philip Johnson is a lawyer!" ?
> ===============================================
> Lenny Flank
> "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> Creation "Science" Debunked:
> http://www.geocities.com/lflank
>
> DebunkCreation Email list:
> http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
Lenny Flank
As the early universe expanded, it created gravitational potential
energy, which is negative.
The total energy is still zero.
Lenny Flank
"BOIL THAT DUST-SPECK !! BOIL THAT DUST-SPECK !!!"
In any case, an old saying about "heat" and "kitchens" comes to mind . . . .
observa
But not negative, from what I read there - just zero at sufficient distance
But I'm not sure that is the same as saying the total energy is zero.
Alan Jeffery
>
>
>
>
>
> ===============================================
> Lenny Flank
> "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> Creation "Science" Debunked:
> http://www.geocities.com/lflank
>
> DebunkCreation Email list:
> http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
Sverker Johansson
> "Lenny Flank" <lflank...@ij.net> wrote in message
[snip a lot]
> > As the early universe expanded, it created gravitational potential
> > energy, which is negative.
> >
> > The total energy is still zero.
> >
> I see what you mean: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html
> But not negative, from what I read there - just zero at sufficient distance
Zero at sufficient distance, and smaller at smaller distances.
IOW less than zero at small distances. A _lot_ less than zero
when everything was crammed together in the early universe.
> But I'm not sure that is the same as saying the total energy is zero.
Adding up the total energy of all other kinds in the universe
(including of course E=mc2 for all the matter) you get
something very close in magnitude to the gravitational
energy, but with the opposite sign. Total close to zero.
But global conservation of energy in curved spacetime
is a tricky issue, so one should be careful drawing
far-reaching conclusions.
Best regards
Sverker Johansson
Piorokrat
Użytkownik "raven1" <cflpurq...@synfuznvy.pbz> napisał w wiadomości
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 13:54:41 +0000 (UTC), "Piorokrat"
> <pior...@autograf.pl> wrote:
>
> >
> >Użytkownik "raven1" <cflpurq...@synfuznvy.pbz> napisał w wiadomości
> >news:7se7uv422g4ur35ou...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> May I ask what your point is?
> >> ---
> >>
> >> ROT-13 on Email to reply.
> >>
> >
> >This is a news group, that was news, I addressed it to the groups that I
> >expected to receive some intelligent commentary from.
>
Are you worried in some way about the contents of the article, or what?
Uncle Davey
Piorokrat
Użytkownik "Lenny Flank" <lflank...@ij.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:3fe47739$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> Piorokrat wrote:
>
> > Użytkownik "raven1" <cflpurq...@synfuznvy.pbz> napisał w wiadomości
> > news:7se7uv422g4ur35ou...@4ax.com...
> >
> >>On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:34:14 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
> >><no...@jose.com> wrote:
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>May I ask what your point is?
> >>---
> >>
> >>ROT-13 on Email to reply.
> >>
> >
> >
> > This is a news group, that was news, I addressed it to the groups that I
> > expected to receive some intelligent commentary from.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Don't bullshit us, Davey.
>
>
>
Point made.
<shrug>
Uncle Davey
Frank Reichenbacher
"Piorokrat" <pior...@autograf.pl> wrote in message
news:bs9n6k$i27$1...@news.onet.pl...
How do you translate, "I am worried," from "Why did you post this?"
Why would this be worrisome to anyone?
Frank
> Uncle Davey
>
>
Cirbryn
> <ps...@groundlink.net> wrote in message
> news:psgj-4CA417.1...@news06.east.earthlink.net...
> > In article <mpWdnU6Wu6h...@speakeasy.net>,
> > "Frank Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote:
> >
> > > <ps...@groundlink.net> wrote in message
> > > > In article <bs028p$6p2$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>,
> > > > "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1110212,00.html?79%3A+Int
> > > > > ernational+news+%2D+guardian
> > > > >
> > > > > Science breakthrough of the year: proof of our exploding universe
> > > > >
> > > > > Tim Radford, science editor
> > > > > Friday December 19, 2003
> > > > > The Guardian
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > This bizarre force seems to be pushing the universe apart at an
> > > > > accelerating rate, when gravitational pull should be making it slow
> down
> or
> > > > > contract.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm confused now. I thought evolution claims that the rate of
> expansion
> > > > is slowing and eventually will collapse in on itself. This throws
> into
> > > > question all of the supposed "facts" that evolution has supposedly
> > > > proven.
> > >
> >
> > Not very much.
> >
> > >
> > > So how is a theory about the origin of species relevant to the origin of
> the
> > > cosmos?
> > >
> > > Frank
> >
> > Thanks to eyelessgame, who was gracious enough to patiently explain the
> > difference I now know they are not related. Please see my reply to
> > eyelessgame.
>
>
> I find it truly incredible that a person so completely bereft of any sort of
> fundamental information and basic knowledge should feel somehow still
> qualified to post on an Internet newsgroup, the purpose of which is to
> engage in debate over the origins of life, and presume to be able to tell
> anyone anything, or even to ask an intelligent question. I would have been
> too embarassed to do so.
On the other hand it is perfectly appropriate and commendable to post
as he did if the purpose was simply to ask a question and to learn
from the answers. We all have to start somewhere. If he'd intended to
defend his point he probably wouldn't have qualified it by saying "I'm
confused" and "I thought...." All we accomplish by biting this guy's
head off is to encourage others like him to hold onto their own
preconceptions rather than risk being ridiculed for asking about them.
<snip sigs>
Frank Reichenbacher
"Cirbryn" <Glen...@planet-save.com> wrote in message
news:cd0d4ca3.03122...@posting.google.com...
I've been going through this thread again, and I think that I thought I was
replying to Uncle Davey. I read the, "I'm confused...," part as a sarcastic
comment on the state of the theory.
I guess I owe that other guy some kind of apology.
Frank
> <snip sigs>
>
Bible Bob
This is a more admirable approach than most people on your group have shown
so far.
BB
catshark
Not at all. People who come to merely ask questions are ususally treated
respectfully (at least by the large majority). It is those who come to
push an anti-science agenda who get savaged.
BTW, Frank has already apologized (twice), explaining he misunderstood the
intent of the post because he thought it came from someone else.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen
- Emily Dickinson -
Lenny Flank
Answer my questions.
<shrug>
Lenny Flank
> Użytkownik "raven1" <cflpurq...@synfuznvy.pbz> napisał w wiadomości
> news:il39uvs6sf09m5hsn...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 13:54:41 +0000 (UTC), "Piorokrat"
>><pior...@autograf.pl> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Użytkownik "raven1" <cflpurq...@synfuznvy.pbz> napisał w wiadomości
>>>news:7se7uv422g4ur35ou...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:34:14 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
>>>><no...@jose.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>May I ask what your point is?
>>>>---
>>>>
>>>>ROT-13 on Email to reply.
>>>>
>>>
>>>This is a news group, that was news, I addressed it to the groups that I
>>>expected to receive some intelligent commentary from.
>>
>>And your agenda in doing so was...?
>
>
> Are you worried in some way about the contents of the article, or what?
>
What's there to worry about.
Are you going to tell me why your religious opinions are any more
authoritative than mine or my next door neighbor's? Are you going to
tell me what the scientific theory fo creation is and how we can tets it?
Or are you jsut going to pop in with your silly one-liners and evade
those questions.
<shrug>
<shrug>
Desertphile
<lflank...@ij.net> wrote:
> r norman wrote:
> > The Oxford Universal Dictionary has as the first definition for
> > debate: "Strife, dissension, quarrelling,..." along with the notation
> > that such usage is archaic Middle English.
> >
> > It seems like many in this news group are bringing back the old
> > definition.
> "BOIL THAT DUST-SPECK !! BOIL THAT DUST-SPECK !!!"
"Horton Hears a Creationist."
> In any case, an old saying about "heat" and "kitchens" comes to mind . . . .
No wonder Big Name Creationists avoid debates with scientists. Every
time the Creationist believes he had baked a soufflé, a few dozen
scientists come along and flatten it with the facts.
Piorokrat
You can tets it by dying without believing it and seeing what happens.
<shrug>
Uncle Davey
Piorokrat
> Piorokrat wrote:
>
> > Użytkownik "Lenny Flank" <lflank...@ij.net> napisał w wiadomości
> > news:3fe47739$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> >
> >>Piorokrat wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Użytkownik "raven1" <cflpurq...@synfuznvy.pbz> napisał w
wiadomości
> >>>news:7se7uv422g4ur35ou...@4ax.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:34:14 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
> >>>><no...@jose.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>><snip>
> >>>>
> >>>>May I ask what your point is?
> >>>>---
> >>>>
> >>>>ROT-13 on Email to reply.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>This is a news group, that was news, I addressed it to the groups that
I
> >>>expected to receive some intelligent commentary from.
> >>>
> >>>Of course, not everyone will be able to, I expect that.
> >>>
> >>>Uncle Davey
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Don't bullshit us, Davey.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Point made.
> >
> > <shrug>
> >
> > Uncle Davey
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Answer my questions.
>
> <shrug>
You answer mine. Why is your ignorance about dark energy any more excusable
than my ignorance about dark energy, or that of the kid who isn't delivering
pizzas today because it's Christmas Eve?
<shrug>
Uncle Davey
catshark
<pior...@autograf.pl> wrote:
[snip]
>> What's there to worry about.
>>
>> Are you going to tell me why your religious opinions are any more
>> authoritative than mine or my next door neighbor's? Are you going to
>> tell me what the scientific theory fo creation is and how we can tets it?
>>
>> Or are you jsut going to pop in with your silly one-liners and evade
>> those questions.
>>
>>
>> <shrug>
>>
>>
>> <shrug>
>>
>>
>> <shrug>
>>
>
>You can tets it by dying without believing it and seeing what happens.
>
><shrug>
>
>Uncle Davey
>
Is that supposed to frighten us or comfort you?
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
EVANGELIST, n.
A bearer of good tidings, particularly (in a religious sense) such as
assure us of our own salvation and the damnation of our neighbors.
- Ambrose Bierce -
Lenny Flank
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:27:50 +0000 (UTC), Lenny Flank
> <lflank...@ij.net> wrote:
>
>
>>r norman wrote:
>
>
>>>The Oxford Universal Dictionary has as the first definition for
>>>debate: "Strife, dissension, quarrelling,..." along with the notation
>>>that such usage is archaic Middle English.
>>>
>>>It seems like many in this news group are bringing back the old
>>>definition.
>
>
>>"BOIL THAT DUST-SPECK !! BOIL THAT DUST-SPECK !!!"
>
>
> "Horton Hears a Creationist."
"They are here, they are here, they are HEEEEEEEEERRRRREEEEEEEE".
>
>
>>In any case, an old saying about "heat" and "kitchens" comes to mind . . . .
>
>
> No wonder Big Name Creationists avoid debates with scientists. Every
> time the Creationist believes he had baked a soufflé, a few dozen
> scientists come along and flatten it with the facts.
It's so much easier for those Big Name Creationists to preach in
churches, where their audience is too ignorant and uneducated to know
what's supposed to be in their souffle.
Pastor Dave
<lflank...@ij.net> spake thusly:
>It's so much easier for those Big Name Creationists to preach in
>churches, where their audience is too ignorant and uneducated to know
>what's supposed to be in their souffle.
Actually, many have debates in universities, so your
statement is not honest.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
When Christianity becomes religion,
it leaves the heart hungry.
AC
When you boil it down, that's the whole serman, eh? Yes, that sort of cheap
threat frightened me as a little kid, but I've grown up and need something
more than Bible thumper rhetoric to convince me.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
Lenny Flank
The scientific method is what determines which scientific hypotheses
survive and which don't. Whether my hypotheses about dark matter (I
note that you are too unifnromed and uneducated about basic cosmology to
know that there's no such thing as "dark energy" -- whcih naturally
enough doesn't seem to prevent you from blithering stupidly about the
topic anyway) is valid or not is determined by the scientific method.
Now, if you're finished evading my question, I'll ask it again:
What is the source of your religious authority. What makes your
relgiious opinions any more authoritative than anyone else's. When we
listen to your religious opinions, are we listening to God or are we
listening to Man.
Please feel free to evade that question yet again, Davey. After all,
the question itself makes the point -- with your cooperation or without it.
Lenny Flank
Without believing WHAT, Davey. After all, I'm not an atheist.
Or do you mean "dying without believing **YOUR OPINIONS**". Are you now
claiming that if I reject YOUR OPINIONS then I am going to Hell? Is
THAT what you are claiming, Davey? My believing YOUR OPINIONS is a
necessary prerequisite for salvation? Is THAT what you are claiming, Davey?
What is your basis for that claim, Davey? Why must I (or anyone else)
accept YOUR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS in order to be saved. When did God
appoint YOU the Holy Spokesperson on who is saved and who isn't, or the
Holy Arbiter on what beliefs are necessary for salvation and what
beliefs are not. When did God grant YOU the Divine Ability to Judge who
amongst us mere mortals is going to Hell or not. Or are you once again
pridefully and self-righteously assuming that your opinions and God's
opinions on the matter simply MUST be one and the same, because you are
so much holier than the rest of us mere mortals.
I don't recall anything in the Nicene Creed mentioning anything about
"we believe that Uncle Davey's religious opinions are all infallible".
Let me check:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Nope, nothing there about "Uncle Davey speaks to us mere mortals on
behalf of God Himself". Nothing there about "anyone who doesn't believe
all of Uncle Davey's religious opinions is damned to Hell". (Nothing
there about "people who accept that life evolved are going to Hell",
either.)
Is it YOUR opinion that those who don't accept your particular religious
opinions are going to Hell, Davey, or is it GOD'S opinion that those who
don't accept your particular religious opinions are going to Hell?