In article <e707421e.0312192358.5be37e07@posting.google.com>,
aamp@oro.net (eyelessgame) wrote:
> psgj@groundlink.net wrote in message
> news:<psgj-164EFA.20302019122003@news06.east.earthlink.net>...
> > In article <bs028p$6p2$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>,
> > "Uncle Davey" <noway@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.
>
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,
Pat Jacobs
--
a disclaimer!
My boss told me to put "a disclaimer" on my posts so I did.
The ground is earth.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 |
|