Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Lenny Flank <lflank_nospam@ij.net>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: New Light on the first verses of Genesis?
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:15:47 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 100,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups.
Lines: 173
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <3fe4e78f_4@corp.newsgroups.com>
References: <bs028p$6p2$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl> <psgj-164EFA.20302019122003@news06.east.earthlink.net> <e707421e.0312192358.5be37e07@posting.google.com> <psgj-67A081.14032420122003@news06.east.earthlink.net> <EM4Fb.35505$VV6.828549@news.xtra.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1071965747 37262 128.100.83.246 (21 Dec 2003 00:15:47 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:15:47 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
In-Reply-To: <EM4Fb.35505$VV6.828549@news.xtra.co.nz>
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.234.67.243
X-Comments: This message was posted through <A href
X-Comments2: IMPORTANT: Newsfeed.com does not condone,
X-Report: Please report illegal or inappropriate use to
X-Comments3: <A href ="http://www.newsgroups.com">Visit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Dec 2003 00:21:52.0083 (UTC) FILETIME=[6E76BA30:01C3C758]
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:1228
observa wrote:
> <psgj@groundlink.net> wrote in message
> news:psgj-67A081.14032420122003@news06.east.earthlink.net...
>
>>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?
>
>
> 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.
>
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.
===============================================
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! =-----
|
| 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 |
|