Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: psgj@groundlink.net
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: New Light on the first verses of Genesis?
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 04:56:52 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Jacobs Tribe
Lines: 145
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <psgj-4678ED.23564220122003@news02.east.earthlink.net>
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
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1071982612 41368 128.100.83.246 (21 Dec 2003 04:56:52 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 04:56:52 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.2 (PPC Mac OS X)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.145.229.141
X-Spam-Level: Level
X-Spamscanner: mailbox6.ucsd.edu (v1.4 Oct 30 2003 22:20:52, 0.3/5.0 2.60)
X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 43799 hBL4uhdZ052139 mailbox6.ucsd.edu)
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:1230
In article <EM4Fb.35505$VV6.828549@news.xtra.co.nz>,
"observa" <observa@xtra.co.nz> 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.
>
> Alan Jeffery
Alan, I appreciate your time in explaining this.
respectfully,
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 |
|