It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The theoretical models you chose to argue against do not incorporate any of the more cutting edge theories such as super-string theory which has the possibility of replacing inflation.
The serious flaw in the arguement was that the Big Bang was an explosion, it was an expansion of space. Nothing 'blew up' or 'exploded', this is a typical creationsist arguement from the point of ignorance.
the Bible is static while scientific theory looks further into issues for a possible answer to the question
Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
so that I fully understand your position, you believe the Bible to be 100% accurate?
And if only the new testament, please explain why?
Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
Why do you keep banging on about the Bible, when we've already showed that the Bible was ripped off from many other traditions and texts? You feel the need to prove that the Bible is the only truth created by God; when in reality that is the farthest thing from the truth.
Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
The Bible told of the Earth being a sphere long before secular science thought of the idea
and the Bible told of the Pleiades being a stable galaxy and Orion, an unstable disintegrating galaxy long before 'scientific theory' knew which way was up.
Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
Perhaps you would like to outline Super-string theory and M-brane theory can better explain horizon and monopole problems as well as where the additional energy comes from into the system to sustain it.
Where is the scientific logic here that everything 'expanded' at tremendous speed out of nothing from nowhere and without a cause.
There was no expansion of space, that would imply a beginning already.
The Bible told of the Earth being a sphere long before secular science thought of the idea and the Bible told of the Pleiades being a stable galaxy and Orion, an unstable disintegrating galaxy long before 'scientific theory' knew which way was up.
Do you have any comments about the lack of anti-matter which can fully explain the issue naturally?
(105) Jesus said, "He who knows the father and the mother will be called the son of a harlot."
106) Jesus said, "When you make the two one, you will become the sons of man, and when you say, 'Mountain, move away,' it will move away."
The Bible told of the Earth being a sphere long before secular science thought of the idea
Job 26:10 He has drawn a circle on the waters at the boundary where the day and night come together.
Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are as grasshoppers; that stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in:
Wrong. The concept of galaxies is not found in the Bible. Again, the Bible writers had no concept of the existence of "outer space".
Job 38:31 Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades, Or loose the cords of Orion?
Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth on nothing.
Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
Wrong. The concept of galaxies is not found in the Bible. Again, the Bible writers had no concept of the existence of "outer space".
Job 38:31 Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades, Or loose the cords of Orion?
circa 2000 B.C
Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
Thank you. Now I understand where you are at.
Do you believe God has human weaknesses? Such as envy, greed, or malice?
and yes, I am going where you think I am with that.
Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
The main point of what I was referring to of divine intelligence behind the biblical writer there is still valid though. Do you have any thoughts on those verses and whether you think the Bible was trying to get across the idea of the Earth being a sphere and other astronomical concepts against the conventional wisdom as well though?
Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
I think God has human like emotions but He isn't able to sin. He doesn't act out of vengeance or spite ect...You might find some of those adjectives in the Bible somewhere. If so, they would probably describe a situation of longing.
Ezekiel 25:17 KJV And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the Lord, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them.
In the absence of monopoles, the magnetic field is a the relativistic manifestation of the electric field. Monopoles will bring symmetry and parity to electric and magnetic phenomenon. However, these are aesthetic considerations rather than scientific ones.
"Well, several problems with the Oscillating Model have been well known for decades," he replied. "For one thing, it contradicts the known laws of physics. Theorems by Hawking and Penrose show that as long as the universe is governed by general relativity, the existence of an initial singularity-or beginning-is inevitable, and that it's impossible to pass through a singularity to a subsequent state. And there's no known physics that could reverse a contracting universe and
suddenly make it bounce before it hits the singularity. The whole theory was simply a theoretical abstraction. Physics never supported it.
"Another problem is that in order for the universe to oscillate, it has to contract at some point. For this to happen, the universe would have to be dense enough to generate sufficient gravity that would eventually slow its expansion to a halt and then, with increasing rapidity, contract it into a big crunch. But estimates have consistently indicated that the universe is far below the density needed to contract, even when you include not only its luminous matter, but also all of the invisible dark matter as well.
"Recent tests, run by five different laboratories in 1998, calculated a ninety-five-percent certainty that the universe will not contract, but that it will expand forever. In fact, in a completely unexpected development, the studies indicated that the expansion is not decelerating, but it's actually accelerating. This really puts the nails in the coffin for the Oscillating Model.
....
"-that the Oscillating Model itself implies the beginning of the universe which its proponents sought to avoid. That's right," Craig said.
"But," I pointed out, "permutations of his theory are being proposed even today." I removed a newspaper article from my briefcase and read the headline to Craig: Princeton Physicist Offers Theory of Cyclic Universe.
"This cosmologist says the Big Bang is not the beginning of time but a bridge to a pre-existing era," I said. "He says the universe undergoes an endless sequence of cycles in which it contracts with a big crunch and reemerges in an expanding Big Bang, with trillions of years of evolution in between. He says mysterious `dark energy' first pushes the universe apart at an accelerating rate, but then it changes its character and causes it to contract and then rebound in cycle after cycle."
Craig was familiar with the concept. "This model is based on a certain version of string theory, which is an alternative to the standard quark model of particle physics," he explained.
"The scenario postulates that our universe is a three-dimensional membrane in a five-dimensional space, and that there's another three dimensional membrane which is in an eternal cycle of approaching our membrane and colliding with it. When this happens, it supposedly causes an expansion of our universe from the point of collision. Then our universe retreats and repeats the cycle again, and on and on.
"The idea is that this five-dimensional universe is eternal and beginningless. So you have a cyclic model of our universe that is expanding, but nevertheless this larger dimensional universe as a whole is eternal."
Though difficult to conceptualize, this idea had a certain amount of appeal. "What do you think of this model?" I asked.
"Well, this isn't even a model, it's just sort of a scenario, because it hasn't been developed.
The equations for string theory haven't even all been stated yet, much less solved. So this is extremely speculative and uncertain. But let's consider it on its merits," he said.
"This cyclic scenario is plagued with problems. For one thing, it is inconsistent with the very string theory it's based on! Nobody has been able to solve that problem. Moreover, this is simply the five-dimensional equivalent of a three-dimensional oscillating universe. As such, it faces many of the same problems that the old oscillating model did.
"But more interesting is that in 2001, inflation theorist Alan Guth and two other physicists wrote an article on how inflation is not past eternal. They were able to generalize their results to show that they were also applicable to multidimensional models, like the one in this newspaper article. So it turns out that even the cyclical model in five dimensions has to have a beginning."
The baryogenesis theory, while unproven, offers a possible method of explaining the matter/anti-matter phenomenom.