quote:

---

That may well be true, but I will be the first to admit that my knowledge of relativity is merely that of a well read layman. However, needless to say I'm skeptical and I suspect that that conclusion is based on little hard data, is reached to try to make other models hold together, and is controversial to some degree within the astrophysics and physics communities. Of course, I could easily be wrong on all counts.

---

I actually like this guy. How are you arriving at YE conclusions though? And how about apart from cosmology?

quote:

---

The problem of spiral galaxies is that they should have long since torn themselves apart.

---

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69949/how-do-spiral-arms-form

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.3109v1.pdf

quote:

---

And what evidence is there that ordinary matter provides only 4% of the gravitational charge? And what do you mean by "gravitational charge"? Is your statement provable, or is it simply another one of competing theories that you are stating as a fact?

---

By gravitational charge I mean something that affects the gravitational field, like an electric charge affects the surrounding electric field. This is not atypical terminology.

quote:

---

And what evidence is there that ordinary matter provides only 4% of the gravitational charge? And what do you mean by "gravitational charge"? Is your statement provable, or is it simply another one of competing theories that you are stating as a fact?

---

Of course there's evidence for this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe#Seven-year_data_release
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.5062v2.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9805201v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9812133v1.pdf
http://wigglez.swin.edu.au/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachs%E2%80%93Wolfe_effect

quote:

---

Oh, and about the Big Bang's decreasing acceptance, you apparently aren't keeping up on your science well, as opposed to us "ignorant" YECs:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/backlash-to-big-bang-discovery-gathers-steam/

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150130-joint-dust-analysis-deflates-big-bang-signal/

http://www.marmet.org/cosmology/fallofbigbang/index.html

---

I work on lattice QCD/QGP which is at least tangentially related to big bang cosmology, so I do try and stay in the loop a little. The first two articles talk about the presumably faulty results of one experiment where they thought they observed gravitational waves but really didn't. Not Earth-shattering, and incredibly well-known.

Your final link is just silly. A falsification of any significant facet of the BBT falsifies GR given all we know about the universe. As such, your last page is self-contradictory in espousing the triumphs of GR, yet questioning the BBT.

On the other hand, go to arxiv and tell me how many papers use the BBT just today. The number won't be insignificant. (Alternatively, go to any journal of cosmology and repeat the same experiment). The idea that the major aspects of the BBT are under serious debate is patently false.

quote:

---

distant galaxies are receding at speeds in excess of C without violating special relativity.

---

General relativity.

quote:

---

That may well be true, but I will be the first to admit that my knowledge of relativity is merely that of a well read layman. However, needless to say I'm skeptical and I suspect that that conclusion is based on little hard data, is reached to try to make other models hold together, and is controversial to some degree within the astrophysics and physics communities. Of course, I could easily be wrong on all counts.

---

Lol. It's not a particularly difficult calculation. It's in the oldest GR references I have (MTW and Hawking/Ellis both from the 1970s.) I'm sure it was calculated well before that since the FRW metric has been around since the 1920s and it's a fairly obvious consequence of the metric.

I'll just hang up and listen .

Good luck with that.

The tone of your posts isn't confrontaional, so I assure you I'm not trying to be a dick, but the theory of evolution is the synthesis of the work of hundreds of thousands of scientists each putting decades into getting all the pieces in place. These people are motivated by the hope of finding some new idea that makes them the one mentioned in text books. No one is ignoring plausible alternitive ideas for the sake of ideology.

And interesting you bring up kurt wise, as he is a perfect example of how religion can damage a thinking mind. He readily admits it's not about science, he just can't intellectually accept his faith is wrong.

"try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science."


This man chose faith over truth, he readily saw the conflict and couldn't bear it.



"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand."


If facts and reason cannot change your mind, your opinions are not founded in facts and reason and you shouldn't pretend to be reasonable.

quote:

---

The article you linked said it was an apparent violation of special relativity, by the way.

---

Not trying to nit-pick, but what you said originally was, "That article, to summarize, says that distant galaxies are receding at speeds in excess of C without violating special relativity," which contradicts what you said in your final post to me. As you correctly indicate in your last post to me, it is an apparent violation of special relativity. And, of course, it should be. Special relativity is relativity in flat space-time. It was never intended to handle the kind of stuff we're talking about.

I feel sad for those who want to believe in something so badly that they totally reject any scientific evidence that contradicts their belief and struggle, without success, to find any scientific evidence to support their belief.

What if these types of individuals had control over the major systems in our lives such as education, finance, medicine, etc.

quote:

---

I work on lattice QCD/QGP which is at least tangentially related to big bang cosmology, so I do try and stay in the loop a little.

---

Thanks for posting here. It is interesting to hear expert perspectives on topics that a lot of people are posting out of their arse (not just people on this thread, BTW, comment not directed to anyone in particular).

Just out of curiousity, when you say you work on lattice QCD/QGP, does that entail any actual lab work? That would be so cool. Most of the people that I talk to that work in small particle physics though are primarily working through math models (which is basically what Al did for a living, so not trying to make this a slight at all).

quote:

---

Your final link is just silly. A falsification of any significant facet of the BBT falsifies GR given all we know about the universe. As such, your last page is self-contradictory in espousing the triumphs of GR,
yet questioning the BBT.

---

So, this seems a bit strong to me.

Are you saying that you can not logically reach any alternative conclusion than the generally accepted BBT model unless you believe that there are flaws in GR?

Aren't there other assumptions / constants / absence of variables in the BBT model that you can attack?

quote:

---

I feel sad for those who want to believe in something so badly that they totally reject any scientific evidence that contradicts their belief and struggle, without success, to find any scientific evidence to support their belief.

What if these types of individuals had control over the major systems in our lives such as education, finance, medicine, etc.

---

There is a funny joke here about economics, but this is the wrong forum.

quote:

---

I actually respect the conviction he carries, and he does have an excellent mind. It's sad, however, that he has allowed his cultural conditioning to force him to preference the writings of men (whether you believe them inspired or not) over the physical handiwork of the Creator. He has turned his back on the most incredible testament of all to believing scientists: creation itself; instead he tries to hold to literal interpretation of a document. YEC constrains the majesty of the universe and its awe and power to little more than a light show. It's almost insulting, in a way.

---

Sapper, this is a good post.

It blows my mind how stuck people are on the literal interpretation of the Bible, and the alleged infallibility of the collected works.

I think many people are raised to think about the Bible in a binary way, i.e., if it is not all literally true, then it's useless. It can take a long time to detox from that kind of narrow mental stricture.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think many people are raised to think about the Bible in a binary way, i.e., if it is not all literally true, then it's useless. It can take a long time to detox from that kind of narrow mental stricture.

---

I remember being told over and over again in church and youth group that if even a single word in the Bible were untrue, we could not rely on any of it to be true.

---

Such a silly view. Protects from the slippery slope argument around certain topics, but throws out logic.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think many people are raised to think about the Bible in a binary way, i.e., if it is not all literally true, then it's useless. It can take a long time to detox from that kind of narrow mental stricture.

---

I remember being told over and over again in church and youth group that if even a single word in the Bible were untrue, we could not rely on any of it to be true.

---

Such a silly view. Protects from the slippery slope argument around certain topics, but throws out logic.

---

I agree. I absolutely reject Biblical literalism.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think many people are raised to think about the Bible in a binary way, i.e., if it is not all literally true, then it's useless. It can take a long time to detox from that kind of narrow mental stricture.

---

I remember being told over and over again in church and youth group that if even a single word in the Bible were untrue, we could not rely on any of it to be true.

---

The Answers in Genesis people came to my church when I was in high school and said the same thing. I think that's the basis for their beliefs, really. Like If the literal 7-day creation story isn't true, then why should we believe anything the Bible says about Jesus?

Ironically enough, this kind of logic is how Biblical literalists and atheists are more alike than different. They don't see science and faith as reconcilable. They just disagree on what to accept over the other.

quote:

---

On a separate track I had also been skeptical of the Scriptures, but came to believe that they are reliable and credible. I also finally concluded that God is trustworthy. With all that as background, I decided to believe the guy that made this place and how he described doing it.

---

this makes no sense to me. "hmm let me investigate the truth of this document. gee, a lot of this seems pretty unsupportable, with seriously lacking evidence. ...but the guy who transcribed it is tells me in it that the person who came up with it is completely trustworthy. given that, I guess i'll just take his word for it. afterall, he would know."

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think many people are raised to think about the Bible in a binary way, i.e., if it is not all literally true, then it's useless. It can take a long time to detox from that kind of narrow mental stricture.

---

I remember being told over and over again in church and youth group that if even a single word in the Bible were untrue, we could not rely on any of it to be true.

---

Yikes. Glad I never received that message in church or youth group growing up. such a narrow view of a subject that even devoted followers cannot always agree on.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think many people are raised to think about the Bible in a binary way, i.e., if it is not all literally true, then it's useless. It can take a long time to detox from that kind of narrow mental stricture.

---

I remember being told over and over again in church and youth group that if even a single word in the Bible were untrue, we could not rely on any of it to be true.

---

Yikes. Glad I never received that message in church or youth group growing up. such a narrow view of a subject that even devoted followers cannot always agree on.

---

All the churches I attended growing up believed in the all or nothing idea. If one thing was wrong it was all wrong.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think many people are raised to think about the Bible in a binary way, i.e., if it is not all literally true, then it's useless. It can take a long time to detox from that kind of narrow mental stricture.

---

I remember being told over and over again in church and youth group that if even a single word in the Bible were untrue, we could not rely on any of it to be true.

---

Yikes. Glad I never received that message in church or youth group growing up. such a narrow view of a subject that even devoted followers cannot always agree on.

---

All the churches I attended growing up believed in the all or nothing idea. If one thing was wrong it was all wrong.

---

This attitude really scares people away from the faith. Like teenagers who grew up going to church are thinking "well, I believe in evolution, so I guess I don't really believe the Bible."

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think many people are raised to think about the Bible in a binary way, i.e., if it is not all literally true, then it's useless. It can take a long time to detox from that kind of narrow mental stricture.

---

I remember being told over and over again in church and youth group that if even a single word in the Bible were untrue, we could not rely on any of it to be true.

---

Yikes. Glad I never received that message in church or youth group growing up. such a narrow view of a subject that even devoted followers cannot always agree on.

---

All the churches I attended growing up believed in the all or nothing idea. If one thing was wrong it was all wrong.

---

This attitude really scares people away from the faith. Like teenagers who grew up going to church are thinking "well, I believe in evolution, so I guess I don't really believe the Bible."

---

To me I understand why people move in that direction especially when they have any type of doubt. Its comforting to think you have all the answers at your fingertips in one book.

As the Bible states:

quote:

---

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

---

Relying solely on scripture for knowledge is not endorsed by the Bible. 'Prove all things' is a pretty clear admonishment and also from what many consider to be the first written book of the New Testament.

quote:

---

According to the bible you are absolutely correct. Christians who don't agree have some major obstacles to overcome. Tossing Genesis aside as allegory opens up a host of issues, including whether there was a need for Jesus to die. How do you explain Adam and Noah being listed as Jesus' ancestors?

---

I don't think those who consider the possibility that a decent portion of Genesis could be allegory necessarily believe that Adam and Eve were just some made up characters entirely. Just that some of the creation/garden story could be symbolic in nature. And that maybe other humans were created by God as well, the story just wasn't centered around them. How do you explain foreign people in distant lands? Who did Adam and Eve's offspring marry/mate with?

Unless God was just set out to fool/trick us, just a simple understanding of geology proves that the earth is WAY older than 6,000 years old.

To believe the bible is "inspired word" doesn't necessarily mean you have to believe that every word (many of which have been translated numerous times across multiple languages over the past few thousand years) is absolutely perfect. Or that God personally signed off on literally every single word. You find a few slight differences/inconsistencies just between the different accounts of the gospel alone. That happens when accounts are given years after events actually occurred.

The key is not whether you believe every single word of the bible to be 100% true and factual, or whether you believe there to be a bit of poetry/allegory involved...it's whether you believe in the fundamental truths that Christianity is based on or not.

quote:

---

Are you saying that you can not logically reach any alternative conclusion than the generally accepted BBT model unless you believe that there are flaws in GR?

Aren't there other assumptions / constants / absence of variables in the BBT model that you can attack?

---

I'm saying that given all we have learned about the universe through measurement and applying it to GR makes the BBT inescapable. You either have to doubt the empirical results, or you have to doubt GR.

The FRW metric applies to homogeneous and isotropic universes. WMAP, Planck, and other experiments have shown that averaged out over a large-scale, the universe very nearly conforms to those assumptions. Deviations from the assumptions can be theoretically shown not to cause any significant deviation from the metric with regards to metric expansion. Applying the Einstein field equations, one sees that an FRW space-time has a time-dependent scale factor. At a certain time the scale-factor takes on a value that leads to a singularity. This is collquially termed the big-bang. Unless you want to question the empirical results, I stand by my statement that the FRW metric, and thus the BBT is a logically inescapably consequence of GR. (Note, for very specific initial conditions the scale factor is stationary, and the universe doesn't change. Einstein forced it to be that way, and later called that the biggest blunder of his career.) It should be noted that the BBT stands on a slew of further arguments and evidence, however that is beyond the point I think you were making.

quote:

---

Just out of curiousity, when you say you work on lattice QCD/QGP, does that entail any actual lab work? That would be so cool. Most of the people that I talk to that work in small particle physics though are primarily working through math models (which is basically what Al did for a living, so not trying to make this a slight at all).

---

I've worked with data from RHIC, but I'm not involved with any of the actual lab work there. I have friends who do that stuff, though. Most of my work is mathematical and computational.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think many people are raised to think about the Bible in a binary way, i.e., if it is not all literally true, then it's useless. It can take a long time to detox from that kind of narrow mental stricture.

---

I remember being told over and over again in church and youth group that if even a single word in the Bible were untrue, we could not rely on any of it to be true.

---

Being told over and over. The best way to condition a naive young mind to believe.

That's not the "I" word. Not at all.

quote:

---

I feel sad for those who want to believe in something so badly that they totally reject any scientific evidence that contradicts their belief and struggle, without success, to find any scientific evidence to support their belief.

What if these types of individuals had control over the major systems in our lives such as education, finance, medicine, etc.

---

You speaking of evolutionists? I know you have a degree of cover because hypothesis is necessary in the scientific process. I applaud it and use it myself. However, like Christianity, there have been, and are, many who are more like Ross on "Friends" who lied to cute little Phoebe saying "they have all the transitional fossils lined up now and it's 100% irrefutable". Too many of THOSE individuals have control over the major systems right now.