[font=Verdana].
Well; for sure we have to buy some time somewhere, lots of time-- either with the gap theory or the yowm/epoch theory --in order to account for the 4.5 billion-year age of the earth, and factor in the various eras, e.g. Triassic, Jurassic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic, and Cretaceous, etc, plus the ice ages and the mass extinction events.
There are some serious geological issues too. For example: the discovery of fossilized sea lilies near the summit of Mt Everest proves that the Himalayan land mass hasn't always been mountainous; but at one time was the floor of an ancient sea bed. This is confirmed by the "yellow band" below Everest's summit consisting of limestone: a type of rock made from calcite sediments containing the skeletal remains of countless trillions of organisms who lived, not on dry land, but in an ocean.
Everest and its yellow band got up high like that by means of tectonic plate buckling and/or subduction; which are very slow processes requiring thousands of years.
And there are hominid issues. For example: in 1992, Tim White of the University of California at Berkeley, discovered the fossilized skeleton of a woman (nicknamed Ardi) in Ethiopia's Afar Rift who lived 4.4 million years ago. His forty-seven member team, over a period of 17 years, discovered portions of the skeletons of thirty-seven more individuals from the same era.
(Tim White's discovery sent evolutionists into a tail spin because the woman’s age, combined with her physical design, proves that apes and humans are separate and distinct species rather than sharing a common ancestor in an evolutionary chain.)
Personally, I prefer the yowm/epoch theory, but at the same time readily agree that the gap theory is equally possible.
_[/font]
The Cosmos
Moderator: Moderators
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: The Cosmos
Post #9[font=Verdana].
The theological idea of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) is looking better all the time as inflation theories increasingly suggest the universe emerged from no tangible source. And although theorists energetically fantasize an endless parade of explanations for the origin of the universe, they have been doing so within the context of the known laws of physics; the meanwhile having no clue about the origin of those physical laws. In other words: they cannot explain where those laws came from in the first place-- nor can they explain why the known laws control matter and energy the way they do rather than some other way.
When people reach what is commonly called the age of reasoning; some of their very first questions are: Why am I here? Where did I come from? What is the meaning of life, and is there a purpose for mine? Am I here by chance?
I think it's very normal (or at least very common) for people to seek a justification for their existence; and without it, they can only conclude that the human experience is futile; which can be roughly defined as serving no useful purpose; for example:
Nobel Prize winner, author of several best-selling books, and recipient of at least a dozen honorary degrees, physicist Steven Weinberg (who views religion as an enemy of science), in his book "The First Three Minutes" wrote: The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless. But if there is no solace in the fruits of our research, there is at least some consolation in the research itself . . . the effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things that lifts human life a little above the level of a farce and gives it some of the grace of tragedy.
In Mr. Weinberg's opinion, the human experience scarce escapes the categories of farce and tragedy; its quest for knowledge seems the only thing that gives humanity any justification to exist at all. The universe? It's just a meaningless void decorated with fascinating objects --a carnival side show of cosmic curiosities, so to speak.
Wouldn't it be sad if we only lived and died like insects and fungi? I mean, what would be the point of it all? They say a mind is a terrible thing to waste. What real advantage is it to have something so useful as a human mind if it's only going to die and stop working after many years of learning and experience? And what real advantage is it for the mind of the present to make the world a better place for the next generation of minds if the mind of the present doesn't live to see it? That's really no more significant an existence than that of the individuals in a bee hive or a termite colony.
I think people find comfort in perceiving themselves part of a grand scheme instead of walking across the stage of their all-too-brief life as an insignificant speck in a pointless cosmos. Belief that there's someone somewhere above and beyond themselves gives people's existence value, meaning, and purpose which, in my opinion, is at least one of the reasons why supreme beings are so popular.
Galileo felt that science and religion are allies rather than enemies-- two different languages telling the same story; a story of symmetry and balance: heaven and hell, positive and negative, weak and strong, right and left, up and down, night and day, hot and cold, God and Satan. Science and religion are not at odds; no, in reality, science is just simply too young to understand.
Dr. Robert Jastow, founder of the Goddard Institute for space studies at NASA, in his book "God And The Astronomers" says: "Strange developments are going on in astronomy. One of these is the discovery that the universe had a beginning. And that means there has to be a beginner. The scientist has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak, and as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Agnostics and atheists claim there is no empirical evidence supporting the existence of a supreme being. But they are foolishly invalidating perfectly good evidence all around them and within easy reach. There exists more evidence in the world of nature and in the sky to prove the reality of a supreme being than there does to prove otherwise.
_[/font]
The theological idea of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) is looking better all the time as inflation theories increasingly suggest the universe emerged from no tangible source. And although theorists energetically fantasize an endless parade of explanations for the origin of the universe, they have been doing so within the context of the known laws of physics; the meanwhile having no clue about the origin of those physical laws. In other words: they cannot explain where those laws came from in the first place-- nor can they explain why the known laws control matter and energy the way they do rather than some other way.
When people reach what is commonly called the age of reasoning; some of their very first questions are: Why am I here? Where did I come from? What is the meaning of life, and is there a purpose for mine? Am I here by chance?
I think it's very normal (or at least very common) for people to seek a justification for their existence; and without it, they can only conclude that the human experience is futile; which can be roughly defined as serving no useful purpose; for example:
Nobel Prize winner, author of several best-selling books, and recipient of at least a dozen honorary degrees, physicist Steven Weinberg (who views religion as an enemy of science), in his book "The First Three Minutes" wrote: The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless. But if there is no solace in the fruits of our research, there is at least some consolation in the research itself . . . the effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things that lifts human life a little above the level of a farce and gives it some of the grace of tragedy.
In Mr. Weinberg's opinion, the human experience scarce escapes the categories of farce and tragedy; its quest for knowledge seems the only thing that gives humanity any justification to exist at all. The universe? It's just a meaningless void decorated with fascinating objects --a carnival side show of cosmic curiosities, so to speak.
Wouldn't it be sad if we only lived and died like insects and fungi? I mean, what would be the point of it all? They say a mind is a terrible thing to waste. What real advantage is it to have something so useful as a human mind if it's only going to die and stop working after many years of learning and experience? And what real advantage is it for the mind of the present to make the world a better place for the next generation of minds if the mind of the present doesn't live to see it? That's really no more significant an existence than that of the individuals in a bee hive or a termite colony.
I think people find comfort in perceiving themselves part of a grand scheme instead of walking across the stage of their all-too-brief life as an insignificant speck in a pointless cosmos. Belief that there's someone somewhere above and beyond themselves gives people's existence value, meaning, and purpose which, in my opinion, is at least one of the reasons why supreme beings are so popular.
Galileo felt that science and religion are allies rather than enemies-- two different languages telling the same story; a story of symmetry and balance: heaven and hell, positive and negative, weak and strong, right and left, up and down, night and day, hot and cold, God and Satan. Science and religion are not at odds; no, in reality, science is just simply too young to understand.
Dr. Robert Jastow, founder of the Goddard Institute for space studies at NASA, in his book "God And The Astronomers" says: "Strange developments are going on in astronomy. One of these is the discovery that the universe had a beginning. And that means there has to be a beginner. The scientist has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak, and as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Agnostics and atheists claim there is no empirical evidence supporting the existence of a supreme being. But they are foolishly invalidating perfectly good evidence all around them and within easy reach. There exists more evidence in the world of nature and in the sky to prove the reality of a supreme being than there does to prove otherwise.
_[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: The Cosmos
Post #10[font=Verdana].
The cosmos is expanding in all directions, and not only expanding, but the rate of its expansion isn't uniform.
The latest data suggests that the expansion is roughly 73.24± kilometers per second per megaparsec. (Parsecs are a measure of distance; with a megaparsec being roughly 3.26 light years.)
For example: elements of the Virgo galaxy cluster are roughly 16.5 megaparsecs from Earth. So the rate of expansion relative to that area of the universe is about 1,208 kilometers per second. (751 miles)
To put that in perspective: the muzzle velocity of a 55 grain, .223 caliber rifle bullet is roughly 3,200 feet per second; which translates to a mere 6/10ths of a mile per second. Were someone to try to shoot the Virgo galaxy cluster in the back with a .223 the exact moment it passed the spot where they were standing, the bullet would never catch up fast enough to hit it.
Anyway; scientific reasoning says that if the universe is getting bigger, then there must have been a time when it was smaller: much, much smaller; in fact so small it was a mere speck. But scientific reasoning has a fatal flaw; it doesn't reckon with intelligent design.
According to Genesis 1:16, God set the stars in place. In other words; instead of beginning the expansion of the universe from a starting point; the cosmos' creator began its expansion from a starting line.
_[/font]
The cosmos is expanding in all directions, and not only expanding, but the rate of its expansion isn't uniform.
The latest data suggests that the expansion is roughly 73.24± kilometers per second per megaparsec. (Parsecs are a measure of distance; with a megaparsec being roughly 3.26 light years.)
For example: elements of the Virgo galaxy cluster are roughly 16.5 megaparsecs from Earth. So the rate of expansion relative to that area of the universe is about 1,208 kilometers per second. (751 miles)
To put that in perspective: the muzzle velocity of a 55 grain, .223 caliber rifle bullet is roughly 3,200 feet per second; which translates to a mere 6/10ths of a mile per second. Were someone to try to shoot the Virgo galaxy cluster in the back with a .223 the exact moment it passed the spot where they were standing, the bullet would never catch up fast enough to hit it.
Anyway; scientific reasoning says that if the universe is getting bigger, then there must have been a time when it was smaller: much, much smaller; in fact so small it was a mere speck. But scientific reasoning has a fatal flaw; it doesn't reckon with intelligent design.
According to Genesis 1:16, God set the stars in place. In other words; instead of beginning the expansion of the universe from a starting point; the cosmos' creator began its expansion from a starting line.
_[/font]
