Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
31 online now:
Aussie, dwise1, nwr, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx (7 members, 24 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,300 Year: 4,412/6,534 Month: 626/900 Week: 150/182 Day: 30/27 Hour: 4/8

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Found
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 1569 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


(1)
Message 49 of 301 (722651)
03-24-2014 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by kbertsche
03-21-2014 9:43 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Regarding this conclusion by Leslie Wickman, which you seem to endorse:

quote:
... it adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was caused – or created – by something or someone outside it and not dependent on it.

I'm not a physicist, and I'm just trying to comprehend the recent findings (folks here have been very helpful in that regard - thank you all), but based on what I've been able to understand so far, it seems to me that the BICEPS2 results do not provide any support for the assertion that there was "something or someone outside" that caused the inflation. As far as I've been able to tell, the results have nothing at all to say about the cause of the inflation; they only describe its nature, speed and duration.

If I'm wrong about that, and these results (or existing aspects of the scientific theories supported by these results) do say something about what would have caused the inflation to occur, I suspect that the explanation involves just natural conditions with natural consequences, rather than any kind of deliberate, goal-oriented action on the part of some sort of self-conscious entity whose "image" is somehow related to homo sapiens.

To be frank, it's egregiously silly to assert that the Book of Genesis "predicts" anything in particular at all. I suppose you could say that by asserting the falsehood of other mythical accounts, it "predicts" that we will not find the earth to be sitting atop an elephant or turtle, will not find a giant serpent encompassing the universe, etc.

You can look for an interpretation of your scripture that isn't flat out incompatible with physical truth, and if you can find one that doesn't involve blatant violations of basic linguistic principles, then you can rest easy that the foundational text for your belief could still be regarded in general as "not necessarily false."

In any case, given that the first two books of Genesis refute each other as to the sequence of events, it seems pointless to talk about either of them having any relevance to physical truth. The first is poetry, and the second is a relatively simple-minded "just-so" story.


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by kbertsche, posted 03-21-2014 9:43 PM kbertsche has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2014 12:36 PM Otto Tellick has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022