Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 2:19 PM
44 online now:
DrJones*, JonF, PaulK, ringo, Tanypteryx (5 members, 39 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,592 Year: 3,629/19,786 Month: 624/1,087 Week: 214/212 Day: 29/27 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Author Topic:   Theories of Cosmological Origins: Are They Science?
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 61 of 115 (460928)
03-20-2008 1:41 PM


Re-Clarification
I have went back and read hundreds of posts and I am beginning to see where I am having a problem in the discussion here.

I have been trying to approach the subject as if we were discussing the standard Big Bang Theory.

But in rereading those posts I find everybody here is talking about The No-Boundry hypothesis model of Hartle Hawking which does not require the Big Bang or singularity only expansion as the universe is just sitting there in imaginary time.

This brings a question to my mind, why is the Hartle Hawking hypothesis being discussed as the Standard Big Bang Model?

I present the following evidence for the No-Boundry hypothesis model of Hartle Hawking being presented.
Here

ICANT writes:

But Son Goku, there was no universe until after the big bang.


Maybe, maybe not. The standard Big Bang Theory doesn't make claims either way.

Mention of Standard Big Bang Theory.

Here

ICANT writes:

Does this take place in real time or in the absence of any time?


cavediver writes:

It takes place in a Euclidean region of the Universe, located around T=0, where time *as you think of it* does not exist.

This time as I don't think of is imaginary time.

Here

cavediver writes:

First let's clear something up. The Universe may or may not have a time before the T=0 of the Big Bang. Classical General Relativity suggests that there is no T<0, and certain quantum investigations suggest that this remains true - the Hartle-Hawking No-Boundary proposal being the original.

No time prior to T=0 as it is not necessary we have imaginary time of Hartle-Hawking No-Boundary hypothesis.

Here

cavediver says, I agree, it's a tough one. I guess I've always gone with Hartle Hawking, as it seems more in tune with the spirit (or my perception of the spirit) of FRW and GR in general. If you can appreciate the globe (north pole, south pole) analogy of a closed FRW, you have gained a real insight into GR. You can then take that picture and easily expand into the current FLRW picture.
Talking about pushing through the singularity, while quite possibly what happened, does not give such the large-scale insight. So I guess I'm more reacting out of defense of my own presentation, and others may well say that FRW with its singularity is more in tune with your picture than mine, where I ignore the singularity by silently invoking No-Boundary.

This is response to a message by Son Goku in the preceding msg 150.

On to the discussion.

I have asked where the singularity came from? This is what is mentioned in all the articles on the Big Bang Theory.

Since nobody here believes there was a singularity I was really asking a question that had no answer, but there is no such thing.
But then it would have to be explained how it was dispatched to the garbage can.

I asked the question where the universe came from. I was told it just is, it has been at any time, and it was past, present, and future.

So we are talking about the No-Boundry hypothesis model of Hartle Hawking.

This is still a hypothesis.

Imaginary Time takes as much faith to believe as..
Imaginary God.

So now I got a pea sized or smaller or larger it really does not matter as it is in imaginary time it could even be 500 million light years in diameter.

This universe is sitting there in imaginary time. Since this is not time as we know it, more like eternal time. This universe could have been sitting there in this imaginary time for an eternity of imaginary time. Then all of a sudden for no reason at all the space in this universe begins to expand and does so into the universe we see today.

Sounds reasonable if you have enough faith to believe in imaginary time to begin with.

You still have the problem of the universe that is in imaginary time. It is not created, it just exists. Now you must have enough faith to believe it exists.

Then you have the problem of who or what caused this universe to start expanding.

But if you have enough faith to believe in the imaginary time with a universe in it I guess you would not have any problem with the universe starting to expand for no reason at all.

I just think it takes a lot less faith to believe in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth then stretched out the heavens and is presently keeping the heavens the way they are and are becoming.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1265 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 62 of 115 (460930)
03-20-2008 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by ICANT
03-20-2008 1:25 PM


Re: early predictions/measurements of CMB
Hi Rahvin,

Rahvin writes:

quote:
Please illuminate us, ICANT. Until you can show

Nobody on this site knew this paper existed until I pointed it out unless Modulous did. I am inclined to believe Mod was smart enough to look it up if he did not know it existed.

Irrelevant. It's not our job to do your homework for you. You made a claim. The burden of proof is on you to support it.

Again my statement was:
"My claim was that somebody had predicted the CMB prior to Gamow.

Also that they had done a better job and had not used the Big Bang Model."

According to the article, Guillaume, Eddington, Regener and Nernst, McKellar and Herzberg, Finlay-Freundlich and Max Born, came up with numbers predicting the CMB. They had their reasons for those numbers.

They came up with their numbers before Gamow and collaborators did.

Eleven years later when the CMB was discovered their numbers matched what was found better than those of Gamow and collaborators.

So I am going to leave the explanations to the experts and I will just take their word for it.

Then you've done nothing. A single article is meaningless in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus. I note that you're only willing to take "the expert's word for it" when the experts agree with you. How convenient. You won't accept cavediver's or Son Goku's word regarding the Big Bang, but you'll accept this article despite not being able to tell us what it says in your own words rather than a copy/paste, simply becasue it lets you say "see? the Big Bang isn't the only possible explanation, so you take it on faith!"

Rahvin writes:

quote:
Why would the overwhelming majority of physicists continue to use a less accurate model when the only result will be ever more inaccurate conclusions in the field of cosmology?

When was the first time you heard of this paper and conclusion reached by A. K. T. Assis M. C. D. Neves?

I'm not a cosmologist. When alternative models are proposed that prove to be more accurate than existing models, those in the field do tend to hear about it.

But then, if you did even a cursory investigation of your source (the scientific journal Apeiron), you would have seen this:

quote:
Apeiron is applying a peer review system involving internationally established researchers, most of whom, however, cannot be regarded as mainstream. Apeiron has become a forum for "dissident" researchers and opinions not accepted by the conventional system, mostly on the plea of speculation and fringe science. Apeiron has had notable contributions from authors involved in the early work of quantum mechanics and relativity such as JP Vigier.

Apeiron is not indexed by the Web of Science abstract and citation database.


Emphasis mine. This is not a mainstream scientific journal. Its publications should be taken with a grain of salt, at best. I'll look around as I get more time and see how "fringe" they actually get with their science.

Simply put, ICANT, this article you managed to find has zero credibility in the face of near-universal scientific concensus.

Rahvin writes:

quote:
And why would you, of all people, argue against the Big Bang? I thought it was your opinion that the Big Bang model is in perfect agreement with Genesis 1:1, while the dynamical equilibrium model is not.

I am not arguing for or against either. I was pointing out information and it happened to question the Big Bang Theory.

In other words you are just trying to be difficult.

Your only topic-oriented point here has to be "since there are competing models to explain the state of the Universe, and since I have found one that claims to be more accurate in predicting the CMB than the Big Bang model, you all must be taking the Big Bang model on faith."

That position is false. Even if you were correct with regards to a competing model that results in greater accuracy than the Big Bang model, the Big Bang model is still based entirely on available evidence. Whether it's right or not is irrelevant to whether it is based on evidence or based on faith (though I would certainly say that positions based on evidence are infinitely more likely to reflect reality than those based on faith).

The Big Bang model of cosmology is based on objective, observable evidence. This means that it is not based on faith. Even if it is proven wrong tomorrow, it is still not based on faith.

In order for you to show that a scientific theory is based on faith, you must show that it is not based on objective, observable evidence. To prove that a given theory is not based on faith, all we have to do is show you the observable, objective evidence that lead to the theory and its conclusions. We have done so repeatedly for the Big Bang model. It's obvious at this point to anyone who is not just trying to be difficult that the Big Bang model is based on objective evidence. By any rational definition of the word "faith," the Big Bang model is not a faith-based position.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by ICANT, posted 03-20-2008 1:25 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 63 of 115 (460932)
03-20-2008 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Chiroptera
03-20-2008 1:39 PM


Re: early predictions/measurements of CMB
Hi Chiroptera,

Chiroptera writes:

If your point is that people can get correct answers with incorrect theories,

I was pointing out that each had a set of numbers and 11 years later when the CMB was found one set of numbers was better than the other set.

That happened to be the set of numbers produced by Guillaume, Eddington, Regener and Nernst, McKellar and Herzberg, Finlay-Freundlich and Max Born.

Remember all I can know is what I find to read and there is no way for me to prove it right or wrong unless I find someone who has refuted it. Then I have to decide which I will trust. Unless I can find a third party that agrees with one of them.

I am sorry if I seem too stubborn. I like to think of it as being skeptical. But I assume both amount to the same thing.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Chiroptera, posted 03-20-2008 1:39 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Admin, posted 03-20-2008 2:30 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 65 by Chiroptera, posted 03-20-2008 3:57 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 66 by teen4christ, posted 03-20-2008 6:43 PM ICANT has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 64 of 115 (460937)
03-20-2008 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by ICANT
03-20-2008 1:56 PM


About the topic...
Two things:

First, you can find almost any point of view represented on the Internet. If it only takes a webpage for you to beleieve something then you may as well start believing in perpetual motion machines, ghosts and alien abductions. There is far more nonsense on the Internet than even a very large group of people could ever address, so it is pretty pointless to debate against someone whose goal isn't to understand, but simply to point to and excerpt from webpages with opposing views.

In other words, no one is arguing that aren't opposing views out there. If that's your only point then there's no argument. But if you're going to advocate for those views then you have to understand them.

This means that you shouldn't be posting views you don't understand. Only introduce them into the discussion if you understand them and are prepared to argue them.

Second, your position isn't whether accepted scientific views are right or wrong, but that they're based upon faith rather than evidence and therefore can't be said to be scientific. So if you'd like to discuss whether the CMBR is modelled better by current theory or by Guillaume et. al., please propose another thread. Please reserve this thread for discusion of whether current cosmological views about the period before T=10-43 seconds are scientific or faith-based.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 03-20-2008 1:56 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 14 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 65 of 115 (460954)
03-20-2008 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by ICANT
03-20-2008 1:56 PM


Re: early predictions/measurements of CMB
I am sorry if I seem too stubborn.

No skin off my teeth. You are useful in that it seems to inspire other people to post some interesting material.

I am a little puzzled at what you get out of this, though.


Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy. -- Wendell Berry
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 03-20-2008 1:56 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by ICANT, posted 03-20-2008 7:02 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 3877 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 66 of 115 (460970)
03-20-2008 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by ICANT
03-20-2008 1:56 PM


Re: early predictions/measurements of CMB
ICANT writes
quote:
I was pointing out that each had a set of numbers and 11 years later when the CMB was found one set of numbers was better than the other set.

As I pointed out in an earlier post that you ignored, they had some assumptions that were completely wrong. If they had the available data like we do now and did the same calculations again, their numbers would have been light years away from the correct values.

quote:
Remember all I can know is what I find to read and there is no way for me to prove it right or wrong unless I find someone who has refuted it.

Noone needs to refute their results because new data after their calculations pretty much proved them wrong. Their entire calculations and predictions were based solely on the assumption that there was no other galaxies beside ours and that the radiation from the stars in our galaxy were enough to give our local space a temperature. But the cosmic background radiation is found not just in our galaxy but also outside of it. It is everywhere no matter where we look. This result fits in perfectly with the prediction of the big bang.

I honestly don't know how you can ignore these important facts like this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 03-20-2008 1:56 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 03-20-2008 7:07 PM teen4christ has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 67 of 115 (460975)
03-20-2008 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Chiroptera
03-20-2008 3:57 PM


Re: early predictions/measurements of CMB
Hi Chiroptera,

Chiroptera writes:

No skin off my teeth. You are useful in that it seems to inspire other people to post some interesting material.

I am a little puzzled at what you get out of this, though.

I get to read that same other interesting material. Sometimes I even get pointed to some information in papers and on the internet. I just wish more of the bashers would point out papers and sites to read what the experts have to say that causes them to believe what they do.

I was on a foreign mission field for 15 years so I got left behind in all the new knowledge that has abounded so I am playing catch-up.
I have 3 to 4 articles open on my computer studying all the time, well at least 8 to 12 hours a day about some subject.

Unless we can do the experiments ourselves, or examine the actual data ourselves we have to take what someone else says the data says or the experiments prove. Thus we have to trust them to be telling us the truth and that takes faith.

This is the reason I say anything prior to the beginning of expansion has to be believed by faith. If we go the imaginary time route, we have to believe imaginary time exists, that the universe existed in this imaginary time and that for no reason it began to expand. To believe this you must exercise faith as there is not one shred of evidence for those things existing. Everybody says we don't know what was there. But you have to believe it is there to go any further. I say that belief, acceptance, or whatever you call it is faith.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Chiroptera, posted 03-20-2008 3:57 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by lyx2no, posted 03-20-2008 7:37 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 70 by cavediver, posted 03-20-2008 7:56 PM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 68 of 115 (460976)
03-20-2008 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by teen4christ
03-20-2008 6:43 PM


Re: early predictions/measurements of CMB
Hi t4c,

According to Admin I would be off topic to comment on this message in this topic.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by teen4christ, posted 03-20-2008 6:43 PM teen4christ has not yet responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2794 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 69 of 115 (460983)
03-20-2008 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by ICANT
03-20-2008 7:02 PM


Re: early predictions/measurements of CMB
Unless we can do the experiments ourselves, or examine the actual data ourselves we have to take what someone else says the data says or the experiments prove. Thus we have to trust them to be telling us the truth and that takes faith.

Been there. Done that.

This is the reason I say anything prior to the beginning of expansion has to be believed by faith.

Been there. Done that.

If we go the imaginary time route, we have to believe imaginary time exists, that the universe existed in this imaginary time and that for no reason it began to expand.

Been there. Done that.

To believe this you must exercise faith as there is not one shred of evidence for those things existing.

Been there. Done that.

Everybody says we don't know what was there. But you have to believe it is there to go any further. I say that belief, acceptance, or whatever you call it is faith.

Been there. Done that.

Okay, my work here is done. I win.


Kindly

******

Ever eat a pine tree? What are you, stupid?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by ICANT, posted 03-20-2008 7:02 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 70 of 115 (460986)
03-20-2008 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by ICANT
03-20-2008 7:02 PM


Re: early predictions/measurements of CMB
Unless we can do the experiments ourselves, or examine the actual data ourselves we have to take what someone else says the data says or the experiments prove. Thus we have to trust them to be telling us the truth and that takes faith.

Is this how you think science operates??? That some one scientist makes some claim about some data, and we all believe her, and trust her word??? Please engage your brain, ICANT, before it fails of disuse.

If we go the imaginary time route, we have to believe imaginary time exists, that the universe existed in this imaginary time and that for no reason it began to expand.

We have to believe that for no reason it began to expand??? What, you mean you don't understand why the Universe expands in the no-boundary proposal? From the way you so knowledgably bandy around these esoteric terms like "imaginary time", anyone who didn't know better would actually think you know something about this...

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by ICANT, posted 03-20-2008 7:02 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by ICANT, posted 03-22-2008 4:03 PM cavediver has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 71 of 115 (461129)
03-22-2008 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by cavediver
03-20-2008 7:56 PM


Re: expansion
Hi cavediver,

cavediver writes:

We have to believe that for no reason it began to expand??? What, you mean you don't understand why the Universe expands in the no-boundary proposal?

I did not say I did not understand why it expands.

I said I do not understand why it STARTED to expand as it was just sitting there in imaginary time and all of a sudden begins to expand.

What could cause this?

I think we agreed in an earlier thread that there was something at T=0.

Now as I look back you was agreeing that imaginary time was there and I was saying imaginary God was there.

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=2&t=261&m=301#306 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=2&t=261&m=301#306">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=2&t=261&m=301#306

ICANT writes:

There was something at T=O.


cavediver writes:

Yes


ICANT writes:

From that something the universe has come into being as we see it today.


cavediver writes:

Yes


ICANT writes:

Science has tried to explain this by many theories.


cavediver writes:

No... from T=10^-43 seconds to present, there is essentially one theory. For T<10^-43 there are several lines of current research.


ICANT writes:

The most accepted of those is the Big Bang Theory.


cavediver writes:

Essentially the Big Bang theory is the only viable theory.

The Big Bang Theory tells us the universe was expanding at T=10-43.

Science can not tell us anything prior to T<10-43.

Everyone says "we don't know". Don't know = no evidence. There are several lines of current research. = No evidence.

The only way you can say anything existed prior to T<10-43 is to believe it is there.

That requires "FAITH".

Now according to my definition of faith that would simply mean you are hoping those things are there as you have no proof and your faith is the evidence of things not seen.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by cavediver, posted 03-20-2008 7:56 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by cavediver, posted 03-22-2008 4:57 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 03-22-2008 5:43 PM ICANT has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 72 of 115 (461133)
03-22-2008 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by ICANT
03-22-2008 4:03 PM


Re: expansion
I said I do not understand why it STARTED to expand as it was just sitting there in imaginary time

Now as I look back you was agreeing that imaginary time was there and I was saying imaginary God was there.

Rather unsurprisingly, you have no clue what "imaginary" means in this context. Tell me, is your imaginary God related to the real God by a Wick rotation? This is hard-core mathematical phsyics, not wishful thinking...

The only way you can say anything existed prior to T<10-43 is to believe it is there.

Huh? You are suggesting that there is some huge discontinuity in the Universe at T=10^-43, and that existence simply stops at an edge, for the utterly simple reason that we're entering a strong coupling region and we cannot yet describe this region!!! And I am using FAITH to say that that is probably not what happens??? As I have said from the beginning, you have to stop making such idiotic claims if you are not going to look like a complete moron to anyone with the smallest understanding of this subject.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by ICANT, posted 03-22-2008 4:03 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by ICANT, posted 03-23-2008 1:54 AM cavediver has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 73 of 115 (461139)
03-22-2008 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by ICANT
03-22-2008 4:03 PM


Re: expansion
ICANT, watch this short video:

If you believe that before the bullet enters on the left that it was fired from a gun, and that it continues traveling to the right after it disappears from view, would you say you believe this on faith, or on the basis of evidence?

If on faith, then we're all saying the same thing about the Big Bang, but you're not using words like faith and evidence in the same way everyone else is.

If on the basis of evidence, then this is no different from the period during the Big Bang before T=10-43 seconds.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by ICANT, posted 03-22-2008 4:03 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by ICANT, posted 03-23-2008 12:37 AM Percy has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 74 of 115 (461161)
03-23-2008 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Percy
03-22-2008 5:43 PM


Re: expansion
Hi Percy,

What does the video you presented have to do with the Big Bang Theory.

You seem to think they are the same type of thing.

The apple, and the can, are sitting there like the universe is in imaginary time.

End of similarity.

The difference in the video and the Big Bang Theory is:

The video has a cause for what takes place. Powder is discharged to cause the bullet to fly through the air.

There is no cause for what takes place in the Big Bang Theory.
The Bang has been eliminated and replaced by expansion but there is nothing to cause the expansion to BEGIN to take place.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 03-22-2008 5:43 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Percy, posted 03-23-2008 9:14 AM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 75 of 115 (461167)
03-23-2008 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by cavediver
03-22-2008 4:57 PM


Re: expansion
Hi cavediver,

cavediver writes:

Rather unsurprisingly, you have no clue what "imaginary" means in this context.

I know the no boundary hypothesis talks about imaginary time as vertical time and that it is just as real as real time but it is just time as we do not know time.

Hawking said in "A Brief History of Time" on page 135 imaginary time is a mathematical device (or trick) to calculate answers about real space-time."

This hypothesis has been around since 1983 and the only support I find for it is here on EvC.

When I talk about God he is compared to imaginary fairies or the flying pink unicorn. You start telling me about imaginary time it fits the same description.

Imaginary time is exactly that, you have to believe it is there
by "FAITH".

cavediver writes:

we cannot yet describe this region

You do not know what is there. Science does not tell you what is there. Until the Big Bang Theory takes over and can explain what is happening in expansion you have no clue as to what preceeds the beginning of time as we know it.

You make assumptions and you believe them. Therefore by "FAITH" you believe it is there and happened like you believe it happened.

Spin it any way you want it comes out the same. You exercise "FAITH".

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by cavediver, posted 03-22-2008 4:57 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by cavediver, posted 03-23-2008 5:41 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 77 by cavediver, posted 03-23-2008 5:59 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 79 by lyx2no, posted 03-23-2008 9:32 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 80 by Percy, posted 03-23-2008 9:41 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Prev1234
5
678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019