WMAP Offers Spectacular Proofs of Creation Event
Hugh Ross, Ph.D.
Preliminary results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) have stirred great excitement among physicists.1 Radiometers on board the satellite are sending NASA researchers by far the most detailed maps to date of the radiation left over from the cosmic creation event—specifically of the temperature fluctuations in that radiation.
Astronomers have now refined their calculations of the time back to the creation event to three significant figures. Their measurements say the universe is 13.7 ± 0.1 billion years. The date when light first separated from darkness has been pinned down to two significant figures: 0.00038 billion (i.e., 380,000) years after that event. The new maps confirm the three density parameters of the universe and the geometry of the universe to two significant figures. According to these latest readings, the universe is 4 percent ordinary matter (protons, neutrons, and electrons that strongly interact with photons or light), 23 percent exotic matter (matter such as neutrinos that weakly interact with photons), and 73 percent space energy density (a self-stretching property of the space fabric of the universe); and the universe’s geometry is flat to within 1 percent.
What delights astronomers most about the new maps is that they provide the first accurate date for the formation of the first stars. By measuring polarization in the cosmic background radiation (see p. 2), WMAP records the birth of the first stars at 0.2 billion years after the big bang.
The theological significance of the WMAP measures is huge. Here’s why: The most spectacular evidence for supernatural design of the cosmos resides in its density characteristics. For physical life to be possible—anywhere, anytime—the mass density of the universe can differ by no more than one part in 1060, and the space energy density by no more than one part in 10120.2 Thus, achieving confirmation of these density parameters strengthens the observational case for a Creator, one who is orders of magnitude more intelligent, more knowledgeable, more creative, and more powerful than humans can even imagine.
When big bang predictions can be refined to the degree of accuracy manifested in the WMAP results, the argument for a transcendent creation event grows tighter than ever. Not only can we point to potent evidence that the Creator must transcend matter, energy, space, and time, but we can also demonstrate the reliability of Scripture. The Bible accurately predicted three fundamental features of all current big bang models (initial singularity, continuous expansion, continuous cooling) thousands of years before any scientist had discovered these cosmic features.3
As mentioned on a recent Creation Update Webcast (February 18, 2003, available at www.reasons.org/resources/multimedia/rtbradio/archives_creation_update/index.shtml), evidences for the big bang are now so voluminous and powerful that to oppose them, as some creationists (and atheists) do,4 harms the reputation of the Christian community. Worse yet, it throws away one of the best opportunities God has given His people for drawing people to consider the truth-claims on which the gospel stands.
Link http://www.reasons.org/resources/connectio..._creation_event
References:
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, "Top Story: New Image of Infant Universe Reveals Era of First Stars, Age of Cosmos, and More," February 11, 2003, www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/0206mapresults.html; Sean Carroll, "Filling in the Background," Nature 422 (2003), 26-27; Geoff Brumfiel, "Cosmology Gets Real," Nature 422 (2003), 108-110.
Lawrence M. Krauss, "The End of the Age Problem and the Case for a Cosmological Constant Revisited," Astrophysical Journal 501 (1998), 461, 465.
Hugh Ross, "Big Bang—The Bible Taught It First," in The Creator and the Cosmos, 3d ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), 23-29.
AiG editors, "Surprise? NASA ‘Confirms’ the Big Bang," 14 February, 2003, www.answersingenesis.org/docs3003/0214nasa_bigbang.asp; Russell Humphreys, "Light from Creation Illuminates Cosmic Axis," March 17, 2003, www.icr.org/headlines/cmbaxis.html.
Your thoughts?
Full Version: Fine Tuning getting stronger and stronger
QUOTE(hairston630 @ Mar 22 2007, 07:42 AM) [snapback]1594533[/snapback]
WMAP Offers Spectacular Proofs of Creation Event
Hugh Ross, Ph.D.
Preliminary results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) have stirred great excitement among physicists.1 Radiometers on board the satellite are sending NASA researchers by far the most detailed maps to date of the radiation left over from the cosmic creation event—specifically of the temperature fluctuations in that radiation.
Astronomers have now refined their calculations of the time back to the creation event to three significant figures. Their measurements say the universe is 13.7 ± 0.1 billion years. The date when light first separated from darkness has been pinned down to two significant figures: 0.00038 billion (i.e., 380,000) years after that event. The new maps confirm the three density parameters of the universe and the geometry of the universe to two significant figures. According to these latest readings, the universe is 4 percent ordinary matter (protons, neutrons, and electrons that strongly interact with photons or light), 23 percent exotic matter (matter such as neutrinos that weakly interact with photons), and 73 percent space energy density (a self-stretching property of the space fabric of the universe); and the universe’s geometry is flat to within 1 percent.
What delights astronomers most about the new maps is that they provide the first accurate date for the formation of the first stars. By measuring polarization in the cosmic background radiation (see p. 2), WMAP records the birth of the first stars at 0.2 billion years after the big bang.
The theological significance of the WMAP measures is huge. Here’s why: The most spectacular evidence for supernatural design of the cosmos resides in its density characteristics. For physical life to be possible—anywhere, anytime—the mass density of the universe can differ by no more than one part in 1060, and the space energy density by no more than one part in 10120.2 Thus, achieving confirmation of these density parameters strengthens the observational case for a Creator, one who is orders of magnitude more intelligent, more knowledgeable, more creative, and more powerful than humans can even imagine.
When big bang predictions can be refined to the degree of accuracy manifested in the WMAP results, the argument for a transcendent creation event grows tighter than ever. Not only can we point to potent evidence that the Creator must transcend matter, energy, space, and time, but we can also demonstrate the reliability of Scripture. The Bible accurately predicted three fundamental features of all current big bang models (initial singularity, continuous expansion, continuous cooling) thousands of years before any scientist had discovered these cosmic features.3
As mentioned on a recent Creation Update Webcast (February 18, 2003, available at www.reasons.org/resources/multimedia/rtbradio/archives_creation_update/index.shtml), evidences for the big bang are now so voluminous and powerful that to oppose them, as some creationists (and atheists) do,4 harms the reputation of the Christian community. Worse yet, it throws away one of the best opportunities God has given His people for drawing people to consider the truth-claims on which the gospel stands.
Link http://www.reasons.org/resources/connectio..._creation_event
References:
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, "Top Story: New Image of Infant Universe Reveals Era of First Stars, Age of Cosmos, and More," February 11, 2003, www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/0206mapresults.html; Sean Carroll, "Filling in the Background," Nature 422 (2003), 26-27; Geoff Brumfiel, "Cosmology Gets Real," Nature 422 (2003), 108-110.
Lawrence M. Krauss, "The End of the Age Problem and the Case for a Cosmological Constant Revisited," Astrophysical Journal 501 (1998), 461, 465.
Hugh Ross, "Big Bang—The Bible Taught It First," in The Creator and the Cosmos, 3d ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), 23-29.
AiG editors, "Surprise? NASA ‘Confirms’ the Big Bang," 14 February, 2003, www.answersingenesis.org/docs3003/0214nasa_bigbang.asp; Russell Humphreys, "Light from Creation Illuminates Cosmic Axis," March 17, 2003, www.icr.org/headlines/cmbaxis.html.
Your thoughts?
Hugh Ross, Ph.D.
Preliminary results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) have stirred great excitement among physicists.1 Radiometers on board the satellite are sending NASA researchers by far the most detailed maps to date of the radiation left over from the cosmic creation event—specifically of the temperature fluctuations in that radiation.
Astronomers have now refined their calculations of the time back to the creation event to three significant figures. Their measurements say the universe is 13.7 ± 0.1 billion years. The date when light first separated from darkness has been pinned down to two significant figures: 0.00038 billion (i.e., 380,000) years after that event. The new maps confirm the three density parameters of the universe and the geometry of the universe to two significant figures. According to these latest readings, the universe is 4 percent ordinary matter (protons, neutrons, and electrons that strongly interact with photons or light), 23 percent exotic matter (matter such as neutrinos that weakly interact with photons), and 73 percent space energy density (a self-stretching property of the space fabric of the universe); and the universe’s geometry is flat to within 1 percent.
What delights astronomers most about the new maps is that they provide the first accurate date for the formation of the first stars. By measuring polarization in the cosmic background radiation (see p. 2), WMAP records the birth of the first stars at 0.2 billion years after the big bang.
The theological significance of the WMAP measures is huge. Here’s why: The most spectacular evidence for supernatural design of the cosmos resides in its density characteristics. For physical life to be possible—anywhere, anytime—the mass density of the universe can differ by no more than one part in 1060, and the space energy density by no more than one part in 10120.2 Thus, achieving confirmation of these density parameters strengthens the observational case for a Creator, one who is orders of magnitude more intelligent, more knowledgeable, more creative, and more powerful than humans can even imagine.
When big bang predictions can be refined to the degree of accuracy manifested in the WMAP results, the argument for a transcendent creation event grows tighter than ever. Not only can we point to potent evidence that the Creator must transcend matter, energy, space, and time, but we can also demonstrate the reliability of Scripture. The Bible accurately predicted three fundamental features of all current big bang models (initial singularity, continuous expansion, continuous cooling) thousands of years before any scientist had discovered these cosmic features.3
As mentioned on a recent Creation Update Webcast (February 18, 2003, available at www.reasons.org/resources/multimedia/rtbradio/archives_creation_update/index.shtml), evidences for the big bang are now so voluminous and powerful that to oppose them, as some creationists (and atheists) do,4 harms the reputation of the Christian community. Worse yet, it throws away one of the best opportunities God has given His people for drawing people to consider the truth-claims on which the gospel stands.
Link http://www.reasons.org/resources/connectio..._creation_event
References:
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, "Top Story: New Image of Infant Universe Reveals Era of First Stars, Age of Cosmos, and More," February 11, 2003, www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/0206mapresults.html; Sean Carroll, "Filling in the Background," Nature 422 (2003), 26-27; Geoff Brumfiel, "Cosmology Gets Real," Nature 422 (2003), 108-110.
Lawrence M. Krauss, "The End of the Age Problem and the Case for a Cosmological Constant Revisited," Astrophysical Journal 501 (1998), 461, 465.
Hugh Ross, "Big Bang—The Bible Taught It First," in The Creator and the Cosmos, 3d ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), 23-29.
AiG editors, "Surprise? NASA ‘Confirms’ the Big Bang," 14 February, 2003, www.answersingenesis.org/docs3003/0214nasa_bigbang.asp; Russell Humphreys, "Light from Creation Illuminates Cosmic Axis," March 17, 2003, www.icr.org/headlines/cmbaxis.html.
Your thoughts?
...
See, the problem with stuff like this is, if you are *purposely* looking for proof of an event...you'll find it. You'll find it in some way, form, or fashion. I take this with a grain of salt, simply because their agenda is only to prove an event, not looking at all possibilities.
Supernova Attests To Fine-Tuning of Cosmic Expansion
By Hugh Ross
Based on earlier research, and especially on observation of a certain class of supernovae (massive stellar explosions), one subset of hot big bang models depicted (and predicted confirmation of) this scenario: cosmic expansion began with an enormous blast, slowed down for about eight to nine billion years, and then began to speed up.3 Theoreticians have determined that this particular pattern of expansion crucially determines whether or not physical life is possible anywhere and at any time in cosmic history.4
Like highway patrolmen’s radar guns, Type Ia supernovae serve as speed detectors. They tell researchers the velocity of cosmic expansion at different times in history.5 Until the early part of 2001, astronomers had obtained expansion-rate measurements back to about 6 billion years ago. Then, on April 2, 2001, the NASA Space Telescope Science Institute announced discovery of a Type Ia supernova some ten billion years old—and nearly twice as far away as the most distant one previously measured.6
These previously known supernovae clearly depicted the speeding-up era of cosmic expansion. This new finding reaches back into the earlier era of cosmic history when, according to the model, the mass density of the universe would have been slowing the expansion. And that is exactly what it shows: a significantly slower rate of expansion when the universe was four to five billion years old.
In addition to corroborating the hot big bang theory, this finding testifies to the necessity of a divine designer. To achieve the precise rate and timing of the cosmic slowing down and speeding up, two characteristics of the universe must be fixed with exacting precision. The mass density cannot vary by more than one part in 1060 and the space energy density cannot vary by more than one part in 10120 (that’s 120 zeroes behind the 1).7
By Hugh Ross
Based on earlier research, and especially on observation of a certain class of supernovae (massive stellar explosions), one subset of hot big bang models depicted (and predicted confirmation of) this scenario: cosmic expansion began with an enormous blast, slowed down for about eight to nine billion years, and then began to speed up.3 Theoreticians have determined that this particular pattern of expansion crucially determines whether or not physical life is possible anywhere and at any time in cosmic history.4
Like highway patrolmen’s radar guns, Type Ia supernovae serve as speed detectors. They tell researchers the velocity of cosmic expansion at different times in history.5 Until the early part of 2001, astronomers had obtained expansion-rate measurements back to about 6 billion years ago. Then, on April 2, 2001, the NASA Space Telescope Science Institute announced discovery of a Type Ia supernova some ten billion years old—and nearly twice as far away as the most distant one previously measured.6
These previously known supernovae clearly depicted the speeding-up era of cosmic expansion. This new finding reaches back into the earlier era of cosmic history when, according to the model, the mass density of the universe would have been slowing the expansion. And that is exactly what it shows: a significantly slower rate of expansion when the universe was four to five billion years old.
In addition to corroborating the hot big bang theory, this finding testifies to the necessity of a divine designer. To achieve the precise rate and timing of the cosmic slowing down and speeding up, two characteristics of the universe must be fixed with exacting precision. The mass density cannot vary by more than one part in 1060 and the space energy density cannot vary by more than one part in 10120 (that’s 120 zeroes behind the 1).7
QUOTE(Dr. Strangelove @ Mar 22 2007, 07:49 AM) [snapback]1594539[/snapback]
...
See, the problem with stuff like this is, if you are *purposely* looking for proof of an event...you'll find it. You'll find it in some way, form, or fashion. I take this with a grain of salt, simply because their agenda is only to prove an event, not looking at all possibilities.
See, the problem with stuff like this is, if you are *purposely* looking for proof of an event...you'll find it. You'll find it in some way, form, or fashion. I take this with a grain of salt, simply because their agenda is only to prove an event, not looking at all possibilities.
Self-quoting-For the win!
QUOTE(Dr. Strangelove @ Mar 22 2007, 12:49 PM) [snapback]1594539[/snapback]
...
See, the problem with stuff like this is, if you are *purposely* looking for proof of an event...you'll find it. You'll find it in some way, form, or fashion. I take this with a grain of salt, simply because their agenda is only to prove an event, not looking at all possibilities.
See, the problem with stuff like this is, if you are *purposely* looking for proof of an event...you'll find it. You'll find it in some way, form, or fashion. I take this with a grain of salt, simply because their agenda is only to prove an event, not looking at all possibilities.
Hey I can see your point there. When someone isnt looking for God, they wont find Him. If they are purposely NOT looking for proof of God, they wont find it. It works both ways.
QUOTE(hairston630 @ Mar 22 2007, 07:59 AM) [snapback]1594552[/snapback]
Hey I can see your point there. When someone isnt looking for God, they wont find Him. If they are purposely NOT looking for proof of God, they wont find it. It works both ways.
Of course it does. But going under the assumption there *is* a god(Or the assumption that there is *not*) is, arguably, more 'faulty' than going under the assumption of "I don't know".
QUOTE(Dr. Strangelove @ Mar 22 2007, 01:01 PM) [snapback]1594553[/snapback]
Of course it does. But going under the assumption there *is* a god(Or the assumption that there is *not*) is, arguably, more 'faulty' than going under the assumption of "I don't know".
Right. So to say that there is no God is more 'faulty' than going under the assumption of "I don't know"....right?
QUOTE(hairston630 @ Mar 22 2007, 08:22 AM) [snapback]1594578[/snapback]
Right. So to say that there is no God is more 'faulty' than going under the assumption of "I don't know"....right?
Assuming that you know something that cannot be proven is always more faulty than looking at things with the view of "I don't know". That elminates as much bias as possible(or as much bias as the individual is willing to eliminate). Assuming there is/or isn't a god are equally fool-hearty.
QUOTE(Dr. Strangelove @ Mar 22 2007, 01:24 PM) [snapback]1594581[/snapback]
Assuming that you know something that cannot be proven is always more faulty than looking at things with the view of "I don't know". That elminates as much bias as possible(or as much bias as the individual is willing to eliminate). Assuming there is/or isn't a god are equally fool-hearty.
I can agree with you on that. So would that mean that it takes a leap of faith to declare that there is or is NOT a God?
QUOTE(hairston630 @ Mar 22 2007, 08:38 AM) [snapback]1594596[/snapback]
I can agree with you on that. So would that mean that it takes a leap of faith to declare that there is or is NOT a God?
Exactly. Assuming wether something is real or not, without *proof* for your argument. And I mean true, utter, testable proof. Is ignorant, and rather close-minded.
QUOTE(Dr. Strangelove @ Mar 22 2007, 02:03 PM) [snapback]1594631[/snapback]
Exactly. Assuming wether something is real or not, without *proof* for your argument. And I mean true, utter, testable proof. Is ignorant, and rather close-minded.
QUOTE(hairston630 @ Mar 22 2007, 09:16 AM) [snapback]1594651[/snapback]
*sigh*
Sorry.
In short- Assuming something exists or does not exist, without testable, verifiable proof is ignorant.
To some extent, I'm calling "Faith" ignorant as well. But, to each their own.
QUOTE(Dr. Strangelove @ Mar 22 2007, 02:17 PM) [snapback]1594655[/snapback]
*sigh*
Sorry.
In short- Assuming something exists or does not exist, without testable, verifiable proof is ignorant.
To some extent, I'm calling "Faith" ignorant as well. But, to each their own.
Sorry.
In short- Assuming something exists or does not exist, without testable, verifiable proof is ignorant.
To some extent, I'm calling "Faith" ignorant as well. But, to each their own.
Yes I can agree that Faith for both believing and NOT believing could have its follies but faith goes along with my belief system. Practically its still "faith" to believe or not believe in something unexplainable or supernatural and that doesnt ALWAYS have to be wrong, be it theist or atheist. Anyways thanks strangelove for you honest answers, I cant find ridicule in what youve said so far today
QUOTE(Dr. Strangelove @ Mar 22 2007, 07:49 AM) [snapback]1594539[/snapback]
...
See, the problem with stuff like this is, if you are *purposely* looking for proof of an event...you'll find it. You'll find it in some way, form, or fashion. I take this with a grain of salt, simply because their agenda is only to prove an event, not looking at all possibilities.
See, the problem with stuff like this is, if you are *purposely* looking for proof of an event...you'll find it. You'll find it in some way, form, or fashion. I take this with a grain of salt, simply because their agenda is only to prove an event, not looking at all possibilities.
QUOTE(Dr. Strangelove @ Mar 22 2007, 08:01 AM) [snapback]1594553[/snapback]
Of course it does. But going under the assumption there *is* a god(Or the assumption that there is *not*) is, arguably, more 'faulty' than going under the assumption of "I don't know".
If Orville and Wilbur Wright had gone under the assumption that it may or may not be possible for a heavier-than-air craft to fly, they would have achieved nothing. If Alexander Graham Bell had gone under the assumption that sound waves may or may not be able to be converted to electrical signals, he would not have achieved what he did.
There is no way you are going to discover something without setting out with some preconception, if you have no preconcenption you will have no drive to accomplish anything.
QUOTE(IamsSon @ Mar 22 2007, 10:21 AM) [snapback]1594752[/snapback]
If Orville and Wilbur Wright had gone under the assumption that it may or may not be possible for a heavier-than-air craft to fly, they would have achieved nothing. If Alexander Graham Bell had gone under the assumption that sound waves may or may not be able to be converted to electrical signals, he would not have achieved what he did.
There is no way you are going to discover something without setting out with some preconception, if you have no preconcenption you will have no drive to accomplish anything.
There is no way you are going to discover something without setting out with some preconception, if you have no preconcenption you will have no drive to accomplish anything.
Yes, but the problem starts when you're only looking to prove one thing, disregarding the other possibilities.
QUOTE(Dr. Strangelove @ Mar 22 2007, 03:24 PM) [snapback]1594757[/snapback]
Yes, but the problem starts when you're only looking to prove one thing, disregarding the other possibilities.
No I agree strangelove. I follow the bible because of the truths that have been fulfilled in my life. I STILL am open to other possibilities such as evolution, big bang without God. See if someone were to prove to me through anyway that God didnt exist I would drop my christianity right there. I believe because of the truths that occur in my life pertaining to the word of God. I WANT to seek truth and if its not that a God exists then I dont want to believe in it. Your making really good points strangelove and thanks for your replies.
QUOTE(hairston630 @ Mar 22 2007, 12:56 PM) [snapback]1594544[/snapback]
In addition to corroborating the hot big bang theory, this finding testifies to the necessity of a divine designer. To achieve the precise rate and timing of the cosmic slowing down and speeding up, two characteristics of the universe must be fixed with exacting precision. The mass density cannot vary by more than one part in 1060 and the space energy density cannot vary by more than one part in 10120 (that’s 120 zeroes behind the 1).7
You can't simply look at it like that. Just because something extraordinarily rare happened says nothing about the probability of it happening. What if there were 100s of trillions of similar big bangs, and 100s of trillions of other realities out there unable to support life, or at least.. similar biological life to what we humans can observe... and we lived in the only one capable of it? Does that make us extremely lucky? No.. this is just the only one that could support life and we happened to be born into it. That's one potential theory out of millions of possibilities..
Example: your chance of winning the lottery is extremely low. But someone out there wins the lottery all the time. That doesn't mean their win was influenced by an outside factor, it's simply probable that someone is going to win eventually.
We know little to nothing about our universe. We have no idea what originally caused the conception of it, and what predates it. To immediately consider improbabilities as evidence of a God or almighty intelligence is ignorant.
QUOTE
is orders of magnitude more intelligent, more knowledgeable, more creative, and more powerful than humans can even imagine.
And the thought of that is supposed to direct me to Jehovah?
QUOTE(KBA @ Mar 22 2007, 04:16 PM) [snapback]1594831[/snapback]
You can't simply look at it like that. Just because something extraordinarily rare happened says nothing about the probability of it happening. What if there were 100s of trillions of similar big bangs, and 100s of trillions of other realities out there unable to support life, or at least.. similar biological life to what we humans can observe... and we lived in the only one capable of it? Does that make us extremely lucky? No.. this is just the only one that could support life and we happened to be born into it. That's one potential theory out of millions of possibilities..
Example: your chance of winning the lottery is extremely low. But someone out there wins the lottery all the time. That doesn't mean their win was influenced by an outside factor, it's simply probable that someone is going to win eventually.
We know little to nothing about our universe. We have no idea what originally caused the conception of it, and what predates it. To immediately consider improbabilities as evidence of a God or almighty intelligence is ignorant.
And the thought of that is supposed to direct me to Jehovah?
Example: your chance of winning the lottery is extremely low. But someone out there wins the lottery all the time. That doesn't mean their win was influenced by an outside factor, it's simply probable that someone is going to win eventually.
We know little to nothing about our universe. We have no idea what originally caused the conception of it, and what predates it. To immediately consider improbabilities as evidence of a God or almighty intelligence is ignorant.
And the thought of that is supposed to direct me to Jehovah?
No I agree with you KBA. You could be totally right. Like I said If there is proof I want to know. If there is no God I want make sure of it. Im not against what an atheists says. I want to take into consideration both views of the situation.
QUOTE(hairston630 @ Mar 22 2007, 04:52 PM) [snapback]1594877[/snapback]
No I agree with you KBA. You could be totally right. Like I said If there is proof I want to know. If there is no God I want make sure of it. Im not against what an atheists says. I want to take into consideration both views of the situation.
That's cool. I guess it's likewise for me, just the opposite. I'd be just fine to learn a God existed (a fair and loving God at least), But as for now just have to go with what looks best for me.
One thing is for sure.. we live in a very vast and amazing universe.
QUOTE(KBA @ Mar 22 2007, 06:16 PM) [snapback]1594962[/snapback]
That's cool. I guess it's likewise for me, just the opposite. I'd be just fine to learn a God existed (a fair and loving God at least), But as for now just have to go with what looks best for me.
One thing is for sure.. we live in a very vast and amazing universe.
One thing is for sure.. we live in a very vast and amazing universe.
haha yeah we do man. I respect your views totally dude and can see where you coming from.
QUOTE
The theological significance of the WMAP measures is huge. Here’s why: The most spectacular evidence for supernatural design of the cosmos resides in its density characteristics. For physical life to be possible—anywhere, anytime—the mass density of the universe can differ by no more than one part in 1060, and the space energy density by no more than one part in 10120.2 Thus, achieving confirmation of these density parameters strengthens the observational case for a Creator, one who is orders of magnitude more intelligent, more knowledgeable, more creative, and more powerful than humans can even imagine.
WMAP has also provided excellent evidence in support of a cosmological theory known as inflation. Inflation predicts that our visible universe (the "fine-tuned" one) is in fact merely a pocket or a bubble in a much larger universe. Countless such bubbles (i.e. areas of the bigger Universe that underwent inflation at some point) would exist, each perhaps with different physical parameters governing its evolution. Thus the chance that some would have exactly the parameters needed for life like ourselves is nonzero and obviously the probability that we'd find ourselves in such a "fine-tuned" bubble universe is 100%. Takes the edge off the theological argument a little.
QUOTE(Startraveler @ Mar 22 2007, 07:20 PM) [snapback]1595026[/snapback]
WMAP has also provided excellent evidence in support of a cosmological theory known as inflation. Inflation predicts that our visible universe (the "fine-tuned" one) is in fact merely a pocket or a bubble in a much larger universe. Countless such bubbles (i.e. areas of the bigger Universe that underwent inflation at some point) would exist, each perhaps with different physical parameters governing its evolution. Thus the chance that some would have exactly the parameters needed for life like ourselves is nonzero and obviously the probability that we'd find ourselves in such a "fine-tuned" bubble universe is 100%. Takes the edge off the theological argument a little.
Thanks for the informatin Startraveler
Also startraveler what about this article on inflation?
"It blows my mind that we can now distinguish between different versions of what happened in the first trillionth of a second of the universe," said Dr. Charles Bennett of Johns Hopkins in describing the latest WMAP findings.
What happened is called 'inflation' and, according to NASA researcher Dr. Gary Hinshaw, "now we can support it [inflation] with real observations."
The WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Probe) recorded three years' continuous observations of the "afterglow" from the cosmic origin event. That glow indicates the universe grew almost immediately and instantaneously from subatomic size to nearly golf-ball size (a many trillion-fold increase).
"The significance of these findings is huge." says astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross, founder of the science-faith think tank called Reasons To Believe (RTB).
"This breakthrough goes a long way toward weeding out a particular set of big bang models designed to get around the need for a transcendent personal Creator," Ross says.
"This hyper-expansion episode," says UCLA astronomer and RTB staff scientist Dr. Jeff Zweerink, "is what set up conditions for the later formation of stars and galaxies."
"As the WMAP continues to soak up light it will reveal even more about how the universe came to be," Ross adds. "This data will be instrumental in verifying or falsifying the testable creation model my colleagues and I have been developing the last several years."
The team of scientists at Reasons To Believe has assembled the first scientific model for creation. It is poised to propel a paradigm shift. After 20 years of research, there is finally a theory of creation that is anchored in the scientific method.
"The RTB theory of creation is testable, falsifiable, and successfully predicts future scientific discoveries, such as the most recent WMAP findings," says Ross.
Dr. Hugh Ross studied distant galaxies and quasars while doing his post-doctoral research at Caltech. He sees the WMAP confirmation of cosmic inflation as further support for the RTB creation model.
"Scientific discoveries of this caliber add further evidence for the biblical account of creation-a continuously expanding universe exquisitely and deliberately fine-tuned for life. The 'Big Bang'-the Bible taught it first."
EDIT: crap forgot the link http://www.reasons.org/resources/in_the_news/20060412.shtml
"It blows my mind that we can now distinguish between different versions of what happened in the first trillionth of a second of the universe," said Dr. Charles Bennett of Johns Hopkins in describing the latest WMAP findings.
What happened is called 'inflation' and, according to NASA researcher Dr. Gary Hinshaw, "now we can support it [inflation] with real observations."
The WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Probe) recorded three years' continuous observations of the "afterglow" from the cosmic origin event. That glow indicates the universe grew almost immediately and instantaneously from subatomic size to nearly golf-ball size (a many trillion-fold increase).
"The significance of these findings is huge." says astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross, founder of the science-faith think tank called Reasons To Believe (RTB).
"This breakthrough goes a long way toward weeding out a particular set of big bang models designed to get around the need for a transcendent personal Creator," Ross says.
"This hyper-expansion episode," says UCLA astronomer and RTB staff scientist Dr. Jeff Zweerink, "is what set up conditions for the later formation of stars and galaxies."
"As the WMAP continues to soak up light it will reveal even more about how the universe came to be," Ross adds. "This data will be instrumental in verifying or falsifying the testable creation model my colleagues and I have been developing the last several years."
The team of scientists at Reasons To Believe has assembled the first scientific model for creation. It is poised to propel a paradigm shift. After 20 years of research, there is finally a theory of creation that is anchored in the scientific method.
"The RTB theory of creation is testable, falsifiable, and successfully predicts future scientific discoveries, such as the most recent WMAP findings," says Ross.
Dr. Hugh Ross studied distant galaxies and quasars while doing his post-doctoral research at Caltech. He sees the WMAP confirmation of cosmic inflation as further support for the RTB creation model.
"Scientific discoveries of this caliber add further evidence for the biblical account of creation-a continuously expanding universe exquisitely and deliberately fine-tuned for life. The 'Big Bang'-the Bible taught it first."
EDIT: crap forgot the link http://www.reasons.org/resources/in_the_news/20060412.shtml
What exactly is the RTB theory of creation?
QUOTE(Startraveler @ Mar 22 2007, 07:42 PM) [snapback]1595053[/snapback]
What exactly is the RTB theory of creation?
I think it is reason to believe. It is from the scientist Hugh Ross. Im not stating that it is all correct because im not a scientist and am in some cases dumbfounded but just wanted your opinion on it.
I looked around that site briefly and I can't really find the falsifiable, faith-based(?) model with predictive power they claim to have. I'm not sure exactly why evidence for inflation supports them unless they just adopt regular cosmology with some sort of "God did it" deus ex machina tacked on at the end. In which case there really wouldn't be much to say about it.
QUOTE(Startraveler @ Mar 22 2007, 08:10 PM) [snapback]1595083[/snapback]
I looked around that site briefly and I can't really find the falsifiable, faith-based(?) model with predictive power they claim to have. I'm not sure exactly why evidence for inflation supports them unless they just adopt regular cosmology with some sort of "God did it" deus ex machina tacked on at the end. In which case there really wouldn't be much to say about it.
Fair enough. Im just looking for honest answers because there are usually 2 sides to everything. Thanks startraveler.
Edit: Are you a scientist startraveler?
No problem.
Not really. I'm a student; science is half of what I study.
QUOTE
Edit: Are you a scientist startraveler?
Not really. I'm a student; science is half of what I study.
QUOTE(Dr. Strangelove @ Mar 22 2007, 03:24 PM) [snapback]1594757[/snapback]
Yes, but the problem starts when you're only looking to prove one thing, disregarding the other possibilities.
this is not always a problem...almost all mans discoveries have been made while looking for one thing...being too closed minded is a problem while looking for that one thing.
this is a really cool post hairston630....
randomhit10
QUOTE(randomhit10 @ Mar 22 2007, 03:30 PM) [snapback]1595108[/snapback]
this is not always a problem...almost all mans discoveries have been made while looking for one thing...being too closed minded is a problem while looking for that one thing.
this is a really cool post hairston630....
randomhit10
this is a really cool post hairston630....
randomhit10
There's a difference between trying to learn how to fly, and then trying to prove something such as the existance of god(or lack there of in some cases). One is very straight-forward. You do it, or you don't, and then that's that. The second has more than two possible outcomes(sucess and failure), and normally, people are only looking ofr "Sucess".
QUOTE(Startraveler @ Mar 22 2007, 08:27 PM) [snapback]1595103[/snapback]
No problem.
Not really. I'm a student; science is half of what I study.
Not really. I'm a student; science is half of what I study.
Ahh ok, you sound very knowledgable. Keep up the studyin
QUOTE(randomhit10 @ Mar 22 2007, 08:30 PM) [snapback]1595108[/snapback]
this is not always a problem...almost all mans discoveries have been made while looking for one thing...being too closed minded is a problem while looking for that one thing.
this is a really cool post hairston630....
randomhit10
this is a really cool post hairston630....
randomhit10
And thank you random hit for the compliment
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.