Washington Post article about Earth's beginning

Wow!!! Cool article!!!! Thanks!!

 

It is a very interesting article. But my faith is smaller than a mustard seed, so it's hard for me to believe.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/HP_FLB_Feature_MAP_030211.html

Science now has pictures of God's original dimension!

The NASA picture of the baby universe at about 200 million years of age also reveals God’s original dimension which is all the black area outside the ball of energy, space, and matter. Of course we can won’t see scientist stepping up and putting the facts in line with our theories about God, but there it is just as predicted by scripture.

This news furthers most apologist's argument that God is outside (not ruled by) time and space. This thought is supported by this news in that science believes that there must be another dimension outside what the Big Bang has created. Inside this "ball" of creation (which the picture so clearly shows) exists time, space and matter.

These things are not part of what is outside our universe. This makes it impossible to travel outside our universe even if we could go faster than light. This shows we were created inside of someone else's universe. Science will now readily admit this "other dimension" theory.

 

Our God is an awesome God!

 

Sure, and those same scientist cannot tell you the exact time that O.J. Simpson killed his wife…. I don’t have much faith in the learned science of an atheist …. A fool has said in their heart, there is no God…

 

Sure, and those same scientist cannot tell you the exact time that O.J. Simpson killed his wife…. I don’t have much faith in the learned science of an atheist …. A fool has said in their heart, there is no God…

"Those same scientists" Looke. Another statement of ignorance. I love the way Genesis literalists accuse the rest of us of not believing in God. How judgemental!!

For the record, the prosecution did a very good job with scientific evidence proving that OJ Simpson killed his wife. The jury, like some 6 day literalists, did not comprehend the evidence.

 

Ouch, what a jab, John! I see the 'evidence' and I also realize that scientists have preconceived notions and assumptions that they bring to the table as well. What people see is the interpretation of the facts from scientists, not just facts themselves. If you choose to believe their interpretations, fine. I choose to believe the interpretations of Christian scientists from a Biblical worldview. I don't doubt you believe in God, I just interpret facts differently. No matter what, neither side can 'prove' they are correct, so it is a matter of faith for both sides. Your faith is in a different interpretation than mine.

Also, I don't think that it is a matter of comprehension, at least on my part, it is a matter of seeing the perspective from which the 'evidence' comes and what is fact and what is interpretation.

Neal

 

You got me pegged…. I’m just another one of those Christians that happen to believe what the Bible says, instead of what the big bang theorist say…

For the record, the prosecution, as well as the scientist, done a terrible job… Check out O. J. Simpson on the golf course if you don’t believe me….. I tell you why the jury didn’t arrive at a correct decision, because of all the lies that was told by the defense attorneys….. They came up with a wild theory and 12 people bought into that assumption….

Just like scientist does all the time, they come up with improbable theories and try to sell them to the poor unaware, but very educated people…. They lead away silly captive’s…. Poor souls, they don’t know anything about the word of God…. Jude 10-20

 

I happen to believe what the Bible says as well. I don't believe the Genesis account was meant to be a historical account of the creation of the earth. It was to tell us what our relationsip to God is.

 

And I do. So we will agree to disagree. It is a matter of where you want to put faith and what you want to believe. Am I not correct? Do you feel that science involves no faith?

Neal

 

...So we will agree to disagree. It is a matter of where you want to put faith and what you want to believe. Am I not correct? Do you feel that science involves no faith?

Indeed we do, as we are allowed to, since it's not a doctrinal issue. I don't pretend to have faith in science. Science isn't about faith, it's about interpreting factual evidence. Hence, I don't see an issue with the subject.

 

I disagree about science being about faith, but I do agree that it is interpreting factual evidence. There has to be some level of faith in the interpretations, especially when it comes to creation and age of the earth, since no one was there and no one can reproduce the creation. You can't say that the description of the beginning given in this article is science, that is purely interpretive. It is not fact, but someone's take on a picture. All interpretations are filtered through worldviews, and scientists, like everyone, have some sort of a worldview that they bring to table. There is no such thing as a purely objective scientist with no opinions on anything.

And to note, I agree with the interpretations of Christian creation scientists, because I agree with their worldview. Why are their interpretations any less valid than a secular scientist, or a Christian scientist that believes in evolution?

Neal

 

Just giving the excluded facts you wanted...

If that is not technical enough...
Abstract for the paper

Abstract for a related paper

Explanation of how the pattern in the CMB were predicted before the picture was taken

How the sound waves mentioned above are used to get various properties

General CMB stuff

If you want to argue against the evidence fine. I'm not smart enough to argue either side of this intelligently. But I would not ever expect a journalist to give reasoning behind any technical pronouncement. Or I would suspect it of being at least incomplete and likely wrong if he tries. The facts and logic used to make the claims are there to be found even if they are not in news articles or the press release.

 

Thanks for the info, but you actually miss the whole point of my post. CNN, Washington Post, etc. will publish things to the general public and pretend they are facts when in fact they are not. That is what I am getting it. Will the average Joe Blow check out the info and data behind this article? Probably not. Yet he will think it is proven fact that the "Big Bang" occurred 13.7 billion years ago and that we all evolved from some spontaneous chemical reaction and millions of years of chance mutations that happen to be for the better. Reporting things such things as these as fact I consider dishonest journalism and a tool for people with an agenda. Like it or not, there is a worldview being pushed through the media and it is not friendly to Christian values. So, I laugh when I see an article that is so matter of fact when it is a matter of interpretation through someone's worldview.

Neal

 

It should be noted that 12 times God states in the Bible that He stretchED out the heavens. We would expect the cosmos to look something like this shortly after that.

Evolutionists are stuck with their time frame because they cannot afford any other for evolution to have happened...the picture, however, is a wonderful one. They are simply saying more for it than is warranted.

 

Sounds like fancy photographic foot-work to me. Can we not each argue that it is possible to collect a 'year's' worth of photographs, develop a theory and then combine these photographs to support this theory as factual.

I'm not even a photographer, but I believe I could accomplish this much.

The Bible says God is light, maybe these stars 'blinking' is God waving at the camera.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Sounds like fancy photographic foot-work to me. Can we not each argue that it is possible to collect a 'year's' worth of photographs, develop a theory and then combine these photographs to support this theory as factual.

WHen they're talking about a year's worth of photographs, they're referring to the amount of time it took to photograph the entire heavens. To do so takes an incredible amount of time and effort.

 

Now this is something that can be discussed. I do not think that it is prudent to simply dismiss the claims of scientists because you disagree with their worldview and because articles written about their work by lay people and for lay people do not provide evidence. Their theories are well developed and make very detailed predictions about what you should find in images such as this if the theories are correct. That does not mean that there are not alternate explanations. Helen presents an idea that could, in a macro sense, give an alternate explanation to the data. Now it is up to those that hold a different worldview and who have the knowledge, training and resources necessary to develop alternatives that explain the data in a detailed (micro) manner. You cannot simply pretend the data does not exist because you do not agree with the conclusions that have been drawn from it. This is one thing I really like about Helen's posts; she doesn't pretend the data isn't there but instead moves towards other possibilities.

I do not think that most scientists have an agenda that they are trying to push through. I think most do honest work and are sincere about the positions they hold. This doesn't mean that prevailing theories and the quest for funds does not shape the direction of research or the conclusions drawn. There is a bit of a counterbalance, IMHO, by the competition inherent in research. Every scientist would love to make a discovery that would overturn a prevailing theory with a novel idea and cement his/her name in the annals of science along with the potential notoriety and money that could follw.

There is certainly an agenda in the news media. But I do not think that it is evident simply in reporting what is a momentous discovery in the prevailing scientific view of the day. However, I think the bias becomes evident any time the media begins to interpet and editorialize on any subject.

I don't think I missed the point entirely. You said "Notice they state the conclusions of these scientist as 'fact', yet offer nothing as to how they arrive there." and I said that I do not expect nor really want a journalist to try and explain anything technical. As for your other point, as I said, I expect discoveries in the current scientific view to be presented as such. I did read a bit more into the last half of your statement than you intended.

I do need feel the need to comment on something else.

This would not surprise me either. In fact, it would not surprise me to come up with a different age from the same theory. It is a difference between precision and accuracy. Without being knowledgable of exactly how they arrived at their conclusions, I imagine that it is quite possible that some of the parameters used in the calculations could have better (or at least different) values established through additional data which could change the absolute value (the accuracy) without changing the precision of the conclusion. And this is a normal part of research. As an analogy, think of all the different ways you could measure the height of a building. Each method would have a different value and an individual method could even have different values as you accounted for different parameters in various ways. And the fact the different heights are calculated both within a method and between the methods does not, by itself, invalidate any of the methods.