Read it and weep, creationists: Recent findings by a telescope designed to detect microwave radiation and flown above Antarctica show that the universe is flat, that it expands in all directions and has done so for billions of years. This finding was accurately predicted by the Big Bang theory for the origin of the universe.
That’s how real science works: You make a theory, then look for evidence to fit the theory. If the evidence fits, you keep the theory as is. If the evidence does not fit, you change the theory.
The evidence fit. The Big Bang theory holds up. And the Big Bang theory states that the Universe came into being roughly 13 billion years ago, not 6,000 years ago.
I dunno, WallyM7. I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating. People do change their views, it just doesn’t happen overnight. A gradual transition has to take place in order to ease the burden on the mind. I was raised in a staunchly creationist family, yet slowly I succumbed to the ravages of intellect. Granted, my worldview shift occurred early in life (during high school), but my mother, though still devoutly religious, now accepts evolution and the Big Bang. However, I will readily admit that it takes a strong thirst for knowledge to overcome a creationist indoctrination.
True, and I have long since consoled myself to the idea that teh Big Bang is far more likely as a cosmological model. But the Staedy State Hypothesis is elegant and beautiful and I once plotted a novel based upon it, so it will always have a special place in my heart.
And anyone who doesn’t like it can go Big Bang themselves.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Oh, and I DID read about it in the Los Angeles Times*, manhattan, but their website is notorious for being difficult to link to*, so I linked to the CNN version instead.
(For the newbies, manhattan is referring to “The Earth is Flat, I Read it in the Paper,” a evolution vs. creation thread that reached 1000 posts before it was put out of OUR misery. It was a mercy killing, but WE were the ones who benefitted.)
*Their addresses are long and complicated and they keep their articles online for only two weeks. CNN.com uses easy-to-remember words in the URLs and their articles are there FOREVER. You can still search for and read stories that were posted years ago.
Warning: I am not a fundamental christian, and I don’t believe that God created the universe in 4004 B.C.
Disprove the following: God created the Universe in 4004 B.C. and, being able to do anything (just ask Ohio, where the state motto is “With God, all things are possible” (well, it is until they lose the appeal of a recent 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling)), has created the universe to appear to have been created by a Big Bang, in order to test for true believers, who will be admitted to the Kingdom of Heaven when the End arrives.
I long since gave up trying to combat belief regarding an unprovable occurrence with observational data. Arguing the point is silly; instead, just believe what YOU wish to believe about the beginning of the Universe.
And as a side note, I hear there is a movement to rename the famous group of denial specialists from Flatlanders to Flatuniversians. The just got the scale wrong.
DSYoungEsq
What is wrong with the “theory” that the Universe was created 4004 years ago (or at 9:00am this morning) with the appearance of being old is that it makes no testable predictions and so cannot be disproven. Therefore, it is not a valid theory.
…Although, if the Universe was created at 9:00am this morning, that could explain why I can’t remember a good portion of the 70’s…
Virtually yours,
DrMatrix
If I’ve told you once, I’ve told you 0.99999999… times.
**DSYoungEsq
What is wrong with the “theory” that the Universe was created 4004 years ago (or at 9:00am this morning) with the appearance of being old is that it makes no testable predictions and so cannot be disproven. Therefore, it is not a valid theory. **
For those who underestimate the ability to ignore science when it contradicts deeply held religious belief I give the following.
However I would like to ask as an interested bystander
OK some guys with lots of grant money send up a balloon with really fancy instruments. Now they say they have made measurements of things way way beyond my understanding that “PROVE” some theories about numbers (age / dimensions / rate of expansion … of the universe). Just what practical use is this information. Also the scale on which they are talking is well frankly ridiculous (a fraction of time so small that I can’t help but shake my head in amusement)
Jackel, my take on research that seems silly or unproductive or altogether useless is to look at historical examples of the same. Marie Curie looked at funny rocks, Flemming(sp?) studied mold that grew in a dish accidently. You can’t predict the outcome of research while the data is being accumulated, or even years afterward.
Of course that would be a troll. But that doesn’t stop anybody from taking it seriously.
For instance, in your three links above…aren’t the first two switched? The Pope’s message (that evolution does not conflict with religion) is referred to in the talk.origins faq–which should be the second link, not the first, right? So, your point is that the fundamentalists (third link) are upset that the Pope might be reasonable?
Science and religion don’t overlap–that’s one of the reasons that religious believers find science so unconvincing. And that aspect of skepticism is a good thing for science.
Point one: It is just as ‘provable’ as the ‘theory’ that the universe started without supernatural help. Neither can be ascertained as accurate without the existence of evidence that remains unobtainable. This was my point.
Point two: For those who believe that it is a correct theory, and if it is, they may well find out the truth when they die. You can’t disprove that, either.
The point to my post was to once again remind those who enjoy science and what it can show us that they must seperate knowledge from belief. Showing that there is evidence consistent with a model of the universe that has it starting with a bang and increasing in size forever does nothing to ‘disprove’ the belief that the whole thing is an attempt by God to lead the faithful astray. Debating belief with science is like fencing with slinkies; the wrong tool for the job.
I’ve forgotten the name of the man, but he demonstrated electromagnets to an audience of scientists and engineers in the 19th century. Someone wanted to know what use such a toy would be and he gave the above reply.
If that was your point, I have to wonder why you decided to make it here, since I don’t recall seeing anybody say anything that contradicts what you said…
Also the scale on which they are talking is well frankly ridiculous (a fraction of time so small that I can’t help but shake my head in amusement)