Aussie scientists

[hippias]

The Genesis account says that the earth was formless and empty.

If you read my thoughts at the end of my OP , then you'll know where I'm coming from : )

I actually only put this article up as food for thought, not to pitch up a debate for or against it.

Well, these were my thoughts inspired by your post. And there is another: Is is possible that only creationists would mistake such interviews as theological statements? For I remember that physicists employed the analogy of Margaret Thatcher visiting a dinner party to elucidate the effects of the Higgs-Boson. And I don't think that anyone ever (mis)understood this as an political statement a la: you see, at last phycisists caught a glimpse of truth: Maragaret Thatcher is most important.

[Guest HisG]

I didn't say this article was a theological statement.

I was a kid when MT was PM : )

[nebula]

OK, thanks.

[Guest HisG]

Viole: The equations allow that: a twin universe, very similar to ours, which existed before ours.

HisG: You do realise your posts have an "all knowing" air about them - ?

1 Corinthians 3 v20: and again, "ADONAI knows that the thoughts of the wise are worthless." - CJB

1 Corinthians 1: 19: For it is written, "I will baffle and render useless and destroy the learning of the learned and the philosophy of the philosophers and the cleverness of the clever and the discernment of the discerning; I will frustrate and nullify [them] and bring [them] to nothing." NKJV

1 Corinthians 3:19: For this world's wisdom is foolishness with God, for it is written, He lays hold of the wise in their [own] craftiness.

Romans 11: 33: Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unfathomable are His judgments ! And how untraceable are His ways!

Jeremiah 10: 12: God made the earth by His power; He established the world by His wisdom and by His understanding and skill stretched out the heavens.

Note to Viole: "His wisdom AND His understanding AND skill"....that's it in a nutshell....

[Guest HisG]

No surprises there - stock standard atheist response.

[hippias]

I didn't say this article was a theological statement.

I was a kid when MT was PM : )

My mistake: I thought your mentioning that you are creationist and musing on a Christian website about this article content's relation to Genesis and wondering "Could the scientists have glimpsed some truths about Creation?" was a theological statement. Now I know it is something very different.

[ByFaithAlone]

Careful, if quantum gravity is correct, the universe might not have had a beginning, whatever that means... Farewell, Kalam

hmm... haven't heard this idea before. Are you talking Hartle-Hawking model? I have heard that such a model would necessitate some type of closed universe in which a Big Crunch exists and as of now, we do not believe that will happen. I think that model also necessitates a non-flat universe which is also unlikely. Additionally, I don't see how the idea of a quantum gravity conflicts with the idea of a beginning as my understanding of the quantum universe theory is that it is not infinite. Furthermore, wouldn't such work contradict accepted scientific belief proposed by Guth, Borde and Vilenkin in 2003 and reaffirmed in 2012?

Granted, this is only with a brief knowledge of such a theory as the math is a little complex for my calc III brain lol

Idk if you saw this viole and was just wondering about your thoughts... Thanks

[Guest HisG]

I didn't say this article was a theological statement.

I was a kid when MT was PM : )

My mistake: I thought your mentioning that you are creationist and musing on a Christian website about this article content's relation to Genesis and wondering "Could the scientists have glimpsed some truths about Creation?" was a theological statement. Now I know it is something very different.

Wrong again : )

I didn't see it on a Christian website but from here-------.>>>>>http://news.ninemsn....big-bang-theory ( A secular Australian news site...)

Despite being a Christian, I hardly go on Christian websites....

[slowpoke55]

The main idea is that timespace is not continuous but it has a discrete, atomic structure. It appears continuous to us because the size of these atoms is very very small. If that is true, then our universe was never a singularity with zero dimension, infinite density, etc. If space is discrete then it has a minimum size, if time is discreet, then waves cannot have an unlimited high frequency. i.e. nothing can have infinite energy.

Therefore, if you compress things, the usual attractive forces, like gravity, will become repulsive because of these constraints.

The idea here is that our universe looks like it has been generated by these repulsive forces which are the consequence of a big compression. What appears to be a big bang, might be a big bounce from a previous contracting twin universe on the other side of the bottleneck.

The equations allow that: a twin universe, very similar to ours, which existed before ours.

If that is the case, there is no beginning. The two twins might be bouncing in and out of existence like a deflating balloon re-inflating when it becomes too small.

More here --> http://phys.org/news126955971.html

Ciao

- viole

But doesn’t the universe follow general relativity (non-quantum)?

If that would be sufficient, why do you think physicists are looking for something more general than general relativity?

Ciao

- viole

You miss the point - I am simply pointing out that the evidence thus far indicates the universe has not existed forever - a concept the Bible has taught for thousands of years.

It's fascinating how desperately some people try to validate the creationist stories with science yet when science contradicts these, they are quick to reject science.

The Bible does not teach anything about the universe. It tells a story with vast generalities that are often wrong.

Genesis fails from the start by stating that heaven and earth were formed first and then the sun.

Science says the sun formed first and then the earth.

1:1 In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.

1:3 And God said, Let there be light and there was light.

Another thing it gets wrong is that it states the moon is a light.

1:16

God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.

The moon is reflecting light it is not emitting it.

[Guest HisG]

1:1 In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.

1:3 And God said, Let there be light and there was light.

Another thing it gets wrong is that it states the moon is a light.

1:16

God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.

The moon is reflecting light it is not emitting it.

HisG: Have you ever referred to the light bulb in your bedroom as a "light"? Even when it isn't on? EG: "Can you please turn the light on?"

Same thing with the moon.....it is the "light" at night - yes, light reflected off the moon by the suns rays...and like the rocks at the NASA centre show, moon rocks are made up of highly reflective material in line with doing exactly what it's job is to do - give light to earth and of course us, you and me.

That's completely laughable that one thinks that the moons reflective properties are just a result of randomness and chaos...my foot