the left loves strawmen... still pining for the steady state universe are we? "The interpretation of the cosmic microwave background was a controversial issue in the 1960s with some proponents of the steady state theory arguing that the microwave background was the result of scattered starlight from distant galaxies.[45] Using this model, and based on the study of narrow absorption line features in the spectra of stars, the astronomer Andrew McKellar wrote in 1941: "It can be calculated that the 'rotational temperature' of interstellar space is 2 K."[23] However, during the 1970s the consensus was established that the cosmic microwave background is a remnant of the big bang. This was largely because new measurements at a range of frequencies showed that the spectrum was a thermal, black body spectrum, a result that the steady state model was unable to reproduce.[46]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background The CMB's serendipitous discovery in 1964 by American radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson[1][2] was the culmination of work initiated in the 1940s, and earned the discoverers the 1978 Nobel Prize. The CMB is a snapshot of the oldest light in our Universe, imprinted on the sky when the Universe was just 380,000 years old. It shows tiny temperature fluctuations that correspond to regions of slightly different densities, representing the seeds of all future structure: the stars and galaxies of today.[3] The CMB is well explained as radiation left over from an early stage in the development of the universe, and its discovery is considered a landmark test of the Big Bang model of the universe. When the universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was denser, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from a white-hot fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled enough, protons and electrons combined to form neutral atoms. These atoms could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and so the universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog. Cosmologists refer to the time period when neutral atoms first formed as the recombination epoch, and the event shortly afterwards when photons started to travel freely through space rather than constantly being scattered by electrons and protons in plasma is referred to as photon decoupling. The photons that existed at the time of photon decoupling have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter and less energetic, since the expansion of space causes their wavelength to increase over time (and wavelength is inversely proportional to energy according to Planck's relation). This is the source of the alternative term relic radiation. The surface of last scattering refers to the set of points in space at the right distance from us so that we are now receiving photons originally emitted from those points at the time of photon decoupling.
I'd do about anything for my granddaughter, even go to church, I wouldn't be a total hypocrite and get baptized but going to social events I'm up for that. I already go when the kids have a program to watch, it's sometimes fun sometimes a little boring, but that's the way kids events are.
Maybe it's something else. The latter does the same as the former, except of course the latter's known to exist.
do you also deny the big bang model is accepted by just about every educated scientist around right now? why would a person who believes in a Creator believe in a steady state universe when science almost universally believes in the big bang model.
maybe you will meet an interesting and pretty women at church. its not as much a problem for a non believer but there is nothing like sitting in church with pretty women to really test your ability to focus. I just reflected on the fact that sitting in church in the suburbs with families is very different than going to church at the beach or near a college.
yeah... sure... you throw a straw man about what is essentially the idea of a steady state universe... and then act stupid when it is pointed out that science almost universally believes there was a beginning to our universe... or at least the universe as we know it.
[Partial QUOTE=futurecurrents;3969495] Faith based on ignorance and wishes is not the same as rational thought processes based on science that lead to probable guesses about how things are. To call the latter "faith" is simple wrong and at best is a inaccurate stretch of meaning for the term.[/QUOTE] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Thanks for your insight on ignorance.LOL, but true Faith is the title deed ; Hebrew 11; 1 Amplified Bible. Ever seen a title deed,called deeds of trust in some states????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????.:cool I understand many renters argue against title deeds; but i asked you if you ever saw one, our county courthouse is full of them?????????????????????????????? Thanks .
That's fine, except neither is true. The only one to mention steady state or suggest the idea, is you. Science as you put it, that is to say big bang cosmological model, is about the beginning of the expansion of the Universe, not the beginning of the Universe. Also an eternal Universe does not require steady state. Or a God for that matter.
Exactly. We are no closer to saying there was a beginning then we were before. Only that there was a big bang. Before that the universe may not have existed or it existed in another state. We will likely never know for sure.