Size of the universe

kofh2u writes: It seems to me that Genesis was out on a limb until Hubble found support for the claim that the cosmos was NOT always there. That would be a biggie, wouldn't it?

It certainly isn't a "biggie" in science. In fact, it doesn't merit any attention at all within science.

It seems ill advised for any religion to try to maintain a correspondence between its beliefs and science, because science is ever changing to reflect new evidence or improved insight. First science believed the universe had a beginning, then it believed it was eternal, then that it had a beginning at the Big Bang, and then that it would one day cease expanding and begin falling in on itself into a Big Bounce from which the universe begins again (and again and again), and then that it would expand forever and end in heat death, now there are hypotheses that universes spring out of brane collisions in higher dimensions.

So is it a biggie for your religion if science believes that the universe had a beginning at the Big Bang? I don't know, you tell me. Will it be a biggie for your religion if science eventually comes to believe that there are actually multiple universes, each with its own unique beginning?

--Percy

kofh2u writes: But I thought Dark Energy was deduced because this expansion of Space itself demonstrated that the galaxies were accelerating.

Yes, that's correct. The speed of recession of distant galaxies has been discovered to have begun accelerating a few billion years ago. "Dark Energy" is the label we give to the cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe, but we can only speculate as to the nature of the cause right now.

--Percy

kofh2u writes: How sure are we about these theories in regard to the size of the Space/time dimensions when astronomers talk about 12 BLY for the most distant galaxies?

The current size of the universe is much more a question of math than theory. Something that was 13.5 billion light years away 13.5 billion years ago has been receding from us for the past 13.5 billion years and so is much further away now than it was 13.5 billion years ago.

Are we to assume that Space has expanded without matter or energy present in the most distant volumes of Space?

The expansion of space is thought to be due to the little understood phenomena of Dark Energy. Quantum theory tells us that no part of the universe can be completely bereft of matter and energy.

--Percy

I find it funny that one day it is 10 billion years, then 13 billion then 93 billion years as the age of the universe derived from "science". Has anyone realized that when God created the universe in 7 days, it was 7 days RELATIVE TO HIM. He was the only one here at that time.

So then when he said "Let there be light", at LIGHT SPEED particles flew out from his location in all directions? Since the planets stars etc were moving out at light speed, it was only days for the Lord while millions of years elapsed for the galaxies?

Just a thought.

Dan

Edited by techristian, : typo

Science changes with the evidence.

Dogma refuses to change in spite of the evidence (e.g., YEC).

techristian writes: I find it funny that one day it is 10 billion years, then 13 billion then 93 billion years as the age of the universe derived from "science".

Learning can be funny, but it's always making progress.
When you stop updating your conclusions as more information comes in... that's when you stop learning.

Sometimes people stop learning in the name of tradition.
Some are overly attached to the feeling of nastalgia.
Some are too insecure to admit when they're wrong.
Some are even just using the excuse of tradition so that they can stop learning because they're lazy.

Science continues to learn. It doesn't change with the wind.
Science is okay with giving up the old if the new is better.
Science is okay with admitting it was wrong if you can show the correction.
Science is okay with working hard and continuing to learn.

Has anyone realized that when God created the universe in 7 days, it was 7 days RELATIVE TO HIM. He was the only one here at that time.

Many people have wondered about this.

So then when he said "Let there be light", at LIGHT SPEED particles flew out from his location in all directions? Since the planets stars etc were moving out at light speed, it was only days for the Lord while millions of years elapsed for the galaxies?

Sounds very plausible for this scenario.
The problems begin to arise when trying to make sense of other aspects of the Genesis story as well.
Science likes all the information to make sense. Not just the parts that are socially acceptable.

Just a thought.

And a good one. Keep thinking, it's a great way to keep learning.

10:22 AM 1/25/2013
If carbon dating is accurate and mankind is 10 -50,000 years back, then our calendars are off, and it's 4
-44,000 A. D. because the chronological order of the Bible is true. The Creator made similar primates, so
if there were erect humanoids, it was when God put souls in them that they became mankind. I'm just
saying, if we're going to speculate with theory this is mine! Prehistoric orators predated writing which
would mean that Biblical events could have occurred more than 6,000 years ago. Unwritten stories have
been past down through out human time in many cultures. Christ' appearance on earth was about 2,000
years ago, but B.C. time could have began in prerecorded history. There's no time in Eternity, so time
began when matter came into existence they're saying billions of years back. So B.C. is just a point in time
and mankind(Adam/Eve)was created at some point in time B.C.!
Written: 1/25/2013 A.M.

Hi techristian,

I find it funny that you are making God subject to time. If God experiences the passage of days "relative to Him", then he is a creature of time. You even made the statement that " He was the only one here AT THAT TIME."

I bet in a slightly different context you would make a statement to the effect that "God is outside time"; unaffected by it, and that after "The New Heavens and the New Earth" time will be no more.