The beginning of the universe.

Current thinking on the matter is that the universe started at the
Big Bang
and then shortly afterwards went through a period of inflation
(were talking faster then light inflation), then slowed down to
sublight.

It's worth repeating occasionally that our current model is one for the
*evolution* of the Universe, not its *origin*. Starting from today,
we can explain the conditions at earlier times in the Universe.
How bold one is determines how far back in time one thinks that we can
understand the conditions in the Universe. No widely-agreed upon
model exists for how the Universe actually started.

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

Where is your original post?
I am a Christian, but dont subscribe to the theory of most creation
scientists. I do believe in creation, but not in the time frame most of them
subscribe to.

A. Luke Nichols

"Ronald Stepp" wrote in message
. ..
"Magnus Nyborg" wrote in message
...

"Ronald Stepp" wrote in message
. ..
"Magnus Nyborg" wrote in message
...

Nope - and that is a good thing. Do read the _content_ of what I
wrote
before getting all upset, will you !!

You incorrectly conclude that I am upset.

You became upset enough not to read the content of the post, and you
atill
aren't.

Yes, I did read it.. just because my reply wasn't completely to your
liking doesn't mean I didn't.. Waah. heh

What was it?

That we should not assume things that are borderline to our current
knwoledge.

Like spelling? Sorry, cheap shot... YOU may assume things, and some
other dummies might, but there are countless people who DON'T assume
such things.. one generic statement doesn't include everyone..

Can you agree with me that the results should continuosly be
questioned ?

They already are continuously questioned, by more scientists than
I

Don't assume that somebody else is doing your work - that does not
mean you
have to question it fundamentally, simply that you should maintain a
fair
amount of agnostisism to anything that has yet to be proven.

I don't. You and he may, but I and others don't.

can count. The assumption that they aren't is either naive or
ignored

Again, keep a sound amount of agnostisis. Don't expect everybody
else to do
it.

I do... that's why I'm not a christian..

by those who think they have discovered something nobody else is
smart

Yes, there are those - there are people that believe just about
anything
without any proof at all, why do you _believe_ that the constant c
and h are
constant under situations present in a pre-Plank era of Big Bang ?

I didn't say they were constant under such conditions, I said that
they are constant whenever we check them, and LOTS of people check
them all the time.

enough to notice. C for example is constantly (no pun intended)

I know, and it should. That's scientific!

And it is. I never said they aren't and shouldn't be checked.

checked. Do some research on the web and in science journals and
you
will find out that all the other constants are constantly being
evaluated.

And no, I'm still not upset.

Then open your mind to what I am saying, because you are constantly
(no pun
intended) missing my point!

No, I'm just not agreeing 100% with all of your point. After all if I
don't accept C without proof why should I follow your point blindly
without disagreement?

Clear Skies,
Magnus

Roger that.