Does this also mean that Jimmy Carter is really the supreme deity?

The difference between this and the miracles the Creationists are accused (by the same people) of believing is?

Reminds me of Mrs. Puff on SpongeBob.

how can the msm print such nonsense ? i no longer pay any attention to their pronouncements on anything, and by the looks of their financial decline, more and more people are acting the same.
no doubt one day their crying wolf will cause some real harm.

I find this utterly incomprehensible. But then I'm just a mere human, much like the scientists who tell us that this happened in this way but have too much hubris to admit they find it incomprehensible, too.

Can't wait to see this demonstrated in the lab.

And so the mystics and the scientists continue to merge.

Inflationary theory is an attempt to explain the so-called "flatness problem". The Universe is too gravitionally flat. And it is too thermodynamically uniform to explain the large scale super-super-clusters of galaxies like the Great Wall in Virgo.

The theory says that 99.9+% of the universe is beyond our observational light cone. But since we can't see it, and without a way to create a falsifiable hypothesis that can be tested experimentally, we'll never know.

Science has to conform to the reality of Creation eventually.

Gideon: Uniformity first, flatness as an added bonus. One could get a flat universe without inflation (though inflation forces flatness), but inflation is necessary to explain the uniformity of the Cosmic Microwave Background.

It's all ridiculously untestable, of course, which should mean Popperian advocates of science would reject inflation if they were intellectually honest.

"... the data reveal that the infant universe just popped out suddenly from almost nothing. It inflated from the size of a pea to a volume larger than all current observable space in less than one-trillionth of a second."

If inflationary theory requires this magnitude of inflation to account for the experimental measurements, wouldn't this better be interpreted as a reductio ad absurdum criticism of the current theory?

Posted by: jd watson at March 17, 2006 4:42 PM

jd, Perhaps "reductio ad creation".