Do you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible?

[geisha779]

Oh what the heck. Sorry to the guy who started this thread--I won't tarry.

I see no evidence of this.

So what? Creation Science isn't filled with a bunch of evangelical bumpkins--many of these guys are not Christian--same goes for intellegent designers. Nonevolutionary scientists think the theory of evolution is bad science--they are not out to prove or disprove God???????The theory of "abrupt appearance" is scientific. But even so--theistic science is not an oxymoron. Christians have grown brains--who knew??

I disagree here as well, because the theory of relativity has nothing to do with the big bang, and much less proving any religious texts.

Again, I said it supported the idea of a Genesis Style creation. Why? because his theory meant the universe had a beginning. It was believed to be static until Einsteins theory. The law of causality tells us--it had a cause. You may not like what I consider the cause--but too bad. The law of thermodynamics tells us it will have an end. Sound familar--we have heard an explanation for this somewhere??? Oh yeah--I am the Alpha and the Omega--through Him all things were made. . . . That is why Einstein didn't like it and it was repugnent to Arthur Eddington. He went looking for a loophole. What do you think all the debate is about--people wrap religion up in science everyday--friends of mine tour the country debating this stuff at universities all the time--do I need to call and tell them to stop because you said we can't do it?? On it

My point in raising the questions was to suggest that there are many theories, but there are no ways to prove what exists outside of our universe, and what happened before the big bang, or how it came to pass. If you want to attribute it to "intelligent design" then that is your choice, but it is nothing more than an opinion. It can't be wrapped up in the name of science.

Let me see if I can get Ben Stein on the phone and have him pull his new documentary??

Here's another Einstein quote:

You have to take Einstein's beliefs in context. He was essentially an atheist. In the text your quote comes from, he gives his definition of religion, along with some other things I will put in bold to give better context and relate back to the thread at hand:

You can see that he clearly defines religion not as a supernatural thing, but a way human beings think to keep ourselves within a moral framework. By his definition, atheists can be "religious" too, as can anyone who simply wants to work for the betterment of mankind.

EINSTEIN was a PANTHEIST!!!

What is the chapter and verse that talks about the planets having an elliptical orbit?

HUH???????

They only appear that way to religious people that want them to be theistic. The term "god" can have many different meanings. To many asian religions, gods are just spirits that live in everything. To scientists like Einstein or Sagan, it is a shortcut for discussing nature. There are many different ideas about what gods are, so you can't really apply your beliefs to someone who uses the word without verifying first that they believe what you do. In the case of Einstein, it's easy to see that he didn't believe as you do.

Did you read the book I was talking about-???God and the Astronomers---the guy who wrote it was an agnostic. My point was his theistic quotes were so out of character they were intriguing.

Doctors have a much better track record than praying does. It seems like every few months you hear about a lawsuit from where some person dies because their family or religious group prohibits seeking medical care and instead wants to pray around them. Studies have also shown that the "power of prayer" serves no better than the power of "thinking positive" without praying. Additionally, the proponents of basically all major religious claim that people have been healed by their faith. What's to say that they didn't just get better through natural means, but you all attribute it to your religions?

Let's play dueling "Studies" because I can find one that opposes yours for almost anything--studies have shown??PLEAASSSSEEEEE!!Oh and I remember to pray for my doctor--and the ones who saved my husbands life last year. Doesn't change the fact I have witnessed a spontaneous healing. Sorry.

Anyway, I don't mean to appear hostile to your religious beliefs, but I don't believe it, and I think you're incorrect about your attributions of scientific proof of Christianity. Still, I don't mean to be mean towards you, so don't take this post personally. I am debating ideas instead of people.

Let's see--you imply I am a daydreamer--tell me I don't know what I am talking about when I discuss my faith and its relationship to science--but don't take it personally--dude it doesn't get more personal

[George Aar]

Gee Geisha,

If you wanted to come across as more arrogant, condescending, and pretentious than you already sound, I'm not even sure how you could accomplish that.

And of course, who needs evidence?

I didn't even realize it was possible to be so cocksure of anything in life, let alone something as vague and subjective as religion.

How DO you do it?

Edited July 24, 2008 by George Aar

[geisha779]

Gee Geisha,

If you wanted to come across as more arrogant, condescending, and pretentious than you already sound, I'm not even sure how you could accomplish that.

And of course, who needs evidence?

I didn't even realize it was possible to be so cocksure of anything in life, let alone something as vague and subjective as religion.

How DO you do it?

The pot calling the kettle huh? You really wanna know what prompted me--or are you just name calling? It was you! I was thinking of you and others here who are

so limited in their understanding of Christians and the world we dwell in that I said --that's it. It's been implied I am stupid==misguided and foolish for my belief in

Christ--can't stand it that we claim we know--have faith in the unseen and provide answers through Jesus Christ to those seeking--too bad--I figured you would crawl out of the woodwork. Oh, and I see I am the arrogant one---not old Mr P Mosh--who implied I was a daydreamer right? Typical.

I have to go know-I am going to stand on a street corner in my plain servicable clothes and pass out tracts--while carrying a sign that says "The End is Near"

Too busy to play anymore.

I wasn't going to mention this--but I am having a hard time turning the other cheek lately. A friend of mine was executed a week and a half ago--shot in the

head in front of his wife and 3 small kids. Why? Because he was so cocksure of Christ--We just put a few of our friends on a plane to go care for the family. Then

they are going to an orphan camp to bring electricity in for the abandoned kids in the same country.Christians provide for these kids--not the government.

So please don't talk to me of arrogance--it is pretty arrogant to take anothers life--because they believe in Christ. Happens everyday in this world. You have no

clue.

Edited July 24, 2008 by geisha779

[oenophile]

Hi oenophile, how nice to talk to you!! Yes, I would have to say we would be unjustified in our disbelief of certain biblical narratives---or recheck the mounting evidence.:) If you and I can agree on a few things it would be GREAT!! I bet you anything that you are familar with the big bang theory? Putting aside the "Fudge Factor" and looking at the theory of relativity--Einstein--Arthur Eddington--no loophole. The expanding universe--Willem de Sitter--Hubbel checking it out---yada yada--The law of causality--big bang--beginning--a cause. The law of thermodynamics--an end. In other words-- We have something instead of nothing? Created--boom there it was, out of nothing--all you and I know--was once made.

It is nice to talk with you also geisha. Perhaps you have heard of that aspect of Einstein's theory of relativity regarding singularity. Singularities occur in black holes after a star burns up its hydrogen fuel supply. The former star's gravity field draws in all its remaining matter and compresses it in a singularity. Moreover, any matter caught up in the black holes magnetic field is drawn in and compressed in the singularity. Have you ever wondered why so many galaxies, including our Milky Way are spiral shaped? The answer is that there is a massive black hole at the center that is steadily drawing in all the matter of the galaxy into itself and compressing it in its singularity. It does not require such a leap of logic to consider one massive black hole at the center of a universe. Eventually, all the matter of the universe ends up as the Singularity. When the mass of the singularity becomes too great to be held in place by the gravity of the black hole resulting in a big bang and the birth of a new universe. The point of all of this is that something does not come from nothing. It comes ultimately from the compressed matter of a former universe.

God and the Astronomers is a great book to look at on this stuff-written by an agnostic BTW. The idea of a Genesis style creation supported by science!!

This stuff is still so way over my little right-brained mind.

Robert Jastrow the agnostic who wrote the book I mentioned ended it with this: "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Perhaps they be greeted by the detractors of Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin.

Quantum Physics doesn't explain it away--The Cosmic Rebound theory doesn't work--The more we learn the more stuck we are with that big bang idea.

I would just say recheck the data. Check out the Anthropic Principle! Mounting evidence that the universe is highly tuned to support--drum roll-- human life here on

earth.

The late Dr. Stephen Gould observed that in order for the Anthropic Principle to be valid, KNOWN casuse and effects could not exit.

Well, I love dinosaurs, I live in an area that is full of bones and tracks--right by my house you can walk to see them. As for your question, I could parrot all the theories to you--but I dunno. I will say--that there are amazing arguments for creationism--I tend to believe them. I am always awed at the wonder of the universe. The idea of the beginning--an end. The Alpha and Omega. Again, the question I ask is not when the universe was created but why? The idea that this all "fell into place" or that there was no intellegent design is just too difficult for me. A universe that exploded into being--life which has not been observed to spontaneously arise. The universe and over 100 life-enabling constants that support our little planet. The complexity of our make-up, Limited range changes. Something arising from nothing. Macro evolution is a hard pill for me to swallow--I vote intellegent design.

Microevolution is indisputable even by the most ardent advocates of Intelligent Design. Why is it so hard to consider macroevolution given millions of years to happen.

I am a seeker--I am also a Christian--and as such--I have been convicted of my own sin, let alone worrying about Adams original sin.:) I have a repentent heart. Why do I need one? Where did it come from? I didn't always have it. Why do we have a conscience? What is it that helps us distinguish between good and bad? Where do our laws come from? What ideas? Where did they come from?

I have a repentent heart because I have met the intellegent designer. If you stop to contemplate for just a bit the idea of such a designer who is outside His ever expanding -created universe, the idea that I might need to repent of my sins isn't so crazy. What kind of being could create this? Must be pretty amazing. Has to be Holy--it fits--it works--it makes sense that He must be beyond our finite created minds. IF IF IF --He made us--and IF IF IF--HE made the universe--He had to have a plan? He must have an idea of what He wanted to happen? A way to communicate Himself to us.

I just love watching Him and the plan unfold.

Not the when--but the why are the questions I tend to ask! Hope that helps!---Clear as mud--right?:)

Edited July 27, 2008 by oenophile

[DogLover]

My answer was/is "yes." Guess I'm in the minority here. That's okay. I still say yes.

I'm willing to take the "chance" that I'm wrong....and I guess everyone else who has posted here is also willing to take that chance.

[Bramble]

My answer was/is "yes." Guess I'm in the minority here. That's okay. I still say yes.

I'm willing to take the "chance" that I'm wrong....and I guess everyone else who has posted here is also willing to take that chance.

Perhaps a loving God does not put that much store in whether someone was able to ferret out the RIGHT TRUTH from all the millions of doctrines and religions out there. Perhaps how one lives matters, not the jots and tittles of belief.

[geisha779]

Hi Oenophile,

Again, nice to speak to you. I really mean that. First let me say--I have not had these conversations in ages. But, I like them when they are civil. So, I appreciate your manner. Not one swipe or sneer from you. Thank-you. Second, let me say Quantum Physics gives me an actual headache, I am not smart enough or learned enough to give a satisfying answer, but that has never stopped me from trying! :) These days my time is spent serving the persecuted church, but I do like these musings. . . .

My degree is 19th Century, Regency Period, British History. I know---a more useless pursuit would be well. . . . . nothing. Anything I tell you relies VERY heavily (Okay Totally)on the work of others.

So. . . singularities huh?

I am assuming that your concern is a violation of the law of conservation and energy within the big bang theory?

How you deal with the idea of the initial--meaning static is not really an option anymore--the theory of an original singularity--the one based on our universe---is based on a model with a mathematical formula--any theory for what is outside the model-cannot contradict the mathmatics--but it should also seek support from outside the cosmos. Human understanding. Do you follow?--I am often as clear as mud. Meaning--

A speculation for outside the model,. . . . could be the flying Spaghetti Monster, another----A former universe. . . . another God.

But, we were talking about blackhole singularities. Singularities define themselves from within their boundries--no relationship to the space-time itself. To approach a black hole singularity you would lose time. They would always be in the future? Also your black hole would have to be large enough to pull all matter in and would shred time. It would have to be rotating within a ring--it would always be future--there is no real evidence they exist.

"The big bang singularity is where all the mass of the universe used to be concentrated. It had all of the properties of a black hole singularity but from it 'grew' space time and matter was released into this space as the fundamental particles of very high energy. This is the big bang. Therefore, the main difference is that a black hole singularity is the end of space time (and pulls matter in) and the big bang singularity is the beginning of space time (where matter and space were made real."

That is why Hawkings work on singularitiyg-boundries is interesting. It is then that you start getting into some heavy duty physics. There are the b boundries-which I think more or less proves the Alpha and Omega--but--then there is the cone shaped singularity.

I am not smart enough to explain all of this, but singularities do not present the problems to theologians you might think. The problems are-- there are difficulties in placing the initial singularity with the moment of creation. Second--there are energy conditions that may prove to be broken down by quantum gravity effects.

We learn about singularities by studying the space-time around them. To touch a singularity and try to extend it to its function in space time--you would just reduce it to a single point--its beginning and end. God is outside of time remember, and for Him--well the beginning and the end have come.

Dealing with malicious singularities is also a problem and so freakin far over my head. But, it still does not give us an answer as to the original singularity. Quantum physics doesn't explain away or support the concept of creation, it has yet top do it. It just keeps evolving new conceptual theories. Many not empirically verified. Like the big black hole in the middle that pulls all matter in.

We can interpret these theories--but an understanding of God should be considered. Outside time and space--then you start feeling your head ready to explode.

You can have anything you want as a theory to what is outside the model, but given that we an explanation in God. . . it is not such a leap to consider Him. :)

Evolution coming soon to a theatre near you. . .

Anyone reading this please remember these are my thoughts. . . not a dare.

[oenophile]

Geisha,

You and I are two liberal arts majors groping in the dark it would appear. ARE THERE ANY GRADUATE LEVEL (OR ABOVE) PHYSICS MAJORS OUT THERE? Your help would here would be greatly appreciated.

As the problem with time and black holes etcetera, I really don't see a problem. I agree with those philosophers who see time as a provisional entity which does not exist apart from human mind.

[geisha779]

Geisha,

You and I are two liberal arts majors groping in the dark it would appear. ARE THERE ANY GRADUATE LEVEL (OR ABOVE) PHYSICS MAJORS OUT THERE? Your help would here would be greatly appreciated.

As the problem with time and black holes etcetera, I really don't see a problem. I agree with those philosophers who see time as a provisional entity which does not exist apart from human mind.

Hi,

Oh my Gosh--you are NOT kidding! I knew someone who would talk to me for HOURS about this stuff. He would only stop when my eyes glazed over. He gave me books which I loved, but took me forever to read. But the bottom line is--you give me another explanation, I say mine. Which carries more scientific weight? I say prove yours--you say prove mine. The big bang theory bothers atheists. It means a cause. Most don't argue other theories with quantum physics because there are too many ifs, they argue we don't know what caused the big bang. I say I do ---This sends the atheists screaming for the hills. The word arrogant seems to pop up as well. But, I always say the big bang is consistent with the creation story of the bible--I never say it proves it.

Anyway--the Anthropic Principle is 100 constants--I know the arguments--Nature Vs. Intellegence, but there has to come a time that you look at this and wonder--

right?

God is confirmed to me everyday--when I use words like awesome-amazing-incredible--it is because I have seen Him in His design--just talking about this stuff should make one pause and wonder about the idea of God. How big must He be--How able? To consider hurts no one.

Now, do you know something about time the rest of us are missing? :) Didn't you just put forth the idea of singularities?? Beginning points? Oenophile, let me in on this one--please--- because NOW (Old enough to know better, young enough to still care). . . is a good time to stop my clock. I noticed a few lines under my eyes and I don't LIKE it!

Are you aging?

Time is a reality--imposed on us for a purpose. That is what I believe. However I believe God is outside of time and eternal.

I am much more comfortable discussing macroevolution with you. I will get back to you. My brain needs recovery from even considering again quantum physics.

[oenophile]

Hi,

Oh my Gosh--you are NOT kidding! I knew someone who would talk to me for HOURS about this stuff. He would only stop when my eyes glazed over. He gave me books which I loved, but took me forever to read. But the bottom line is--you give me another explanation, I say mine. Which carries more scientific weight? I say prove yours--you say prove mine. The big bang theory bothers atheists. It means a cause. Most don't argue other theories with quantum physics because there are too many ifs, they argue we don't know what caused the big bang. I say I do ---This sends the atheists screaming for the hills. The word arrogant seems to pop up as well. But, I always say the big bang is consistent with the creation story of the bible--I never say it proves it.

Anyway--the Anthropic Principle is 100 constants--I know the arguments--Nature Vs. Intellegence, but there has to come a time that you look at this and wonder--

right?

To paraphrase Stephen Jay Gould, the Antropic Principle is about as valid as the idea the ships are built to be a home for barnacle.

God is confirmed to me everyday--when I use words like awesome-amazing-incredible--it is because I have seen Him in His design--just talking about this stuff should make one pause and wonder about the idea of God. How big must He be--How able? To consider hurts no one.

Yes to consider the Cosmos even for an agnostic or atheist (which I am neither) is awe inspiring.

Now, do you know something about time the rest of us are missing? :) Didn't you just put forth the idea of singularities?? Beginning points? Oenophile, let me in on this one--please--- because NOW (Old enough to know better, young enough to still care). . . is a good time to stop my clock. I noticed a few lines under my eyes and I don't LIKE it!

...and don't get me started on things like getting in and out of my Honda Civic at age 55 or for that matter the overpowering urge to pee and upon reaching the porcelain grail in my bathroom...nothing happens. However, time did not cause your lines or my frustrating urination sessions. Physical processes within our bodies are our scourges. We conveniently count our birthdays and blame them. Immanuel Kant, for one, considered both time and space as a priori intuitions an neither an event or a thing. Blame it on my three years of Zen practice but the only "time" that I believe exists isthe nanosecond that is what we call "now'...oops there it went. Does yesterday exist? Does tomorrow at this moment or for that matter the next nanosecond.

Are you aging?

Unfortunately, I am due to cellular death and other physical processes, to say nothing of my proclivity for adult beverage and comfort food.

Time is a reality--imposed on us for a purpose. That is what I believe. However I believe God is outside of time and eternal.

This statement is offered a priori although I do agree with your conclusion about God...which I also admit is a priori.

I am much more comfortable discussing macroevolution with you. I will get back to you. My brain needs recovery from even considering again quantum physics.

[geisha779]

Hi Oenophile,

Just wanted to touch on this a bit more before work. First, Kant?? You read Kant? I love it!!! :) That is where I really learned about the preconcieved notions we ALL approach an issue with. That is why I make an effort to hear exactly what someones argument is--and try to approach it as if will not bite me. WOW!! I don't know why, but I love that you used that example!!

Second, you are my senior--who knew--but you understood my point--we change at a cellular level because of the passage of time. Quantum Physics is about

Time-Space. Time is a reality--but I do get where you are coming from. We could have some pretty fun conversations--but alas--time gets in the way. :)

Third--I don't care what Gould thinks--what do you think of the Anthropic Principle? Even Dawkins deals with it. The mathematics are not in the atheists favor, they

explain it differently, but most do not dismiss it out of hand. In fact, it was enough to shake atheist atronomer Fred Hoyle into admitting some kind of "Super Intellegence."

Hugh Ross an astrophysicist (Don't ask me to check his math) calculated the probability that these 122 constants would exist for any other planet in the universe by chance. 1 chance in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Big number lots of zeros----better odds winning the lottery.

Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias--who codiscovered radiation after-glow said: Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern

science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.

Ed Harris a cosmologist said it was "prima facie evidence of deistic design"

Many atheists when presented with this evidence will admit some kind of designer--others cling doggedly to the idea of chance. How with a straight face I don't get.

That is when the multiple universe theory usually rears its head. In other words by chance we hit the right universe. There is no evidence for this theory--but hey, it is another explantion. What ever happened to Occam's Razor? If there are a limited number of things--finite--how can there be unlimited universes? Remember-matter defined yadayada. Besides the need for a designer is still there--multiple times--we always come back to the static.

God tells us to look to the heavens--they scream out infinity--He is infinity--our minds have a hard time comprehending this--

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities have have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

I so get that! I could go on and on. . . . who would have thunk it right, I love this stuff. Don't take Goulds evaluation, he may have had an axe to grind--look at the 122 constants yourself. Quite a list--

I hope you have a wonderful day!!

[Mister P-Mosh]

The big bang theory bothers atheists. It means a cause.

I was trying to avoid responding to you because of your arrogance and bitterness in previous posts, but it is dishonest of you to attribute ideas to people that you clearly know nothing about. As one of the atheists on this site, I can tell you that it doesn't bother me at all. Just because you believe the big bang was caused by God, Jesus, Buddha, FSM, or whatever doesn't mean everyone has to believe it. You have every right to believe whatever you want, but when you start telling others what they believe, especially when it's not true, you cross the line.

Most don't argue other theories with quantum physics because there are too many ifs, they argue we don't know what caused the big bang. I say I do ---This sends the atheists screaming for the hills.

Atheism and agnosticism is an honest expression that we don't know everything, and won't make up answers or believe things without proof. Many religious people feel as you do, and that is fine. We think you are wrong, but most of us respect the views of religious folks. That is far different than "screaming for the hills", it's just that we don't wish to debate religion with you, especially when you mix it with science.

The word arrogant seems to pop up as well. But, I always say the big bang is consistent with the creation story of the bible--I never say it proves it.

Actually it's not consistent, unless you can somehow prove that there were whales, birds, and humans within six days of the big bang.

Anyway--the Anthropic Principle is 100 constants--I know the arguments--Nature Vs. Intellegence, but there has to come a time that you look at this and wonder--

right?

Not everyone wonders and comes up with the same ideas you do. There seems to be a certain sense of entitlement amongst the offshoots of Judaism (Christianity and Islam) that everyone has to believe the same thing, or that the concepts of their religions are somehow natural and intuitive. Many people will look at the universe and attribute it to natural processes we can't understand and nothing more. Others will attribute it to Zeus or the titans. There are infinite possibilities of what people can believe in, so I don't think it's necessarily true that people will lean towards intelligent design, especially the more educated they become.

God is confirmed to me everyday--when I use words like awesome-amazing-incredible--it is because I have seen Him in His design--just talking about this stuff should make one pause and wonder about the idea of God. How big must He be--How able? To consider hurts no one.

No more than it hurts people to consider the idea that there is no supernatural presence, and that the things that are "wrong" with the universe are because there is no supernatural designer. Seriously, couldn't you come up with ways to improve upon what you determine to be "creation"? If I were the creator of the universe, I probably would have left out things like Down's Syndrome and Sickle Cell Anemia, for one thing. I would have made the transition from life to afterlife a less bitter thing as to not torture those left behind when someone passes away. I would have never given mankind the ability to make things like nuclear missles or cluster bombs with the ability to kill millions remotely. I wouldn't have created the capability for people like Adolf Hitler, Usama bin Laden, or L. Craig Martindale to have been born and ruin the lives of so many. There are many, many, things that are bad, and if you attribute all the good things to your gods, then you have to look at the bad too. Even if you believe in a devil, if your infinitely powerful god created that devil, then you have to ask why he would do it.

So again, I think you've made up your mind, and that's fine for you. Just don't expect the rest of us to agree with you, and you certainly have no right to speak on behalf of others and attribute beliefs to people you disagree with incorrectly.

[geisha779]

Hi Mr P-Mosh

I owe you a great big apology--I did sound a bit bitter to say the least. Did you ever have one of those days where it seems the bad news will not quit? Well, I had a couple of those weeks recently.

I spend alot of time dealing with issues regarding the persecuted church. I got sad news after sad news and it built up for me. So, I was less than gracious with your posts. I am sorry.

In this country I can read the bible and go to church freely. There are many countries where people are not so lucky. It is those people I like to write to and send to their needs when I can. When they are imprisioned for simply owning a bible or having a church--it is sad--they are seperated from their families and often beaten, sometimes tortured and yes, even killed. All for a simple faith in God. It is an irrational fear that causes such a reaction.

Your belief or lack of belief in the God of the bible doesn't bother me at all. However, when you tell me I can't say or do something that does bother me. I base my ideas and posts on experience with atheists. And BTW--a very sweet friend of mine--whom I have shared a great deal with is a devout atheist. A psychologist who hates to hear people talk!LOL :)

My response to you was at the end of a few horrible weeks--if you would see fit to accept my apology I would appreciate it.

My Best,

Geisha

[Oakspear]

Well, I hate to tell you this, but. . . . . . . . . . what do you think shook Einstein so much? He called it his greatest blunder--the theory of relaitivity--because. . . . why? It meant the universe was not static--it had a beginning.

The source that I found quoted Einstein as saying that the cosmological constant, a fudge factor in his equations was his greatest blunder

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~jpl/cosmo/blunder.html

[Mister P-Mosh]

Hi Mr P-Mosh

I owe you a great big apology--I did sound a bit bitter to say the least. Did you ever have one of those days where it seems the bad news will not quit? Well, I had a couple of those weeks recently.

geisha,

Don't worry about it, and realistically I don't think you said anything any worse than I did, so if you owe me an apology I owe one in response. Topics like the ones we've discussed here enter into the realm of core beliefs of people and things that are important to us, so there's no doubt that discussion and debate can get heated. So don't worry about it, and I'll also try to remain civil from here on out.