The Wall

[Ark Guy]

The structure of the universe is such that astrophysicists have difficulty believing it could have evolved. In 1989, a structure was found to be so enormous that it is 5,000 times wider than our galaxy, the Milky Way. This structure, called "The Great Galactic Wall" by Margaret J. Geller and John P. Huchra of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, is too big to fit into the evolutionary scheme of things. According to Science (11/17/89), the wall is so large and massive, that it could not have been built by gravitational attraction during the supposed 15 billion year age of the universe. Then, in 1990, a survey, involving the Kitt Peak National Observatory in Arizona and the Anglo Australian Observatory in Australia, found that this structure was one of seven "great galactic walls,Ó making the total structure 30,000 times larger than the Milky Way.

 

[notto]

I guess this just shows that the universe is older than we think.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Since Ark Guy has me on ignore he wont see this.

BUT

NO ONE EVER SAID SUCH A STRUCTURE WAS BUILT BY GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTION OF THE VISIBLE MATTER IN IT.

 

[Ark Guy]

I guess this just shows that the universe is older than we think.

Obviously.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Since Ark Guy has me on ignore he wont see this.

BUT

NO ONE EVER SAID SUCH A STRUCTURE WAS BUILT BY GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTION OF THE VISIBLE MATTER IN IT.

Very good point. The study says that it could not form solely by the gravitational attraction of the visible matter. This leads to two possible (and non-exclusive) options:

1) There is non-visible matter involved. This is highly likely based on other options.

2) There is some other mechanism contributing to the distribution of matter in the Universe.

 

[Ark Guy]

Once again...obviously.


After all we all know it wasn't created by God.

 

[seebs]

Well, if it was created by God, which day was it on?

Seriously, this is part of a growing body of evidence supporting some tweaks to the large-scale cosmological numbers.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Once again...obviously.


After all we all know it wasn't created by God.

Wrong. It was.

Why are you so cynical and dismissive of scientists' attempts to disentangle how He did it?

 

[Ark Guy]

You are the guys who have said that modern cosmology doen't explain the wall.


The bible explains how they wall got there. It says God spread the stars out.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

You are the guys who have said that modern cosmology doen't explain the wall.


The bible explains how they wall got there. It says God spread the stars out.

Do you think a spiritual explanation precludes a naturalistic one?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Once again...obviously.


After all we all know it wasn't created by God.

Of course God created it. The question is how He created it.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

You are the guys who have said that modern cosmology doen't explain the wall.


The bible explains how they wall got there. It says God spread the stars out.

Yes, but how did He spread out the stars? I haven't seen Him picking up galaxies and rearranging them. I do see Him using the physical laws He created to move them. Therefore, I am inclined to believe that He used the physical laws to position the stars and galaxies of the Wall.

 

[Ark Guy]

What physical law did Jesus use when he changed the water into wine?

How about when Jesus rose from the dead?

You do understand the concept of a miracle?

Could the spreading out of the stars have been a miracle?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

It could have been. But science doesn't deal in miracles. It looks for physical causes. If it can't find them, it can't find them, and if you like you can call it a miracle. Science has nothing to say on that.

However, putting miracles in every gap in scientific knowledge is a dangerous game, because these gaps have a way of being filled. Rather than seeing God only as the author of the bits science can't explain (or whose scientific explanation you reject), why not see Him as the author of everything, quite capable of working His purpose out through natural means.

Miracles are for a purpose. Most of the time God doesn't work that way.

 

[Bushido216]

What physical law did Jesus use when he changed the water into wine?

How about when Jesus rose from the dead?

You do understand the concept of a miracle?

Could the spreading out of the stars have been a miracle?

But why does it have to be a miracle?

I know, because if we really are just a twig on a huge tree, we're not special.

Ark Guy is having trouble getting over his own arrogance that he isn't some special, hand-made creation lovingly made with a custom made universe.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

What physical law did Jesus use when he changed the water into wine?

How about when Jesus rose from the dead?

You do understand the concept of a miracle?

Could the spreading out of the stars have been a miracle?

I understand the concept of a miracle. Every miracle that I have ever heard of had a purpose. I don't see a purpose for arranging galaxies in an unusual pattern.

 

[ern]

It could have been. But science doesn't deal in miracles.

I've always loved that cop-out, "Science doesn't deal in _______." It is used for any number of real life events, from miracles to spiritual beings (angels or demons). Even though they use it as a defense against certain points brought up, all it serves to do is show the shortcoming of scientific theory. Now I'm not saying science is a bad thing, I'm just saying that science should not be the number one thing used to explain a certain phenomenom. First go to the Bible, see what it says, then feel free to move on to science. One more thing, I'm not saying that these "walls" are the products of a miracle, I don't know what caused them, I just wanted to bring to light this cop-out that is used far to often.

 

[TheBear]

I've always loved that cop-out, "Science doesn't deal in _______." It is used for any number of real life events, from miracles to spiritual beings (angels or demons). Even though they use it as a defense against certain points brought up, all it serves to do is show the shortcoming of scientific theory. Now I'm not saying science is a bad thing, I'm just saying that science should not be the number one thing used to explain a certain phenomenom. First go to the Bible, see what it says, then feel free to move on to science. One more thing, I'm not saying that these "walls" are the products of a miracle, I don't know what caused them, I just wanted to bring to light this cop-out that is used far to often.

How is it a cop-out? It is a fact. Science only deals in the realm of our natural world. Period. Science has no position on things spiritual or supernatural, one way or the other, and remains neutral on the topic. If something is unexplained in science, it remains unexplained until/unless it is explained. If it is explained in the realm of the supernatural, that's great, but has nothing to do with science.

Ages past, many civilizations attributed things like lightning, volcanos, earthquakes and other natural occurences, to God showing His anger or wrath. Science has since explained these occurences.

I just wanted to bring to light the reality of what science deals in, and what it doesn't deal in.

 

[dctalkexp]

Ages past, many civilizations attributed things like lightning, volcanos, earthquakes and other natural occurences, to God showing His anger or wrath. Science has since explained these occurences.

Science does indeed deal with the natural laws that God has created. However, if the people of Jesus' time had all the scientific knowledge we have today, what would you say then? Perhaps that Jesus didn't do a miracle, because there may have been a way naturally that it could have happened, and if we can't find out scientifically how Jesus did it, we must then just not ever know if it truly was a miracle, since science has no say regarding the matter? Well, we know that it is impossible for water to just automatically turn into water, scientifically, so this indeed does bring us grounds to say that it was miraculous.

God bless.

 

[TheBear]

I think we are having a slight misconnunications glitch, dc.

Here's where I'm coming from.

Did God create the universe and our natural world? Yes. Did God ordain and put in place natural laws? Yes. God is not the author of confusion and chaos. Has science been able to study and get a better understanding of His creation? Yes.

Albiet limited from the spiritual realm, science is restricted to the study of our natural world. Things like salvation, miracles, spiritual growth, personal relationships with God, the Gifts of the Spirit, and other such personal experiences, lie outside the realm of what science studies. And, even though a good percentage of scientists do know God on a personal level, that experience has nothing to do with their work in science. About the closest correlation between the two is that they believe that God did create everything, and they are merely studying the how's of His creation.