Earth, center of the Universe..

If that makes you want to believe in god, so be it.  For me, not so much...

polydiatonic..What question is that?

 Perhaps the most striking conformation of the large-scale homogeneity of the universe has come from studies of the cosmic background radiation.  These studies have confirmed the isotropy, or complete uniformity in all directions, of the radiation.  since the universe has a center we must be very close to it.

 Otherwise we would detect more radiation from one direction than from the opposite direction.

Incorrect.  Background radiation is uniform throughout the universe, as predicted by the big bang theory.  The reason we detect the same amount in each direction is the same reason that we can see equally far in each direction; the age of the universe only allows us to see so far.  We can not see beyond 13 billion light years becaue light from farther away has not had enough time to travel to us yet.  Also, since the radiation is uniform, and we can see equal distances in every direction (NOT becaues we are the center of the universe), there is an equal amount of radiation from every direction.

 The Universe is six times bigger because of light dialation.  at the edge we see prototype stars, the beginning of time, cepheid early type stars. At (give or take) 10 billion light years all around at equal distance.

 The early smaller galaxies (and there are more of them) at equal distance all around us.  Micro-wave radiation, then gas, then prototype stars, cepheids, small galaxies, then inside the smaller third shell of the universe are spiral and ellipitical galaxies.  Like the yoke of an egg. 

 Out side the universe, past the edge is  no space, no thing, and no time.

Reading through some of the posts above, it sounds as if there are a few confusions.

First, the big bang was not an explosion, but an expansion. The term "big bang" was coined by a physicist who thought the term would point out how ludicrous the idea sounded, but instead it caught on.

Second, the universe is not expanding at a constant rate. Immeadiatly after the big bang, the universe went through a period of rapid expansion, and the rate of expansion in the future depends on the ratio of mass and energy (both of the visibile and dark varieties). This changes the geometery of the space-time fabric on which we live. However, calculations based on our current data suggest that space time will continue to expand to the point that matter is ripped apart.

Third, the universe is not spherical in shape and we will never be able to see further away than the age of the universe in light years. The universe exists in a higher dimensional space. As for our limitation in sight, we see 13.7 billion light years away, as in the light that we detected has traveled for 13.7 billion years before it reached us and we see those objects as they were 13.7 billion years ago. Before the big bang, there was no light travelling through space-time. That also means that no matter which direction we look, we are looking closer to the big bang. Also, there is light travelling in such a way that it will never reach us, causing areas of the universe to be permenantly invisible to us (unless we come up with a way to detect far away objects that is more reliable than light waves).

Background radiation is nearly uniform throughout the universe, but there are spots that have more than others. The spots with slightly higher density are what allowed galaxies to form. If it were truly uniform, all mass would be equally spaced, and the universe would have the same density at every point (i.e. we wouldn't exist).

Finally, being religious doesn't get in the way of being a scientist anymore than being human does. We all have our beliefs that we like to hold, whether for religious reasons or otherwise, and it is the scientist's job to doubt everything until proven. Some people will try to hide results that clash with their beliefs out of fear of the unkown, but in the end  that is counter-acted by our desire to know what is unknown.

Rev, since you're obviously interested in the subject, you really owe it to yourself to give this page a good read:

http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/Relativity/GR/centre.html

thenovice Hello..I agree with what you said.  I use the word expansion.  Almost every thing you said I've mentioned in the threads.  Your post was like reading a physic's book.

 A Big Bang will not create a universe.  A stick of dynamite in a junk yard will not create a 747.

 And as far as the outer edge of the universe goes I choose to go with Dr. Hugh Ross. No space, no time, no thing.  Where ever it is.

 I've enjoyed our chat and I will do that as soon as I can get to it. Thanks

Rev, I hope you're being tongue in cheek with your analogy: "A Big Bang will not create a universe.  A stick of dynamite in a junk yard will not create a 747".

Clearly the magnatude and complexity of these two things are so different that a comparson like that is just silly.

More to the point;  if you honestly think that you can determine/know what might or might not be created from the "big bang/expansion" with any degree of certainty then clearly your philosophical/spirtual dogma is clouding your ability to be humble with regard to the level of our actual ignorance when it comes to knowing the universe. 

Your speaking in absolutes is really a viscious tell with regard to you bias.  Can you not grant that in the grand scheme of things we know very little of what may actually be knowable??   Given that how can you ethically draw such a conclusion with such certainty? 

The one question is:  "where did the stuff come from?"

polydiatonic.. I have great respect and humility for the feelings of others. Im sorry if I ruffled your feathers.  But this issue is very important because all eternity is at stake.  I don't care if anyone understands me or not.  It is not about me or how I feel. Spell my name wrong, attack me, it means nothing.

 There is certanity with God.  Im not sure we are allowed to really discuss this on this site.  I know I have but it is bending the rules. 

 I realise our confidence in God seems a bit arrogent but that is because we have personally meet him.  God is no theory with us he is very real.  Children have confidence with their parents.  Its the same way with our heavenly Father.

 I don't believe there was a big bang neither do many scientests. I use the word expansion.  They are alarmed at the flaws in it.  There is no computer model of the universe that really works.  Stephen Hawking confirmed this.  Read my previous threads.

I don't know of any rules that state we can't discuss our beliefs in the "Off Topic" forum.

"Expansion" is a much better term than "big bang", since a bang implies one thing exploding inside another, which is not the theory. It was Fred Hoyle who came up with the term "Big Bang", which he intended as a derisive term.

And it was Fred Hoyle who wrote this:

"A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe."

Interestingly, Hoyle also wrote this: "the creationist is a sham religious person who, curiously, has no true sense of religion" and "we are inescapably the result of a long heritage of learning, adaptation, mutation and evolution." It's not that he had a conversion, it's that he never intended the 747 argument to apply to evolution but against abiogenesis. In both cases though, it's a strawman argument.

So we don't have a complete theory that explains all observed phenomena. How is this enough to prove that our universe was created by an intelligent Creator, and what would this tell us about this Creator?

I will say this: before Darwin, I can't see how a rational person wouldn't have believed in God. You see a watch, you assume there's a watchmaker. But the theory of evolution, in conjunction with the discovery of DNA and mutation, explains the diversity of life through natural processes. If you want to take the stance that abiogenesis would have been impossible without divine intervention, well...no harm in that, as long as you don't jump from that belief to the belief that Humanity in its present form was God's end goal.

Incidentally, I made a little evolutionary simulation which demonstrates how random mutation and natural selection leads to adaptive behaviors. The video is here.

scotchfaster  You made that utube video?  Which ones?  I can't put time in to it now. But will later.

Certainty in god?  Really?  Well I guess it depends on how you define god.  So, Rev, do us all a favor and tell us how you define god?

 Go to Atheist and Theists group, threads in  "Jesus dying on the cross".  My point is not to evangelise but to discuss what I show or bring up on the topic.  But on the other hand if anyone wants to talk about God contact me there or my personal email. Thanks

Totally. The OP is obviously trying to evangelize despite his declaration.

Yes obviously evangelizing, and who wants to be buddies with someone with that sheen of dishonesty, much less be able to see him as a role model.