Great post David.
It is good to get some hard figures on how big this problem is.
Keep up the great work.
Question David... I've not read the book you referenced, nor do I understand why you say, 'the little prince lives on a highly curved planet.'
Do you mind expounding on this even if satirical in nature?
thanks
It is just a reference to the cover picture, as shown. On his little planet, the curvature is obvious.
How well established is the acceleration? I thought there was still quite a bit of disagreement over this.
In any case, the flatness is a sure thing. Any thoughts on inflation as a means to "fix" the flatness "problem"? I found myself moderately disturbed at how much cosmologists are thinking about modeling lambda (the cosmological constant) as a completely unmeasurable field.
I sometimes get the hunch that cosmology is substitue theology for atheists.
Funny, I feel like the kid on a little planet with lots of curvature 
These values argue for an intelligence behind design exactly how? I can see no way that they'd offer any argument against Darwinian evolution, which takes place regardless how the rest of the universe, and the solar system and Earth, came to be.
Jacob,
Accelerated expansion is very well established, in my opinion.
Inflation predicts an omega of one --so it is compatible with a flat universe
Ed,
These numbers say nothing about evolution.
David,
Your explanation of the "Hebrew Problem" raises another question (for me at least). Why is there a Hebrew Question at all? Why is the Bible written in such a way that one person could read the verse and say "Salvation can be lost" and another can read it and say "Salvation can never be lost?" If the Bible is inerrant (which I believe it is), why is there any possibility for controversy or misinterpretation over the permanence of salvation? Does the controversy itself serve God's purpose by making us seek Him all the more for the answer? I would be interested to know your thoughts on this.
John,
I don't know. Why does Jesus never say "I am God."? While his deity is plainly taught, a definitive statement would have saved many arguments. Why doesn't Paul say "baptize infants!" or "don't baptize infants!" --that would have prevented even more debate. My guess is that it glorifies God when we dig into the word--that a bulleted list of docrinal points would not have served that purpose. But in fact, I have no idea.
Dave,
Did you ever check out Steinhardt's FAQs that answer your objections to the cyclic universe?
Regards,
Daniel
Commenting by HaloScan
