<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Comment of the Month</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.laytheism.com/blog/2009/comment-of-the-month/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.laytheism.com/blog/2009/comment-of-the-month/</link>
	<description>Born Again... Secular</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Jan 2012 03:07:08 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Hugh</title>
		<link>http://www.laytheism.com/blog/2009/comment-of-the-month/comment-page-1/#comment-474</link>
		<dc:creator>Hugh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.laytheism.com/blog/?p=340#comment-474</guid>
		<description>Excellent to hear from you, Forrest!  I think most cosmologists these days prefer the theory of &quot;inflation&quot;, which accounts for general relativity far better than the original &quot;big bang&quot; explanations (although still a perfectly fine metaphor).  I think science is doing a stunningly fantastic job of figuring out what the universe was like 10 billion years before the earth even coalesced.  Certainly better than the musings of our primitive ancestors passed through a couple of hundred generations without a shred of evidence.  I know I&#039;m preaching to the choir here, but this is a divide that in my mind keeps growing larger with the weight of evidence exponentially piling up on the side of science.  

Check this out for a very well written paper on Inflation:

Beyond the Big Bang
Inflation and the Very Early Universe 
Copyright (c) 2002 by Gary Felder 
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/inflation.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent to hear from you, Forrest!  I think most cosmologists these days prefer the theory of &#8220;inflation&#8221;, which accounts for general relativity far better than the original &#8220;big bang&#8221; explanations (although still a perfectly fine metaphor).  I think science is doing a stunningly fantastic job of figuring out what the universe was like 10 billion years before the earth even coalesced.  Certainly better than the musings of our primitive ancestors passed through a couple of hundred generations without a shred of evidence.  I know I&#8217;m preaching to the choir here, but this is a divide that in my mind keeps growing larger with the weight of evidence exponentially piling up on the side of science.  </p>
<p>Check this out for a very well written paper on Inflation:</p>
<p>Beyond the Big Bang<br />
Inflation and the Very Early Universe<br />
Copyright (c) 2002 by Gary Felder<br />
<a href="http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/inflation.html" rel="nofollow">http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/inflation.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: forrest noble</title>
		<link>http://www.laytheism.com/blog/2009/comment-of-the-month/comment-page-1/#comment-473</link>
		<dc:creator>forrest noble</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 04:50:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.laytheism.com/blog/?p=340#comment-473</guid>
		<description>Hi Hugh,

As you know I&#039;m not too fond of Religious creationism. I am also not fond of the prevailing standard model called the Big Bang which Tyson probably explains well.

Never thought myself a skeptic as a defining characteristic but if the evidence does not seem to match the explanation, and if in my opinion logic is failing, then I have to find a better explanation as is the case for the mainstream scientific explanation and the religious explanation. Science rules, in my opinion, but science does not always come to valid conclusions either.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Hugh,</p>
<p>As you know I&#8217;m not too fond of Religious creationism. I am also not fond of the prevailing standard model called the Big Bang which Tyson probably explains well.</p>
<p>Never thought myself a skeptic as a defining characteristic but if the evidence does not seem to match the explanation, and if in my opinion logic is failing, then I have to find a better explanation as is the case for the mainstream scientific explanation and the religious explanation. Science rules, in my opinion, but science does not always come to valid conclusions either.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

