It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

page: 33
42
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   

You keep a blind eye to facts presented even it's scientifically proven to be a viable explanation.

I have the evidence but since "you don't know", you have no evidence to present.


So again, my simple question:

Which one fits the fact based on verifiable evidence?

That life can only come from pre-existing life.

or

Your position - whatever it is.

Explain why?

You can exclude God from your explanation if you want to. Pls don't cop out.


First, I am not an atheist. I personally don't care if there is a creator or not. The question has no relevance if there is no evidence. If there is a God and a creator, that's fine; if there isn't, that's fine too. It simply doesn't matter.

You keep insisting that you have presented evidence, but once again, I asked you to post at least one research paper that takes on the task of proving that there is a God or a creator. You haven't done that. So what do you expect?

As I said previously, without data to analyze, there's no way to discuss your position.

Lay out the evidence - not citations from random sources - but hard evidence, and we'll discuss it.

I'm happy to discuss your evidence. But I need to see the data first which means hard evidence, which means hard work, which means objectivity, which means incontrovertible truth that your God or creator exists.


edit on 6-11-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

I also delved into your position that life only can occur from pre-existing life. There are thousands of life forms on this planet - probably trillions in this universe alone. Did each of them get a shot in the arm from your creator? The chemistry and physics of self assembly answers many more questions than your unproven position. At the very least, scientists have hard evidence which substantiates that self assembly and reproduction require no outside intervention. It has been demonstrated many, many times. So I don't know what your problem is. It's not a matter of you or me being right or wrong - it's only about the evidence. Science has evidence, such as it is. You don't.




edit on 6-11-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

You keep a blind eye to facts presented even it's scientifically proven to be a viable explanation.

I have the evidence but since "you don't know", you have no evidence to present.


So again, my simple question:

Which one fits the fact based on verifiable evidence?

That life can only come from pre-existing life.

or

Your position - whatever it is.

Explain why?

You can exclude God from your explanation if you want to. Pls don't cop out.


First, I am not an atheist. I personally don't care if there is a creator or not. The question has no relevance if there is no evidence. If there is a God and a creator, that's fine; if there isn't, that's fine too. It simply doesn't matter.

You keep insisting that you have presented evidence, but once again, I asked you to post at least one research paper that takes on the task of proving that there is a God or a creator. You haven't done that. So what do you expect?

As I said previously, without data to analyze, there's no way to discuss your position.

Lay out the evidence - not citations from random sources - but hard evidence, and we'll discuss it.

I'm happy to discuss your evidence. But I need to see the data first which means hard evidence, which means hard work, which means objectivity, which means incontrovertible truth that your God or creator exists.



You asked for data. I gave you data. You asked for hard evidence, I gave you hard evidence. So you want more? A research paper at that.

Sure, I can do that. The problem is who's to decide whether they are admissible or not? Who makes the final decision if the decision makers are already biased to the opposite side of the spectrum? You, you're the one to decide? One who will not even admit the Scriptures into evidence? And by what measure and rules are you going to critique these "researched papers"? What credentials will you provide to qualify you as a "decision maker"? How many people are you going to invite to "peer-review" the papers? Is there going to be a neutral party in the decision making? Is it going to be a fair review? Who will decide that the reviewers are not biased? In other words, who's going to watch the watchers?

Speaking of rules, what are the parameters for admitting that the data are valid or not?
What if the data is related to a particular verse in the Bible, will you automatically reject it?

I can go on and on, but I think you see what I'm getting at.

But just for a test run. Iwould like to use the ones already published by others.

Like the following:

stephencmeyer.org...

stephencmeyer.org...

Is the evidence he presented in his researched papers admissible in the scientific community or not?

Do you consider them scientific and factually accurate? If not why not?

How about Dr. Michael Behe?

www.discovery.org...

Is he admissible to you? Furthermore, are his research papers scientifically sound? By what criteria are they not if you say no?

What about Sir Isaac Newton, Kepler, Maxwell or Dr. William A. Dembski or philosopher of logic Alvin Plantinga or physicists John Polkinghorne and Freeman Dyson or astronomer Allan Sandage


Are their researched papers pertaining to the existence of God invalid according to your criteria?

To sample Dr. Polkinghorne:


On the existence of God[edit]
Polkinghorne considers that "the question of the existence of God is the single most important question we face about the nature of reality"[21] and quotes with approval Anthony Kenny: "After all, if there is no God, then God is incalculably the greatest single creation of the human imagination." He addresses the questions of "Does the concept of God make sense? If so, do we have reason for believing in such a thing?" He is "cautious about our powers to assess coherence," pointing out that in 1900 a "competent ... undergraduate could have demonstrated the 'incoherence'" of quantum ideas. He suggests that "the nearest analogy in the physical world [to God] would be ... the Quantum Vacuum."[19]

He suggests that God is the ultimate answer to Leibniz's great question "why is there something rather than nothing?" The atheist's "plain assertion of the world's existence" is a "grossly impoverished view of reality ... [arguing that] theism explains more than a reductionist atheism can ever address." He is very doubtful of St Anselm's Ontological Argument. Referring to Gödel's incompleteness theory, he said: "If we cannot prove the consistency of arithmetic it seems a bit much to hope that God's existence is easier to deal with," concluding that God is "ontologically necessary, but not logically necessary." He "does not assert that God's existence can be demonstrated in a logically coercive way (any more than God's non-existence can) but that theism makes more sense of the world, and of human experience, than does atheism."[22] He cites in particular:

The intelligibility of the universe: One would anticipate that evolutionary selection would produce hominid minds apt for coping with everyday experience, but that these minds should also be able to understand the subatomic world and general relativity goes far beyond anything of relevance to survival fitness. The mystery deepens when one recognises the proven fruitfulness of mathematical beauty as a guide to successful theory choice.[23]
The anthropic fine tuning of the universe: He quotes with approval Freeman Dyson, who said "the more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming"[24] and suggests there is a wide consensus amongst physicists that either there are a very large number of other universes in the Multiverse or that "there is just one universe which is the way it is in its anthropic fruitfulness because it is the expression of the purposive design of a Creator, who has endowed it with the finely tuned potentialty for life."[25]
A wider humane reality: He considers that theism offers a more persuasive account of ethical and aesthetic perceptions. He argues that it is difficult to accommodate the idea that "we have real moral knowledge" and that statements such as 'torturing children is wrong' are more than "simply social conventions of the societies within which they are uttered" within an atheistic or naturalistic world view. He also believes such a world view finds it hard to explain how "Something of lasting significance is glimpsed in the beauty of the natural world and the beauty of the fruits of human creativity."[26]


en.wikipedia.org...

Are these great men of Science admissible in your book or not?

Just curious where you stand.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Phantom423

I also delved into your position that life only can occur from pre-existing life. There are thousands of life forms on this planet - probably trillions in this universe alone. Did each of them get a shot in the arm from your creator? The chemistry and physics of self assembly answers many more questions than your unproven position. At the very least, scientists have hard evidence which substantiates that self assembly and reproduction require no outside intervention. It has been demonstrated many, many times. So I don't know what your problem is. It's not a matter of you or me being right or wrong - it's only about the evidence. Science has evidence, such as it is. You don't.





Simple question to debunked your position. Without the brains and minds of these brilliant scientists, will this self-replicating "life" replicate and exist by itself?

Without "outside intervention" will they self-assemble on their own? Without anyone bringing and manipulating them together, will they self-replicate?

I doubt it much. But it's your position, however unscientific.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: amazing
Creation, perhaps yes. Biblical Genesis Creation? Nope!


Genesis Chapter one is practically the same as the Big Bang theory. At least to verse 8, if i am not mistaken.


But then you have a literal interpretation of 7 Days and Adam and Eve. For many Christians that negates the Billions of years age of the Universe and Evolution. That's the problem.


Adam and Eve are mentioned in Genesis Chapter two, Not Chapter 1.

In Genesis Chapter two. It is Lord God who formes Adam from the dust on the ground. It is Lord God who plants a garden eastward in Eden. (Lord God never made Eden) Lord God plants a garden eastward in Eden which already exist.

IN Genesis Chapteer one, God does not mention how he formed Man (male and female).

I will agree that Genesis Chapter two is false, and written by an imposter. Because Lord God is a imposter God.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs




I argue against it, simply by saying it doesn't make sense. How can anything go on forever?

There has to be a limit somewhere.


So Your Logic tells you that there must be alimit somwhere! How do you argue that Logic?

If there is a limit that means there are limiteted Properties (finites) that make up everything there is, this means the Properties that make up everything there is, take up Limited Space (finite space). How do you argue that the Limited Properties (finites) are not created by a exsternal Source if the protperties that exists dont take up all Space there is ?

You are sying there must be limits. That means what ever you are talking about dont take up all Space there is. So you are talking about finites. And finties are not infintie.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 02:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: PageLC14
I'm not quite intelligent enough YET to participate in a debate like this but I will be watching this thread intensely. Have fun gents.


That was the most intelligent comment of the entire thread!



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

You keep a blind eye to facts presented even it's scientifically proven to be a viable explanation.

I have the evidence but since "you don't know", you have no evidence to present.


So again, my simple question:

Which one fits the fact based on verifiable evidence?

That life can only come from pre-existing life.

or

Your position - whatever it is.

Explain why?

You can exclude God from your explanation if you want to. Pls don't cop out.


First, I am not an atheist. I personally don't care if there is a creator or not. The question has no relevance if there is no evidence. If there is a God and a creator, that's fine; if there isn't, that's fine too. It simply doesn't matter.

You keep insisting that you have presented evidence, but once again, I asked you to post at least one research paper that takes on the task of proving that there is a God or a creator. You haven't done that. So what do you expect?

As I said previously, without data to analyze, there's no way to discuss your position.

Lay out the evidence - not citations from random sources - but hard evidence, and we'll discuss it.

I'm happy to discuss your evidence. But I need to see the data first which means hard evidence, which means hard work, which means objectivity, which means incontrovertible truth that your God or creator exists.



You asked for data. I gave you data. You asked for hard evidence, I gave you hard evidence. So you want more? A research paper at that.

Sure, I can do that. The problem is who's to decide whether they are admissible or not? Who makes the final decision if the decision makers are already biased to the opposite side of the spectrum? You, you're the one to decide? One who will not even admit the Scriptures into evidence? And by what measure and rules are you going to critique these "researched papers"? What credentials will you provide to qualify you as a "decision maker"? How many people are you going to invite to "peer-review" the papers? Is there going to be a neutral party in the decision making? Is it going to be a fair review? Who will decide that the reviewers are not biased? In other words, who's going to watch the watchers?

Speaking of rules, what are the parameters for admitting that the data are valid or not?
What if the data is related to a particular verse in the Bible, will you automatically reject it?

I can go on and on, but I think you see what I'm getting at.

But just for a test run. Iwould like to use the ones already published by others.

Like the following:

stephencmeyer.org...

stephencmeyer.org...

Is the evidence he presented in his researched papers admissible in the scientific community or not?

Do you consider them scientific and factually accurate? If not why not?

How about Dr. Michael Behe?

www.discovery.org...

Is he admissible to you? Furthermore, are his research papers scientifically sound? By what criteria are they not if you say no?

What about Sir Isaac Newton, Kepler, Maxwell or Dr. William A. Dembski or philosopher of logic Alvin Plantinga or physicists John Polkinghorne and Freeman Dyson or astronomer Allan Sandage


Are their researched papers pertaining to the existence of God invalid according to your criteria?

To sample Dr. Polkinghorne:


On the existence of God[edit]
Polkinghorne considers that "the question of the existence of God is the single most important question we face about the nature of reality"[21] and quotes with approval Anthony Kenny: "After all, if there is no God, then God is incalculably the greatest single creation of the human imagination." He addresses the questions of "Does the concept of God make sense? If so, do we have reason for believing in such a thing?" He is "cautious about our powers to assess coherence," pointing out that in 1900 a "competent ... undergraduate could have demonstrated the 'incoherence'" of quantum ideas. He suggests that "the nearest analogy in the physical world [to God] would be ... the Quantum Vacuum."[19]

He suggests that God is the ultimate answer to Leibniz's great question "why is there something rather than nothing?" The atheist's "plain assertion of the world's existence" is a "grossly impoverished view of reality ... [arguing that] theism explains more than a reductionist atheism can ever address." He is very doubtful of St Anselm's Ontological Argument. Referring to Gödel's incompleteness theory, he said: "If we cannot prove the consistency of arithmetic it seems a bit much to hope that God's existence is easier to deal with," concluding that God is "ontologically necessary, but not logically necessary." He "does not assert that God's existence can be demonstrated in a logically coercive way (any more than God's non-existence can) but that theism makes more sense of the world, and of human experience, than does atheism."[22] He cites in particular:

The intelligibility of the universe: One would anticipate that evolutionary selection would produce hominid minds apt for coping with everyday experience, but that these minds should also be able to understand the subatomic world and general relativity goes far beyond anything of relevance to survival fitness. The mystery deepens when one recognises the proven fruitfulness of mathematical beauty as a guide to successful theory choice.[23]
The anthropic fine tuning of the universe: He quotes with approval Freeman Dyson, who said "the more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming"[24] and suggests there is a wide consensus amongst physicists that either there are a very large number of other universes in the Multiverse or that "there is just one universe which is the way it is in its anthropic fruitfulness because it is the expression of the purposive design of a Creator, who has endowed it with the finely tuned potentialty for life."[25]
A wider humane reality: He considers that theism offers a more persuasive account of ethical and aesthetic perceptions. He argues that it is difficult to accommodate the idea that "we have real moral knowledge" and that statements such as 'torturing children is wrong' are more than "simply social conventions of the societies within which they are uttered" within an atheistic or naturalistic world view. He also believes such a world view finds it hard to explain how "Something of lasting significance is glimpsed in the beauty of the natural world and the beauty of the fruits of human creativity."[26]


en.wikipedia.org...

Are these great men of Science admissible in your book or not?

Just curious where you stand.
















I'm sorry but I didn't see your data or hard evidence. I went through your posts but haven't seen it. Kindly give me the link the post. I must have missed it. Thanks.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Phantom423

I also delved into your position that life only can occur from pre-existing life. There are thousands of life forms on this planet - probably trillions in this universe alone. Did each of them get a shot in the arm from your creator? The chemistry and physics of self assembly answers many more questions than your unproven position. At the very least, scientists have hard evidence which substantiates that self assembly and reproduction require no outside intervention. It has been demonstrated many, many times. So I don't know what your problem is. It's not a matter of you or me being right or wrong - it's only about the evidence. Science has evidence, such as it is. You don't.





Simple question to debunked your position. Without the brains and minds of these brilliant scientists, will this self-replicating "life" replicate and exist by itself?

Without "outside intervention" will they self-assemble on their own? Without anyone bringing and manipulating them together, will they self-replicate?

I doubt it much. But it's your position, however unscientific.




I'll answer this in detail later - futzing with computers this morning which aren't responding.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   
The problem with what you are saying is that it is entirely speculation. You don't know that it doesn't take up all the space there is. You don't know the measurements on how much possible volume can exist or whether our known universe is all that exists. You don't even know there is a void apart from spacetime. Remember according to the big bang theory, spacetime (aka the dark part of space) was created WITH the big bang as well. It is all part of the expansion, not just the stars and energy. So what you call the void, isn't really a void at all.

Anyways the conversation is kind of pointless because science has not yet developed to a level where we can test those kinds of things. You can't argue logically for or against the concept of infinity.
edit on 11 7 15 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2


He suggests that God is the ultimate answer to Leibniz's great question "why is there something rather than nothing?"


I would argue that the question itself is entirely the wrong question to be asking. There's this idea in philosophy that if a problem seems intractable, if no solution can present itself after hundreds or even thousands of years of discourse that we might actually be asking the wrong question or framing the question wrong. Some philosophers think this is the case for the question of Free Will vs. Determinism. I think this is most obviously the case for Leibnitz's question.

There is no reason for us to assume that NOTHING, in the absolute sense, is even a possible state of affairs that could "exist" (and by exist here I mean accurately describe reality). No one has ever demonstrated "nothing" can even "exist". Even empty space has SOMETHING in it.

So we have a bad question here, no need to plug in a God of the gaps fallacy. At any rate such an answer simply moves the problem back a step to "Why is there God rather than nothing" unless you want to suggest that God is nothing. The only way around this is special pleading that God does not need to be explained for some reason.



The intelligibility of the universe: One would anticipate that evolutionary selection would produce hominid minds apt for coping with everyday experience, but that these minds should also be able to understand the subatomic world and general relativity goes far beyond anything of relevance to survival fitness.


This comes from the good Doctor's misunderstanding of the phrase survival of the fittest. Evolution does not entail that every advantage a creature develops only be used for a specific thing and nothing else. The issue is assuming intentionality in nature which I'll admit is very easy to do because of the language often used to describe nature. For example, feathers are not designed for flight. Feathers can be used for flight but even that is a secondary characteristic. Feathers are extensions of scales that originally aided in survival by helping hold body heat (very important if you're a dinosaur and the Earth just cooled off after a meteor strike).

At its root the argument is another argument from ignorance (God of the gaps) similar to the Natural Laws argument you've repeated time and time again in this thread. The user of the argument is applying intetionality/agency to natural phenomenon based on complex patterns that have emerged (laws of nature, evolutionary adaptations, etc) and sticking God in to fill what they see as so complex or mysterious that an agent must be behind it.


The anthropic fine tuning of the universe:


Good grief. Most of the Universe is empty space. I invite anyone who thinks the Universe is designed for human life to swim to the nearest star system.



I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming


Arrogant self-important twaddle. I could just as easily sit here and argue for the Misanthropic Principle, which is the opposite of the anthropic principle. See the Misanthropic Principle is that, deep down at a fundamental level reality is unintelligible and completely indescribable through our feeble mathematics and language.

Of course if the "fine tuning" were tweaked we might see a very different Universe where life never even evolved, or we might see a Universe even more suited to human life... but if there is a God, would he truly have so little imagination as to strand us on a rock like Earth where only the tiniest percentage of the surface is even habitable and surround that tiny rock with cold barren desolate worlds unsuited to our needs? And then surround us with trillions of empty vacant galaxies that beckon but can never be reached? And then hide himself from us?

Or, as you believe in the Biblical God, did God reveal himself to some ancient folks and hand down to them abhorrent commands about slavery and stoning folks who work on the wrong day of the week and commit/command genocide and war? Then did God watch without intervening at all as his chosen people and the three religions he spawned splintered into even more violent virulent factions that spread by sword, slavery and conquest across all the Earth before secular government and the Enlightenment finally calmed them down by the 19th century?

And all of the cruelty. All of the bloodshed. All of the natural disasters... the result of two people who disobeyed ONCE.



He considers that theism offers a more persuasive account of ethical and aesthetic perceptions.


Does it? If I ask a Christian "How does theism account for the morality of ancient Aztecs who sacrificed themselves happily in gruesome fashion to their gods?" they might say something along the lines of "We live in a Fallen world where sin abounds" they might even bring up Satan leading people astray in the guise of these pagan gods. And yet, in a true act of Double Speak, they will praise God for their own intuition that things like murder and rape are wrong, saying that God "writes his precepts on our hearts"...

Well WHICH IS IT? Is God etching in each human heart the same sense of right and wrong? Is God okay with human sacrifice? I would think not, at least not unless it is a human sacrifice made to him (see: Isaac, Jepthah's daughter, Jesus).

My morality is fairly simple and is based in reason and empathy coupled with looking at harm and benefit. Evil is not some capital E thing out there in the world, it is a label we apply to things. Murder is not wrong because the commandment says so, the commandment says so because murder is wrong. Those who think morality is divinely handed down have the cart before the horse.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: spy66
How do you argue that the Limited Properties (finites) are not created by a exsternal Source if the protperties that exists dont take up all Space there is ?


The problem with what you are saying is that it is entirely speculation. You don't know that it doesn't take up all the space there is. You don't know the measurements on how much possible volume can exist or whether our known universe is all that exists. You don't even know there is a void apart from spacetime. Remember according to the big bang theory, spacetime (aka the dark part of space) was created WITH the big bang as well. It is all part of the expansion, not just the stars and energy. So what you call the void, isn't really a void at all.

Anyways the conversation is kind of pointless because science has not yet developed to a level where we can test those kinds of things. You can't argue logically for or against the concept of infinity.



How can something that is Limited take up all Space there is?

Something is not Limited if it takes up all Space there is. It is infinite if something takes up all Space there is.

I know for a fact that Our universe is not the only void of Space that exists. Our universe is 13,799 billion syears old. That means that 14 billion years ago.... Our universe did not exist. Or do you dissagree?

A different void of Space exist before Our universe was formed 13,799 billion years ago. And it must be much larger than Our universe have expanded today. Dont you agree? How can Our universe expand in Diameter if it is Limited if there isent a void of Space to expand in?

The diameter of Our universe is at least 91 billion light years..... and expanding at the speed of light. The light is moving at the speed of light in a vaccum. A vacuume is a void of Space that is absolute empty.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
How can something that is Limited take up all Space there is?


How do you know how much space there is? I explained space time in my post above. It isn't just a void. It came with the big bang as well.


Something is not Limited if it takes up all Space there is. It is infinite if something takes up all Space there is.


This makes zero sense, I'm sorry. We know nothing about either statement, you are completely guessing.


I know for a fact that Our universe is not the only void of Space that exists. Our universe is 13,799 billion syears old. That means that 14 billion years ago.... Our universe did not exist. Or do you dissagree?


False. Prior to "our universe" there was a singularity of condensed energy and matter. Before that, nobody knows. Maybe the singularity was there for 19238091238092 trillion years before it expanded. Perhaps it was there for a minute. We don't know the answer.


A different void of Space exist before Our universe was formed 13,799 billion years ago. And it must be much larger than Our universe have expanded today.

Evidence needed.


How can Our universe expand in Diameter if it is Limited if there isent a void of Space to expand in?


Did you not even read my response above? I explained this multiple times already. You have no clue if any of that is true. Spacetime is not a void and you don't know how much expansion can happen. You are completely guessing.


The diameter of Our universe is at least 91 billion light years..... and expanding at the speed of light.


False. It is not expanding at the speed of light. It hasn't reached that fast yet, although it is moving faster and will eventually get to that speed.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs




False. It is not expanding at the speed of light. It hasn't reached that fast yet, although it is moving faster and will eventually get to that speed.

You seem to be stuck with earlier models of the the origin.

According to the now more widely accepted model, in the early stages of development the rate of inflation exceeded the speed of light. Galaxies in the most distant reaches of the Universe moving from us faster than the speed of light due to expansion.

Our cosmos expands at about the rate at which space is expanding, and the speed at which objects expand away from us depends upon their distance. If you go far enough out, there is a distance at which objects are speeding away from us faster than the speed of light.

www.universetoday.com...
edit on 11/7/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Barcs




False. It is not expanding at the speed of light. It hasn't reached that fast yet, although it is moving faster and will eventually get to that speed.

You seem to be stuck with earlier models of the the origin.

According to the now more widely accepted model, in the early stages of development the rate of inflation exceeded the speed of light.


I'm not talking about inflation. His post suggested that the universe is currently expanding at the speed of light. Currently, all known stars and galaxies have not yet reached the speed of light.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


Currently, all known stars and galaxies have not yet reached the speed of light.
False.
See edit above.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Barcs


Currently, all known stars and galaxies have not yet reached the speed of light.
False.
See edit above.


That's not entirely true. They are moving faster than the speed of light ONLY IN RELATION TO each other because they are accelerating away from each other. They are not individually moving faster than the speed of light. That is a common misunderstanding.

If 2 cars are driving away from each other at 80 mph, the net speed difference is 160mph, but neither is going that fast. That's what it's like with the universe. If you take the 2 furthest points, the difference in speed is greater than the speed of light, but that doesn't mean anything is moving that fast.

It's a complicated question and the answer can actually be yes or no depending on what parameters you set.


edit on 11 7 15 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs
I didn't say they were moving that fast. I said that, due to expansion, they are moving from us at faster than the speed of light. They are not moving that fast, the space between us is expanding that fast.


A redshift value of greater than 1 indicates movement faster than the speed of light. The most distant galaxy found has a redshift of 11.9.


pages.erau.edu...

edit on 11/7/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Sure if you use the earth an an arbitrary measuring spot. Like I said, it's a complicated question and the answer can technically be yes or no, depending on how you measure it. 2 points moving away from one another (not just away from us) isn't the same as the anything in the universe moving faster than the speed of light. That is not possible. It's the DIFFERENCE in speed you are measuring, not the actual speed. It's not the same thing.
edit on 11 7 15 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Barcs




False. It is not expanding at the speed of light. It hasn't reached that fast yet, although it is moving faster and will eventually get to that speed.

You seem to be stuck with earlier models of the the origin.

According to the now more widely accepted model, in the early stages of development the rate of inflation exceeded the speed of light.


I'm not talking about inflation. His post suggested that the universe is currently expanding at the speed of light. Currently, all known stars and galaxies have not yet reached the speed of light.


WHen i talk about Our universe i am not just talking about, planets and stars. The singularity produced much more than planets and starts. The singularity is the absolute total massvolum of Properties that makes up everything within Our expanding universe.


And that massvolume is finite. It is a set (fixed) number. And the singularity have never taken up all Space there is.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join