It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

page: 34
42
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 01:10 PM

Sure if you use the earth an an arbitrary measuring spot.
How so, since the distance of (distant) galaxies in every direction is increasing at faster than the speed of light? How could we be moving away from all of them at the same time? We can't and we aren't. The space between us and all of them is getting greater. The further away, the greater the rate of increase. For very distant ones, the rate is faster than the speed of light.

Like I said, it's a complicated question and the answer can technically be yes or no, depending on how you measure it.

There is one way to measure it. Redshift. The most distant galaxies display a redshift greater than 1.

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.
Right. Nothing can move through space faster than the speed of light and nothing is. But there is nothing that says that space cannot expand faster than the speed of light, and it is. Expansion is occurring faster than the speed of light.
edit on 11/7/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 01:43 PM

But there is nothing that says that space cannot expand faster than the speed of light, and it is. Expansion is occurring faster than the speed of light.

This means that there are Properties that move faster than light?

What this also indicate is that the void that Properties from Our universe move through is a much purer vacuum than the vacuum... light have been tested in by us. Since there are Properties that move faster than light.

Do you have a comment to that?

A expansion that is faster than lioght would indicate that the void surrounding Our expanding universe is absolute neutral.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 01:50 PM

This means that there are Properties that move faster than light?

Besides not knowing why you capitalize properties, I don't know what you mean. What "properties" do you think move faster than light?

I said nothing can move through space faster than light. The expansion of space is not movement through space.
edit on 11/7/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 02:06 PM

originally posted by: Phage

This means that there are Properties that move faster than light?

Besides not knowing why you capitalize properties, I don't know what you mean. What "properties" do you think move faster than light?

I said nothing can move through space faster than light. The expansion of space is not movement.

I have no idea besides it being light it self. The only property that could move faster than light measured within Our set absolute vacuum state, is light moving throught a vacuume that is more absolute than the one we have done calculations with. And that is within the vacuum state of Our universe.

I said nothing can move through space faster than light. The expansion of space is not movement

But for the edge of Our universe to expand fasrter than light. THe vacuum surounding Our universe must be more absolute than what we have done the speed of calculations With.

If not the expansion should build up pressure at the edge of Our expanding universe. That would state that Our universe at some stage in time would start to slow Down. Do to friction.

What i am saying is that the expansion is not hitting any friction from the void surrounding Our expanding universe.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 02:14 PM

The only property that could move faster than light measured within Our set absolute vacuum state, is light moving throught a vacuume that is more absolute than the one we have done calculations with.
What makes you say that?

But for the edge of Our universe to expand fasrter than light. THe vacuum surounding Our universe must be more absolute than what we have done the speed of calculations With.
What vacuum? Why must it be a vacuum rather than something that doesn't follow the same physics? Assuming, of course, there is anything resembling physics of any sort.

But, we can't see the edge of the Universe due to the limitations imposed by the speed of light. The galaxies we can see are not at the "edge" of the Universe. We cannot see beyond what is known as the Hubble distance, the "edge" is beyond that. We can see galaxies. Galaxies which formed after the Universe had been expanding for a while, they are not at the "edge."

If not the expansion should build up pressure at the edge of Our expanding universe.
According to a limited point of view. You are assuming that whatever is "beyond" bears some resemblance to what is within. You can guess that if you wish but there is no need to.
edit on 11/7/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 02:35 PM

What makes you say that?

Because light is the fastest property we know of within Our universe. No other particle or matter can move faster then the property of light within the void of vacuum in Our universe. We can only measure the pressumed speed of light within the vacuume state Our universe. I say pressumed since the vacuum within Our universe is not absolute. The speed of light can not be absolute since there are motions that are faster. And they can only be faster for a reason....And that is do to the void of Space that the Properties move through.

- The speed of light that we are aware of is measured in a vacuum.

What vacuum? Why must it be a vacuum rather than something that doesn't follow the same physics?

What else could it be?

We measure speed and time compared to the resistance of different Properties move through a vacuum. We compare everything to ( particles and matter) to a vacuum void.

Probably because matter and aprticles act in predictable ways compared to pressure. (Motion compared to no motiojn).

TextBut, we can't see the edge of the Universe due to the limitations imposed by the speed of light

Correct. We can only see what Our instruments are capable of seeing. Our limit is the speed of light.

But still we are implying that Our universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. That means particles and matter are accelerating at the edge faster than the speed of light. Speed of light is measured within a vacuum!!!

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 02:40 PM

The speed of light can not be absolute since there are motions that are faster.
No. There are not. Motion is movement through space. Nothing moves faster through space than light. BTW, light is not a "property", it is electromagnetic radiation. It has properties but it is not a property.

What else could it be?
I don't know. Nor does anyone else. There is no way of knowing nor is there any reason to think that it follows the same rules as "our" Universe.

But still we are implying that Our universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. That means particles and matter are accelerating at the edge.
No. It has nothing to do with movement of particles and matter. It has to do with the expansion of the Universe. The galaxies are not moving, the space between them and us is getting greater. Rapidly.

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

posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 02:57 PM

No. There are not. Motion is movement through space. Nothing moves faster through space than light. BTW, light is not a "property", it is electromagnetic radiation. It has properties but it is not a property.

Ok. You state that motions is through Space. What kind of Space do you refer to?

You must be refering to a vacuum Space right?

Light is a specific property when it moves throuht the Space you mention. Because it is not of that Space.

I don't know. Nor does anyone else. There is no way of knowing nor is there any reason to think that it follows the same rules as "our" Universe.

If we measure the speed of light in a vacuum,.... and we state that the speed is accelerating. It would implay that the void of Space is a more absolute vacuum than Our own universe. Because that is how we conduct Our science.

To state that the void is something different is ilogic compared to Our measurements....Right?

posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 03:00 PM

Ok. You state that motions is through Space. What kind of Space do you refer to?
The kind which makes up our Universe (most of it).

Light is a specific property when it moves throuht the Space you mention. Because it is not of that Space.
I don't know what that means. Light is not a property. It is electromagnetic radiation which has properties; velocity and wavelength.

If we measure the speed of light in a vacuum,.... and we state that the speed is accelerating. It would implay that the void of Space is a more absolute vacuum than Our own universe. Because that is how we conduct Our science.
Who said the speed of light is accelerating?

To state that the void is something different is ilogic compared to Our measurements....Right?
What void? Who said it's different? I said we have no way of knowing what is beyond the "edge" of the Universe or what goes on there.

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

posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 07:31 AM

I went through the articles which you posted. None of them presents empirical evidence for a creator/designer.
What is empirical evidence? Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.

The best example is probably Einstein's theory of relativity. It was a theory when he developed it. It remained a theory until empirical evidence was accomplished, first by Eddington (which had a lot of flaws) and then by others including the most recent experiment:

Quantum Experiment helps prove Einstein's Theory of Relativity
www.livescience.com...

None of the articles you cited include experimentation. The articles from the Creationist websites and Michael Behr have been proven wrong many times over. The Meyer's articles are way behind the curve, written in early 2000. And once again, they're articles, not research papers.

This is not just my opinion. You can ask any genuine scientist who has conducted research and they'll tell you the same thing: Hypothesis and theory is not proof. Only empirical evidence which consists of observation and experimentation can validate theory.

posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 07:37 AM

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: 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.

Yes, in fact, they will. If they can reproduce, they can self assemble. Once the new life form is made, it will be autonomous. It will reproduce, think, make decisions - everything a human does - and it will also evolve - probably very rapidly. There are a lot of research articles about this. Of great concern is the fact that these new life forms may present real dangers to humans.

I realize it's the stuff of science fiction. But it is fact.

posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 08:17 AM

originally posted by: Phage

The speed of light can not be absolute since there are motions that are faster.
No. There are not. Motion is movement through space. Nothing moves faster through space than light. BTW, light is not a "property", it is electromagnetic radiation. It has properties but it is not a property.

What else could it be?
I don't know. Nor does anyone else. There is no way of knowing nor is there any reason to think that it follows the same rules as "our" Universe.

But still we are implying that Our universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. That means particles and matter are accelerating at the edge.
No. It has nothing to do with movement of particles and matter. It has to do with the expansion of the Universe. The galaxies are not moving, the space between them and us is getting greater. Rapidly.

I think this is referred to as the metric expansion of space. Special relativity doesn't allow anything to move faster than the speed of light. But general relativity allows for the expansion between two objects to be faster than the speed of light.

My question is: if the expansion is dark energy (the cosmological constant) does that make the universe infinite? Are there any "brakes"? My understanding is that the expansion creates space. If space is created as the universe expands and dark energy remains constant, doesn't that imply that the universe is infinite? I know not much is known about dark energy, but I wonder if there is some entropic factor involved. Not my field of study, but interested all the same.

posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 06:45 PM

I get where you are coming from and I understand that it can be measured with red shift. However that doesn't give you a speed of expansion, it gives you a difference in speed between the furthest points. Not everything has a net difference of faster than the speed of light however. It's only when you measure the furthest points. I don't consider this to count as expanding faster than the speed of light. Yes, the net difference is faster, but until anything actually moves faster than light, it's not happening in my eyes.
edit on 11 8 15 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 06:52 PM

The objects aren't all just moving away from us, we are moving away from them. You are calculating the difference in speed between things moving away from one another.
If we are moving away from galaxies which are in one direction, how can we also be moving away from galaxies which are in the opposite direction?

If you look at the universe as a whole, NOTHING moves as fast as the light aside from light yet.
Yes. I've said that. Nothing can move through space faster than light. And the distant galaxies we are observing are not doing so.

I don't see how hard it is to understand that the difference in speed is not the same thing as how fast the universe is expanding.
Right, because speed is a measurement of movement through space. Things are not moving through the universe faster than the speed of light. Space is "growing" faster than the speed of light so the distance between them is increasing faster than the speed of light. There is no violation of relativity.

Remember the car example?
Yes, I remember. Read my first sentence in this post.

edit on 11/8/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 07:17 PM

originally posted by: Phage
If we are moving away from galaxies which are in one direction, how can we also be moving away from galaxies which are in the opposite direction?

Dark energy. Almost everything is moving away from everything, outside of our cluster of galaxies, which will eventually merge together. It's not like the net difference in speed is faster than light for everything. Is it only faster when referencing the furthest known points in the universe.

Yes. I've said that. Nothing can move through space faster than light. And the distant galaxies we are observing are not doing so.

Ok good, that was pretty much my point. Net difference in speed is not the equivalent of speed, so to me it seems more like semantics to say the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, especially when folks are talking about the concept of infinity. While it can be technically true based on the difference in speed, I won't consider the universe expanding faster than light until something is actually shown to move that fast. Spacetime isn't the only thing expanding. Everything is.

edit on 11 8 15 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 10:16 AM

Why is Creation the only logical explanation for the origin of life and the universe?

It isn't.

Simply put it makes sense, moreover, the evidence is all around us.

Wrong again. When you look around you, you are seeing evolution in action - not proof of a divine creator. Your assumption does not make something a fact.

And those who are in denial are simply ignorant of the facts and unscientific.

LOL! Argue for your god via philosophy - but science? This ought to be good...

But not to those who can't accept a shallow, incomplete and unsatisfactory explanation.

I really should've read this thread later...afraid of waking my wife up laughing. The above quote clearly refers to believers...honestly, did you write that in seriousness or is it meant to be the joke it is?

Even simple questions like "why is there life? why are we here? what's the meaning of life?" science and nature can't answer these satisfactorily.

Those aren't simple questions. You are correct that science hasn't found the answers - that's due to the FACT that "because God" is not an acceptable theory.

They turn to philosophy and metaphysics in the hopes of making sense why life and the universe exist.

I think most turn to not giving a flying f*ck. The purpose of life? To procreate. There, solved.

Case in point (and it's a good one)

I'll decide if it is good or not...

Unbelievable! So, because "...there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," .... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."

Does this make sense to you? Do you accept such answer - especially from a brilliant mind like Hawking's? If you do, is it science? Or is it philosophy? Or...is it metaphysics?

Gravity as first cause. Works for me.

Regarding the concept of nothing:

Nothing exists.

If it exists, then it is something. Better yet, it is everything. Everything and nothing.

In any case, if you see the logic in Prof. Krauss' statement or that of Prof. Hawking, that it's scientific or that it make sense in its purest term, I'm all ears. But be forewarned, both professors are considered world class scientists. So if you can outdo them, then more power to you.

I'm not sure about Krauss - the whole nothing thing confuses me, tbh. Though, that is done away with if we release ourselves from the notion that there ever was "nothing." As for Hawking -makes perfect sense. I'm sure I couldn't outdo the two gentlemen, nor will I try. Also, it is impossible to convince theists of anything that goes against their faith. This isn't due to a lack of evidence or persuasive ability.

posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 08:49 PM
Creation...natural evolution.

Creator....Light.

Science the practice of emulating the Creator. Science calculates by O circular review......he exists in the mass of his own atmosphere...formulates a condition for scientific application and then witnesses O circular UFO bodies form from out of mass.

Review...O a circular body is formed from out of an already massed body.

When a scientist imposes O a circle on space......no circle exists.

A scientist imposes radiation is space...whey then are the 2 words separate meanings....one implying that the other exists? This is the rational that his own mind already imposed upon the conditions of creation....for the ancient mind imposed it......created science which was taught to the modern human life to consider. Science does not come with the human form.....it is taught by learning and experiencing.

O the circular body imposes a scientific review...who are we as a human being...where did we come from.

The circle O imposes the review that the circle came from a preceding mass...and this mass changed to form space, meaning emptying out of its own presence.

Light and sound 2 conditions that belong to a light mass......for a light mass can remove a light body O and still remain as mass.

Remove a whole light of light bodies O and obviously the mass would disappear.

Is the origin mass still present is what a human scientist asks.

He gave himself his own ancient answer.....of course it does for his personal spiritual face is found embedded throughout the Universe....as the actual entity that caused creation from out of origin mass.

Science, the experience.

Science the ancient experience....spirit, spirit witness...spirit manifestation witnessing the deceased previous human lives...and also deceased animals....also being visited by higher light beings from the origin light...who use the presence and information of the human recorded self in our atmosphere.

Our story....created by a creator. The Creator still exists as the huge being in the origin light mass. We are made in the image of the Creator.

Science proposes the review microbes....trees....animals...human beings.

Science of the modern occult proposes alien creator.....O...why then is the human being a spirit presence...as the presence.

Presence = the union at the same moment...microbes....trees...animals...humans all present in the same moment yet diverse.

Diversity...light and different light sounds....all existing at the very same moment.

A particle exists at the same moment a human life does...yet how diverse is both bodies?

Light demonstrates it is the Creator.

Spiritual psyche...the human consciousness aware by experience of its own self and presence.

Higher communications can communicate to lower communications, our personal psyche demonstrates that it can.

Why then can a human, an organic presence communicate to a particle that exists in such an ancient factored reality?

The only reason that an organic human being can review something that was created in such a vast ancient condition, is only by self evidence, owner of a higher condition themselves...that which preceded all creation.

Light preceded all creation...origin light still exists.......the Earth atmosphere did not create our spirit.

The atmosphere = a body of its own stated references.

When a human dies the human presence is not in the atmosphere.

A human is not an animal....animals exist without human life present.

Trees exist without animal lives present.

Microbes exist without any other presence.

The atmosphere exists without microbes.

Creator....origin spirit that eventuated into a lower body formation of a human self....made in the image of our Creator.

You question how....the information states gases released out of Earth's O origin light body burning, refilled emptied out space.

Space filled as a body of light and sound.

Origin light....light and sound.

Space refilling makes contact with origin light and sound on the other side of space.

Spirit came out of origin light and sound changed from the interaction of the gaseous return...refilling of space.

The origin O body of Earth was a crystalline embedded body. Where this face lies, it once held a crystal bed.

O light the origin creation sung out of origin light mass by a Creator...the reason why faces and images appear in all forms of light creation.

O formed by the HEAD of the Creator spirit.

Human life that emerged out of origin light when the Earth gases refilled space...made in the image of the origin Creator.

posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 06:29 PM

Gravity as first cause. Works for me.

u can do better than that.

cuz the next question is, what created gravity?

posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 08:08 PM

From Wikipedia

Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity not as a force but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass/energy; and resulting in gravitational time dilation, where time lapses more slowly in lower (stronger) gravitational potential.

Creationism has been proven wrong. There is so much evidence against it that it is truly silly that people still argue it. Especially Young earth Creationism. Can there be a God? Possibly. Is there evidence for God. Absolutely not.

posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 09:28 PM

Creationism has not been proven wrong...
lol...

top topics

42