Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have addressed it very simply---you can't say something is expanding unless you can see the outer edges. That can be said in 2 sentences and they are not quips. You just don't like my answer because it makes yours wrong. Since most of the matter in the universe has come to rest and is not moving there is no reason to think what is now moving will not do the same thing before it gets to the edge of the universe.
Your balloon metaphor is meaningless. Objects can move within a universe without the universe expanding if the universes is big enough and man has no clue as to the size of the universe God designed and created.
You don't know what you're talking about. I have explained to you, and more than once, how and why cosmologists know that the Universe is expanding. You presume to know more than cosmologists about the nature of the Universe.
Look. The Universe is bigger than the part of the Universe that we can see. But we can see to the limit or 'edge' of the observable Universe. The key word is 'observable.' From the earth, we can peer out into the Universe, but only to a certain point can we see anything. The limit of our observable Universe is called the cosmic horizon. The reason we can't see anything beyond that cosmic horizon is because beyond the cosmic horizon space is expanding faster than the speed of light. Nothing within space can travel faster than light but that does not prevent space itself from expanding faster than light. We know that galaxies that are not gravitationally bound are receding from each other. We know that the further away from us a galaxy is the faster it is moving away from us because it is shifted further into the red part of the visible light spectrum.
Because space itself is expanding faster than light itself can travel, the light from galaxies that are receding from us and that are beyond the cosmic horizon can't reach us.
Every galaxy in our observable Universe which is not gravitationally bound can be seen to be moving away from us because of the expansion of space itself. As I've pointed out, the Andromeda galaxy and our own Milky Way galaxy are gravitionally bound to each other and are therefore moving toward each other on a collision course. Because the Andromeda galaxy is moving toward us its light is shifted to the blue end of the visible light spectrum.
So, we can see to the limit or edge of the observable Universe and see that all non-gravitationally bound galaxies are receding from us because of the expansion of space itself. The Universe is expanding and astronomers and cosmologists know this whether or not you are able to understand or accept that fact.
And to keep denying something about which you know nothing merely shows both ignorance and foolishness.
I never mention creationism when discussing evolution. You have to bring it up because you have no scientific evidenced to support evolution.
That's all you have in response? Well, it's not surprising that you don't present the evidence of creationism, because there is none. I note btw that you say you are not a creationist. But you seem to have picked up all the arguments that creationist use, and think in their muddled way. The persistent rejection of the explanation about Gould is pretty typical. (1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
It was the lack of scientific evidence that makes everything he said questionable. Anyone who understands even basic genetics knows common descent is an unscientific fairy tale.
But the basic genetic is evidence of common descent. The DNA markes correspond with the palaeontological evidence for common descent. The two fused chromosomes that give humans less chromosomes than the chimp is itself a marker of the descent from a common ancestor.
What evidence do you have in genetics to show that it refutes evolution? I won't ask for scientific papers, as there won't be any, but what is your evidence? Explain rather than make vague claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
At least I didn't have to resort to insults. Insults are an admission you have no evidence. Thanks.
We see here that we Have to address the posts seriously. just mockery plays into your hands.. I am sure that you post on genetics is wrong. I am no expert on genetics - just picked up some discussions during debates, so will have to leave it to those who are. But I'm sure you don't need to get new genes. Just tinkering with the ones you have, switching chromosomes on and off and altering genes and chromosomes by mutation will change the results and effectively create 'new Information' the Old information' being lost. It is simply changing it and is al that is needed for change. And change is all that evolution is. It is all that evolution needs. I think you are trying to invent practical barrier to change, since the 'dogs from cats' nonsense has been busted tjhough I not that you revert back to it, Old pal , is countering the dog -breed point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Wonderful. Then it should be easy for you to post just one fact that supports evolution.
I have donned my prophecy hat and I predict he will not do it.
Yet another epic fail old chum.
Good heavens The evidence has been provided in heaps in just this one thread. The fossil evidence, the transitionals, the morphology, the genetic markers and the descriptive mechanisms and the real time changes that we see within species, that are in fact the only evid3ecne evolution really needs.
All you have done it to post objections to the evidence, or rather rejection of it. And all have been debunked. Even by a laybod like me on genetics. I'm sure Matadora could do a better job of it.
And perhaps the points about the expanding universe could be put like this, using the wall analogy. The sta.
There are markers on the wall, finials, saucers, garden gnomes, take your pick, and they start to move apart. Also the bricks elongate. The theory that best fits the facts s that the wall is being stretched out. Thar the gnomes are shrinking and the bricks slimming down to give the illusion of a stretching wall is absurd, though you can't disprove it. But the evidence is massively in favour of an elongating wall. It is the same with the evidence of an expanding universe.
(1) It reminds me, Folks of a long -since 88 -page debate with a creationist on a remark by an evolutionist (Hill, I believe) "Evolution is a fairy -tale" and "You canot find a single identifiable ancestor" For 80 pages we explained the context - that the common conception based on over simplified line of decent drawings is not the actual explanation, non more tha the electons orbiting a protoin like a minature solar system is anything like an atom. It is a simple diagram. We also explained that not being to point to specific fossils as an 'ancestor' did not mean that fossil ancestry didn't happen.
If i may use an analogy, which cine -camera is the ancestor of television? You canot point to a missing link, though devolution of technology is evident. But the Creationist simply would not listen and insisted that the evolutionisthad said that and it debunked evolution, even though, like Omega here, he insists on Gould's wording debunking evolution even though Gould wrot himself that it it didn't.
It's the same as 'Einstein believed in God' even though Einstein said clearly that he didn't. It is either denial or lying, and I am never sure which.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-06-2017 at 09:57 AM..
I suspect that even the most avid creationists are blushing with embarrassment and would like to disown you at this point. Personally, I suspect you are just a troll having some fun seeing how absurd you can be.
BTW: If there are any creationists lurking in this thread, I would encourage you to step out of the shadows and tell us what you think of omega's assertion that we can't know if the universe is expanding because we can see the edge of it. Do you want set up camp in his leaky boat and sink with him? Or abandon ship and admit that this particular creationist is beyond the pale, even by creationist standards?
Just to be clear: My balloon analogy is a good quick 'n' dirty explanation for how we are able to determine whether space is expanding, contracting, or in a steady state. But it is just an analogy, so some cautionary remarks are worth noting. The universe is almost certainly not actually a sphere that is expanding like a balloon out into some void. There is, for example, no point in the universe that is "closer to the middle" or "closer to the edge" than any other. Every point in the universe is "the center of the universe" from the perspective of that point (just as every point on the surface of a sphere is the "center" of the surface of the sphere). In the analogy, the 2D surface of the balloon represents 3D space. Also keep in mind that it is space itself that is expanding. In other words, it is not just that objects in space are flying further apart, like bits of matter in an explosion. There is no "absolute space" frame of reference that you can use to say that objects are flying further apart in that simplistic "explosion" sense of the term. Rather, space itself is expanding, so light waves "stretch out" and since longer wavelengths are "redder" we call this a "red shift."
Now, of course, independently of the expansion of space, some objects are moving relative to each other, and because of this, some galaxies are actually moving towards each other, despite the overall expansion of space. (E.g., the Milky Way and Andromeda will eventually collide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androm..._Way_collision ) But, again, this type of relative movement is independent of the expansion of space, so it doesn't count as any sort of evidence against the expansion of space.
But, of course, my main point here is that simply asserting "you can't say something is expanding unless you can see the outer edges" does not count as an argument or explanation. It is merely a bald assertion without any logical or empirical support whatsoever. I gave a perfectly good explanation for how we can, in fact, measure the rate of expansion without "seeing the outer edge." Simply asserting, yet again, that "you can't say something is expanding unless you can see the outer edges" is a bit like closing your eyes and plugging your ears and screaming "You can't do that! You can't do that!" over and over while someone shows you exactly how you can to do that. Indeed, this is essentially what omega has been doing with all of the evidence and arguments we've been offering for evolution.
Huh? Where are you getting that idea?
Hopefully now I have cleared up this confusion about "the edge" of the universe. There is no edge. Every point is the center of the universe.
I am a creationist (an old earth creationist) in that I think that God is the ultimate cause of the Universe, and I have commented on and debunked Omega's assertion regarding the need to be able to see the edge of the Universe to know if it's expanding in posts #61, 70, 113, 124, and just this morning, post #152. I'm also greatly interested in the possibility of a multiverse which various theories such as, inflation, string theory, and quantum mechanics predict.
And the balloon analogy is a good one and is used by physicists to illustrate the expansion of the Universe.
I am a creationist (an old earth creationist) in that I think that God is the ultimate cause of the Universe, and I have commented on and debunked Omega's assertion regarding the need to be able to see the edge of the Universe to know if it's expanding in posts #61, 70, 113, 124, and just this morning, post #152. I'm also greatly interested in the possibility of a multiverse which various theories such as, inflation, string theory, and quantum mechanics predict.
And the balloon analogy is a good one and is used by physicists to illustrate the expansion of the Universe.
Yes, except that the spots on the inside of the balloon cannot get bigger, or the relative distance between them will stay the same. If they enlarged, the the observer could equally well be shrinking. But it's a good analogy all the same.
Yes, except that the spots on the inside of the balloon cannot get bigger, or the relative distance between them will stay the same. If they enlarged, the the observer could equally well be shrinking. But it's a good analogy all the same.
The balloon analogy doesn't presume that the spots get bigger. The analogy is merely for the purpose of illustrating how space itself expands. The raisin muffin in the oven analogy is a good one. The raisins represent the galaxies. As the muffin bakes and expands and gets bigger, the space between the raisins increases but the raisins themselves remain the same size.
The gravitational attraction of the stars within the galaxy (the raisin) keeps the galaxy itself from getting bigger with the expansion of space.
Last edited by Michael Way; 10-06-2017 at 10:19 AM..
He never had it. There is nothing to beat bananaman. But that's the remarkable thing about Creationist car -crashes. After the atheists nitemare, Crocoduck, The Nye ham debate (1), these people should have slunk away defeated. But they just carry on as before. Shifting position as necessary. But it is great fun debunking claim after claim. The grand canyon, Lucy 'just a few bones', polystrates, Ark feasibility, Koalas fired to Australia by Volcanoes (yes that's a bit of a laugh), the 'Rate' (fake science) attempt to debunk old earth dates, ..Oh, and Science in the Bible.
They lost Archeopteryx, I/C, Frozen mammoths, distance of the Moon, the ice -cover theory, Thermodynamics 2, either apes or men, oh, and the 'faster running' (or lighter floating) animals explains stratified fossils. Well, that never did and was so laughably inept as well as totally failing to explain or even match the evidence, that it really is another reason why people laugh at creationists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmUGJ3Jh7fc
(1) it seems that Ken Hovind has 'retired', not so much because he was jailed for fraud, or because he's too old, but too many of his earlier spiels have been debunked. His alternative science textbook os totally out of date.
You have no evidence that hoofs were ever toes or that fins were ever legs. Both are genetically impossible.
Of course. Both are the same species, dog. The species didn't change, only the variety changed. When 2 dogs mating produce something other than another dog, get back to me.
What the <bleep> hell does two dogs mating have to do with evidence or proof of evolution?
If mating dogs were to produce a cat we would have undeniable proof of creation!
But you know that will never happen -
there never will be proof of creation.
Ok, you say leg to flipper mutation is genetically impossible. Fine. Prove it.
Last edited by mensaguy; 10-06-2017 at 11:58 AM..
Reason: language
The balloon analogy doesn't presume that the spots get bigger. The analogy is merely for the purpose of illustrating how space itself expands. The raisin muffin in the oven analogy is a good one. The raisins represent the galaxies. As the muffin bakes and expands and gets bigger, the space between the raisins increases but the raisins themselves remain the same size.
The gravitational attraction of the stars within the galaxy (the raisin) keeps the galaxy itself from getting bigger with the expansion of space.
Yes, yes. But the mental image of an expanding balloon, in practice would have the spots getting bigger, It has to be explained that in the analogy, they wouldn't, or the analogy would fail. The only way you could prove the balloon was expanding rather than the observer shrinking is by reference to the room the balloon was in, and as Omega here points out, we have no frame of reference outside the universe.
And now, I note that out Pal EusegemaXXX fulfilled another prediction. Tried to use my material against me. Unfortunately for him, everyone can see that we are backing our claims up and he has nothing .
But I mentioned one of the reasons why Flood scenarios failed was stratified fossils and the lame attempts of Creationists to explain them as more developed animals run faster and so beat the flood waters up the mountainside. Which is why we find Veloceraptors and pterosaurs in the upper strata and Cassowaries and Elephants in the lower. I don't think.
But strata made me remember a Eusebian favourite. We Evilooshunists argue that a flood ought to leave one massive flood layer with all the animals from Trilobites to Tapirs jumbled in. But we find instead strata representing geological ages each with a distinct fossils in and all representing an evolutionary development and not one (in situ) in the wrong strata. (1) And Ken Ham has the audacity to say in public that if the Flood was true we should find all the animals jumbled together (don't recall if he actually said in one layer) and 'What do we find? All the animals jumbled together!"
This is such a blatant lie that I can only assume that he knows it's a lie and doesn't care. I just don't know whether it's because he believes on faith and the evidence is irrelevant or because it is a money -making job for him. There is evidence that it's the latter with him (as with Eric Hovind - heavy marketing for products), or it could be both
But to get back to the one strata idea, the Eusebian favourite was Hydrographic sorting or some thing like that. Now there's a video, but I haven't watched it yet.
First in Paul makes a mistake . in responding to the 'Real evidence' remark he says "All evidence is evidence". Not his fault . He would never have imagined someone trying to argue that even bad evidence was still "evidence" as someone here (who I shall not name) tried to argue once as did his one irritating disciple, who hasn't been around for a while
Well, that about wraps it up for hydrologic sorting. And I won't be bothering with the game show, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy
What the <bleep> hell does two dogs mating have to do with evidence or proof of evolution?
If mating dogs were to produce a cat we would have undeniable proof of creation!
But you know that will never happen -
there never will be proof of creation.
Ok, you say leg to flipper mutation is genetically impossible. Fine. Prove it.
Although he appears to understand and half (grudgingly) accept that evolution claims to work through change through natural selection through genetic mutation, he reverts to some ingrained Creations cats giving birth to dogma.
Yes, while he denied the evidence of leg to flipper (and presumably fin to leg) actually happening (the living fosil coelecanth showns the latter feature) he has nothing to back up the denial but "Impossible'. Now that is a claim he has to prove, but we don't demand His levels of proof, but just some scientifically valid explanation of a genetic barrier to any such thing occuring.
Thord prediction. We'll get none, but maybe 'educate yourselves' or something like that.
(1) of course there is wash in, as in a later odd animal bone into Devonian ocean deposits. Such OOB's are to be expected. But a skeleton of a cheetah, found in situ in Jurassic strata would, as Bill Nye says, completely bust evolution. That nothing of the kind has been found is evidence that busts the Flood theory.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-06-2017 at 12:08 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, is countering the dog -breed point.
The evidence has been provided in heaps in just this one thread. The fossil evidence, the transitionals, the morphology, the genetic markers and the descriptive mechanisms and the real time changes that we see within species, that are in fact the only evid3ecne evolution really needs.
. in responding to the 'Real evidence' remark he says "All evidence is evidence". Not his fault 
. He would never have imagined someone trying to argue that even bad evidence was still "evidence" as someone here (who I shall not name) tried to argue once as did his one irritating disciple, who hasn't been around for a while 
