Best Evidence for Evolution.

[Hank]

Which it is. Newton said that a body in motion tends to remain in motion.
When taken in context, immovable is not the same as doesn't move. It simply means that we can not change its motion.

You can’t seriously be saying that the earth is not changing it’s motion. It’s slowing down in it’s rotation speed as well as being pulled in different directions by the sun, planets, and every other object in our solar system.

The crust is overlying the foundation. See www.creationscience.com

Lol, it’s the foundations of the earth Bob, not the foundation of the crust of the earth.

I believe in relative motion and hence that Joshua's Long Day was an observable fact.

Lol, I love debating with you Bob. You are a laugh a minute. Of course you believe in relative motion. That way you can say that the universe revolves around you.

I use common sense. A short phrase can be figurative but extended narratives like creation week and the Flood are not "figurative". Call that selective, but that is a good thing when we use common sense.

And the reason an extended narrative can not be figurative is?…….”drum roll please”

Evidence does not either lie or tell the truth. It is people who interpret the evidence that can be in error. You do not consider that it may be you and your evolutionary friends who are interpreting the evidence in error.

Of course the scientist that interpret the evidence can be in error. But the fact that the earth is not 6000 years old has been proven beyond doubt by any reasonable person.

As I pointed out above briefly there is good reason to believe it.

Yes and the reason was because it didn’t agree with the way the religious leaders interpreted the Bible.

I gave a truthful answer. However, one might speculate that if the expansion was completed on the first day then all of the events we are seeing today took place in the past (which is always true anyway).

You avoided answering the question Bob. If the earth is 6000 years old and the light from the explosion came from an object that is more than 6000 light years away, then according to your “evidence”, it must have been created and then immediately destroyed. You really know how to use that common sense. lol

I change depending on the context. In the first case I remarked that one cannot verify a speculation scientifically. In the second case I stated what I believe happened (without the qualfication).

Nice dodge, but neither fit with the evidence.

One can read them (included those rejected) and decide for oneself. I think they did an adequate job. Which ones do you disagree with? and why?

So again, why was the Catholic Church right when they selected the books which are considered the word of God and not now? Can you answer a simple question?

Me of course.

Of course, since you’re in the upper 99% percentile you must be right. lol

The Big Bang rapid expansion of the coordinates of space (God stretching out the heavens) has inadvertently provided the answer to how we can see faraway stars in a yound universe. It may also explain how the rocks can be dated radiometrically at billions of years when they only were created on the first day of creation just a few thousand yeras ago.

If the stretching out produces the red shift, what produces the blue shift in some objects?

Science marches on (and leaves the fallible theories of men in shambles in its wake).

Yep, the fallible theories that the earth is flat, the earth rotates around the sun, and the earth is 6000 years old is in shambles.

 

[bob b]

Hank apparently does not know that scientists believe that there are three phenomena which can cause a shift in light waves:

1) velocity (redshift if the object is receding, blue if it is approaching),

2) gravity,

3) expansion of the coordinates of space.

The Big Bang assumes that after the initial period of rapid expansion the rate slowed drastically to a rate so slow that the universe only reached its current size after 13.5 billion years: i.e. it is still expanding.

However, if the initial rate of expansion had continued only
0.00000000000000000000000000000001 second more, then the universe would have reached its current size, and then instead of merely slowing down drastically would probably have stopped expanding completely.

Naturally, I would assume that all this happened some 6000 years ago (or possibly 7000 if one accepts the LXX chronology).

It seems like it would not be possible to determine scientifically which alternative is true, because the velocity light wave shift of nearby stars (within 6000 light years) due to their "proper motion" is much greater (10 times) than the currently assumed red shift due to the expansion of the coordinates of space.

 

[The Barbarian]

It seems like it would not be possible to determine scientifically which alternative is true, because the velocity light wave shift of nearby stars (within 6000 light years) due to their "proper motion" is much greater (10 times) than the currently assumed red shift due to the expansion of the coordinates of space.

Wow. Which local star has a red shift greater than distant galaxies? Such a velocity should be immediately apparent to amatuer astronomers, and the star would be very quickly gone from our immediate vicinity.

 

[Hank]

However, if the initial rate of expansion had continued only
0.00000000000000000000000000000001 second more, then the universe would have reached its current size, and then instead of merely slowing down drastically would probably have stopped expanding completely.

WOW. Can you show you calculations on where that number came from?

 

[Dopey Gigglz]

It seems like it would not be possible to determine scientifically which alternative is true, because the velocity light wave shift of nearby stars (within 6000 light years) due to their "proper motion" is much greater (10 times) than the currently assumed red shift due to the expansion of the coordinates of space.

What evidence do you have that the velocity is so much greater than what has been accepted?

ps. Barbarian from BasicTheology.com (R.I.P.)?

 

[bob b]

WOW. Can you show you calculations on where that number came from?

Yes, but it would be better for you to do the calculation yourself.

First, calculate the size of the universe in feet.

At the end of the first rapid expansion of the universe it has been said by scientists that the universe would have been the size of a grapefruit. For simplicity assume 1 foot. Then see how many times the universe would have had to expand by to go from 1 foot to its present size in feet. Call this multiplier X.

When you have finished that then I will reveal to you the final answer. Please show your work. Use engineering/scientific notation so we don't have to count the number of places in the answer.

 

[Andre1983]

...

I'm starting to think that you possibly may have been using the number 6000 years for calculating the speed in the expansion...

At the least, you recognized that all the mass in the universe, however compact, would take more space than the regular "tiny dot".
Grapefruit sounds fine.

Let us assume an expansion close to the speed of light...

9 400 000 000 000 km / year

13 billion years yield:
9400000000000*13000000000

122 200 000 000 000 000 000 000 km, radius ; 244400000000000000000000 diameter.

733 200 000 000 000 000 000 000 feet wide

Or if you will: The universe is ~26 billion lightyears wide, if we assume that light follows the rules we really wish it did.

But alas it does not, if we are to believe scientists in the area of space-time and relativity, who claim that light moves relative to ... everything -- so if the universe expanded at a given speed, the light would move at a relative speed of the speed of light compared to that expanding universe; the "relative time" 'slows down' to allow light to travel at light speed away from the expansion...
Aka: Traveling at the speed of light means that time stands relatively still untill you've burnt away your fuel or burnt away your sails.

If we assume it follows general relativity we get a completely different number; namely 156 billion lightyears wide -- which is based on an estimate I really can't go into due to severe lack of understanding of relative space time...
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html

 

[bob b]

...I'm starting to think that you possibly may have been using the number 6000 years for calculating the speed in the expansion...

You would be dead wrong. I used the rate of the initial expansion that the Big Bang assumes.

...

If we assume it follows general relativity we get a completely different number; namely 156 billion lightyears wide -- which is based on an estimate I really can't go into due to severe lack of understanding of relative space time...
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html[/QUOTE]

I would agree only that you have a severe lack of understanding.

 

[mighty_duck]

For simplicity assume 1 foot. Then see how many times the universe would have had to expand by to go from 1 foot to its present size in feet. Call this multiplier X.

Bob,

I've seen you make this claim many times on this site. But being a science lover and a trained engineer, you must realize that to maintain a constant "expansion rate" the actual velocity would have to increase exponentially.

For example. If you are one mile from your house, and travel at 60 MPH for an hour, you would be 60 times farther from your house after one hour. For your theory to hold, and the "expansion" continues for another hour, we should be 60 times farther from the one hour mark, or 3600 miles. But for that to happen, our velocity would have to increase from 60 MPH to 3540 MPH. It would then have to stop all of a sudden, and reach the modern rate of expansion.

There is nothing in scientific theory that would account for this amazing increase in velocity, or for it's sudden stop. Why not just stick with godidit?

 

[bob b]

There is nothing in scientific theory that would account for this amazing increase in velocity, or for it's sudden stop. Why not just stick with godidit?

Wrong. The scientific theory in question is the Big Bang, and during the inflationary epoch the coordinates of the universe undergo an expansion which is millions of times faster than the speed of light.

As the article "Cosmic Inflation" explains this seemingly contradiction with the maximum speed of light: the expansion is only in the coordinates, in effect objects are not moving at all, only the space between the objects is expanding.

And yes, the expansion is exponential.

"In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation is the idea that the nascent universe passed through a phase of exponential expansion"
Wikipedia article on Cosmic Inflation.

Hey, I did not invent this, the Big Bang guys did it in order to solve their own speed of light problem: the so-called Horizon Problem.

All I did was calculate what would have happened if the expansion had lasted a tiny bit longer: 0.000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds longer, after all, that is the same length of time that they assumed for their initial expansion to the size of a grapefruit.

Why can't I use the same assumptions that they did? (with a slight "twist" :think: )

 

[Andre1983]

All I did was calculate what would have happened if the expansion had lasted a tiny bit longer: 0.000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds longer, after all, that is the same length of time that they assumed for their initial expansion to the size of a grapefruit.

Why can't I use the same assumptions that they did? (with a slight "twist" :think: )

1. What's the numbers you used...

2. what was "their" "assumptions"?

 

[bob_bee]

Hank apparently does not know that scientists believe that there are three phenomena which can cause a shift in light waves:

1) velocity (redshift if the object is receding, blue if it is approaching),

2) gravity,

3) expansion of the coordinates of space.

The Big Bang assumes that after the initial period of rapid expansion the rate slowed drastically to a rate so slow that the universe only reached its current size after 13.5 billion years: i.e. it is still expanding.

However, if the initial rate of expansion had continued only
0.00000000000000000000000000000001 second more, then the universe would have reached its current size, and then instead of merely slowing down drastically would probably have stopped expanding completely.

Naturally, I would assume that all this happened some 6000 years ago (or possibly 7000 if one accepts the LXX chronology).

It seems like it would not be possible to determine scientifically which alternative is true, because the velocity light wave shift of nearby stars (within 6000 light years) due to their "proper motion" is much greater (10 times) than the currently assumed red shift due to the expansion of the coordinates of space.

I can't believe bob_b is still peddling this magic theory of his.

I'll save everyone the trouble of researching themselves and figuring out the error (something any 5th grader could do).

The reason bob b's magic theory wouldn't work is that the conditions that allowed inflation to exist - no gravity for one, would cease to exist once the universe got to a certain size - bob's grapefruit.

It's not hard to understand, yet the huckster continues to bring this up as if he's discovered something.

 

[bob b]

1. What's the numbers you used...
2. what was "their" "assumptions"?

From wikipedia article on "Cosmic Inflation":
"A key requirement is that inflation must continue long enough to produce the present observable universe from a single, small inflationary Hubble volume. This is necessary to ensure that the universe appears flat, homogeneous and isotropic at the largest observable scales. This requirement is generally thought to be satisfied if the universe expanded by a factor of at least 10²⁶ during inflation.[6] At the end of inflation, a process called reheating occurs, in which the inflaton particles decay into the radiation that starts the hot big bang. It is not known how long inflation lasted but it is usually thought to be extremely short compared to the age of the universe. Assuming that the energy scale of inflation is between 10¹⁵ and 10¹⁶ GeV, as is suggested by the simplest models, the period of inflation responsible for the observable universe probably lasted roughly 10^-33 seconds.[7]

 

[mighty_duck]

Why can't I use the same assumptions that they did? (with a slight "twist" :think: )

Because you are assuming that as early as 6000 years ago, particals were traveling at 10^35 the speed of light, and then came to a thunderous stop, leaving the universe as it is now. How do you account for that, besides evoking godidit?

 

[bob_bee]

Because you are assuming that as early as 6000 years ago, particals were traveling at 10^35 the speed of light, and then came to a thunderous stop, leaving the universe as it is now. How do you account for that, besides evoking godidit?

bob b doesn't have to prove anything. Here's how this argument will go.

Us: The reason they think inflation stopped when it did was because of this equation, and these ones.
Him: You believe math? Why, 35 years ago I had some engineers working for me who believed math, but guess what they were wrong. Beliving in math is just like believing in a God, you worship [insert idea here examples. Atheism, science, Math, physics, geology]!
Us: Shouldn't you be at home watching Price is Right rather than masquerading as some sort of science lover?
Him: Admins please ban these fellows, they have found me out.
Us: Banned!

 

[Ktoyou]

Why cannot you believe the universe is very old and the earth is very old? God is outside time and may have created the universe outside of time and created the earth by a natural extension inside time.

Couldn’t evolution have occurred without having humans finding their geneses, a product of evolution?

 

[bob b]

Because you are assuming that as early as 6000 years ago, particals were traveling at 10^35 the speed of light, and then came to a thunderous stop, leaving the universe as it is now. How do you account for that, besides evoking godidit?

Actually the particles were not moving at all! It was only the coordinates that were expanding.

But the Big Bang proponents not only also believe that the expansion stopped abruptly (relatively speaking), but they also believe there are zillions of parallel universes being constantly created out of the "quantum foam".

Why do you believe them? Apparently this "foam"must be their god.

Oh, I know. They have equations that you don't understand but they must be correct since they are scientists.

At least that was why the Church went with the well established science of Aristotle and tried to ignore that young upstart Galileo.

 

[bob b]

Why cannot you believe the universe is very old and the earth is very old? God is outside time and may have created the universe outside of time and created the earth by a natural extension inside time.

Just a hunch.

Couldn’t evolution have occurred without have humans finding their geneses, a product of evolution?

If by "evolution" you mean "random mutations plus natural selection", I must say that this idea has got to be the silliest thing I ever ran across in my long career in Aerospace (and there were lots of silly ideas proposed to the military and many actually got funded).

 

[bob_bee]

And bob b is still afraid to confront the bee...

 

[mighty_duck]

Actually the particles were not moving at all! It was only the coordinates that were expanding.

So they weren't moving, its just the place where they were was changing? Don't know hot to break it to you, but that's what movement is.:kookoo:

But the Big Bang proponents not only also believe that the expansion stopped abruptly (relatively speaking),

They have proposed mechanisms of how it slowed down to current levels. You don't. The scientists win.

but they also believe there are zillions of parallel universes being constantly created out of the "quantum foam".

Why do you believe them? Apparently this "foam"must be their god.

The "foam" (if it exists) doesn't have an agenda, so it doesn't qualify as any type of god.

Oh, I know. They have equations that you don't understand but they must be correct since they are scientists.

At least that was why the Church went with the well established science of Aristotle and tried to ignore that young upstart Galileo.

Your powers to turn lemons to lemonade amaze me!

The reason the church refused to accept Galileo's science was because it contradicted what they believed the Bible said, which is exactly your position vis-a-vis creation. You are not Galileo in this analogy, but rather the ignorant medieval Church.