Did the universe evolve?

[Socratism]

I just discovered this new section and am thrilled that there is now a more suitable place to discuss things I am interested in.

I think it is amazing that the entire field of astronomy is based on such flimsey foundational knowledge and theories (sort of like evolutionary biology).

Because of these weak foundations it is more than likely that we will see considerable change of thinking in this area as soon as the current crop of theorists die off and are replaced by those not totally committed to current theories.

It is my belief that "softspots" in thinking can be easily identified by looking for areas where multiple competing theories are found or where "new" ideas pop up regularly. These things are almost sure signs that nobody really understands what the heck is going on.

Let me start by mentioning a few "softspots" in current thinking and inviting others to add to the list:

[1] Early star formation, prior to where gravitation takes over.

[2] Reduction in speed of light.

[3] Planetary and moon formation.

[4] Expansion of space. Is it happening?

[5] Primary cause of Red Shift (velocity & gravity may be only secondary).

Some astronomers believe the "best is yet to come" as a wave of new ideas is about to totally sweep away virtually all of the current crop of theories in this dynamic field.

For a "taste" of what might be coming (or not) see:

http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Abstracts


http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Forum&Folder=5

[Sher]

Did the universe evolve?

Sure ... everything evolves ... but not in the equivocal way that the evolutionists would have us believe ... that's why I prefer the word adapts.

I'd be interested to hear more too :smile;

[wienerdog]

I would say that the atheists/naturalists try to equate the change the universe experiences with evolutionary biology in order to create the false dilemma of having to accept either both or neither of them. Star formation is not even remotely like life arising from non-life or one kind of life evolving into another kind. They call it evolution in order to polarize their audiences.

[Sher]

Today @ 04:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=110344#post110344)
wienerdog:

They call it evolution in order to polarize their audiences.

Amen! I could not agree more :thumb:

That is what frustrates me ... aside from the fact that I am not a scientist, and they usually don't respect that ... about trying to get into a conversation with any of them. The strict adherence to that term for the purposes of ridicule makes me ==> :rant: I do wholeheartly believe there have been changes since the world began ... anyone can see changes over the years ... but those changes, which nearly NO Creationist will deny, are lumped together in terminology with the unobservable macroevolution.

... and then they laugh at us

... "You don't believe in evolution ... what an idiot"

:no:

[wienerdog]

Yeah, although I would say that I'm not as "offended" by evolution as some creationists are. I don't think it can be reasonably reconciled with Genesis 1 and 2, but that would simply be an issue about inerrancy. I don't think the attempt to date the exodus during the reign of Rameses instead of Amenhotep can be reasonably reconciled with the biblical witness, but I don't stress too much about it.

The offense seems to be that it would be a cruel and wasteful way for God to create, but I just don't see that. It would only be cruel if animal suffering was equivalent to human suffering--and this seems to assume that human beings are merely animals, which I reject. And it would only be wasteful if God was in a hurry, which he obviously wasn't.

[Science Boy]

Hello socratism

You are right, sort of. There is a lot of theoretical work being done on the edge of understanding. It is how science progresses. Relativity was nothing more than a supreme educated guess by Einstein, but he was right. It is proven.

The same can be true for other theories, or not.

You seem to ignore that much of astronomy is based on OBSERVATION, not just theory. It is the combination of observation with theory that gives modern cosmology the strength it has.

Perhaps you should include some actual problems with the things you listed instead of just pointing out that you are skeptical of them. I would gladly discuss them with you.

Things like planetary formation are now directly OBSERVED in other solar systems. This is how the theories are being modified, it is not competing theories, it is observation correcting errors in the theory. This is how science works, it is not a flaw, it IS science.

I welcome any civil discussion on these topics.

Redshift is essentially proven to be caused by the expansion of the universe. Please provide observational and experimental and theoretical (all three) evidence to support any other claims you may have regarding it. Otherwise, you are just guessing and that seems to be your primary problem with theory.

Tony

[TheOneAndOnly]

"It is the combination of observation with theory that gives modern cosmology the strength it has."

Like observing that there's not enough matter to account for galactic rotations, so making up "dark matter" to plug the hole.

Is there any theory that can fully account for the creation of the solar system, let alone the milky way?

[bigsplit]

I posted an alternative version of Red Shift interpretation in this very room. Big Bang alt. I agree that there is acceleration and expantion, but not with direction (I say in, you say out). My idea of the Universe does not require dark matter to justify the increase in the acceleration, it predicts it. It also predicts that the amounds of dark matter necessary will continue to increase. Read the thread, I would be more than happy to discuss it with you.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13189

[Science Boy]

Yesterday @ 04:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=326260#post326260)
TheOneAndOnly:

"It is the combination of observation with theory that gives modern cosmology the strength it has."

Like observing that there's not enough matter to account for galactic rotations, so making up "dark matter" to plug the hole.

Is there any theory that can fully account for the creation of the solar system, let alone the milky way?

I seem to find a long running trend of creationist weapons being mostly scoffing at things they don't understand. Not actually providing specific problems, just making fun of complex subjects that are difficult to understand.

Dark matter, you seem to imply that it is an add-on to fix problems with other parts of science. Not true. Galactic rotation rates are not the only evidence for dark matter. Gravitational lensing intensity is direct PROOF that something else is there. Science is filled with thousands of 'accidental' discoveries that were not immediately obvious or seemed to break the laws of physics.

A couple of examples

Helium was discovered in the sun before it was found here on earth based on spectal lines.

Neutron stars/pulsars were discovered when we started picking up orderly pulses of radio from distant parts of the galaxy.

The nature of the nucleus was discovered when particles started bouncing back as we shot them at thin foils.

Radio, X rays and other regions of the spectrum were discovered by observations of odd effects.

The list goes on and on. You didn't even mention dark energy and that makes up 65% of the mass/energy budget of the universe. I would think you would jump all over that.

If you have a better, all inclusive, self-supportive model of the universe that better describes the things we see around us, please share it with us. I will nominate you for the Nobel prize myself.

Tony the Science Boy

The section (Cosmogony) that you are posting in is reserved for Creationist discussion only. Since you are a professing atheist you shouldn't be posting here.

Thanks. If you have any questions or would like the content of your post forwarded to you just PM (private message) or email me.

[dizzle]

Hold it everyone.... there are guidelines for this section that it is for creationists only. Please abide. The general science area has no such restrictions.

[luvluv]

weinerdog:

Where did you get that quote from Dallas Willard?

[Science Boy]

I read your thread, interesting, but you have a few problems (that have nothing to do with theism, atheism, god, evolution or ANYTHING forbidden here)

I quote

>>My Alternative theory is based on Gods separation of the darkness and the light. I call this the Big Split. The first assumption is that the only nothingness that is possible would be if all the matter in the Universe were broken down into it elementary particle charges and cancelled out we would have neutrality. This is the only nothing that is possible in our Universe.<<

This is not true. Elementary particles, even if you have two anti-particles, never cancel each other out into nothingness. E=mc2 proves that if you try to get rid of matter, you get energy in its place. Energy has 'mass' in our universe as well (higgs field interactions??) SO, your base assumption is not correct.

>>Beta decay is when a neutron splits into a proton and electron, this is what God did, it says so in Genesis. This gave us the materials needed for electromagnetism and a cosmic spin began. <<

Hmmmm, conservation of angular momentum? Basic, church sponsored physics here. Need mechanism for the spin. Falling towards a massive center can convert linear to angular momentum but you have no such mechanism.


>>The dynamics then began to generate mass in the form of Vorticies of varying size and magnatude, as well as the development of matter and mass. <<

VERY vague. What mechanism? What dynamics? Matter and mass are the same thing (in this context)


>>There is also a center vorticies that created a cosmic vortex and all matter is falling towards the center. <<

There is no evidence at all that this is true. Just the opposite. Doppler shift is proven in the lab. Redshift - away, blueshift - towards.


>>The doppler red shift is created by the increase speed created by the declining circumferance of the vortex as bodies continue to fall towards the center. Kinda like a toilet bowl flush. There is much more to my theory, but it is important to conceptualize this aspect of it first and foremost.<<

This would generate an infinite variety of red and blue shifts depending on where you were in the vortex. We see only redshift for distant galaxies, any with blue shift are close enough that we can observe them closely and they orbit each other, not a vortex

We can work on it though. I am all for other ways of making the universe, they must match observation though or they are of no use.

I have an OEC creation idea that I have been working on. If I am not removed for thought crimes (<g>) I will share.

Tony

Tony we have discussed this. If you would like your post returned to you by PM just let me know. - Dee Dee