Thread: Did the universe evolve?
May 23rd 2003, 09:58 AM #1
Did the universe evolve?
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:
 Early star formation, prior to where gravitation takes over.
 Reduction in speed of light.
 Planetary and moon formation.
 Expansion of space. Is it happening?
 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:
Last edited by Socratism; May 23rd 2003 at 10:30 AM.THE leading cause of atheism is evolution, closely followed by compromising Christians.
May 23rd 2003, 05:51 PM #2
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;
May 28th 2003, 04:57 PM #3
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."We live in a culture that has, for centuries now, cultivated the idea that the skeptical person is always smarter than one who believes. You can be almost as stupid as a cabbage, as long as you doubt. The fashion of the age has identified mental sharpness with a pose, not with genuine intellectual method and character...Today it is the skeptics who are the social conformists, though because of powerful intellectual propaganda they continue to enjoy thinking of themselves as wildly individualistic and unbearably bright."
May 28th 2003, 07:29 PM #4Today @ 04:57 PM post located here
They call it evolution in order to polarize their audiences.
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 ==> 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"
June 2nd 2003, 09:36 PM #5
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."We live in a culture that has, for centuries now, cultivated the idea that the skeptical person is always smarter than one who believes. You can be almost as stupid as a cabbage, as long as you doubt. The fashion of the age has identified mental sharpness with a pose, not with genuine intellectual method and character...Today it is the skeptics who are the social conformists, though because of powerful intellectual propaganda they continue to enjoy thinking of themselves as wildly individualistic and unbearably bright."
December 4th 2003, 12:45 PM #6
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.
December 4th 2003, 12:59 PM #7
"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?
December 4th 2003, 01:27 PM #8
Science Boy - see the thread
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.
December 5th 2003, 05:56 PM #9
• Edited by a Moderator •
Last edited by TheFiveSolas; December 5th 2003 at 09:52 PM.
December 5th 2003, 06:03 PM #10
December 5th 2003, 07:01 PM #11
Where did you get that quote from Dallas Willard?
December 10th 2003, 10:59 AM #12
Bigsplit, let me help
• Edited by a Moderator •
By Calvinist4Him in forum AmphitheaterReplies: 15Last Post: May 3rd 2013, 05:34 PM
By jason in forum Natural Science 301Replies: 53Last Post: March 6th 2007, 03:07 PM
By Duder in forum LDS - MormonismReplies: 11Last Post: February 19th 2007, 04:49 AM
By brother vinny in forum Natural Science 301Replies: 8Last Post: December 17th 2006, 04:03 PM
By TheOneAndOnly in forum Natural Science 301Replies: 11Last Post: June 27th 2004, 04:20 PM