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
wienerdog:

They call it evolution in order to polarize their audiences.

Amen! I could not agree more

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"

[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/sho...threadid=13189

[Science Boy]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderator Notice

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.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Moderator Notice

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.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[luvluv]

weinerdog:

Where did you get that quote from Dallas Willard?

[Science Boy]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderator Notice

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

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.