How can we see distant stars in a young universe?

caddy · Apr 14, 2005

Bunk!

Miller Urey was was an experiment, nothing more than that, and one now that has been proven to be a poor one, but alas, we ALL have to deal with fits and starts. Most of us learn more from our failures and errors in thought than we do from our successes and good ideas!

As for reading the post, yes I read it, does that mean I have to be intimately acquainted with Humphreys? No! You seem to have a problem that I don't know him better than what I do. I merely stated the link was interesting reading, nothing more. From there you're drawing all kinds of assumptions on statements you think I've made but haven't.

Some people get worked up over NOTHING!

Have you read Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895262002/qid=1113495477/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-4689134-8560802?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

I am in favor of a dialogue between science and religion, but not a constructive dialogue. One of the great achievments of science has been, if not to make it impossible for an intelligent person to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment
Physicist Steven Weinberg

Jet Black said:
the Miller Urey experiments were proof of the abiotic synthesis of amino acids and other important chemicals. Please find me a sience book that treats these experiments as a "valid proof of evolution" I would be most fascinated. Creationists often claim that textbooks do this, but when asked all the textbooks seem to vanish.

really? did you actaully read the link you posted? your statement that you are unfamiliar with Humphreys indicates that you don't actually have a clue as to what is "very interesting" and are simply accepting anything you want to hear.

Edx · Apr 14, 2005

3Amig(o)s said:
I really don't see what's wrong with a miracle? I mean he is God, right? Can't he do anything?

Because a miracle isnt scientific.

Anyway, you guys CAN'T say that your "BELIEF" in Evolution is not a type of religion/faith/belief system...

Of course you can.

All you have to do is not "believe it", but logically and reasonably accept conclusions based only on the evidence.

1. You have to BELIEVE there's no God

Evolution has nothing to do with this.

2. You have to BELIEVE that either:
A. Matter has always been here

Same as above.

B. Matter was created by something, but where did this creator come from - is he a GOD?

Theres 3 steps you suggest here
1. Matter had to come from somehwere there,
2. There is a creator, therefore
3. The creator is male and a God.

They dont logically follow even if this had anything to do with it this is again the same as the above.

3. You have to BELIEVE all the rest of your theories are correct because you really were NOT there when you BELIEVE it happened.

So you have to have faith in anything you have not witnessed yourself?

I mean you can't really PROVE it. There's no footage of those phenomenoms happening...correct?

You cant "prove" any scientific theory, thats not how they work. And you seem to think criminals should get away with anything unless someone was either there to witness it or film it.

Heck, I, a Christian, BELIEVE there is a GOD. I admit mine is a religion/faith/belief system...

That is true.

How about you? Will YOU admit it?

Admit what? Science isnt a belief system.

The scientific method is the only accurate method to know what is true or not, unless you know of a more accurate method.

Ed

LittleNipper · Apr 14, 2005

The point of science is to find the actual TRUTH and not simply maintain rigid formality and a set of rules at the exclusion of all other possibilities or input. Science for science sake is pointless if what you establish is a lie...

corvus_corax · Apr 14, 2005

LittleNipper said:
The point of science is to find the actual TRUTH and not simply maintain rigid formality and a set of rules at the exclusion of all other possibilities or input. Science for science sake is pointless if what you establish is a lie...

Well, if you consider the evaluation of empircal, testable data, repeatable experiments and confirmed or falsified predictions to be too rigid or too rules-heavy, then obviously you have no interest in science.

Im not saying that's a bad thing. Not everyone is interested in science. That's fine.
Just dont try to get into debates where science is being discussed, or if you do, realize that you are coming from a completely different perspective, one that is likely not compatible with actual demonstratable evidence and empirical data.

LittleNipper · Apr 14, 2005

Think about this for a moment. The BIG BANG is supposed to be how the ENTIRE Universe was formed. Now, any BANG I ever saw results in heat and light. NOW, if this matter exploded out in all directions faster then the speed of light, that would mean that the flash of light from the explosion would be seen after the light from the farthest star had already reached half the Universe...

corvus_corax · Apr 14, 2005

LittleNipper said:
Think about this for a moment. The BIG BANG is supposed to be how the ENTIRE Universe was formed. Now, any BANG I ever saw results in heat and light. NOW, if this matter exploded out in all directions faster then the speed of light, that would mean that the flash of light from the explosion would be seen after the light from the farthest star had already reached half the Universe...

You dont understand BB theory.
Do you need it explained to you?

I'll give you two quick points
1- It wasnt an explosion in space
2- It was an expansion of space

LittleNipper · Apr 14, 2005

corvus_corax said:
You dont understand BB theory.
Do you need it explained to you?

I'll give you two quick points
1- It wasnt an explosion in space
2- It was an expansion of space

The space cannot travel faster then the event that caused it----stew on that.

corvus_corax · Apr 14, 2005

LittleNipper said:
The space cannot travel faster then the explosion that caused it----stew on that.

Quick rundown on BB Theory.
I'll do my best to explain it in terms that (hopefully) make sense.....
The BB did not happen at any one point. That is a misconception. There was no single 'speck'or particle. And there was no explosion. It was simply and expansion of space (that last bit is important to understand the rest).
The BB happened right where Im sitting
It also happened right where you are sitting
It also happened in the area where A Centauri is located.
It also happened in the area where the Pleiades are currently located.
It happened everywhere all at once.
Now, when scientists say something along the lines of "At 'x' time, the universe was only the size of a soccer ball" what they are referring to is the observable universe. With me so far?
Cool

Here's where it may get a bit confusing.
Now, in galaxy M51, the observable universe is a bit different than here in the Milky Way. An observer there can see more of certain areas and less of other areas (compared to what we can see at our location). The radius of our observable universe is centered on us. The radius of M51's observable universe is centered on M51.
So, our observable universe may have only been the "size" (a complete misnomer in this case, by the way) of a soccer ball at some instant after the BB, but so was the observable universe of M51.
There wasnt one "soccer ball sized" universe. Think of the BB (at 'soccer ball size') as a soccer ball surrounded by soccer balls, and they are surrounded by soccer balls, as are they, as are they, as are they.....infinitely. (This is not a perfect metaphor....its quite broken....but its the best way I can visually explain it)

LittleNipper · Apr 14, 2005

corvus_corax said:
Quick rundown on BB Theory.
I'll do my best to explain it in terms that (hopefully) make sense.....
The BB did not happen at any one point. That is a misconception. There was no single 'speck'or particle. And there was no explosion. It was simply and expansion of space (that last bit is important to understand the rest).
The BB happened right where Im sitting
It also happened right where you are sitting
It also happened in the area where A Centauri is located.
It also happened in the area where the Pleiades are currently located.
It happened everywhere all at once.
Now, when scientists say something along the lines of "At 'x' time, the universe was only the size of a soccer ball" what they are referring to is the observable universe. With me so far?
Cool
Here's where it may get a bit confusing.
Now, in galaxy M51, the observable universe is a bit different than here in the Milky Way. An observer there can see more of certain areas and less of other areas (compared to what we can see at our location). The radius of our observable universe is centered on us. The radius of M51's observable universe is centered on M51.
So, our observable universe may have only been the "size" (a complete misnomer in this case, by the way) of a soccer ball at some instant after the BB, but so was the observable universe of M51.
There wasnt one "soccer ball sized" universe. Think of the BB (at 'soccer ball size') as a soccer ball surrounded by soccer balls, and they are surrounded by soccer balls, as are they, as are they, as are they.....infinitely. (This is not a perfect metaphor....its quite broken....but its the best way I can visually explain it)

I'm glad it is only a theory----you had me worried...

corvus_corax · Apr 14, 2005

LittleNipper said:
I'm glad it is only a theory----you had me worried...

Once more

Its a model (scientific theory) that best fits the evidence we currently have.
Saying that "its only theory" is standard "Mongo no like science, mongo smash' garbage.

Randall McNally · Apr 14, 2005

LittleNipper said:
The space cannot travel faster then the event that caused it----stew on that.

According to whom?

caddy · Apr 14, 2005

corvus_corax said:
Quick rundown on BB Theory.
I'll do my best to explain it in terms that (hopefully) make sense.....
The BB did not happen at any one point. That is a misconception. There was no single 'speck'or particle. And there was no explosion. It was simply and expansion of space (that last bit is important to understand the rest).
The BB happened right where Im sitting
It also happened right where you are sitting
It also happened in the area where A Centauri is located.
It also happened in the area where the Pleiades are currently located.
It happened everywhere all at once.
Now, when scientists say something along the lines of "At 'x' time, the universe was only the size of a soccer ball" what they are referring to is the observable universe. With me so far?
Cool
Here's where it may get a bit confusing.
Now, in galaxy M51, the observable universe is a bit different than here in the Milky Way. An observer there can see more of certain areas and less of other areas (compared to what we can see at our location). The radius of our observable universe is centered on us. The radius of M51's observable universe is centered on M51.
So, our observable universe may have only been the "size" (a complete misnomer in this case, by the way) of a soccer ball at some instant after the BB, but so was the observable universe of M51.
There wasnt one "soccer ball sized" universe. Think of the BB (at 'soccer ball size') as a soccer ball surrounded by soccer balls, and they are surrounded by soccer balls, as are they, as are they, as are they.....infinitely. (This is not a perfect metaphor....its quite broken....but its the best way I can visually explain it)

LittleNipper · Apr 14, 2005

Randall McNally said:
According to whom?

According to gravity...

Battie · Apr 14, 2005

LittleNipper said:
According to gravity...

What does the speed of the expansion have to do with the theory's validity? What does gravity have to do with an explosion?

Physics_guy · Apr 14, 2005

What does gravity have to do with an explosion?

Better question is: what does an explosion have to do with the Big Bang?

Battie · Apr 14, 2005

Physics_guy said:
Better question is: what does an explosion have to do with the Big Bang?

That is a better question, but I'm hoping that bit's been cleared up already. Now I'm just curious about gravity and explosions.

aeroz19 · Apr 15, 2005

caddy said:
Kind of like what Miller-Urey did years ago working with elements they thought existed in the early atmosphere, of which today has been (actually since the 60s) has all but been proved False, but yet, it is STILL taught in our Science books as though it were valid proofs for evolution.

False. It is most certainly not. From my College 100-level Chemistry textbook, 1/2 a page out of about 1,000 pages:

"Although scientists no longer believe molecules necesary for life were formed this way, it is nonetheless a starting point for new experiments in this direction." Chemistry and Chemical Reactivity, Kotz & Treichel, 5th ed.

This statement is self-explanatory.

corvus_corax · Apr 15, 2005

Battie said:
That is a better question, but I'm hoping that bit's been cleared up already. Now I'm just curious about gravity and explosions.

Im just hoping the "BB=explosion" myth has been blown up.

I fear it hasnt.
Ive reposted the previous info three times thus far in my short time on CF, and at least 10 times on the other forums I belong to.

aeroz19 · Apr 15, 2005

Carmack said:
That's evidence for abiogenesis, not evolution.

How has it been proven false?

It hasn't necessarily been proven false. The conditions under which the molecules formed were not actually present in the beginning. For example, electrical current was not continuous, as it was in the experiment.

corvus_corax · Apr 15, 2005

LittleNipper said:
<According to gravity> The space cannot travel faster then the event that caused it----stew on that.

The statement in <> was added by me based on post 53.
I was just beginning to think that I understood post 47. Then you added "according to gravity".
According to gravity, space cannot "travel" faster than the event that caused it.
Okay.....
How fast was the event that caused the expansion (NOT explosion) of space? And how, specifically, does this violate gravitational theory?
By the way, which gravitational theory are you speaking of?
1- Newtonian
2- Gravity according to Relativity (curved space)
or
3- Gravitons
?
Now, you must keep in mind that expanding space can travel faster than the speed of light when taken out of "normal" velocities (ie motion through space)...recession velocity (two objects receding from each other) based on the expansion of a given space can make those two objects travel away from each other faster than the speed of light relative to each other. However, neither object (in their regional space) will ever overtake a beam of light.
So how does this (expansion of space) violate gravity and it's effect on space?
Before I can answer your questions, I'll need an answer to all of the above.
And please, no one-liners, but an actual explanation.

Thanks in advance :wave:

Edit- to fix the <>

How can we see distant stars in a young universe?

Junior Member

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet

Contributor

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet

Contributor

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet

Contributor

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet

Secrecy and accountability cannot coexist.

Junior Member

Contributor

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

aeroz19

Guest

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet

aeroz19

Guest

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet

Similar threads