Best Evidence for Evolution.

[bob b]

So if we see a star exploding that shows to be more than 6000 light years away from us, or however old you think the universe is, was it created during the 6 days and then blown up right after that or when did it explode?

I have no idea, because there is no way of telling what the rate of expansion might have been or whether it is still continuing today.

One must remember that the light we receive in our telescopes today cannot tell us what is happening today in the universe but only what happening in the past. How far in the past depends on the assumptions that are made and those assumptions can not be validated due to our inability to know when things happened in the past.

Vicious circle.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

I have no idea, because there is no way of telling what the rate of expansion might have been or whether it is still continuing today.

One must remember that the light we receive in our telescopes today cannot tell us what is happening today in the universe but only what happening in the past. How far in the past depends on the assumptions that are made and those assumptions can not be validated due to our inability to know when things happened in the past.

Vicious circle.

I think the fact that we can observe the entire stellar cycle from coalescence inside neubulae to vibrant stars to the shells of white and brown dwarfs, and even black holes, indicates that we are indeed observing a lot more than 6,000 years. Unless some of these stars were "created" as exploded remnants and seedlings beginning to shine, which seems pretty deceptive.

 

[baloney]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

For you guys actually interested in real science you can read about the red shift and doppler effect.

Bob, you've never addressed how the speed of light or decay rate in the past would have been observed today, assumiong tere would be life on the planet to observe it.

 

[bob b]

I think the fact that we can observe the entire stellar cycle from coalescence inside neubulae to vibrant stars to the shells of white and brown dwarfs, and even black holes, indicates that we are indeed observing a lot more than 6,000 years. Unless some of these stars were "created" as exploded remnants and seedlings beginning to shine, which seems pretty deceptive.

??? We can not observe the entire stellar cycle if it in fact exists. What we see are different stars and galaxies that people like to line up into a sequence to fit their ideas of stellar "evolution".

Sort of how people "line up" a series of fossil findings to fit their preconceived ideas of transformations of one kind of creature into another.

You seem to be "hung up" on the 6000 years bit.

Consider that if Adam had a telescope, he would have seen for all practical purposes what we see today. Because the expansion has now stopped and light is travelling at its rated speed, not much has happened in the last 6000 years as far as stars and galaxies are concerned.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

You seem to be "hung up" on the 6000 years bit.

Consider that if Adam had a telescope, he would have seen for all practical purposes what we see today. Because the expansion has now stopped and light is travelling at its rated speed, not much has happened in the last 6000 years as far as stars and galaxies are concerned.

Precisely. So those stars we see being birthed, growing old, shrinking or exploding or collapsing in upon themselves either happened very recently or were created in that state. Or astronomy as we know it is correct and these processes have been going on at a stately pace for billions of years. I'm not hung up on 6,000 years. YEC's are.

 

[bob b]

Precisely. So those stars we see being birthed, growing old, shrinking or exploding or collapsing in upon themselves either happened very recently or were created in that state. Or astronomy as we know it is correct and these processes have been going on at a stately pace for billions of years. I'm not hung up on 6,000 years. YEC's are.

You seemed to me to be.

The question is whether the different kinds of stars we see are in various stages of "evolution" or whether they are just different kinds of stars.

Since the further out we look we see so-called "mature" galaxies, the concept of "evolution" in the cosmos would appear to have been falsified by the observational evidence.

I suggest you might want to look into some of the critical problems with today's cosmological theories.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

You seemed to me to be.

The question is whether the different kinds of stars we see are in various stages of "evolution" or whether they are just different kinds of stars.

Since the further out we look we see so-called "mature" galaxies, the concept of "evolution" in the cosmos would appear to have been falsified by the observational evidence.

I suggest you might want to look into some of the critical problems with today's cosmological theories.

Who ever brought up the term evolution to describe the life cycle of stars and galaxies? Because the galaxy is expanding in all directions I think its obvious we would see the same things no matter where we look.

 

[bob b]

Who ever brought up the term evolution to describe the life cycle of stars and galaxies? Because the galaxy is expanding in all directions I think its obvious we would see the same things no matter where we look.

That does not follow, unless you believe that all the objects we see are at the same distance from us. The farther away an object is the "older" its lightwaves are (how much older is the crux of the other debate). Therefore, if current theories are true and stars and galaxies undergo a process of development, we should see at the maximum distances stars and galaxies at an earlier stage of their development.

Observation seems to falsify this expectation. They are too "mature".

 

[bob b]

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/gemini_survey_040105.html

Galaxies in Young Cosmos More Massive and Mature than Expected
By Tariq Malik
Staff Writer
posted: 11:30 am ET
05 January 2004

ATLANTA The universe is laden with massive galaxies that formed while the universe was just one billion years old, an era when such mature galaxies were not expected to exist.

Astronomers with the Gemini Deep Deep Survey have found an abundance of galaxies in the "redshift desert," a region of space thought to be sparse because of the time needed for massive galaxies to form. But a wealth of patience, combined with long telescope exposure times, has shed some new light on the matter.

"These massive galaxies seem to be forming surprisingly early," said Robert Abraham, an astronomer with the University of Toronto. Abraham is co-investigator of the Gemini team that conducted the study. "Its probably not at the point where we have to reevaluate our theories of galaxy formation, but its getting there."

The discovery was presented here today at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/gemini_survey_040105.html

Galaxies in Young Cosmos More Massive and Mature than Expected
By Tariq Malik
Staff Writer
posted: 11:30 am ET
05 January 2004

ATLANTA The universe is laden with massive galaxies that formed while the universe was just one billion years old, an era when such mature galaxies were not expected to exist.

Astronomers with the Gemini Deep Deep Survey have found an abundance of galaxies in the "redshift desert," a region of space thought to be sparse because of the time needed for massive galaxies to form. But a wealth of patience, combined with long telescope exposure times, has shed some new light on the matter.

"These massive galaxies seem to be forming surprisingly early," said Robert Abraham, an astronomer with the University of Toronto. Abraham is co-investigator of the Gemini team that conducted the study. "Its probably not at the point where we have to reevaluate our theories of galaxy formation, but its getting there."

The discovery was presented here today at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society.

I think they are talking about changing the way we understand how galaxies form and how long the process takes, not the fundamental nature of the universe.
Quote from article:
Astronomers have generally believed that massive galaxies, such as elliptical galaxies, form when two spiral galaxies converge. That process, however, is slow, taking billions of years. Abraham and his colleagues found massive galaxies in full swing just 4.5 billion years after the big bang.

"Theyre already very old," explained Patrick McCarthy, a co-principal investigator on the study from the Observatories of the Carnegie Institution. "In fact, theyre ancient."

The galaxies appear to have formed when the universe was just one billion years old, too soon for galaxies pairs to collide and form much more massive galaxies.

 

[Hank]

I have no idea, because there is no way of telling what the rate of expansion might have been or whether it is still continuing today.

One must remember that the light we receive in our telescopes today cannot tell us what is happening today in the universe but only what happening in the past. How far in the past depends on the assumptions that are made and those assumptions can not be validated due to our inability to know when things happened in the past.

Vicious circle.

Well then by your thinking God gave us a brain to discover and study the universe and then created a deceptive universe that only appears to be old. The old God the deceiver theology. Of course he could have just created everything in it place and eliminated the deception.

So if God is the deceiver about the age of the universe, how can we believe him about anything?

Can't wait for this rationalization.

 

[bob b]

Well then by your thinking God gave us a brain to discover and study the universe and then created a deceptive universe that only appears to be old. The old God the deceiver theology. Of course he could have just created everything in it place and eliminated the deception.

So if God is the deceiver about the age of the universe, how can we believe him about anything?

Can't wait for this rationalization.

He told us what happened for heavens sake. How is that deception?

You're blaming God because you can not see the inevitable ramifications of ultra rapid expansion of the universe?

That is like blaming God for the evil in the world generated by human beings who have made poor choices with the free will granted them.

 

[noguru]

He told us what happened for heavens sake. How is that deception?

You're blaming God because you can not see the inevitable ramifications of ultra rapid expansion of the universe?

That is like blaming God for the evil in the world generated by human beings who have made poor choices with the free will granted them.

Lets look at the logic in your claim. You take a religious book that is full of figurative speech and hyperbole. You use a specific portion of this book as a literal scientific description of origins. You then reject all the empirical evidence of an old earth even though it only supports the already established fact that the Book is full of figurative speach and hyperbole. You claim that your literal interpretation is the way it was meant by God, reject all other empirical evidence that goes against your claim. Accuse people who don't agree with your claim of "Blaming God" for what is actually your deception. I am sorry your argument does not fly.

 

[bob b]

Lets look at the logic in your claim. You take a religious book that is full of figurative speech and hyperbole. You use a specific portion of this book as a literal scientific description of origins.

Scientific? Hardly. It is simply stating what happened, i.e. history.

You then reject all the empirical evidence of an old earth

I simply interpreted the evidence using the Biblical world view.

even though it only supports the already established fact that the Book is full of figurative speach and hyperbole.

It is not hard to know when figurative speech or hyperbole is being used. Besides you act like I am alone in interpreting the Bible as teaching a 6 day creation, when the majority of Christians do this. Only those enamoured with "naturalistic" ideas like NeoDarwinism twist scripture like you do.

You claim that your literal interpretation is the way it was meant by God, reject all other empirical evidence that goes against your claim.

What empirical evidence do I reject? I merely interpret it using scripture as a general guide. Others accept the interpretaions of the atheists, forcing them to twist or reject scripture.

Accuse people who don't agree with your claim of "Blaming God" for what is actually your deception.

Someone accused God of deception. I defended Him. The charge was bogus.

I am sorry your argument does not fly.

It does with me as well as the majority of Christians.

 

[The Barbarian]

I am sorry your argument does not fly.

It does with me as well as the majority of Christians.

Nope. There are more Roman Catholics than all other Christians combined, and they admit that evolution is consistent with Christianity. The next largest group is Eastern Orthodox, and they do, too. And so do Anglicans, and most Lutherans.

You're not just wrong, bob, you're in the minority.

 

[noguru]

Scientific? Hardly. It is simply stating what happened, i.e. history.

Since you are usig it as the foundation for a model in which to pursue scientific inquiry, you are declaring that it is scientific. You can't have your cake and eat it too Bob.

I simply interpreted the evidence using the Biblical world view.

More accurately you are interpreting the evidence using only one specific Biblical view. One that ignores the possibility that there is much allegory and hyperbole in the Bible when it comes to origins.

It is not hard to know when figurative speech or hyperbole is being used. Besides you act like I am alone in interpreting the Bible as teaching a 6 day creation, when the majority of Christians do this. Only those enamoured with "naturalistic" ideas like NeoDarwinism twist scripture like you do.

Oh yeah, what is your criteria for determining when a portion contains figurative speech and/or hyperbole ?

'Enamoured with "naturalistic" ideas' - What exactly does that mean? Are you "not enamoured with naturalistic ideas"?

What empirical evidence do I reject? I merely interpret it using scripture as a general guide. Others accept the interpretaions of the atheists, forcing them to twist or reject scripture.

You reject any evidence that contradicts you specific interpretation of Genesis. This is certainly not a scientific approach.

I believe that you are the one twisting scripture. You are trying to turn Genesis into a scientific text on origins.

Someone accused God of deception. I defended Him. The charge was bogus.

Nope, someone accused your view of Genesis as the logical cause of this deception. That much was pretty clear. But you like to assume that your interpretation of Genesis is exactly how God meant it.

It does with me as well as the majority of Christians.

Another entirely inaccurate claim. And of course you are going to respond that such truths are not based on popularity contest. But this would only refute your original claim.

 

[bob b]

Most believe Bible stories
'literally true'
Poll: 6 in 10 convinced of Red Sea parting, Noah's ark, creation

A new poll shows at least six in 10 Americans believe the Bible stories of the Red Sea parting, Noah's ark and a six-day creation are "literally true, meaning it happened that way word-for-word."

According to the ABC poll, 64 percent say the story of God's parting the Red Sea for the Israelites is true, 61 percent say the same about a literal six-day creation as chronicled in the book of Genesis, and 60 percent believe the details of Noah's ark and the Great Flood.

------------

Of course polls do not determine the truth of the matter, but those who claim that most Americans do not believe the Bible "literally" are wrong, and thus my claim that most Americans agree with me about the Bible as history is true.

 

[noguru]

Most believe Bible stories
'literally true'
Poll: 6 in 10 convinced of Red Sea parting, Noah's ark, creation

A new poll shows at least six in 10 Americans believe the Bible stories of the Red Sea parting, Noah's ark and a six-day creation are "literally true, meaning it happened that way word-for-word."

According to the ABC poll, 64 percent say the story of God's parting the Red Sea for the Israelites is true, 61 percent say the same about a literal six-day creation as chronicled in the book of Genesis, and 60 percent believe the details of Noah's ark and the Great Flood.

------------

Of course polls do not determine the truth of the matter, but those who claim that most Americans do not believe the Bible "literally" are wrong, and thus my claim that most Americans agree with me about the Bible as history is true.

Now you've changed the goal post from "Christians" to "American Christians". You did not originally specify that you were referring to "Americans" only. It seems that you will employ any method to try and win an argument.

What you also forgot to point out is that the US and Australia are two modern affluent societies where Christian "fundamentalism" still has strong support. This is probably a factor in your poll.

 

[The Barbarian]

Actually, creationists are a minority, even in America. Bob is cherry picking polls here. It matters a great deal how the question is asked;

Which do you think is more likely to actually be the explanation for the origin of human life on earth: evolution or the biblical account of creation?
(If 'the biblical account of creation,' do you mean: that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh as described in the book of Genesis or that God was a divine presence in the formation of the universe.
NBC News March 2005

Results:
Evolution 33
God as a divine presence 13
Six days 44
Don't know 10

Notice that evolution, with or without God is 46 percent, while literalist creationism is 44 percent.

Some people think that humans and other living things have evolved over time. Others think that humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. Which of these comes closest to your view?

And do you think that humans and other living things have evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection, or do you think that a supreme being guided the evolution of living thing for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today?
Pew Research Center July 2005

Results
Natural processes 26
With guidance 18
Present form only 42
Don't know 14

Evolution 44
Creationism 42
Don't know 14

Gallup:
For each of the following, please say whether you believe it is definitely true, probably true, probably false, or definitely false. as an explaination ro the origin and the development of life on earth.

Evolution True 55 False 34 Don't know 11

Creationism True 58 False 26 Don't know 16

Intelligent design True 31 False 32 Don't know 37

In this poll, most people think that both creationism and evolution are true!

And America is unique; the rest of the world's Christians are largely unaware that anyone thinks like this.

 

[bob b]

Actually, creationists are a minority, even in America. Bob is cherry picking polls here. It matters a great deal how the question is asked;

Which do you think is more likely to actually be the explanation for the origin of human life on earth: evolution or the biblical account of creation?
(If 'the biblical account of creation,' do you mean: that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh as described in the book of Genesis or that God was a divine presence in the formation of the universe.
NBC News March 2005

Results:
Evolution 33
God as a divine presence 13
Six days 44
Don't know 10

Notice that evolution, with or without God is 46 percent, while literalist creationism is 44 percent.

Wrong, evolution was 33 percent. You are being deceptive as usual.

Some people think that humans and other living things have evolved over time. Others think that humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. Which of these comes closest to your view?

Neither. Things have changed but not by what is meant by "evolution", i.e random mutations. All in all a very deceptive question forcing people to choose between two obviously untrue alternatives.

And do you think that humans and other living things have evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection, or do you think that a supreme being guided the evolution of living thing for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today?

Pew Research Center July 2005

Guidance no. Natural processes yes, but not natural selection or random mutations. Again the correct alternate is missing from the poll.

Results
Natural processes 26
With guidance 18
Present form only 42
Don't know 14

Evolution 44
Creationism 42
Don't know 14

Gallup:
For each of the following, please say whether you believe it is definitely true, probably true, probably false, or definitely false. as an explaination ro the origin and the development of life on earth.

Evolution True 55 False 34 Don't know 11

Creationism True 58 False 26 Don't know 16

Intelligent design True 31 False 32 Don't know 37

In this poll, most people think that both creationism and evolution are true!

Only because "evolution" is undefined and the true alternative is missing.

Yes, it does matter how the question is asked. Some people even believe in a 6 day creation and evolution at the same time!! Depending on how one defines "evolution" so do I !!!! Is 'evolution" merely change?

And America is unique; the rest of the world's Christians are largely unaware that anyone thinks like this.

And yet most of the world's Christians probably believe in a 6 day creation.

After all that is what the Bible says (before the "spin" artists get a hold of it).

And you have been very deceptive as usual in mixing the undefined or multidefined word "evolution" into an argument whether people believe in a literal six day creation. But that is par for the course because NeoDarwinism persists primarily through its deception of the real issues as you have so amply illustrated by the deceptive poll questions people are asked to choose between.

The ABC poll questions I illustrated were much more straightforward and were in accord with the dispute about my statement.

But I have come to expect deception from my critics. After all they have been deceived by that ultimate liar.