How about the evolution of horses?



Horse Evolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html)

.

2My Old & New World Equus
\ | /
\ | /
4My Hippidion Equus Stylohipparion
| | Neohipparion Hipparion Cormohipparion
| | Astrohippus | | |
| | Pliohippus ---------------------------
12My Dinohippus Calippus \ | /
| | Pseudhipparion \ | /
| | | |
------------------------------------------- Sinohippus
15My \ | / |
\ | / Megahippus |
17My Merychippus | |
| Anchitherium Hypohippus
| | |
23My Parahippus Anchitherium Archeohippus
| | |
(Kalobatippus?)-----------------------------------------
25My \ | /
\ | /
|
35My |
Miohippus Mesohippus
| |
40My Mesohippus
|
|
|
45My Paleotherium |
| Epihippus
| |
Propalaeotherium | Haplohippus
| | |
50My Pachynolophus | Orohippus
| | |
| | |
------------------------------
\ | /
\ | /
55My Hyracotherium

The fossils date from the middle of the Cretaceous period, and
may
be a “missing link”, tying the familiar big T rex to its much smaller ancestors.

We'll just have to wait and see.

How about the evolution of horse?

Horse Evolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html)


Did you read this or is it just a google search that looked good?

This is something like we read in high school science class in the 60's and
later in Zoology. There are a lot of admitted gaps, as in all examples of
evolution. There are a few hopeful transitional forms but nothing conclusive.

A genetic study on tameness and how it may lead to the rise of new species through domestication: Genetic Region For Tame Animals Discovered: Horse Whisperers, Lion Tamers Not Needed (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090608131152.htm)

These scientists have been breeding a wild species of rat and breeding the nice ones with each other and the angry ones with each other. After so many decades, they observe these DNA markers (called microsatellites) for any genetic trend for differences between domesticated vs. non-domesticated.

Link to the paper itself: Genetics -- Sign In Page (http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/genetics;182/2/541)

For my rant, scientists can prove transitional forms for a lot of species through genetics and fossils. You see this with corn arising from wild teosinte (old kernel and husks in archaeological digs), dogs from wolves (genetic sequencing and dog/wolf bones from archaeological sites), bacterial and viral evolution (genetic sequencing), and so on.

You may ask for dinosaur fossil transitional forms. Scientists can provide modern transitional forms as we don't have time machines or paleontological tools to DIG up all the fossils in the ground. We can show transitional forms in some species but not all.

You can ask for transitional forms for EVERYTHING but that's an unreasonable request. It's almost like asking a physicist that he must prove that all objects must have mass and are subjected to gravitational forces before we are to accept the theory of gravity or asking an astronomer to prove that all galaxies must have black holes before we believe her theory that galaxies revolve around black holes.

Actually the scientist quoted didn't say "may", that was the writer of the article.

The scientist stated this was a “nice link”

And what about all the transitional types of horse ancestors.

And these were simply the first two animals I searched. There are lots of transitional fossil records, you just want to ignore them.

The thing about calling them transitional fossils is that once a fossil type is found and is identified as a a transitional type between two known fossil records, it becomes a known fossil. At that point we start to look for a transitional fossil between it and it's closest neighbors. Gaps between fossil records are filled all the time, we just start looking in ever smaller gaps for "transitional" fossils.

Your close mindedness and lack of basic understanding of the scientific method is shocking for someone that claims to be a "scientist". I highly doubt you ever were a science teacher, and even if you were, emphasis on the were, I assume you were fired for incompetence. If you actually have a science degree, where is it from? ORU?

No, I have a very clear and educated understanding of how evolution
works. However, I refuse, because of the lack of evidence, to sit in the
box, like so many do, and not think outside of it.

The origin is beside the point.

If I say Xortrox from planet Woton then you'll start another argument
about origins and avoid facing the the fact that the evidence of evolution
is vague and requires "artists" to fill in the blanks, i.e. here's a species and
there's a species and nothing to connect them. Let's make up the rest.

If I say God then you'll start another argument about origins and avoid
facing the fact that the evidence of evolution is vague and requires
"artists" to fill in the blanks, i.e. here's a species and there's a species and
nothing to connect them. Let's make up the rest.

So is there another theory you believe in or not?

Did you read this or is it just a google search that looked good?

This is something like we read in high school science class in the 60's and
later in Zoology. There are a lot of admitted gaps, as in all examples of
evolution. There are a few hopeful transitional forms but nothing conclusive.

If you understood the fossil record you wouldn't expect to find what you are looking for. Most species that existed left without a trace.

Actually the scientist quoted didn't say "may", that was the writer of the
article...

Being nasty, belittling and bumptious doesn't work on me and it's a waste of
time. If you insist on this childish blather, as others on this thread have
because they can't debate, then I'll gladly put you on ignore, too.

Disagreeing does not equate to being closed minded or incompetent. You
have the same evidence as I. You're convinced, I'm not. If you can't deal
with it then move on.

If you understood the fossil record you wouldn't expect to find what you are
looking for. Most species that existed left without a trace.

Those that left with out a trace. That's good. If they didn't leave a
trace how do you know they were there to begin with?

Here's something just as funny. All of a sudden, about 500 million years ago
there was a sudden and incredible appearance of life forms. This wasn't a
slow arrival, but of a sudden launch of new and separate life forms. Did this
just POOF into existence? After all it's called the Cambrian Explosion. This
raises a lot of questions for me in respect to evolution.

Here's something just as funny. All of a sudden, about 500 million years ago
there was a sudden and incredible appearance of life forms. This wasn't a
slow arrival, but of a sudden launch of new and separate life forms. Did this
just POOF into existence? After all it's called the Cambrian Explosion. This
raises a lot of questions for me in respect to evolution.

The 'suddenness' of the Cambrian Explosion is attributed to rapid evolution of new complex organisms. Most of the new multicellular organisms that have fossilized remains do not exist today. They have died out or were out-competed by other more successful organisms.

There are very alien looking species like this Pikaia:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/pikaia_big.jpg

Or Anomalocaris:
http://www.cotc.edu/professional/osu/faculty/jstjohn/Cool%20Fossils/Anomalocaris-canadensis.jpg

Or Hallucigenia:
http://evolution.biologique.free.fr/histoire/burgess/toile/fhallu_mnhn.gif

Now, scientists only have limited fossils and chemical data from the Cambrian. One of the factors believed to have influenced the rapid evolution was the oxygen threshold. There are lots of reasons to believe that earth's early atmosphere contained very little oxygen. Most of the gases came from volcanic eruptions. Algae and other photosynthetic organisms can survive in this atmosphere..and over a long period of time, as photosynthesis breaks down H2O into usable hydrogen and O2..an eventual threshold was reached.

This threshold allowed these organisms to have no limits in terms of rapid evolution.


Those that left with out a trace. That's good. If they didn't leave a
trace how do you know they were there to begin with?

I believe Caboose is referring to fossils where we find maybe one or two fossils of a specimen but it's incomplete. Or maybe even fragments of a fossil.

Prune, don't you realize we are lucky to have ANY fossils. We only have those that died under very special conditions under special circumstances . How can we expect to find examples of every grouping of animals every few hundred years or so. We are lucky we have any. There are places on earth where no fossils of land dwelling animal have been found; would that tell that none ever lived there? No, it would tell you that none died in a peet bog or any other preservative location. It will be impossible to fill in the all the "gaps" with hard copies...so to speak. I'm beginnning to thing that we are really stuggling over defining the word Species so that God won't have to hear you say the E word with a favorable tone. Come on, man, you are just yankin' our chains, ain'tcha?

The 'suddenness' of the Cambrian Explosion is attributed to rapid evolution
of new complex organisms.
True, rapid evolution is attributed to the explosion.

Prune, don't you realize we are lucky to have ANY fossils. We only have those that died under very special conditions under special circumstances . How can we expect to find examples of every grouping of animals every few hundred years or so. We are lucky we have any. There are places on earth where no fossils of land dwelling animal have been found; would that tell that none ever lived there? No, it would tell you that none died in a peet bog or any other preservative location. It will be impossible to fill in the all the "gaps" with hard copies...so to speak. I'm beginnning to thing that we are really stuggling over defining the word Species so that God won't have to hear you say the E word with a favorable tone. Come on, man, you are just yankin' our chains, ain'tcha?

Prune, I truly and sincerely would appreciate a response to this.

Prune, simple question really...

How did it all begin?

I don't think you've actually explained what your own reading of the tea leaves has told you.

Prune, simple question really...

How did it all begin?

I don't think you've actually explained what your own reading of the tea leaves has told you.

Based on his stringent standards of proof, Prune must be a fierce agnostic when it comes to creation theories.

I'd rather hear what he has for himself without prognostication from the peanut gallery.

Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum

AFP: Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jiVuN2BMp6tmuGBGOedALIY4_FaA)

It is an interesting discussion. The only problem with the hypothesis of evolution is you have to get something from nothing. The universe has a beginning. How did the space for the universe come about to start the chain of events that led to us? Science has absolutely no reasonable explanation for this.

It is an interesting discussion. The only problem with the hypothesis of evolution is you have to get something from nothing. The universe has a beginning. How did the space for the universe come about to start the chain of events that led to us? Science has absolutely no reasonable explanation for this.

WRONG. Evolution does not equal the theory on how the universe started. If you want a theory on how the universe started, look up the big bang theory or string theory.

Evolution also does not describe how life started. That's the science of abiogenesis. People tend to get confuse and believe that the theory of evolution and theory of the origin of life as one and the same. Wrong again. Evolution describes how organisms change over time and radiate into new species.

Abiogenesis is involved with research into how life may have arose from organic molecules, inorganic compounds, and energy derived from lightning strikes in the earth's primitive atmosphere. Maybe it's something else. There's no definitive and universally accepted theory in abiogenesis yet. However I will say that in earth's early history when self-replicating organisms are present with nutrients/niches to garner...that's where evolution is relevant. This is similar to how the theory of gravity can be used to describe the early universe and gravity's effect on matter in the initial stages...BUT inappropriate to describe how the universe started.

Evolution may be relevant in abiogenesis as certain compounds/reactions may be more efficient at Process A or Process B but that's beyond the scope of my field. I can't explain abiogenesis beyond this. But all I can say is that evolution and abiogenesis are different theories. I'm just here to clarify misconceptions.

Okay so an interesting discussion point back to the "aged earth" topic. I was reading my Bible last night and came across Genesis 1:11:

Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.


So clearly we see that on the 3rd day God created vegetation that beared seeds. So from this one could at least assume that since the vegetation that was created was of a matured state (since it had seeds from creation), therefore, why couldn't he create the earth and animals aged? It didn't say he created chemicals or cells that evolved into species, it said he created. Therefore, one could imply he created aged things from the start.

Ah, so he created fossils to confuse us. Got it, a test of faith.

You win, I'm convinced.

Wasn't necessarily trying to "convince" you, but it is an interesting discussion nonetheless, if one has faith, then you don't need to debate it. As far as fossils go, see the GAP theory.

That not a theory, it’s a trick to try and make the stories in the Bible fit with scientific fact. Only it wants to leave out a lot of messy scientific facts, like it took the Earth hundreds of millions of years to form, not six days.

And science can't explain how you get something from nothing... details, why get wrapped up in them? Big bang and string leave that out... it wouldn't work if you had to include them! If it took hundreds of millions of years to form... where did it get the space to form? The materials to form?

Okay so an interesting discussion point back to the "aged earth" topic. I was reading my Bible last night and came across Genesis 1:11:

Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.


So clearly we see that on the 3rd day God created vegetation that beared seeds. So from this one could at least assume that since the vegetation that was created was of a matured state (since it had seeds from creation), therefore, why couldn't he create the earth and animals aged? It didn't say he created chemicals or cells that evolved into species, it said he created. Therefore, one could imply he created aged things from the start.

It could have been created to look aged from the beginning. However, if you're referring to vegetation that bore seed, it doesn't take primitive plants into account. There are plants that don't bear seeds and I'm not talking about the modern cultivated varieties. Ferns, liverworts, mosses, and horsetails all reproduce by spores. Unless seed bearing plants have 'devolved' to ferns and whatnot.

Plus, the creation of an aged earth with aged plants, aged animals, and aged fossils also mean that all the light sources from stars and galaxies will also have to be aged. This will throw a huge wrench into astronomical and physics theories. Using radioactivity from uranium to carbon for aging will also receive a huge blow as will theories on the development of the solar system. Geological theories such as continental drift and plate tectonics will be shattered. It's a rather silly notion.

I have heard of the Gap theory.

Are you referring to the idea that a biblical day is not the literal 24 earth hours (ie a genesis day = thousands or millions of years)? I believe it tries to reconcile evolution as a tool that God uses...

And science can't explain how you get something from nothing... details, why get wrapped up in them? Big bang and string leave that out... it wouldn't work if you had to include them! If it took hundreds of millions of years to form... where did it get the space to form? The materials to form?

I'm not a physicists or an astronomer, nor do I claim to be one. This thread is mostly involved with evolution. I don't know, maybe someone who is trained in these fields can step up and answer your question.

I am also confused on what you're trying to ask.

I'm not a physicists or an astronomer, nor do I claim to be one. This thread is mostly involved with evolution. I don't know, maybe someone who is trained in these fields can step up and answer your question.

I am also confused on what you're trying to ask.

I must have misunderstood. I thought this was about creation, not just man's creation but overall creation as well. I was responding to Shake2005 posting and should have quoted it. Since he stated that is was a scientific fact that it took hundreds of millions of years for the earth to form, I was seeing if it could be explained what it was formed from.

I must have misunderstood. I thought this was about creation, not just man's creation but overall creation as well. I was responding to Shake2005 posting and should have quoted it. Since he stated that is was a scientific fact that it took hundreds of millions of years for the earth to form, I was seeing if it could be explained what it was formed from.

Looking back at Metro's original post on the first page, I guess 'creation' can encompass anything. However, most of the debates in this topic has been on evolution, rise of species, etc. So you're right, my mistake.

If someone who's good in astronomy or physics can explain, this would be great.

It seems to me that this thread is more of a discussion on the existence or non-existence of a higher power rather than simply a discussion about creation...

Has anyone heard of 'Pascal's Wager'? I did a term paper arguing possible proofs for both the existence and the non-existence of a higher power, and Pascal's Wager was by far, in my opinion the best argument for the belief in a higher power. Basically, there are two possible bets that you can make, each with two possible outcomes...

Bet one: You choose to believe
Outcome one: God does not exist, no negative consequence
Outcome two: God does exist, you go to Heaven, etc.

Bet two: You choose not to believe
Outcome one: God does not exist, no negative consequence
Outcome two: God does exist, you go to Hell, etc.

So, of the four possible outcomes, two of them have no consequence whatsoever, one is eternal happiness and one is eternal damnation, and Pascal thought that regardless of what you think ideologically you have a better chance of 'winning' by believing.

After writing this I think I may have gone off topic a bit, and for that I apologize heh.

And science can't explain how you get something from nothing... details, why get wrapped up in them?

First of all, science does not explain anything. Secondly, scientists have never suggested that "something came from nothing". This is a straw man and reductio ad absurdum argument designed to mislead the scientifically illiterate, who often dismiss well-supported theories merely because they don't understand the concepts.



Big bang and string leave that out... it wouldn't work if you had to include them! If it took hundreds of millions of years to form... where did it get the space to form? The materials to form?

Do you really expect to learn about cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, etc. on a message board? If you're truly interested in learning about this, you can enroll at a local university. Comprehending natural sciences and their concepts is not something that can be accomplished in a matter of minutes online. If you're just asking these questions as a form of objection, I recommend the following video:
YouTube - Skewed views of science (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h9XntsSEro)

Regarding evolution:

YouTube - Evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8)

If you're just asking these questions as a form of objection, I recommend the following video:
YouTube - Skewed views of science (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h9XntsSEro)

Regarding evolution:

YouTube - Evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8)

Great links. Thanks!

I'm glad you enjoyed them. QualiaSoup is criminally under-subscribed. Unfortunately (for his subscribers), he is no longer uploading any new videos until his issues with YouTube are resolved. It seems creationists, in their honest and moral ways, have been false-flagging, down-voting, and filing false DMCA complaints for videos that debunk their irrational ways of thinking. So, rather than refute their opposition (like they claim to do "scientifically"), they resort to censoring them altogether.

A lot of people, like QualiaSoup, are refusing to upload any new material until YouTube handles the problem of censorship, which has become a major issue for those involved in addressing topics like evolution/creation and atheism/theism.

By the way, if you enjoyed those videos, you may dig some clips of The Atheist Experience. The host, Matt Dillahunty, is a very gifted debater and rationalist. I'd love to see some of the posters on this thread call in to the show.

First of all, science does not explain anything. Secondly, scientists have never suggested that "something came from nothing". This is a straw man and reductio ad absurdum argument designed to mislead the scientifically illiterate, who often dismiss well-supported theories merely because they don't understand the concepts.



From Wiki..
Science is a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding through disciplined research. Using controlled methods, scientists collect observable evidence of natural or social phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work.

Good video.

While your attempt at belittling is in line with what the video you linked to described as an emotional response because they have nothing else to fall back on. You are correct that you are not able to answer my question. The universe has always been here, is no longer a feasible alternative -- it contradicts empirical science. For the big bang to work, you have to start with something. Science has yet to figure that out and that is why the Big Bang is less and less supported.



Do you really expect to learn about cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, etc. on a message board? If you're truly interested in learning about this, you can enroll at a local university. Comprehending natural sciences and their concepts is not something that can be accomplished in a matter of minutes online.

We are here discussing points of view and looking for some truth in it all. While my major's in math and physics have yet to explain how the universe was created, I was hoping to see if someone else had insight. I have focused less on evolution, I know there are scientist on both sides of the arguement, definitely more on the evolution side, but none the less a good number on creation or intelligent design side as well. I do appreciate the resources.

Deleted: Double Post

From Wiki..
Science is a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding through disciplined research. Using controlled methods, scientists collect observable evidence of natural or social phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work.


The scientists are the ones that "construct theoretical explanations". Science is a body of knowledge and process by which scientists can investigate and understand the world. Science does not do, or explain, anything.

By omitting irrelevant passages, the quote can be summarized by stating,"scientists construct theoretical explanations".

Color Code: Subject Verb Adjective Direct Object


While your attempt at belittling is in line with what the video you linked to described as an emotional response because they have nothing else to fall back on.

I have no idea what you are trying to express here. Can you elaborate on this, in the form of a complete thought?


You are correct that you are not able to answer my question.

I never stated I could or could not answer your question. Why are you responding to something that does not exist?


The universe has always been here, is no longer a feasible alternative -- it contradicts empirical science.

Will you demonstrate how such a notion "is no longer a feasible alternative" and how "it contradicts empirical science"?


For the big bang to work, you have to start with something.

How can you affirm what a particular theory must have in order to work when you seem to possess no understanding of that particular theory itself? Regardless, I will give you the stage and allow you to demonstrate your impressive knowledge of the Big Bang Theory and science.


Science has yet to figure that out and that is why the Big Bang is less and less supported.

Science does not do anything.


...I know there are scientist on both sides of the arguement, definitely more on the evolution side, but none the less a good number on creation or intelligent design side as well. I do appreciate the resources.

I don't care how many "scientists" are on the side of Creation or Intelligent Design. In order for me to accept either hypothesis, they need to produce evidence of their claims. Citing Biblical scripture is not sufficient enough to be considered scientific evidence. Appealing to any authority does not give merit to a particular belief, although I should note that there is a greater number of historians who deny the holocaust than there are biologists who reject the Theory of Evolution. Regardless, I have yet to see any tangible evidence that supports the hypothesis of "Creation".

The universe has always been here, is no longer a feasible alternative -- it contradicts empirical science. For the big bang to work, you have to start with something.

Who's to say that we'll ever know what happened before the Big Bang? We're still trying to understand what happened tiny fractions of a second after the Big Bang. Speculation about what happened before the Big Bang is just that--speculation, not science. Cosmologists admit that there's simply no scientific explanation for the origin of the singularity which birthed our universe.


Science has yet to figure that out and that is why the Big Bang is less and less supported.

Your criticism makes it painfully apparent that you don't know what you're talking about. The Big Bang theory describes, literally, the evolution of matter in the universe--from a proposed singularity of infinite temperature and eventually cooling to the atomic structure of matter that we observe today. It does not attempt to explain the universe's history before this singularity.

Moreover, the fact that we cannot explain prior events (i.e., how all that energy got there in the first place) doesn't undermine the Big Bang theory, because the Big Bang wasn't proposed to explain the origins of the energy which led to the creation of the observable universe. Rather, the scope of the theory is limited to what happened after the Big Bang--to reconcile "empirical science" such as cosmic microwave background radiation, the redshifting of distant galaxies, etc. While there's a possibility for refinements to the theory as technology continues to enhance our ability to observe (e.g., the LHC, WIMP detection), there's currently tremendous evidence for the general Big Bang model. So, is the theory getting "less and less support" these days simply because you disagree with it?


We are here discussing points of view and looking for some truth in it all. While my major's in math and physics have yet to explain how the universe was created, I was hoping to see if someone else had insight..

Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums (http://www.physicsforums.com/)

If your "major's" truly in physics (as my bachelor's was) and you want to "discuss" points of view then I suggest expanding your resources to include sites like these wherein the level of discussion is more on par with your background.


I have focused less on evolution, I know there are scientist[s]...on creation or intelligent design side as well. I do appreciate the resources.

Indeed, there are scientists on the ID/creation side but there is no science on the ID/creation side.

You're wondering who we are; why we have done this; how it has come that I stand before you - the image of a being from so long ago. Life evolved on my planet before all others in this part of the galaxy. We left our world, explored the stars and found none like ourselves. Our civilization thrived for ages, but what is the life of one race, compared to the vast stretches of cosmic time?

We knew that one day we would be gone, and nothing of us would survive - so we left you. Our scientists seeded the primordial oceans of many worlds, where life was in its infancy. This body you see before you, which is of course shaped as yours is shaped, for you are the end result. The seed code also contains this message, which was scattered in fragments on many different worlds.

It was our hope that you would have to come together in fellowship and companionship to hear this message, and if you can see and hear me, our hope has been fulfilled. You are a monument, not to our greatness, but to our existence. That was our wish - that you too would know life and would keep alive our memory. There is something of us in each of you, and so, something of you in each other. Remember us."

"Until we assemble it, we will never know its purpose."
"He's right. As far as we know it might just be a recipe for biscuits!"
"If that's what you think, go home. I'll send you my grandmother's recipe!"


- Picard, Gul Ocett, and Nu'Daq

gmwise, you really like that start trek eh?
(lol, me too)

Every watch has a watchmaker, every house has a home builder, every creation has a creator?

So if we have an intelligent designer, we were designed for intelligence.

Every watch has a watchmaker, every house has a home builder, every creation has a creator?

So if we have an intelligent designer, we were designed for intelligence.

If a creator created the watchmaker and if a creator made a house builder, who made the creator?

What if the creator is the source of all knowledge, because knowledge can't be contained....

So, what came before the big bang? Or before the chemical dust floating in space that caused the big bang? What about the vast area of space itself? What about time?

Since the space-time continuum is limited to our reality, and we are talking about what existed prior to the creation of our reality and its inherent laws of nature, scientifically speaking we will never really know for sure. Guess that's where faith and religion come in.

What is interesting to think about though is what is going on right now. Right now our universe is expanding... but what is it expanding into? If the universe is everything, and yet it is growing, is it expanding into nothing? What exactly is nothingness?

What is interesting to think about though is what is going on right now. Right now our universe is expanding... but what is it expanding into? If the universe is everything, and yet it is growing, is it expanding into nothing? What exactly is nothingness?

Indeed.

And if it's expanding, then rewind a few million years and what was it before? Where did whatever that was come from?

Well, that is the part God did. He created this thing ...this substance ...this SOMEthing; couldn't think of anything worthwhile about it and just pitched it and walked off. That was beginning of things. I can buy that and it even allows me to tell people that I believe in God and keep a straight face.

"Until we assemble it, we will never know its purpose."
"He's right. As far as we know it might just be a recipe for biscuits!"
"If that's what you think, go home. I'll send you my grandmother's recipe!"


- Picard, Gul Ocett, and Nu'Daq

gmwise, you really like that start trek eh?
(lol, me too)

Ok 1st off I'm not into the costumes..yet, I think i am past that at 45.
But look at the gadgets and how star trek spurn scientists and innovators.
Damn exciting time to be in, of course being alive should be exciting at any time.
My grandsons or even their grandsons may see a day when man has populated this solar system, and beyond.
And god willing explore in peace and be at peace.
Yea I'm a sentimental old guy,who has seen what wars do.


DAVE, have you ever heard or read a book called the The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps by Marshall T. Savage

Well, that is the part God did. He created this thing ...this substance ...this SOMEthing; couldn't think of anything worthwhile about it and just pitched it and walked off. That was beginning of things. I can buy that and it even allows me to tell people that I believe in God and keep a straight face.

Agreed.

At that point, nonsupernaturalists seemingly have problems sticking to science. At least supernaturalists can say, welp, this is where God makes sense.

i think we came about the same way the teenage mutant ninja turtles came about, except ooze in the sewer it came from the sky,some kinda of radio active meteor came to earth and evolved most primates into humans.. Master splinter told me that

i think we came about the same way the teenage mutant ninja turtles came about, except ooze in the sewer it came from the sky,some kinda of radio active meteor came to earth and evolved most primates into humans.. Master splinter told me that

Even that makes more sense than everything just appearing out of nothing.

Nothing comes from nothing.

Nothing comes from nothing.

Therefore Yahweh came into existence from nothing to create the universe?

Therefore Yahweh came into existence from nothing to create the universe?

Did matter come into existence from nothing and create the universe?

Did matter come into existence from nothing and create the universe?

Einstein contended that E=mc2. Does is it not follow that M=e/c2? If energy can be neither created nor destroyed then it is reasonable to conclude that it has always been in existence.

...it is reasonable to conclude that it has always been in existence.

So this energy/matter entity that created the universe is eternal, all powerful and everywhere?

And you can call it God if you want to.

E= MC2 but wait just if now lets say just if E = mc4 - hg to the 2 power and reduce the ions by 6 percent and add a bit of oregano and a hint of thyme hmmm by gosh i think I got it rago spahgetti sauce.

E= MC2 but wait just if now lets say just if E = mc4 - hg to the 2 power and reduce the ions by 6 percent and add a bit of oregano and a hint of thyme hmmm by gosh i think I got it rago spahgetti sauce.

So, instead, this energy/matter entity that created the universe is eternal, all powerful and everywhere?

So this energy/matter entity that created the universe is eternal, all powerful and everywhere?

Explain why omnipotence and omnipresence need to be introduced into the equation as attributes of energy and then we'll have an actual discussion.

To answer your question, no.

Explain why omnipotence and omnipresence need to be introduced into the equation as attributes of energy and then we'll have an actual discussion.

If Matter is all that is, then it must be its own source of eternal self-sustaining and self-perpetuating power eternally backwards and forwards.

If Matter is all that is, then by that definition alone it omnipresent, everywhere at once.

man that was deep

Since the space-time continuum is limited to our reality, and we are talking about what existed prior to the creation of our reality and its inherent laws of nature, scientifically speaking we will never really know for sure. Guess that's where faith and religion come in.

What is interesting to think about though is what is going on right now. Right now our universe is expanding... but what is it expanding into? If the universe is everything, and yet it is growing, is it expanding into nothing? What exactly is nothingness?

What proof is there that the "universe is expanding?" Our eyes can only see so far, but if we look up into the cloudless sky we never see the end to that which we are looking at...do we? To say our universe is expanding, is that only because of the telescopes and planetary vehicles we have designed and placed in space to look further out into space then what our eyes can actually see on their own? In other words, the machinery is assisting us to bring into better view that which we already see but can't distinguish.

I don't know that our universe is expanding/growing...only our ability, with the assistance of some machinery, to reach further out ito it.

Without a doubt, our "knowledge" of our universe is expanding.