Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.

[Subduction Zone]

Bad analogy. God is Almighty. You must have God Almighty envy

Nope, that is not a refutation. That is just another ignorant claim.

If you believe the redshift con job, the universe has been expanding a lot less than the speed of light for billions of years. And even the most distant galaxies are expanding less than the speed of light and they were the earliest.

No, you simply do not understand it. But then I do not think that you understand any science. You cannot do the math. This is the sort of claim that requires an ability to do the math. I cannot do the math either. I have to trust the people that can do that math.

So please, quit telling falsehoods. If you cannot do the math for claims that require them then it is a falsehood to make a claim as you just made. You have no clue as to whether you are right or wrong and you do not want to know what Abraham Lincoln would call you.

It is a failure of the Big Bang model. The size of the universe is supposedly 94 billion light years, and the universe is supposedly 13.7 billion years old. The universe is expanding at a rate less the speed of light. The space itself is expanding less that the speed of light. How could the universe be 7x larger in light years than its age? In 13.7 billion years it should have expanded less than 13.7 billion light years vs 94 billion light years.

Because the universe is still expanding. I can at least do that much math. That size is based upon where those stars are now. Now where they were when they emitted that light. And even that distance has grown over the years. Scientists can and have measured the rate of expansion of the universe.

Do you need an article on it?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Then please explain how damage to a person's brain can change their personality.

Damage a part of the hardware in a computer, and the software won't run as it should!

 

[ratiocinator]

If you believe the redshift con job, the universe has been expanding a lot less than the speed of light for billions of years. And even the most distant galaxies are expanding less than the speed of light and they were the earliest.

If you're going criticise something you do well to understand what it actually says. The universe does not expand at some speed. It's a scale factor on distance. It's space itself that expands and it does so by some factor per unit time, hence the apparent 'speed' (which isn't really speed because nothing is moving through space) depends on distance. Right now, there are parts of the universe that are 'moving' away at more than the speed of light, so you are totally wrong.

Hubble's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Where did the universe come from?

What makes you think it 'came from' anything?

If the explanation is the Bing Bang with or without inflation, what was there before that?

What makes you think there was such a time as 'before'?

If there was nothing before the Big Bang, then that breaks cause and effect.

If there was nothing before the big bang, then there was no time either. Causality is something observed within (space-)time, it doesn't really make any sense without it. What's more, it doesn't seem to universally apply even within space-time. The old "everything has a cause" appears to be violated in quantum mechanics.

It also violates every law of conservation too.

Conservation laws are due to symmetries in the laws of physics. They cannot apply without space-time and operating laws of physics. Even if the relevant symmetries did not apply, then conservation laws would fail.

Noether's theorem - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If that thing always, existed that violates the law of increasing entropy.

Not only does increasing entropy require (space-)time, it is a statistical law. Decreases are statistically unlikely, not impossible, so if you wait long enough you'll see it decrease to any level you want. In an infinite amount of time you'd get an infinite number of decreases to any level you choose.

Please continue this until you get something that has always been.

And then that will violate the law of increasing entropy.

So a god that has 'always existed' is impossible according to your pitifully antiquated 'understanding' of physics?

Really, you need to drag yourself into at least the 20th century. The idea of time as some universal background went out with Einstein. The whole space-time is a single manifold. Being finite in the past direction (if it is) does not imply a cause.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

If you're going criticise something you do well to understand what it actually says. The universe does not expand at some speed. It's a scale factor on distance. It's space itself that expands and it does so by some factor per unit time, hence the apparent 'speed' (which isn't really speed because nothing is moving through space) depends on distance. Right now, there are parts of the universe that are 'moving' away at more than the speed of light, so you are totally wrong.

Hubble's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What makes you think it 'came from' anything?


What makes you think there was such a time as 'before'?


If there was nothing before the big bang, then there was no time either. Causality is something observed within (space-)time, it doesn't really make any sense without it. What's more, it doesn't seem to universally apply even within space-time. The old "everything has a cause" appears to be violated in quantum mechanics.


Conservation laws are due to symmetries in the laws of physics. They cannot apply without space-time and operating laws of physics. Even if the relevant symmetries did not apply, then conservation laws would fail.

Noether's theorem - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not only does increasing entropy require (space-)time, it is a statistical law. Decreases are statistically unlikely, not impossible, so if you wait long enough you'll see it decrease to any level you want. In an infinite amount of time you'd get an infinite number of decreases to any level you choose.


So a god that has 'always existed' is impossible according to your pitifully antiquated 'understanding' of physics?

Really, you need to drag yourself into at least the 20th century. The idea of time as some universal background went out with Einstein. The whole space-time is a single manifold. Being finite in the past direction (if it is) does not imply a cause.

But the expansion rate of space has been measured. And for the last several billions years it is quite a bit less than the speed of light and even in the earliest years, it was less than light,
So how do you get 94 billion light years in less than 14 billion years.
The universe is at least 30 times larger than it should be if you believe the lie of billions of years and the redshift theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But the expansion rate of space has been measured. And for the last several billions years it is quite a bit less than the speed of light and even in the earliest years, it was less than light,
So how do you get 94 billion light years in less than 14 billion years.
The universe is at least 30 times larger than it should be if you believe the lie of billions of years and the redshift theory.

Oh boy. It is incorrect to say that the expansion is below the speed of light. The rate of expansion is constant, but it is a uniform expansion.

Just to keep this easy I am going to grossly exaggerate the rate of expansion. Let's say that it is one foot per year, per mile. That means that a person one mile away from you would be receding at one foot per year. A person two miles away from you would be receding at two feet per year. And one thing to remember that is very hard to understand. The expansion is what is called a "metric expansion". That means that the person is not being accelerated. The expansion is due to space itself expanding. You will feel as if you have not moved and so will your friend one mile away. You can compare it to a balloon stretching out as it inflates and some ants on it. If two ants are far away from each other and standing still they will still have the distance between them growing without walking. That is what space is doing.

Okay, back to your distant friend. If he was 1000 miles away he would be receding at the rate of 1000 feet a year. What if he was a light year away? He would be receding at 5.9*10^12 miles per year. That is getting to be pretty quick. And if your friend was 5,280 light years away he would be receding at the speed of light. You could no longer communicate with each other. But both of you would feel as if you had not moved at all.

 

[YoursTrue]

You didn't answer my first question

I'm waiting for you to see if you know what is the first living thing. Thanks.

 

[John53]

I'm waiting for you to see if you know what is the first living thing. Thanks.

Answered it for the fundie twice. Were you not paying attention?

I have no idea, my answer hasn't changed.

Now you need to define what you mean by "living thing"? Is a virus a living thing?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Answered it for the fundie twice. Were you not paying attention?

I have no idea, my answer hasn't changed.

Now you need to define what you mean by "living thing"? Is a virus a living thing?

What was the first living thing?
Don’t you even know what you are defending?

 

[John53]

What was the first living thing?
Don’t you even know what you are defending?

I don't chat with people who attempt to threaten me so keep your silly repetitive questions for someone else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What was the first living thing?
Don’t you even know what you are defending?

I thought that the topic was evolution. Why are you talking about abiogenesis?

 

[McBell]

What was the first living thing?
Don’t you even know what you are defending?

If corn oil comes from corn, where does baby oil come from?

 

[McBell]

I thought that the topic was evolution. Why are you talking about abiogenesis?

They apparently do not know enough about the subject matter to form a coherent on topic question.

 

[John53]

If corn oil comes from corn, where does baby oil come from?

I never realised!

 

[SavedByTheLord]

If corn oil comes from corn, where does baby oil come from?

No answer from the person with no answers to the origin of anything.

 

[McBell]

No answer from the person with no answers to the origin of anything.

Really?
What version of the Bible do you use?
I mean, you have figured it out, right?

Funny that you would whine about answering a question with a question...
Or perhaps the problem is I only asked one instead of a whole bunch?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Really?
What version of the Bible do you use?
I mean, you have figured it out, right?

Funny that you would whine about answering a question with a question...
Or perhaps the problem is I only asked one instead of a whole bunch?

Already answered.
what multiple versions do you recommend of THE Bible?

What caused the Big Bang?
What was the first living creature?

 

[McBell]

Already answered.
what multiple versions do you recommend of THE Bible?

You have barely narrowed it down to two.
Have you been able to figure out which one?
Rather difficult to take you seriously when you do not even know which version of the Bible you use.

What caused the Big Bang?
What was the first living creature?

How did a fool and his money get together?
What do they use to ship styrofoam?
If a book about failures doesn't sell, is it a success?
Does fuzzy logic tickle?
If a stealth bomber crashes in a forest, will it make a sound?
Would a fly without wings be called a walk?
Is it possible to be a closet claustrophobic?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You have barely narrowed it down to two.
Have you been able to figure out which one?
Rather difficult to take you seriously when you do not even know which version of the Bible you use.


How did a fool and his money get together?
What do they use to ship styrofoam?
If a book about failures doesn't sell, is it a success?
Does fuzzy logic tickle?
If a stealth bomber crashes in a forest, will it make a sound?
Would a fly without wings be called a walk?
Is it possible to be a closet claustrophobic?

Where and when did the first living creature come into being and what features did it have?

 

[McBell]

Where and when did the first living creature come into being and what features did it have?

Is it possible to be a closet claustrophobic?

 

[ratiocinator]

But the expansion rate of space has been measured. And for the last several billions years it is quite a bit less than the speed of light and even in the earliest years, it was less than light,
So how do you get 94 billion light years in less than 14 billion years.
The universe is at least 30 times larger than it should be if you believe the lie of billions of years and the redshift theory.

As I said, the expansion rate isn't a speed. Its units are generally given as km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹, that is kilometres per second (speed) per megaparsec, i.e. speed per unit distance.

Basically the reason the observable universe─not the universe whose size is unknown and could be infinite─is larger in light years than the age of the universe in years is because light takes so long to get to us. Something that is a long way away will have emitted the light we can see a long time ago, when it was much closer.

I mean, seriously, do you really think scientists are stupid? If there really was an anomaly of like the universe being 30 time bigger than it should be, they'd all be just ignoring it?

How Did The Universe Expand To 46 Billion Light-Years In Just 13.8 Billion Years?

If you think it expanded faster than light-speed, you need to read this.

www.forbes.com

What caused the Big Bang?

Yet again: we don't know that it had a cause. Causality is something that is observed within space-time. If the space-time is finite in the past (an open question at the moment), then talking of a cause would be nonsensical.

What was the first living creature?

How do you define 'living creature'? The dividing line between life and non-life isn't as straightforward as some people would like it to be. In addition, abiogenesis is another problem that doesn't have a definitive answer. Whereas the evidence for subsequent evolution is overwhelming, evidence about abiogenesis is far more difficult to find (for obvious reasons).