The Creationistic Method and Why It Is Fraudulent

[McBell]

Please don't hold your breath, you really need the few brain cells you have left.

ROLFMAO!

you are consistent.

 

[Polymath257]

Telescopes don't have a distance limit, they have a brightness limit? A brightness limit, yes, but we were talking about the age of the universe being based upon how far we can see with the telescopes. We weren't talking about trying to see the Spirit rover on Mars.

Hubble doesn't detect anything farther than 13.8 billion years away because there is nothing there? You're not familiar with the Ultra Deep Field picture then. Hubble stared at black space for over three months and when the picture was resolved it was full of galaxies, they estimate 10,000 of them. It took three months of viewing to see galaxies that are 13.2 billion years away.

Because they are *dim*. Not because they are distant. Anything bright enough from 20 billion light years away would have shown up also. But there was nothing at that distance to see.

Also, look at this picture.

https://www.space.com/18502-farthest-galaxy-discovery-hubble-photos.html

See the reddish/orangeish blob in the center of the square, that is the farthest known galaxy yet measured. But, notice all the other blue spots in the box that are other galaxies out there much farther. Hubble just can't resolve them.

No, those are background thermal noise in the detector. We try to minimize such noise (by keeping the instruments cold), but we cannot eliminate all of it.

So, your opinion that there isn't anything farther than what Hubble can see is obviously wrong and your own pictures prove it.

And again, simply wrong.

 

[Super Universe]

Because they are *dim*. Not because they are distant. Anything bright enough from 20 billion light years away would have shown up also. But there was nothing at that distance to see.




No, those are background thermal noise in the detector. We try to minimize such noise (by keeping the instruments cold), but we cannot eliminate all of it.



And again, simply wrong.

Hubble can't see things because they are dim, not because they are far away? No, the objects are not dim. Galaxies full of stars are not dim, they are very bright, they only seem to be dim because they are far away.

Anything bright enough from 20 billion light years away would have shown up? Things did show up as tiny blue and red and green blobs, some lighter, some darker than others. Exactly how far away those galaxies are is unknown because Hubble can't resolve them.

Every single Hubble picture, every single one, shows more things in the background, even the Ultra Deep Field shows more distant galaxies that Hubble can't resolve.

James Webb will reveal more distant galaxies. And then, hopefully, a series of four James Webb telescopes in space as a space interferometer will reveal many more distant galaxies.

The tiny blue blobs are background thermal noise in the detector? Right, like the dim objects in the Hubble Deep Field were noise until they spent over 3 months looking and found 10,000 galaxies. The dim blue blobs in the Ultra Deep Field are not noise. They are real galaxies.

You guys have left science and went way out into complete pseudo-science nonsense. All of the evidence is telling you the truth and you are doing everything possible to write over the evidence because if you lose the big bang then everything you've worked towards for the last 50 years has been wasted effort and lies. Well I got news for you, it's been wasted effort and lies.

 

[Polymath257]

Hubble can't see things because they are dim, not because they are far away? No, the objects are not dim. Galaxies full of stars are not dim, they are very bright, they only seem to be dim because they are far away.

And again, something twice as bright would be visible from farther away.

Anything bright enough from 20 billion light years away would have shown up? Things did show up as tiny blue blobs, exactly how far away they are is unknown because Hubble can't resolve them.

Every single Hubble picture, every single one, shows more things in the background, even the Ultra Deep Field shows more distant galaxies that Hubble can't resolve.

Thermal noise is a real phenomenon. We know its size in the Hubble detectors.

James Webb will reveal more distant galaxies. And then, hopefully, a series of four James Webb telescopes in space as a space interferometer will reveal many more distant galaxies.

It will reveal *dimmer* galaxies, but none farther than 13.8 billion light years away. Not all galaxies have the same number of stars, some are quite large and bright and others are small and dim. The very early galaxies (like the ones in the Deep Field) are dim because they are still forming and don't have as many stars.

The tiny blue blobs are background thermal noise in the detector? Right, like the dim objects in the Hubble Deep Field were noise until they spent over 3 months looking and found 10,000 galaxies. The dim blue blobs in the Ultra Deep Field are not noise. They are real galaxies.

You guys have left science and went way out into complete pseudo-science nonsense. All of the evidence is telling you the truth and you are doing everything possible to write over the evidence because if you lose the big bang then everything you've worked towards for the last 50 years has been wasted effort and lies. Well I got news for you, it's been wasted effort and lies.

Not even close. That the universe is expanding from being hot and dense enough for nuclear reactions to form the small elements is established. That was about 13.8 billion years ago.

I'd point out that when I was young, the estimates for the age of the universe were 'somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years'. Not they are 'somewhere between 13.7 and 13.9 billion years'. That is quite and advance.

 

[Super Universe]

And again, something twice as bright would be visible from farther away.



Thermal noise is a real phenomenon. We know its size in the Hubble detectors.



It will reveal *dimmer* galaxies, but none farther than 13.8 billion light years away. Not all galaxies have the same number of stars, some are quite large and bright and others are small and dim. The very early galaxies (like the ones in the Deep Field) are dim because they are still forming and don't have as many stars.



Not even close. That the universe is expanding from being hot and dense enough for nuclear reactions to form the small elements is established. That was about 13.8 billion years ago.

I'd point out that when I was young, the estimates for the age of the universe were 'somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years'. Not they are 'somewhere between 13.7 and 13.9 billion years'. That is quite and advance.

Something twice as bright would be visible from farther away? It would. What makes you think that galaxies that are farther away should be twice as bright as the ones we see closer to us? You're trying to alter what we already know to fit a theory that you already know can't be possible because gravity would never allow it to happen.

What if scientists tried something new, what if they went with the evidence regardless of what it says? How about saying, "Space is expanding, we don't know why or how, and we don't know how galaxies evolved." And, "We don't really know what the age of the universe is but we can only see 13.2 billion light years away at this time."

Thermal noise is a real phenomenon? It would be uniform, so all the tiny blobs would be the same size and color. The Ultra Deep Field showed irregular blobs, some green, some red, some faint, some brighter. Those are galaxies. Big ones, just like the ones we have closer in.

The James Webb will reveal dimmer galaxies but none farther than 13.8 billion light years away? It's going to do exactly what it is supposed to do, throw much of the science of the last 50 years out the window so we can get back to the real truth regardless of what the real truth is.

The galaxies that are farther away are not dimmer to their neighbors than the galaxies we have near us.

The universe is expanding from being hot and dense? Any evidence? Background radiation just means that the universe is cold but that is because space is cold. It's always been cold. It's not made hot. It's cold to begin with. Very cold. Uniformly very cold, because, it's, space. Cold. Space.

The age of the universe is more defined now than it was years ago? It's based upon the expansion rate of galaxies but that just means that space is expanding. And, space is not just expanding, it's increasing the speed of expansion. Big bangs don't increase in speed. And, the expansion doesn't mean all matter came from one place because we know that couldn't happen because gravity would not allow it to happen.

 

[Profound Realization]

I don't really understand this line of thinking. We don't base our lives on the principles of germ theory either. Germ theory has no choice, awareness, ethics, etc., just like natural selection or plate tectonics or anything else we find in nature. They're still accurate descriptions of the processes at work in nature though. But it doesn't mean we have to live our lives around them and form our morals and ethics through them. Recognition of the existence of such processes doesn't mean we all have to go around invading other organisms' bodies, causing them to become ill. In fact, many of us spend their lives working to find cures for the illnesses that plague us. Just because it exists in nature doesn't mean we have to embody it or transfer it into some kind of social system.

The line of thinking isn't basing our lives on those principles.

The line of thinking is that the human being is vastly different than much of the processes and species from which it is said to have came from.

 

[gnostic]

I think you are asking whether there are independent sources to verify the universe is 250 billion years old? No.

So, no verification, no evidence.

Just your Urantia Book, a religious literature, not science book.

The Hubble can see only about 13.8 billion years. The James Webb telescope should be able to see farther than 13 billion years but it's not going to be able to see anything that is 250 billion years away. But still, anything over 13.8 billion years is going to give the scientists a dilemma, either they will just increase their guess that the big bang happened 13 billion years ago, which is most likely, or dismiss the big bang altogether.

And you have absolutely no understanding of telescopes, no understanding of electromagnetic wavelength relating to optics, and you have no idea what you are talking about James Webb space Telescopes (JWST) or their mission parameters.

And of course, no understanding of the Big Bang cosmology.

In term of comparison between JWST and the Hubble (HST).
Yes, the JWST will be better in manys, in terms of better mirrors, larger mirrors, longer focal length, higher resolution, and so on.

But if you think for a moment that JWST will see beyond 13.8 billion light years, then you will be a terrible gigantic disappointment.

The JWST should be able to penetrate molecular clouds, where the formations of infancy of stars and planets, and hopefully be able to observe the birth of the earliest galaxies.

However, due to its range of the wavelengths, from orange visible light to mid-infrared, I can tell tell you now, it won’t penetrate or see further than the microwave anisotropic telescopes of WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) or that of Planck space probe, both of which, to map out the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation).

The CMBR began around the time when the universe was 377,000 years old, caused by bonding of electrons to atomic nuclei of hydrogen and helium; this bonding created the now stable and electrical-neutral elements (1 electron, 1 proton hydrogen atom, and 2 electrons, 2 protons helium atoms). And due to the bonding, the universe became transparent, and photons decoupled from matters, to freely travel through space.

This entire period is known as the Recombination epoch, lasting right up to the time of the formation of the earliest stars.

Before the Recombination epoch, the earlier epochs of the universe, the universe was in a hot plasma state.

What this mean, is that in the plasma state, electrons, protons and photons were at the same temperature, so they were scattered. Photons cannot travel far, before it encounter free electrons, and get absorbed by the electrons. Due to this, the universe is opaque.

The JWST won’t be able to view anything before the CMBR and Recombination epoch, because the universe was opaque before that time. We currently have no technology, to see beyond the Recombination epoch, when the universe was even younger.

Do you understand what I am saying here?

The JWST will see more of the universe, but it won’t see the universe being older than the current estimate of the universe of 13.987 billion years, based on the Planck’s mission, from ESA and NASA.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Indeed, while we still have all of what you mentioned.... all of what you mentioned would carry on as they are without the Big Bang. If a starting point/beginning were removed, how is the Big Bang itself any longer relevant?

Polymath's answer was adequate. I thought that mine said more or less the same thing. Even if the expansion of the universe didn't have a beginning or begin as a dimensionless point (singularity), what remains can still be called a Big Bang.

In my opinion, you've already proven my point. If Nature is not held accountable, from Nature which humans came, humans should not be held accountable for anything. Point proven due to it being evident that humans defy from which it came. Natural selection, from which humans came... leaves zero room for any intent/choice.

Humans came from natural selection(no logic) yet have logic. Also a contradictory.

Nature, natural selection from which humans came is blind as you've said. Humans are not blind-they are aware.

There is no mechanism of anything "psychological" with natural selection. Humans have psychological ability. The acquisition of that ability cannot be from natural selection. (At least in its current state.) I would think it more plausible that the species undergoing natural selection all the way to the path of humans would have some psychological abilities/intent/choice.

Humans came from that same cold,vicious, no intent/non-choosing path, non-logical, non-ethical path as its alleged.

I can't follow your argument. The wold is full of emergent phenomena. How can wetness exist if nothing was wet in the early universe? If you see no problem there, then you understand why I see no reason that life and mind cannot arise from a lifeless, mindless state. Likewise with reason and a moral sense.

 

[Super Universe]

So, no verification, no evidence.

Just your Urantia Book, a religious literature, not science book.



And you have absolutely no understanding of telescopes, no understanding of electromagnetic wavelength relating to optics, and you have no idea what you are talking about James Webb space Telescopes (JWST) or their mission parameters.

And of course, no understanding of the Big Bang cosmology.

In term of comparison between JWST and the Hubble (HST).
Yes, the JWST will be better in manys, in terms of better mirrors, larger mirrors, longer focal length, higher resolution, and so on.

But if you think for a moment that JWST will see beyond 13.8 billion light years, then you will be a terrible gigantic disappointment.

The JWST should be able to penetrate molecular clouds, where the formations of infancy of stars and planets, and hopefully be able to observe the birth of the earliest galaxies.

However, due to its range of the wavelengths, from orange visible light to mid-infrared, I can tell tell you now, it won’t penetrate or see further than the microwave anisotropic telescopes of WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) or that of Planck space probe, both of which, to map out the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation).

The CMBR began around the time when the universe was 377,000 years old, caused by bonding of electrons to atomic nuclei of hydrogen and helium; this bonding created the now stable and electrical-neutral elements (1 electron, 1 proton hydrogen atom, and 2 electrons, 2 protons helium atoms). And due to the bonding, the universe became transparent, and photons decoupled from matters, to freely travel through space.

This entire period is known as the Recombination epoch, lasting right up to the time of the formation of the earliest stars.

Before the Recombination epoch, the earlier epochs of the universe, the universe was in a hot plasma state.

What this mean, is that in the plasma state, electrons, protons and photons were at the same temperature, so they were scattered. Photons cannot travel far, before it encounter free electrons, and get absorbed by the electrons. Due to this, the universe is opaque.

The JWST won’t be able to view anything before the CMBR and Recombination epoch, because the universe was opaque before that time. We currently have no technology, to see beyond the Recombination epoch, when the universe was even younger.

Do you understand what I am saying here?

The JWST will see more of the universe, but it won’t see the universe being older than the current estimate of the universe of 13.987 billion years, based on the Planck’s mission, from ESA and NASA.

The UB is not verification of the age of the universe? Since when do humans need verification to believe in something? The scientists believe that cold space verifies an extremely hot big bang that would violate the law of gravity. They also invented the Conservation of Energy law that says that energy cannot be created, but, if that was true then how could the big bang create energy? Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. At least believers don't come up with theories that violate their own fundamental laws.

I have no understanding of telescopes, electromagnetic wavelength, or the James Webb telescope? I'm more educated than you are, so, I know more than you do. As for the James Webb, yes, it's bigger, which is great, but it's also better at detecting red shift, which determines distance.

Hubble can see 13.2 billion light years. James Webb will resolve much farther. Exactly how far can it see, I don't know, but it will see fully formed galaxies, not molecular clouds and certainly not the first moments of a big bang that never happened.

The CMBR maps temperature. Space is cold. You guys didn't know it was cold? You guys are so amazed at it's uniform coldness but what would make it hot? What would be the heat source? You're just tripping over your own feet and you don't even know it.

The background radiation came into existence when the universe was 377,000 years old? When did gravity come into existence? You forgot about gravity, didn't you? How could you do that?

The entire period is known as the recombination epoch? I wonder what it will be called when the scientists finally realize it never happened?

Do I understand what you are saying? There's nothing new here, you're just repeating others ideas, not your own. You lack imagination. How can you begin to understand the universe if you don't have an imagination? The universe is not basic black and white. It's the speed of light at every wavelength. It's time dimensionalities that add up to form the density that you call space/time.

I know you don't know what I'm saying. How could you? You're human.

 

[Profound Realization]

Polymath's answer was adequate. I thought that mine said more or less the same thing. Even if the expansion of the universe didn't have a beginning or begin as a dimensionless point (singularity), what remains can still be called a Big Bang.



I can't follow your argument. The wold is full of emergent phenomena. How can wetness exist if nothing was wet in the early universe? If you see no problem there, then you understand why I see no reason that life and mind cannot arise from a lifeless, mindless state. Likewise with reason and a moral sense.

The term "ambiguous" was used. Open to interpretation or more than one interpretation. I can accept both your interpretations of it, yet being harsh on anyone who interprets it differently would be silly. To my interpretation and to the interpretation of some scientists in the link presented, the Big Bang goes bye bye.

I can follow your argument, and you most certainly can follow mine. Sure, things emerge.
I pursue more concise descriptions of the laws that govern our universe, such as the nature of information and it being within energy and matter.
If you're content with just using "emergent properties" and being a "yes man" for whatever is fed to your appetite for the entire picture, which explains absolutely nothing...other than the parallel meaning that all things "just magically emerge because we say so," that's your personal call.

 

[sayak83]

The line of thinking isn't basing our lives on those principles.

The line of thinking is that the human being is vastly different than much of the processes and species from which it is said to have came from.

No they are not.

 

[Profound Realization]

No they are not.

Well that settles it. I suppose they're precisely identical then because of "No they are not."

 

[sayak83]

Well that settles it. I suppose they're precisely identical then because of "No they are not."

No living being is identical with another, neither are they wholly different. Human beings specifically are not separated by some unbridgeable gulf from other species on earth.

 

[Polymath257]

The UB is not verification of the age of the universe? Since when do humans need verification to believe in something?

Since we started doing science.

The scientists believe that cold space verifies an extremely hot big bang that would violate the law of gravity. They also invented the Conservation of Energy law that says that energy cannot be created, but, if that was true then how could the big bang create energy? Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. At least believers don't come up with theories that violate their own fundamental laws.

I have no understanding of telescopes, electromagnetic wavelength, or the James Webb telescope? I'm more educated than you are, so, I know more than you do. As for the James Webb, yes, it's bigger, which is great, but it's also better at detecting red shift, which determines distance.

Hubble can see 13.2 billion light years. James Webb will resolve much farther. Exactly how far can it see, I don't know, but it will see fully formed galaxies, not molecular clouds and certainly not the first moments of a big bang that never happened.

The CMBR maps temperature. Space is cold. You guys didn't know it was cold? You guys are so amazed at it's uniform coldness but what would make it hot? What would be the heat source? You're just tripping over your own feet and you don't even know it.

The background radiation came into existence when the universe was 377,000 years old? When did gravity come into existence? You forgot about gravity, didn't you? How could you do that?

The entire period is known as the recombination epoch? I wonder what it will be called when the scientists finally realize it never happened?

Do I understand what you are saying? There's nothing new here, you're just repeating others ideas, not your own. You lack imagination. How can you begin to understand the universe if you don't have an imagination? The universe is not basic black and white. It's the speed of light at every wavelength. It's time dimensionalities that add up to form the density that you call space/time.

I know you don't know what I'm saying. How could you? You're human.

Well, you made a prediction: that Webb will see things older than 13.8 billion years. I guess we now just wait until the evidence comes in. We will then find out who is right.

 

[Profound Realization]

No living being is identical with another, neither are they wholly different. Human beings specifically are not separated by some unbridgeable gulf from other species on earth.

Bridge these gulfs please:

The evolutionary process through natural selection does not involve effort, trying, or wanting from any species leading up to the human being.

The evolutionary process through natural selection has no intentions or senses for any species leading up to the human being. There is no sense or intent by species or individuals, species and/or individuals cannot sense "need."

The species through natural selection have no altruism, they do not work/act for the greater good of the species. There is no foresight or intentions leading up to the human being.

The species and/or individual does not stop to think, "now what was this trait for?" leading up to the human being.

Species and/or individuals were able to modify their environments with technology before the human being.

Species and/or individuals were able to instigate evolution in other organisms before the human being.

Species and/or individuals were able to study, test, write, reason amongst each other the process in which they evolved before the human being came along.

An organism had a self-conscious and feels shame or embarrassed being naked before the human being came along.

An organism had an ego, concernment for their reputation prior to the human being.

An organism chose who they mated with prior to the human being.

 

[Polymath257]

Something twice as bright would be visible from farther away? It would. What makes you think that galaxies that are farther away should be twice as bright as the ones we see closer to us? You're trying to alter what we already know to fit a theory that you already know can't be possible because gravity would never allow it to happen.

Well, considering that galaxies vary over a very wide range of brightnesses, a mere doubling is to be expected. There are galaxies with hundreds of times as many stars as our own and our galaxy has thousands of times more stars than others we have seen. The galaxies in the early universe are *inherently* dim, not just seemingly dim because of distance. That is because they are still forming: no large galaxies had formed yet because there wasn't enough time.

What if scientists tried something new, what if they went with the evidence regardless of what it says?

Funny, that is exactly what they do and you are failing to do.

How about saying, "Space is expanding, we don't know why or how, and we don't know how galaxies evolved." And, "We don't really know what the age of the universe is but we can only see 13.2 billion light years away at this time."

Well, we *do* have some understanding of how galaxies form and we *do* know the age of the current expansion phase.

Thermal noise is a real phenomenon? It would be uniform, so all the tiny blobs would be the same size and color. The Ultra Deep Field showed irregular blobs, some green, some red, some faint, some brighter. Those are galaxies. Big ones, just like the ones we have closer in.

You don't understand much about noise, do you?

The James Webb will reveal dimmer galaxies but none farther than 13.8 billion light years away? It's going to do exactly what it is supposed to do, throw much of the science of the last 50 years out the window so we can get back to the real truth regardless of what the real truth is.

The galaxies that are farther away are not dimmer to their neighbors than the galaxies we have near us.

Well, you have some fine claims. One is concerning the Webb scope and we shall see what the evidence brings. The other is a claim about intrinsic brightness of early galaxies and has already been answered contrary to your expectations.

The universe is expanding from being hot and dense? Any evidence? Background radiation just means that the universe is cold but that is because space is cold. It's always been cold. It's not made hot. It's cold to begin with. Very cold. Uniformly very cold, because, it's, space. Cold. Space.

Cold is a relative term, not an absolute term. Why is it *uniformly* 2.72 K in all directions? Why no variation to even one part in 100,000? Why not 2 K in one direction (still cold) and 5 K in another (still cold)? What we see is more than simply being cold. That is a very precise temperature throughout space and in every direction.

Now go backwards in time. The universe contracts (because it is expanding and we are running the movie backwards). That means it heats up. So it wasn't always 2.72 K in temperature. As you go back further into the past, it is hotter. This is a fundamental BB prediction, made long before the background radiation was discovered. And the prediction was that the temperature would be uniform across the sky, which it is.

The age of the universe is more defined now than it was years ago? It's based upon the expansion rate of galaxies but that just means that space is expanding. And, space is not just expanding, it's increasing the speed of expansion. Big bangs don't increase in speed. And, the expansion doesn't mean all matter came from one place because we know that couldn't happen because gravity would not allow it to happen.

Yes, the cosmological constant (dark energy) increases the expansion rate. We are investigating this now.

 

[Polymath257]

Bridge these gulfs please:

It isn't clear exactly what you are asking here. I will try, but if I misinterpret, let me know.

The evolutionary process through natural selection does not involve effort, trying, or wanting from any species leading up to the human being.

The evolutionary process through natural selection has no intentions or senses for any species leading up to the human being. There is no sense or intent by species or individuals, species and/or individuals cannot sense "need."

The species through natural selection have no altruism, they do not work/act for the greater good of the species. There is no foresight or intentions leading up to the human being.

The species and/or individual does not stop to think, "now what was this trait for?" leading up to the human being.

These are (mostly) correct. One caution: an individual can have an intent, say, to kill and eat some prey. That is NOT the same as having an intent to direct evolution.

Species and/or individuals were able to modify their environments with technology before the human being.

Every species, by simply existing, modifies its environment. It is ambiguous what you mean by 'technology' though. Do badgers use technology when building their dams?

Species and/or individuals were able to instigate evolution in other organisms before the human being.

What do you mean by 'instigate'? if you mean that they had a planned breeding program, it appears that humans are the first to do so. But, for example, ants will use aphids for 'agriculture' and have certainly affected aphid evolution thereby. Just not intentionally.

Species and/or individuals were able to study, test, write, reason amongst each other the process in which they evolved before the human being came along.

An organism had a self-conscious and feels shame or embarrassed being naked before the human being came along.

These seems to be uniquely human traits, as far as I know.

An organism had an ego, concernment for their reputation prior to the human being.

This happens in many social species. Wolves, for example.

An organism chose who they mated with prior to the human being.

This seems to be very widespread.

 

[Profound Realization]

The UB is not verification of the age of the universe? Since when do humans need verification to believe in something? The scientists believe that cold space verifies an extremely hot big bang that would violate the law of gravity. They also invented the Conservation of Energy law that says that energy cannot be created, but, if that was true then how could the big bang create energy? Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. At least believers don't come up with theories that violate their own fundamental laws.

I have no understanding of telescopes, electromagnetic wavelength, or the James Webb telescope? I'm more educated than you are, so, I know more than you do. As for the James Webb, yes, it's bigger, which is great, but it's also better at detecting red shift, which determines distance.

Hubble can see 13.2 billion light years. James Webb will resolve much farther. Exactly how far can it see, I don't know, but it will see fully formed galaxies, not molecular clouds and certainly not the first moments of a big bang that never happened.

The CMBR maps temperature. Space is cold. You guys didn't know it was cold? You guys are so amazed at it's uniform coldness but what would make it hot? What would be the heat source? You're just tripping over your own feet and you don't even know it.

The background radiation came into existence when the universe was 377,000 years old? When did gravity come into existence? You forgot about gravity, didn't you? How could you do that?

The entire period is known as the recombination epoch? I wonder what it will be called when the scientists finally realize it never happened?

Do I understand what you are saying? There's nothing new here, you're just repeating others ideas, not your own. You lack imagination. How can you begin to understand the universe if you don't have an imagination? The universe is not basic black and white. It's the speed of light at every wavelength. It's time dimensionalities that add up to form the density that you call space/time.

I know you don't know what I'm saying. How could you? You're human.

This reminds me a few things. I'm told that the stars are all many millions of miles away... like hundreds of million miles away... yet I and many others have many videos and close-up shots from our simplistic digital cameras with crap zoom.

To me, it sure seems that they made everything so much farther away than what they really are because the further things are away, the more someone has to put their faith in the many things that they say. The they being the few privileged class with special access only. Anyone is just told that their common sense, vision, senses are wrong when in actuality..... etc etc.
I for one, believe that gravity is fictitious and was needed in order to make certain false models work. Since nobody can understand it, make sense of the senselessness and contradictions it makes, etc. . it was and still is suitable. It's equations and mathematics are pretty much identical to that of which already existed/exists. Anyone that can do the mathematics, keeps running into the paradox of equivalences.. but for me it's not a paradox.... gravity just doesn't exist. Even doing the equations solely related to gravity, they never make sense and add up.

I have no issue engaging in conversions or pretending I think it exists with those who do believe it exists. Because gravity is all many know, out of fear to de-learn anything that was learned in my opinion. Who wants to get booted out of the church or deemed a heretic and crucified for thinking differently or questioning the status quo?

 

[Polymath257]

This reminds me a few things. I'm told that the stars are all many millions of miles away... like hundreds of million miles away... yet I and many others have many videos and close-up shots from our simplistic digital cameras with crap zoom.

The nearest star (other than the sun) is 25 quadrillion miles away. A mere hundred million miles is a distance for inside our solar system: the Earth is 93 million miles from the sun and Mars is about 140 million miles.

You certainly never took a 'close up' shot of a star. You may have pointed your camera to the sky, but you certainly didn't resolve the disk of any star, ;et alone see things like sunspots on them.

To me, it sure seems that they made everything so much farther away than what they really are because the further things are away, the more someone has to put their faith in the many things that they say. The they being the few privileged class with special access only. Anyone is just told that their common sense, vision, senses are wrong when in actuality..... etc etc.

Nope. The distances to stars wasn't known until the 1830's when the first parallax measurement was made of a star. Since then, many have been made.

 

[Profound Realization]

It isn't clear exactly what you are asking here. I will try, but if I misinterpret, let me know.



These are (mostly) correct. One caution: an individual can have an intent, say, to kill and eat some prey. That is NOT the same as having an intent to direct evolution.



Every species, by simply existing, modifies its environment. It is ambiguous what you mean by 'technology' though. Do badgers use technology when building their dams?



What do you mean by 'instigate'? if you mean that they had a planned breeding program, it appears that humans are the first to do so. But, for example, ants will use aphids for 'agriculture' and have certainly affected aphid evolution thereby. Just not intentionally.



These seems to be uniquely human traits, as far as I know.



This happens in many social species. Wolves, for example.



This seems to be very widespread.

Nice response.

Outside of a few technicalities, I think we agree on most for what it's worth.

Simply existing and modification of environment agreed. Intentional modification/cause by human was my intent.

Instigate as in intent/planned.

Although, the scientific process via natural selection doesn't make any room to give organisms any "choice" with anything, including who they mate with.

I'll have to look into any studies regarding the wolf and it's "ego." Sounds intriguing.