Talk:Universe/Archive 1

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

I don't think this is an appropriate page. Linking to Wikipedia is A: Not really credible and B: Sort of against this site's mantra.--Elamdri 01:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

  • What is unclear is whether it is only everything that is material, or if it also includes such immaterial concepts as Heaven and hell. While the universe is apparently very large and very old, this might merely be an illusion, created to make life interesting, and to perhaps distract us from spiritual pursuits by filling our minds with material concerns.
Thanks, user:Ed Poor, for quoting here what you removed that I once typed in the article. Maybe it was bit over the top? Human 22:15, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Does it have to say "Some scientists, particularly atheists"? It seems a little silly. There are many religious people, scientists included, who believe in an old universe. I would really like to remove the "particularly atheists" phrase, but considering the source owns this site, I feel I should discuss it here first. Human 21:14, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Unless there is a source showing that astronomers/physicists who believe in the big bang/old universe theory are predominately atheists (and I believe you would be hard pressed to do so), it should be removed Brewer13210 21:47, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

OK, the same b******t quot3 mining that are on astronomy got pasted in here. I believe, we witness the implosion of conservapedia. Can anything related to science ever be explored properly here, without being weighed down with YEC apologetics (I love that word!) Human 00:00, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Ha! I recommend a YEC template that just says "Creationist say that it didn't happen that way see AIG to learn more" and just add it to every science topic on the site. Would save kdbuffalo some time. Tmtoulouse 00:02, 6 May 2007 (EDT)


The last sentence

I guess it's the involuntary result of an edit war, but the last sentence: 'Interestingly, modern scientific ideas about the nature of the universe hypothesize that for any location, it appears that that location is at the center of this expansion.' doesn't make any sense to me.Leopeo 09:12, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree, it is a mildly awkward sentence. It made sense to me, but then, I already knew what it meant. The goal here, of course, is to make things clear to us when we don't know them. Let's try to think of a better way to say it? Here's a stab: "Interestingly, modern scientific ideas about the nature of the universe hypothesize that whatever location one is at, one appears to be the center of this expansion" Well, that gets rid of the double "that", which, while good English, can mess up the flow of a sentence. "This is because, since everything in the universe is flying apart from everything else, wherever one is, everything else appears to be moving directly away from one's location." There's a word for this, which is escaping me right now. I think it's isotropic, and it is usually combined with one other word. Isotropic means, I'm pretty sure, that at a large enough scale, the universe looks the same from anywhere. I'll have to find the exact phrase that is used before attempting to make 'pedia text out of it, though. Oh, and it should also probably be its own paragraph. Human 13:02, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Now that you point it out, it makes sense. English is not one of my native languages. Your stab is clear.Leopeo 13:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Re the recent deletion of a large quantity of creationist material

Conservapedia would be a more interesting website if all of the various factions would allow the others' points of view to remain in the article, and concentrating on making sure that all of the descriptions are factual and well-supported, rather than trying to remove the points of view they do not agree with. Dpbsmith 18:07, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Eternal Universe?

Has anyone ever met a person who believes the Universe has been around for an eternity? In the sense that 14 billion years IS NOT an eternity.


That used to a common "competitor" for the big bang theory - that the universe had been here, pretty much the way it is now, forever. Did anyone realize the universe is an episode of Dr. Who? "John Hartnett theorizes that the Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field, caused by an extremely powerful gravitational field, during the first few days of creation. What appeared to be days on Earth would have been billions of years to the rest of the universe." Some people also hold to the theory that the "universe" goes through cycles of explosion, expansion, contraction to a singularity, repeat. I'm not sure how widely held these possibilities are any more. Human 20:07, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm a physics student and I've never heard of an astronomer who believes in an infinitely old universe (I could debunk that theory within 2 minutes anyway), so I think this was someone's (uhum User:Conservative's uhum) attempt to attack evolution and mainstream science in general.


That's because no one really does any more. But back when it became obvious that the universe was "very" old, before the discovery of expansion and the development of the big bang theory, there were "steady state" theories. Human 14:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Then what's it doing in this article?


I dunno, it's in the YECreationist section. Straw man? Or just poor wording? Maybe it should say "very old". Oh yeah, then the "argument" doesn't apply. Human 13:14, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Evolution in here?

I love how the TOE has been placed in these space articles. Really, do we need to include TOE in everything that YEC is against?--TimS 14:45, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, the evolution of the universe is entirely different, every literate person knows "evolution" simply means "change over time", as in "analysts warn there is a dangerous evolution going on in the Middle East". The word existed long before Darwin was born!


I don't think "evolution" is a simple word, or that it has a simple meaning. It is used in very different ways which can be confusing to our typical reader. Our Definitions of evolution article attempts to straighten out this confusion, but doesn't do so very well.
Certainly as a general term it means any change over time. This website has "evolved", for example, since late last year. But what causes evolution is an often crucial question.
In the origins debate, "evolution" can mean (1) how life came from inorganic matter via natural causes, (2) how forms of life changed in response to natural forces, or (3) both of these.
To make matters worse, Old Earth creationists variously say they "believe in evolution" or "disbelieve in evolution" (using two opposite meanings of evolution).
  • When they say that they believe in "evolution", they mean that they agree with mainstream geologists and biologists that the earth is billions of years old and that forms of life appeared when and where the fossil record indicates. That is, they agree that new species came into being over 100s of millions of years. On the other hand, they generally disagree with the idea that natural forces (such as mutation) caused these new species to come into being.
  • When they say that the disbelieve in "evolution", they likewise mean that they agree with the authenticity and timing of the events mentioned above, and that they reject evolution because they reject the idea of purely natural causation.
When Evolution proponents say that most Americans "believe in evolution", they are including the 12% to 15% who accept unguided evolution (aka Darwinism or "the theory of evolution"); along with the 40% of Americans who are Old Earth creationsts and who reject unguided evolution.
(This is a distinction which Wikipedia refuses to allow. I am on probation there, on the trumped up change of "POV pushing", for trying to make the distinction I have outlined above.)
(Evolution partisans don't want to allow clear distinctions. They want to pretend that people agree with them, so they can force their opinions on others.)
Eventually, I hope to clarify these points. Perhaps you can help. --Ed Poor 11:30, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

That should be in an article about various creation ideas (creation mythologies, ID, unguided evolution, theistic evolution, etc...).

When astronomers refer to the evolution of the universe they use the word like you used it in This website has "evolved". They mean that over time atoms packed together to form stars and groups of stars formed galaxies, that sort of thing. These are events that everyone can agree on, so I don't see why it is attacked by the author.

Same goes for the reference to an eternal universe, no evolutionist, or creationist believes in an eternal universe, so again, why is it in here?


Invalid Dating Methods?

This sentence: "...the old earth and universe paradigm has numerous anomalies and uses invalid dating methods..." doesn't explain what methods. I assume it means Radioactive isotope dating, which is actually very reliable.

Personal tools