# 94% of the universe’s galaxies are permanently beyond our reach



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 18, 2021)

94%? Well that sucks. So we can only visit about 12 billion galaxies.

Eventually that 94% of galaxies will disappear over the horizon like a sailboat.

Keep in mind: this is a snapshot, if we were ale to leave _today _at the speed of light. The percentage of galaxies we can never visit grows by the minute. If we just sit here long enough, there will be no galaxies in the sky, save for our own. (And then Hubble would lose the Great Debate!)









						94% of the universe's galaxies are permanently beyond our reach
					

Even if we left today, at the speed of light, we'd never catch up to these unreachable galaxies as dark energy expands the universe.




					bigthink.com
				




The universe is expanding, with every galaxy beyond the Local Group speeding away from us.
Today, most of the universe's galaxies are already receding faster than the speed of light.
All galaxies currently beyond 18 billion light-years are forever unreachable by us, no matter how much time passes.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 18, 2021)

This is assuming it's not possible to move faster than the speed of light, and perhaps it's not, but do we really know that for absolute certain? Maybe it's possible to tear holes in spacetime and pop into another section of the universe or something, or maybe not.


----------



## White 6 (Oct 18, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 94%? Well that sucks. So we can only visit about 12 billion galaxies.
> 
> Eventually that 94% of galaxies will disappear over the horizon like a sailboat.
> 
> ...


During the lifetimes of you and me, 100% of the galaxies beyond our own cannot and will not be able to be visited.


----------



## MarathonMike (Oct 18, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana Unless the space-time continuum can be short cut through worm holes.


----------



## theHawk (Oct 18, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 94%? Well that sucks. So we can only visit about 12 billion galaxies.
> 
> Eventually that 94% of galaxies will disappear over the horizon like a sailboat.
> 
> ...


Yea?  So?


----------



## SweetSue92 (Oct 18, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 94%? Well that sucks. So we can only visit about 12 billion galaxies.
> 
> Eventually that 94% of galaxies will disappear over the horizon like a sailboat.
> 
> ...



I'm a space geek, but only an armchair one. I love space documentaries. What is striking is: the more astrophysicists, etc discover, the less they really understand. Like what you mention. Space is not only expanding, but it is expanding at an ever increasing rate. 

That's just one aspect of space they seem to understand less. Which is fascinating really

They basically tapdance all around God. Which is also fascinating. And funny


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 18, 2021)

At 52 I doubt I will see the time when many people will travel to Space -- even Earth's orbit.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 18, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> This is assuming it's not possible to move faster than the speed of light, and perhaps it's not, but do we really know that for absolute certain? Maybe it's possible to tear holes in spacetime and pop into another section of the universe or something, or maybe not.


I hope so.  Hopefully you will see much more then our generation.


----------



## james bond (Oct 19, 2021)

We need a reason to visit.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 19, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 94%? Well that sucks. So we can only visit about 12 billion galaxies.
> 
> Eventually that 94% of galaxies will disappear over the horizon like a sailboat.
> 
> ...



Unless of course the universe starts retracting in on itself again.


----------



## Batcat (Oct 19, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> This is assuming it's not possible to move faster than the speed of light, and perhaps it's not, but do we really know that for absolute certain? Maybe it's possible to tear holes in spacetime and pop into another section of the universe or something, or maybe not.


We always assume we know more about physics than we actually do. 









						10 Seemingly Impossible Things Made Possible By Science - Listverse
					

We know science does amazing things all the time, but as we move into the future, scientific achievement is starting to border on magic. Science is




					listverse.com
				




***snip***

Light​






_It is a seemingly well-known fact that the speed of light cannot be breached in our universe, but that has been outright proven wrong by researchers from NEC Research Institute in Princeton, US. They passed a laser beam through a chamber of specially prepared gas and clocked its time. As it turned out, the beam was observed to be 300 times faster than the speed of light. Incredibly, the beam exited the chamber before it had entered it, which appears to violate the law of cause and effect as theorized by Einstein. It is like seeing the TV turn on before you press the switch on your remote. But then again, as the researchers explain, that law is not technically being broken, as the beam of the future has no means to affect the conditions in the past, which proves that Einstein wasn’t wrong, after all. Wrong or not, the experiment still managed to prove that the light speed barrier can in fact be broken and that effect can precede cause._









						Is NASA Actually Working On a Warp Drive?
					

Hyperspace, here we come!




					www.popularmechanics.com
				




_Is NASA really working on . . . a warp drive? An internal feasibility reportsuggests the agency might be, or at least that the idea of traveling through folded space is part of the NASA interstellar spaceflight menu.

The space agency isn’t building an engine that can approach the speed of light—yet. In the report, advanced propulsion physicist Harold "Sonny" White, PhD, now of Limitless Space, resolves a major paradox in the leading theoretical model for superluminal (faster than the speed of light) travel, what’s known as an Alcubierre warp drive.

The colloquial term “warp drive” comes from science fiction, most famously Star Trek. The faster-than-light warp drive of the Federation works by colliding matter and antimatter and converting the explosive energy to propulsion. The show suggests that this extraordinary power alone pushes the ship at faster-than-light speeds.

The Alcubierre drive, first proposed by theoretical physicist Miguel Alcubierre, conforms to Einstein’s theory of general relativity to achieve superluminal travel. It works a bit like the classic “tablecloth and dishes” party trick: The spaceship sits atop the tablecloth of spacetime, the drive pulls the fabric around it, and the ship is situated in a new place relative to the fabric._









						Is Warp Speed Possible? We Ask a String Theorist
					

Science geeks, Trekkers, and action-movie fans have now had a few days to digest the newest incarnation of the Star Trek franchise. PopSci set out to answer some of the movie's most puzzling questions (aside from what Winona Ryder was doing on Vulcan): Can we time-travel through black holes? Can...




					www.popsci.com
				




***snip***

_*
We all know the Enterprise travels at warp speed. Will it ever be possible to travel at “warp factor 4”?*

We physicists used to laugh at Star Trek‘s warp factor. We don’t laugh anymore. About 10 years ago, a Mexican relativist named Miguel Alcubierre was watching Star Trek, and he came up with a new solution to Einstein’s [general relativity] equation. The loophole is negative matter — Einstein never considered it. And Alcubierre got a solution that looked very similar to warp drive. The key is, you don’t go to the stars, the stars come to you. Everybody assumes you have to go to the stars, which means you have to break the light barrier and violate the laws of physics. But you can compress the space like an accordion — compress the space between you and the stars. It’s like a wrinkle in space. There are some objections to this, of course. We don’t have negative matter, for instance. But in principle, if you have, let’s say, a meteorite made of negative matter, then it may be possible. Einstein never said that nothing can go faster than light. Empty space can contract or expand faster than the speed of light. That’s the Big Bang. It’s emptiness that expanded. It looks very similar to the rendition of warp drive in the movies — you would see distortion of star light, stars would come at you very fast, but inside you feel nothing._


----------



## Quasar44 (Oct 19, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana 
Hummm
Any star system within 50 light years can be obtainable next century 

You simply use laser beams that have digitally encoded humans . Before hand , you launch a vast army of AI nano bots to nearby Star clusters to construct bases to receive the laser beams and construct human clones

Star Trek is just movies


----------



## Quasar44 (Oct 19, 2021)

We may never ever get to galaxies 
If we can conquer hundreds of Star systems in our own galaxy then what more can anyone want


----------



## there4eyeM (Oct 19, 2021)

The most important aspect of this kind of knowledge is how clearly it demonstrates how juvenile human concepts of existence remain. Despite seeing the enormity and complexity of the universe, childish wishes and dreams continue to handicap our race.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 19, 2021)

Batcat said:


> We always assume we know more about physics than we actually do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, I've had people tell me all sorts of things they KNOW are true. But which no one actually knows. Like about the Big Bang, which we know almost nothing, but we speculate about. Someone once even told me there could only be one "universe" because the word "universe" means only one. I told him the word "multiverse" also exists which, based on his logic, means there are multiple universes.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 19, 2021)

Batcat said:


> We always assume we know more about physics than we actually do.


Human arrogance is profound. It's one of our greatest weaknesses.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 19, 2021)

In fact, right now 100% of the Stars beyond our sun are unreachable by us any time soon.
At current rates, the closest star, Proxima Centauri (app a mere 4 Light Years) would take 73,000 years to reach.
A fact a little more graspable but still breathtaking.
Wonderful as it was, Star Trek gave us false hopes.
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 19, 2021)

SweetSue92 said:


> I'm a space geek, but only an armchair one. I love space documentaries. What is striking is: the more astrophysicists, etc discover, the less they really understand. Like what you mention. Space is not only expanding, but it is expanding at an ever increasing rate.
> 
> That's just one aspect of space they seem to understand less. Which is fascinating really
> 
> They basically tapdance all around God. Which is also fascinating. And funny


Because there is no place for magical nonsense in science. Inherently. Scientists study ubder the assumptions of determinism and universal physical laws. There is no space for magic there. 

But you are free to point at anythi g they learn and say, "God did it!" Of course, you will have explained nothing at all, nor can any useful predictions be drawn from your hypothesis. So it is useless in science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 19, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana
> Hummm
> Any star system within 50 light years can be obtainable next century
> 
> ...


That is covered. You can shine a laser at every galaxy we can observe. 94% of them, as of right now, will never see that laser.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 19, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Unless of course the universe starts retracting in on itself again.


Right, but that would take an awful lot of force, force for which we have no apprent source.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 19, 2021)

abu afak said:


> In fact, right now 100% of the Stars beyond our sun are unreachable by us any time soon.





abu afak said:


> At current rates, the closest star, Proxima Centauri (app a mere 4 Light Years) would take 73,000 years to reach.


Unless we discover something completely game-changing we're going to be stuck in our solar system for a very long time. Either way no big deal. I'm plenty excited for us to explore the many interesting moons in our own solar system.

How awesome would it be if we discovered another occurrence of life in our own backyard?


----------



## Paul Essien (Oct 19, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 94%? Well that sucks. So we can only visit about 12 billion galaxies.
> 
> Eventually that 94% of galaxies will disappear over the horizon like a sailboat.
> 
> ...








It is possible but the key lies in humans perception of time. Extending human lifespan seems more plausible than developing engines that can get close to the speed of light. Longer lives will cause humans to perceive time differently and this makes it easier to bear the burden of a long mission to another galaxy.

So, imagine a future where humans have enhanced human bodies by replacing human inefficient human organs with various mechanized and computer-controlled parts. Where human cells either don’t decay or automatically regenerate. Where humans would look somewhat like the people in the picture above. Humans wouldn’t need to be complete androids, as long as humans achieve the goal of extending human lifespans by several millenia.

Impossible?

That’s what people in the 18th Century would say, when you tell them that humans can talk to someone on the other side of the globe now with almost no delay. Or that humans are planning to colonize Mars and have already walked on the moon.

The far future is always near impossible to imagine and technology becomes almost like magic.

In truth, humans are already making progress on this. If you have heart problems, you can get a pacemaker. If you lose a limb, you can get a prosthesis. Humans are beginning to grasp the concepts of cloning organs or creating them from scratch. Humans are making their first baby steps with cell regeneration and extending the lifespans of creatures such as mice.

The reason why humans grow old and eventually die, doesn’t seem so hard to grasp: Humans cells decay and fail to perfectly regenerate (_with defects such as cancer as a possible result_). If humans can perfect this process, then humans become pretty much immortal.

The reason why I believe immortality is the answer and not super-crazy-fast-lightspeed-engines, is because even if you achieve 1.0c (_100% the speed of light_), it would take a human 100–180 millenia to travel from one side of the Milky Way to the other. Let alone travelling to another galaxy. That’s about 1000 human generations.

However, if humans are immortal, then such a long journey might feel similar to you as if you take a 12-hour plane flight from London to Tokyo. Long and a bit boring, but compared to your entire life it is not that significant.

Of course, cryonics (_freezing a humans body_) is another option that could work with this. Or wormhole travel, multiple dimensions or the number 42


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 19, 2021)

The CO2 readings are so high on those fleeing galaxies, we're better off without them


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 19, 2021)

We're only constrained by our flawed idea that awareness is limited to the Lego blocks of the physical Universe


----------



## james bond (Oct 19, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The CO2 readings are so high on those fleeing galaxies, we're better off without them


Venus' atmosphere is over 90% sulfuric acid, so some hideous being would have to live there.

Yet, we have do our due diligence and visit there -- UAF researcher on science team for unmanned Venus mission


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 19, 2021)

Batcat said:


> It is a seemingly well-known fact that the speed of light cannot be breached in our universe, but that has been outright proven wrong by researchers from NEC Research Institute in Princeton, US. They passed a laser beam through a chamber of specially prepared gas and clocked its time. As it turned out, the beam was observed to be 300 times faster than the speed of light. Incredibly, the beam exited the chamber before it had entered it, which appears to violate the law of cause and effect as theorized by Einstein. It is like seeing the TV turn on before you press the switch on your remote. But then again, as the researchers explain, that law is not technically being broken, as the beam of the future has no means to affect the conditions in the past, which proves that Einstein wasn’t wrong, after all. Wrong or not, the experiment still managed to prove that the light speed barrier can in fact be broken and that effect can precede cause.


I remember reading about a crystal structure where the beam could exit before it entered. A pulse of light is gaussian shaped (bell shaped). The peak of the bell defines the most probable position of the pulse. As the wave starts to enter the crystal the crystal amplifies it considerably so the entering part of the wave becomes larger than the peak that follows. That amplified wave will exit the crystal before the wave peak enters. The crystal reflects back an interference wave that cancels the entering peak so that the peak has seemingly shifted forward in space. And thereby the most probable position shifts forward in space.

The phenomenon doesn't do anything useful except to make an interesting faster-than-light title for a journal paper.

.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 19, 2021)

james bond said:


> *Venus' atmosphere is over 90% sulfuric acid,* so some hideous being would have to live there.
> 
> Yet, we have do our due diligence and visit there -- UAF researcher on science team for unmanned Venus mission



*"The atmosphere of Venus is made up Almost Completely of Carbon Dioxide. It also includes Small doses of nitrogen and clouds of sulfuric acid."*









						Venus' Atmosphere: Composition, Climate and Weather
					

The atmosphere of Venus is thick with clouds of carbon dioxide. The clouds cause a greenhouse effect that makes Venus the hottest planet in the solar system.




					www.space.com
				




`


----------



## JoeMoma (Oct 19, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> At 52 I doubt I will see the time when many people will travel to Space -- even Earth's orbit.



Whit in the next 500 years we may have a million or more people living off Earth which will be a small fraction of the billions of people living on earth (if we don't destroy our selves first).


----------



## Peace (Oct 19, 2021)

They said the Earth was flat, we couldn’t fly, never make it to space, live in space and yet all that has happened, so why believe people when sooner or later they will be proven wrong?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 19, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Like about the Big Bang, which we know almost nothing, but we speculate about.


In the strict sense of Big Bang Theory, -- the idea that there was a rapid expansion of the universe -- it is pretty much confirmed. We took a picture of it. But the idea of a singularity prior to the Big Bang is up in the air and is actually starting to fall out of favor.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 19, 2021)

Paul Essien said:


> View attachment 553686
> 
> It is possible but the key lies in humans perception of time. Extending human lifespan seems more plausible than developing engines that can get close to the speed of light. Longer lives will cause humans to perceive time differently and this makes it easier to bear the burden of a long mission to another galaxy.
> 
> ...


Love it!


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 19, 2021)

JoeMoma said:


> Whit in the next 500 years we may have a million or more people living off Earth which will be a small fraction of the billions of people living on earth (if we don't destroy our selves first).


Maybe much earlier -- maybe most people will be living away from Earth in 2150.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 19, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> We're only constrained by our flawed idea that awareness is limited to the Lego blocks of the physical Universe


And how would awareness of something not part of the physical universe work? How would you know you were not hallucinating?


----------



## JoeMoma (Oct 19, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Maybe much earlier -- maybe most people will be living away from Earth in 2150.


Maybe....

However, it will be very difficult to create a larger livable environment away form Earth.  It is unlikely that "most" people will be living away from Earth unless the environment of Earth is destroyed.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 19, 2021)

JoeMoma said:


> Maybe....
> 
> However, it will be very difficult to create a larger livable environment away form Earth.  It is unlikely that "most" people will be living away from Earth unless the environment of Earth is destroyed.


Technological progress is exponential.


----------



## JoeMoma (Oct 19, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Technological progress is exponential.


Well, I will be long dead before 2150, so I'll never know.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 19, 2021)

JoeMoma said:


> Well, I will be long dead before 2150, so I'll never know.


As I will be.  Sad but true.


----------



## Stryder50 (Oct 19, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Technological progress is exponential.


Only for the past century or so, about two at best.  Prior to that has been tens to hundreds of thousands of years of rather so progression, just short of stagnant.

I'd hesitate to expect it will continue to be "exponential", yet won't rule such out.

Thanks for underscoring the lack of correct historical detail and perspective being taught in our current educational systems.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 19, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Right, but that would take an awful lot of force, force for which we have no apprent source.



Well, not necessarily. We could, potentially, be in a cyclical universe. All the matter, energy, stuff, whatever gets thrown out at the Big Bang, and then gets pushed around the universe back to the starting point to be repeated again.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 19, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> In the strict sense of Big Bang Theory, -- the idea that there was a rapid expansion of the universe -- it is pretty much confirmed. We took a picture of it. But the idea of a singularity prior to the Big Bang is up in the air and is actually starting to fall out of favor.



Well, we know certain things, we have evidence for things. The problem is we might just be making the wrong assumptions about the evidence we have. Maybe something missing would completely change our view on what we see.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 19, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Well, not necessarily. We could, potentially, be in a cyclical universe. All the matter, energy, stuff, whatever gets thrown out at the Big Bang, and then gets pushed around the universe back to the starting point to be repeated again.


Back to the "starting point"? I dont get that. There is no origin point of the big bang. I am missing something.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 19, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Back to the "starting point"? I dont get that. There is no origin point of the big bang. I am missing something.



Well, there is some original point of the Big Bang. It happened somewhere. But it might not actually be the same location, it might not even be the same point in time. Imagine a bicycle inner tube, where on part of the inner tube has problem and there's only enough space in the hole for 1/10th of a atom to fit through. All the the energy, mass, whatever gets pushed into the tiny hole, explode, implodes, does whatever it does and gets fired around the inner tube. Sure, the bike is still moving, so the place is different in some senses than it was the first time.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 19, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> Only for the past century or so, about two at best.  Prior to that has been tens to hundreds of thousands of years of rather so progression, just short of stagnant.
> 
> *I'd hesitate to expect it will continue to be "exponential", yet won't rule such out.*


I hope development will continue at present pace.  Only time will tell.


----------



## james bond (Oct 19, 2021)

abu afak said:


> *"The atmosphere of Venus is made up Almost Completely of Carbon Dioxide. It also includes Small doses of nitrogen and clouds of sulfuric acid."*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My article is from June 2021 .


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 19, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Well, there is some original point of the Big Bang. It happened somewhere.


Well, not in these three dimensions. Maybe in a higher dimension?  Fascinating stuff, though. 

Touched on a bit here:


----------



## abu afak (Oct 19, 2021)

james bond said:


> Venus' atmosphere is over 90% sulfuric acid, so some hideous being would have to live there.
> 
> Yet, we have do our due diligence and visit there -- UAF researcher on science team for unmanned Venus mission


Yes but your article does NOT say Venus is 90% Sulfuric acid you lying Blind POS>


james bond said:


> My article is from June 2021 .


"Your article doesn't even mention "Sulfuric acid" you Deluded Moron.
`


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 20, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well, not in these three dimensions. Maybe in a higher dimension?  Fascinating stuff, though.
> 
> Touched on a bit here:



Well, there are theories and the reality is we just don't know. I'm not saying this is how it is, just presenting stuff that shows just how little we do know. Less than we think we know.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 20, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And how would awareness of something not part of the physical universe work? How would you know you were not hallucinating?


You have it backwards.


----------



## JoeMoma (Oct 20, 2021)

Unless there is some tremendous breakthrough in science and technology, 100% of the galaxies (other than our own) are beyond our reach.  It would be a major undertaking simply to be able to reach the nearest star (that is not our sun).

Even if we discover technology that can send probes to another galaxy, another problem would be that humans are unlikely to be able to endure such a trip.


----------



## james bond (Oct 20, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Yes but your article does NOT say Venus is 90% Sulfuric acid you lying Blind POS>
> 
> "Your article doesn't even mention "Sulfuric acid" you Deluded Moron.
> `


It's you who is the moron if you believe Venus is not over 90% sulfuric acid.

What gets me is the atheist scientists who think life can exist there and that we'll find some type of life.  I rather deal with the global warming on Earth.  Huge waste of money listening to these stupid atheist scientists.  Are you going to back them up now just to prove me wrong  ?


----------



## abu afak (Oct 20, 2021)

james bond said:


> It's you who is the moron if you believe Venus is not over 90% sulfuric acid.
> 
> What gets me is the atheist scientists who think life can exist there and that we'll find some type of life.  I rather deal with the global warming on Earth.  Huge waste of money listening to these stupid atheist scientists.  Are you going to back them up now just to prove me wrong  ?


SO NO answer to being caught in a 100% LIE.
It wasn't even in your article
*You're no Christian, you're a sociopath, criminal, and a Fraud.*
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Less than we think we know.


I think scientists are just as aware of that as you are. They freely admit they proceed from assumptions that are not 100% certain. They have to operate this way. Else they would have to stay home and stop doing science. If we spent the time hedging every statement when discussing these topics, that would take longer than the explanations.

Nevertheless, it is quite safe to call certain things "true" and "fact". Like, evolution. Like, the existence of s supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> You have it backwards.


That doesnt make any sense. This is the science section, not the Rubber Room where you usually reside. Explain and support your claims and ideas. Put on your big boy pants. Or stick to the Rubber Room.


----------



## james bond (Oct 20, 2021)

abu afak said:


> SO NO answer to being caught in a 100% LIE.
> It wasn't even in your article
> *You're no Christian, you're a sociopath, criminal, and a Fraud.*
> `


You're such a trivial.  You sound so worried that you call it a LIE.  I can easily find a current article on Venus' horrible environment for life.  It's you who is a FAT LIAR because I'm not a sociopath, criminal, and fraud.

What is important for the atheists is to find life outside of Earth.  That would be some kind of evidence for abiogenesis and evolution as the Bible doesn't say life was created anywhere else.  You could have panspermia from Earth, but that's highly unlikely due to the harsh solar winds.

Anyway, your anger and ad hominem attacks show how _insecure_ you are as evolution is not observable.  No life elsewhere would show evidence for creation.  It was God who created natural selection, too.  It is just further evidence for creation and against evolution and evolutionary thinking.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 20, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That doesnt make any sense. This is the science section, not the Rubber Room where you usually reside. Explain and support your claims and ideas. Put on your big boy pants. Or stick to the Rubber Room.



It's OK.  You tell us again how awareness come from Lego blocks if you stack them jussssssssssst right


----------



## james bond (Oct 20, 2021)

It sounds like Venus is the next planet in our solar system to explore, but I doubt it will be found habitable for us.  I don't think Mars was either, but NASA's atheist scientists won't admit it.  They may still want to send humans there, but that's a mistake imho.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> It's OK.  You tell us again how awareness come from Lego blocks if you stack them jussssssssssst right


Are you saying your sky daddy is too stupid or weak to have created humans via abiogenesis and evolution? You dont seem to think much of his abilities, as far as sky daddies go.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 20, 2021)

james bond said:


> imho


There is nothing humble about your opinions.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2021)

james bond said:


> It sounds like Venus is the next planet in our solar system to explore, but I doubt it will be found habitable for us.  I don't think Mars was either, but NASA's atheist scientists won't admit it.  They may still want to send humans there, but that's a mistake imho.


Any planet is "habitable", if we protect ourselves from the environment. Is outer space "habitable"? People live in outer space.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 20, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I think scientists are just as aware of that as you are. They freely admit they proceed from assumptions that are not 100% certain. They have to operate this way. Else they would have to stay home and stop doing science. If we spent the time hedging every statement when discussing these topics, that would take longer than the explanations.
> 
> Nevertheless, it is quite safe to call certain things "true" and "fact". Like, evolution. Like, the existence of s supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy.



Yes, I'd suggest a lot of scientists are aware of that. It's the general public that thinks we KNOW everything. 

Some things become "fact" simply because people hear it a few times, though.


----------



## Mushroom (Oct 20, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> You simply use laser beams that have digitally encoded humans . Before hand , you launch a vast army of AI nano bots to nearby Star clusters to construct bases to receive the laser beams and construct human clones



Only if we start yesterday.

OK, even assuming that is possible, it will take hundreds of years to get the receivers there.  And the irony is, the faster we manage to send the ships, the longer they will take to arrive.  And one thing that tends to cause people the most trouble is understanding how time dilation works.  That the faster one travels, the less time a trip takes subjectively to themselves, but longer when viewed from outside of those traveling.


----------



## Mushroom (Oct 20, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> People live in outer space.



Only in LEO, with constant resupply from Earth.

The farther you travel from our home planet, the harder it is to send those supplies.  Even if we were to send a colony to the Moon, it would be difficult to sustain them.  Mars?  Only with great difficulty and by sending supplies in advance of the main group arriving.  Farther?  Impossible.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Yes, I'd suggest a lot of scientists are aware of that. It's the general public that thinks we KNOW everything.
> 
> Some things become "fact" simply because people hear it a few times, though.


Yes, and the shoddy headlines that a lot of "science" articles carry don't help. "Scientists discover they were wrong all along about _____"

(One study, may not even really mean that, etc. And i haven't even gotten to intentional misinformation, yet. Just shoddy headlines. Cosmology related articles are especially plagued by this.)

So what to do? We have to trust somebody most times, just like scientists have to place trust (a bet) on something they think is likely true, in order to test it and to do further science. Professional scientists explain what they know against a back drop of not knowing jack shit about the rest. They happily admit what they dont know. They spend their hours trying to figure out not just what data tells us, but also what it DOESN'T tell us.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> Only in LEO, with constant resupply from Earth.


Yes indeed. No minerals in empty space. No water, no iron, no organics.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 20, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, and the shoddy headlines that a lot of "science" articles carry don't help. "Scientists discover they were wrong all along about _____"
> 
> (One study, may not even really mean that, etc. And i haven't even gotten to intentional misinformation, yet. Just shoddy headlines. Cosmology related articles are especially plagued by this.)
> 
> So what to do? We have to trust somebody most times, just like scientists have to place trust (a bet) on something they think is likely true, in order to test it and to do further science. Professional scientists explain what they know against a back drop of not knowing jack shit about the rest. They happily admit what they dont know. They spend their hours trying to figure out not just what data tells us, but also what it DOESN'T tell us.



Mostly I find that people read things badly. When they see "could" "may" "might" they read "is". But yes, I'd assume some articles, especially in newspapers where the writer has no idea what they're talking about but has read some other article and is pilfering it.


----------



## percysunshine (Oct 20, 2021)

Entropy is ... anothe name for karma.


----------



## Mushroom (Oct 20, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> It's the general public that thinks we KNOW everything.



And that is constantly changing.

I became aware of that decades ago.  When I saw an the cover of an old astronomy book that my mom had that predated Hubble.  Which had on the cover an iconic picture of the "Andromeda Nebula".







This was common until the 1950's, when the works of Edwin Hubble were finally universally recognized and that Andromeda was indeed another galaxy and not just a "nebulae".

And I am also old enough to remember when Black Holes were only speculation, and that many were debating what eventually be a "big crunch".  Where the universe eventually contracted to a single point, and then explodes in a new "big bang".  And the cycle would repeat itself.

This is all before "string theory", before things like multiverse and the like was being accepted as actually possible.

However, one thing that has been shown over and over again, a man born in 1879 was right far more often than he was wrong in his speculation of things far beyond being proven wrong.  But everything will never be known, because each generation we learn more and more.  I am old enough to remember speculation about what would happen when Apollo 11 landed on the moon.  When the Berringer Crater was still thought by many to be a volcanic feature.  Before the confirmation of the Chixulub Crater, and when it was only first being realized that dinosaurs still lived in birds.  When it was only "wild speculation" that Yellowstone was actually a volcano, and might have originated in Oregon.

All well accepted "facts" today, but I am old enough to remember when these were all seen as the ravings of maniacs.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Mostly I find that people read things badly.


That too, if they get past the headline at all.


----------



## Mushroom (Oct 20, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes indeed. No minerals in empty space. No water, no iron, no organics.



Not in enough density to support people.

We have found a lot of things we need everywhere we have looked.  But not enough of them to sustain life.

We have found water and oxygen on the moon.  But such a small amount that it would take more to extract them than we effectively use them.  Lots of iron in the asteroid belt, but we can't eat, drink, or breathe what we find there.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 20, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> And that is constantly changing.
> 
> I became aware of that decades ago.  When I saw an the cover of an old astronomy book that my mom had that predated Hubble.  Which had on the cover an iconic picture of the "Andromeda Nebula".
> 
> ...



The biggest problem for us is that there are things we simply don't know. We might be right about things we can see and figure out. But there are things we don't even know we don't know.

Like what's out in between solar systems, or in between galaxies. We assumed there was nothing, now we're learning it's not nothing.

We try and learn rules. The further we go the more our view of rules change.


----------



## Mushroom (Oct 20, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> We assumed there was nothing, now we're learning it's not nothing.



You may have thought that, but most who understood that there was "something".

Much like leaving the Earth and going to higher elevations.  There is always "something" out there, but in what density?  PPM?  PPB?  PPT?  And since speculations have been of rogue planets and even rogue stars.  Then the "tails" of past galactic collisions.

Heck, I wonder how many are even aware that we are not even in a "spiral galaxy" as has commonly been though, but actually in a spiral bar galaxy.

But just as most of the learned knew the planet was round even before Columbus set out,   In fact, before 200 BCE the Greeks had realized not only that, but were within 15% of the actual size of our planet.  It is amazing how often we have no understanding of how those who came before us thought.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 20, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> You may have thought that, but most who understood that there was "something".
> 
> Much like leaving the Earth and going to higher elevations.  There is always "something" out there, but in what density?  PPM?  PPB?  PPT?  And since speculations have been of rogue planets and even rogue stars.  Then the "tails" of past galactic collisions.
> 
> ...



The problem is they thought the Earth was round, then we found out it's not round, it's an oblate spheroid. Okay, being pedantic there. 

However the problem is the further away from the Earth we move, the more likely the rules are to change. This could be in terms of physical distance, but more likely with time. If things impacted out universe that happened before the universe existed in its current form, how are we supposed to find this stuff out?


----------



## Mushroom (Oct 20, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> The problem is they thought the Earth was round, then we found out it's not round, it's an oblate spheroid. Okay, being pedantic there.
> 
> However the problem is the further away from the Earth we move, the more likely the rules are to change. This could be in terms of physical distance, but more likely with time. If things impacted out universe that happened before the universe existed in its current form, how are we supposed to find this stuff out?



But based on what tools they had available, it was close enough.  Which was largely at that time only thought and measuring the sun and horizon.

But moving from the sun-solar system-galaxy, the rules will not change.  And we can tell by looking into the past.  Which is quite literally not only possible, but has been done.






I present to you the "Hubble Deep Field".  The first of three iconic Hubble surveys of seep-deep-deep space.  Each time, looking into an "empty" section of space, and seeing there was more there than was previously thought.

Every single pixel in that image with something in it is another galaxy.  Which staggered researchers when they first realized that in the 1990's.

But today, we live in the era of the "Hubble Legacy Field".






Which goes even "deeper".  And literally is seeing galaxies formed less than two billon years after the "big bang".  We are seeing the very embryonic stages of galaxies in this image, as well as the evolution to what we see around us today.  And based on this can predict what is to come in the future.

But not a single thing has been outside of what we have learned from our own galaxy and solar system.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 21, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> But based on what tools they had available, it was close enough.  Which was largely at that time only thought and measuring the sun and horizon.
> 
> But moving from the sun-solar system-galaxy, the rules will not change.  And we can tell by looking into the past.  Which is quite literally not only possible, but has been done.
> 
> ...



Problem is things don't add properly.

Dark matter.









						Dark matter - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




"*Dark matter* is a hypothetical form of matter thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe"

Wow, it's hypothetical, we don't know what it is, if it exists, though we know something is there breaking the rules we do know, and it accounts for perhaps 85% of the universe. Or the universe we know. 

That's a lot of "we don't know". And there's probably more.


----------



## james bond (Oct 21, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Are you saying your sky daddy is too stupid or weak to have created humans via abiogenesis and evolution? You dont seem to think much of his abilities, as far as sky daddies go.


God is neither stupid nor weak.  He's the smartest and strongest being in existence.  He doesn't need abiogenesis nor evolution.  His reach is everywhere.  You admitted 94% of our universe is out of our reach and it is increasing daily.  God tells the believers how and why.  It's why I am 100% positive creation is true and evolution is a lie.  How else would I know that humans exchanged the truth for a lie?  The atheists and their scientists depend on a human instead of God, so they're the ones who ended up with the lie.

I just exposed another one of you who can't argue like someone who is 100% positive.  I think they are afraid and have to resort to ad hominem attacks because their science isn't holding up.  Just because you or an evolution expert says so doesn't make it true.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2021)

james bond said:


> God is neither stupid nor weak.  He's the smartest and strongest being in existence.  He doesn't need abiogenesis nor evolution.  His reach is everywhere.  You admitted 94% of our universe is out of our reach and it is increasing daily.  God tells the believers how and why.  It's why I am 100% positive creation is true and evolution is a lie.  How else would I know that humans exchanged the truth for a lie?  The atheists and their scientists depend on a human instead of God, so they're the ones who ended up with the lie.
> 
> I just exposed another one of you who can't argue like someone who is 100% positive.  I think they are afraid and have to resort to ad hominem attacks because their science isn't holding up.  Just because you or an evolution expert says so doesn't make it true.


The Jimmy Swaggert wannabe is bible thumping in yet another science thread.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 21, 2021)

james bond said:


> God is neither stupid nor weak.  He's the smartest and strongest being in existence.
> He doesn't need abiogenesis nor evolution.  His reach is everywhere.  You admitted 94% of our universe is out of our reach and it is increasing daily.  God tells the believers how and why.  It's why I am 100% positive creation is true and evolution is a lie.  How else would I know that humans exchanged the truth for a lie?  The atheists and their scientists depend on a human instead of God, so they're the ones who ended up with the lie.
> 
> I just exposed another one of you who can't argue like someone who is 100% positive.  I think they are afraid and have to resort to ad hominem attacks because their science isn't holding up.  Just because you or an evolution expert says so doesn't make it true.


"Jesus Akhbar."
No science.
Religion section.


----------



## james bond (Oct 21, 2021)

Hollie said:


> The Jimmy Swaggert wannabe is bible thumping in yet another science thread.


It's 21st century creation science as we are still discovering science backs up the Bible.  I've been arguing that there was no life on Mars and now no life on Venus due to its  harsh environment.  More evidence against life on other planets.  See how Earth is special?  We had what abu afak posted, but he was wrong.  What was terrible was he just discarded an AIG article used to criticize his post.  When an atheist just discards things such as AIG science articles in S&T, then he needs to be pointed out and chastised.

I had to post God created natural selection or else the atheists would've stolen another scientific finding from the creator.  As for the vastness of space, well, I can accept it and that humans won't be able to explore all of it because it shows *God's unlimited power*.  The Bible states his arm is expanding the universe like a curtain and tent to dwell in.  OTOH, the atheist scientists have made up invisible dark matter and dark energy to explain how the universe is expanding.


----------



## james bond (Oct 21, 2021)

abu afak said:


> "Jesus Akhbar."
> No science.
> Religion section.


Creation science.  The atheists can't just discard our science as religion when we have the greatest scientists in history.  The atheists also use religion in their science as they do not accept God and His creation.  For example, God created natural selection.  Your side can have the vastness of space, but the creationists are interested in the shape of the universe like a curtain in the shape of a tent being expanded out and whether there is are edges and a boundary:






Your side claims it is flat and there are no edges and boundaries.  Why can't you explain how they come up with that (hint: dark matter and dark energy)?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 21, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> And that is constantly changing.
> 
> I became aware of that decades ago.  When I saw an the cover of an old astronomy book that my mom had that predated Hubble.  Which had on the cover an iconic picture of the "Andromeda Nebula".
> 
> ...





Hollie said:


> The Jimmy Swaggert wannabe is bible thumping in yet another science thread.


Not if you ignore him...


----------



## james bond (Oct 21, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Problem is things don't add properly.
> 
> Dark matter.
> 
> ...


What do you mean "things don't add properly?"

To mean, it means the universe is still having heavenly bodies being added to it, i.e. created, and expanding.


----------



## james bond (Oct 21, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Not if you ignore him...


Those who ignore Him get His wrath.

What happens if I ignore evolution?  One doesn't want to ignore natural selection as that is part of creation science.  One can ignore macroevolution or birds from dinosaurs or apes became humans.  Those who do could be criticized for ignoring macroevolution, but they can just say where's the evidence?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 21, 2021)

james bond said:


> What do you mean "things don't add properly?"


He means he understands what scientists are doing and learning, while you do not.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 21, 2021)

james bond said:


> Those who ignore Him get His wrath


Your magical incantations and spells hold no sway here, shaman. Adjust the bone in your nose, put down the dead goat, and go read a 6th grade science text.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 21, 2021)

james bond said:


> What do you mean "things don't add properly?"
> 
> To mean, it means the universe is still having heavenly bodies being added to it, i.e. created, and expanding.



It means scientists do the math, and the results aren't what's happening out there. 

So they work the other way, they get the results and try and make the math, and find out something's missing.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 21, 2021)

james bond said:


> What do you mean "things don't add properly?"
> 
> To mean, *it means the universe is still having heavenly bodies being added to it*, i.e. created, and expanding.


Is the Continued creation of heavenly bodies in Genesis?
Creation and Destruction of stars?
I thought it say's that was all a DONE Deal in ONE day.
Dark Matter in Genesis?
More heavenly body addition/destruction is more like Big Bang.

`


----------



## Astrostar (Oct 21, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 94%? Well that sucks. So we can only visit about 12 billion galaxies.
> 
> Eventually that 94% of galaxies will disappear over the horizon like a sailboat.
> 
> ...





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 94%? Well that sucks. So we can only visit about 12 billion galaxies.
> 
> Eventually that 94% of galaxies will disappear over the horizon like a sailboat.
> 
> ...


Most people have no real grasp of how fast the speed of light actually is.  Think of it this way, if you could send a beam of light around the earth at the equator, in one second the beam would circle the earth seven and one half times.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 21, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Dark Matter in Genesis?


lmfao...


----------



## james bond (Oct 22, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Is the Continued creation of heavenly bodies in Genesis?
> Creation and Destruction of stars?
> I thought it say's that was all a DONE Deal in ONE day.
> Dark Matter in Genesis?
> ...


Jeez.  Dark matter is for the atheists.  You have to know that they believed in an eternal universe contrary to the creationists and were wrong.  Something new I've learned today is that it was the creationists who thought the Earth was spherical.  It turns out that it was the atheists and contrarians who thought the Earth was flat.  That's some joke on Flattie Hollie, isn't it ?

Moreover, there are no new heavenly bodies being added as God ended His creation on the sixth day.  What the atheists think is that new bodies are continued to be created with this dark matter.  It's ridiculous.  One does not get something from nothing:

"Atheist Stephen Hawking claims: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing".[5] Hawking further claims that the universe “popped into existence without violating the known laws of Nature".[6]

Atheist Victor J. Stenger wrote: "Assuming the universe came from nothing, it is empty to begin with…".[7]

The atheist philosopher Quinton Smith indicated “the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing."[8]

Wayne Jackson wrote at the _Christian Courier_ regarding Victor J. Stenger's hypothesis that the universe came from nothing:


“First, in defiance of one of the most elementary principles of logic, the atheist suggests that “something” (e.g., the Universe) came from “nothing;” that zero plus zero equals something greater than zero.
Victor Stenger, an atheistic professor at the University of Hawaii, admits that “everyday experience and common sense” supports the concept that something cannot come from nothing. Nevertheless, he suggests that “common sense is often wrong, and our normal experiences are but a tiny fraction of reality” (26-27). If you want to be an atheist, you must put your “common sense” on the shelf![9]

You, as an atheist, must put your "common sense" on the shelf!  Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.



			https://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_the_origin_of_the_universe.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2021)

james bond said:


> It's 21st century creation science as we are still discovering science backs up the Bible.  I've been arguing that there was no life on Mars and now no life on Venus due to its  harsh environment.  More evidence against life on other planets.  See how Earth is special?  We had what abu afak posted, but he was wrong.  What was terrible was he just discarded an AIG article used to criticize his post.  When an atheist just discards things such as AIG science articles in S&T, then he needs to be pointed out and chastised.
> 
> I had to post God created natural selection or else the atheists would've stolen another scientific finding from the creator.  As for the vastness of space, well, I can accept it and that humans won't be able to explore all of it because it shows *God's unlimited power*.  The Bible states his arm is expanding the universe like a curtain and tent to dwell in.  OTOH, the atheist scientists have made up invisible dark matter and dark energy to explain how the universe is expanding.


That's enough, Jimmy. Pounding your bibles in the Science forum is in bad form.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2021)

james bond said:


> Jeez.  Dark matter is for the atheists.  You have to know that they believed in an eternal universe contrary to the creationists and were wrong.  Something new I've learned today is that it was the creationists who thought the Earth was spherical.  It turns out that it was the atheists and contrarians who thought the Earth was flat.  That's some joke on Flattie Hollie, isn't it ?
> 
> Moreover, there are no new heavenly bodies being added as God ended His creation on the sixth day.  What the atheists think is that new bodies are continued to be created with this dark matter.  It's ridiculous.  One does not get something from nothing:
> 
> ...



Jimmy said:


----------



## Stann (Oct 22, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 94%? Well that sucks. So we can only visit about 12 billion galaxies.
> 
> Eventually that 94% of galaxies will disappear over the horizon like a sailboat.
> 
> ...


Probably best to stay in the local Virgo Supercluster anyway; mankind is not yet  ready to understand or even comprehend what lies beyond that.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 22, 2021)

Stann said:


> Probably best to stay in the local Virgo Supercluster anyway; mankind is not yet  ready to understand or even comprehend what lies beyond that.


The universe appears to be essentially homogeneous in every direction. So what "lies beyond" the Virgo Supercluster is just another supercluster that looks and is about the same as ours. And beyond that supercluster, another supercluster about the same as the first two. 

What are you getting at?


----------



## Stann (Oct 22, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The universe appears to be essentially homogeneous in every direction. So what "lies beyond" the Virgo Supercluster is just another supercluster that looks and is about the same as ours. And beyond that supercluster, another supercluster about the same as the first two.
> 
> What are you getting at?


Most humans on this planet still have very primitive ideas.


----------



## james bond (Oct 22, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Jimmy said:


What does Jimmy's confession have to do with science lol?  Jeez, and I get blamed for stealing or wrecking a thread.


----------



## Stann (Oct 22, 2021)

Stann said:


> Most humans on this planet still have very primitive ideas.


For example, If it were revealed to the general public tomorrow that other life exists it would completely shatter many peoples belief that we are alone in the universe and God's chosen. There are a whole lot of other issues which would also occur. Like I said, most aren't ready for that. Think of the poor " Flat Earthers ". Lol.


----------



## Stann (Oct 22, 2021)

james bond said:


> What does Jimmy's confession have to do with science lol?  Jeez, and I get blamed for stealing or wrecking a thread.


----------



## Stann (Oct 22, 2021)

Ever notice how the biggest sinners become the most devout religious people given enough time. My guess is they can't forgive themselves, or they've gotten even worse. Take your pick.


----------



## james bond (Oct 22, 2021)

Stann said:


> Ever notice how the biggest sinners become the most devout religious people given enough time. My guess is they can't forgive themselves, or they've gotten even worse. Take your pick.


That's the rub.  Do you get it Stann?  *Jesus, as the Wrath of God, does not need to come a second time.*  All everyone has to do is ask God for forgiveness and He will.


----------



## Stann (Oct 22, 2021)

james bond said:


> That's the rub.  Do you get it Stann?  *Jesus, as the Wrath of God, does not need to come a second time.*  All everyone has to do is ask God for forgiveness and He will.


Since GOD resides within each of us, we need to forgive ourselves first, then we can embrace GOD, who neither needs or requires us to make pleas of any kind on our own behalf.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 22, 2021)

Stann said:


> Since GOD resides within each of us, we need to forgive ourselves first, then we can embrace GOD, who neither needs or requires us to make pleas of any kind on our own behalf.


Could you two please take this Religious discussion somewhere else.
This is the Science section.
There isn't - and has Never been - any evidence for Any of the many 'gods' here or elsewhere.
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 22, 2021)

Stann said:


> Most humans on this planet still have very primitive ideas.


All except you, apparently. Curious.


----------



## Stann (Oct 22, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> All except you, apparently. Curious.


Been there done that in previous lives opted out of it this time around.


----------



## Stann (Oct 22, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Could you two please take this Religious discussion somewhere else.
> This is the Science section.
> There isn't - and has Never been - any evidence for Any of the many 'gods' here or elsewhere.
> `


Okie dokie with me.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 22, 2021)

Stann said:


> Been there done that in previous lives opted out of it this time around.


Are you one of those lunatics that thinks you're the reincarnation of Tutankhamun or something?


----------



## Stann (Oct 22, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Are you one of those lunatics that thinks you're the reincarnation of Tutankhamun or something?


No, missed that time period on earth, was here during Akhenaten and Nefertiti's rule however. Unlike you, a very enlightened man for his time.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 22, 2021)

Stann said:


> Been there done that in previous lives opted out of it this time around.


We would love to hear the things you know that have eluded the global communities of astronomers and cosmologists. And how you know these things.

And...go


----------



## Stann (Oct 22, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> We would love to hear the things you know that have eluded the global communities of astronomers and cosmologists. And how you know these things.
> 
> And...go



Much of what I could tell you will not make sense until you master quantum slipstream and have a working model. And as far as I can know that will not happen until 2037.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 22, 2021)

Stann said:


> Much of what I could tell you will not make sense until you master quantum slipstream and have a working model. And as far as I can know that will not happen until 2037.


So you have made up stuff and no evidence. I kind of thought so.

This is the science section.


----------



## Stann (Oct 22, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So you have made up stuff and no evidence. I kind of thought so.
> Throughout history, never mind, the process will simply be repeated again and again. So much for the intelligence of the human race.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 22, 2021)

Information-free psychobabble


----------



## james bond (Oct 22, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Could you two please take this Religious discussion somewhere else.
> This is the Science section.
> There isn't - and has Never been - any evidence for Any of the many 'gods' here or elsewhere.
> `


This is toooooooooooooooooo hypocritical.  Why is it that the atheists and their idiot scientists are the only ones allowed in the science section?  The creationists and their scientists all know Jesus has to come again to destroy the world because of the atheists and sinners.  We relish it as The Rapture as we get to experience what heaven on Earth with God and without sin was supposed to be. 

Furthermore, it is evidence of how weak atheist science, scientists, and their lies are.  They should not be the only ones allowed in the science section with their BS atheist religion.  I provided an alternative solution, tongue firmly in cheek, but all the believers know that Jesus will come again already.  The Bible knew that Jesus not coming was impossible because of exchanging the truth for a lie.  The Second Coming of Jesus and the end of the world must come.  Everyone dying because of global warming is not what is coming.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 22, 2021)

It is pretty ironic that the one person who easily posts more in the science section than anyone on this board -- that would be the deluded, YEC fraud james bond -- is whining that his brand of insanity is "not allowed" here.

I think this ironic, idiotic rant sums him and his belief system up rather well.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 23, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It is pretty ironic that the one person who easily posts more in the science section than anyone on this board -- that would be the deluded, YEC fraud james bond -- is whining that his brand of insanity is "not allowed" here.
> 
> I think this ironic, idiotic rant sums him and his belief system up rather well.


Clearly that guy has an obsessive need to troll the science thread with his anti-science. His "ironic, idiotic rant" doesn't sum up a belief system it sums up a trolling system. He brings in his religion over and over and over in any science thread no matter what the topic is.


----------



## james bond (Oct 23, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It is pretty ironic that the one person who easily posts more in the science section than anyone on this board -- that would be the deluded, YEC fraud james bond -- is whining that his brand of insanity is "not allowed" here.
> 
> I think this ironic, idiotic rant sums him and his belief system up rather well.


Young Earth was a response to the old Earth the atheists made up to counter creationists who ruled the world of science.  Afterward, this Darwinism led to Nazism, the Holocaust, eugenics, and other horrors of atheism in this world.  Most of all evolution and evolutionary thinking of no God/gods.  You are one who believe in these horrors and fake godless science that is not observable nor have any evidence.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Clearly that guy has an obsessive need to troll the science thread with his anti-science. His "ironic, idiotic rant" doesn't sum up a belief system it sums up a trolling system. He brings in his religion over and over and over in any science thread no matter what the topic is.


It's a display of abnormal psychology. And a strong indication that he has serious doubts about his own beliefs. Not trolling, being completely serious.

He often contradicts himself, from one day to the next, as he vomits the first, reactionary thought that fizzles into his colon, when confronted with an idea that u.nsettles him. He will declare victory in every thread, spam every thread, then play the victim and say he "isn't allowed" to post his ideas here.

These are all psychological coping mechanisms meant for the benefit of and for an audience of one. Himself. 

He knows he has made no headway. He knows he is losing by eleventy trillion to zero. He sees that the world left his fundie magical beliefs behind 150 years ago. And his faith has been shaken to its core. 

This elicits bizarre and childish behavior from him.


----------



## james bond (Oct 23, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Clearly that guy has an obsessive need to troll the science thread with his anti-science. His "ironic, idiotic rant" doesn't sum up a belief system it sums up a trolling system. He brings in his religion over and over and over in any science thread no matter what the topic is.


Clearly, you are the "idiotic," "anti-science" troll calling creation science "anti-science."  How can it not be real when all the greatest scientists were creationists and pointed out how science backed up the Bible.  Sir Francis Bacon was a creationist and founder of the Scientific Method,  He wrote, "I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind."


----------



## james bond (Oct 23, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It's a display of abnormal psychology. And a strong indication that he has serious doubts about his own beliefs. Not trolling, being completely serious.
> 
> He often contradicts himself, from one day to the next, as he vomits the first, reactionary thought that fizzles into his colon, when confronted with an idea that u.nsettles him. He will declare victory in every thread, spam every thread, then play the victim and say he "isn't allowed" to post his ideas here.
> 
> ...


Even your topic points to evidence for God and creation.  Evolution and evolutionary thinking has no origins except fairy tales of singularity (stolen from the Christians) and abiogenesis.  It proves there is no life from non-life and the universe could not have just started by itself.  None of evolution and evolutionary thinking is OBSERVABLE.  You could not disprove the global flood nor Jesus rising again from the dead.  Now, we know the Bible had the world as spherical while the skeptics thought it was flat.  All you have are ad hominem attacks against me.  How much of a fake person are you?


----------



## Stann (Oct 23, 2021)

james bond said:


> Young Earth was a response to the old Earth the atheists made up to counter creationists who ruled the world of science.  Afterward, this Darwinism led to Nazism, the Holocaust, eugenics, and other horrors of atheism in this world.  Most of all evolution and evolutionary thinking of no God/gods.  You are one who believe in these horrors and fake godless science that is not observable nor have any evidence.


I don't think you're going to score any points in the scientific community, but it made comfort you to know, Albert Einstein once said, " Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. " Not so comforting, would be that most scientists on this site or the line their views with Christiaan Huygins, who said,  " The world is my country, science is my relation. " Best to stick with the religious sites, at least there all you have to deal with mostly are the agnostics.


----------



## Stann (Oct 23, 2021)

Stann said:


> I don't think you're going to score any points in the scientific community, but it made comfort you to know, Albert Einstein once said, " Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. " Not so comforting, would be that most scientists on this site or the line their views with Christiaan Huygins, who said,  " The world is my country, science is my relation. " Best to stick with the religious sites, at least there all you have to deal with mostly are the agnostics.


Typo : science is my religion.


----------



## james bond (Oct 23, 2021)

Stann said:


> I don't think you're going to score any points in the scientific community, but it made comfort you to know, Albert Einstein once said, " Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. " Not so comforting, would be that most scientists on this site or the line their views with Christiaan Huygins, who said,  " The world is my country, science is my relation. " Best to stick with the religious sites, at least there all you have to deal with mostly are the agnostics.


You should stick in Rubber Room if you believe in atheist science.  You may as join the other idiots if you believe that I don't follow what Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."


----------



## abu afak (Oct 23, 2021)

james bond said:


> You should stick in Rubber Room if you believe in atheist science. * You may as join the other idiots if you believe that I don't follow what Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."*


Einstein’s Famous Quote About Science and Religion Didn’t Mean What You Were Taught​The scientist actually offers No solace to believers​
Albert Einstein was the most famous scientist of our time, and, because he was so smart, his opinions on non-scientific issues were often seen as incontrovertible. One of the most famous is a pronouncement much quoted by religious people and those claiming comity between science and faith. It comes from Einstein’s essay “Science and religion,” published in 1954.


> “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”


This quote is often used to show both Einstein’s religiosity and his belief in the compatibility—indeed, the mutual interdependence—of science and religion.*  But the quote is rarely used in context, and when you see the context you’ll find that the quote should give no solace to the faithful...*









						Einstein’s Famous Quote About Science and Religion Didn’t Mean What You Were Taught
					

Albert Einstein offers to solace to believers




					newrepublic.com
				




`


----------



## abu afak (Oct 23, 2021)

Einstein Letter to Gutkind, 1954.
Sold at Christies a few years ago for $2.9 Million.

​"..The word God is for me Nothing but the expression and product of human Weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather Primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this.​​For me the unadulterated Jewish religion is, like All other Religions, an incarnation of Primitive Superstition. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and in whose mentality I feel profoundly anchored, still for me does not have any different kind of dignity from all other peoples.".."​
Take your pick:


			einstein gutkind letter - Google Search
		


`


----------



## Stann (Oct 23, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Einstein’s Famous Quote About Science and Religion Didn’t Mean What You Were Taught​The scientist actually offers No solace to believers​
> Albert Einstein was the most famous scientist of our time, and, because he was so smart, his opinions on non-scientific issues were often seen as incontrovertible. One of the most famous is a pronouncement much quoted by religious people and those claiming comity between science and faith. It comes from Einstein’s essay “Science and religion,” published in 1954.
> 
> This quote is often used to show both Einstein’s religiosity and his belief in the compatibility—indeed, the mutual interdependence—of science and religion.*  But the quote is rarely used in context, and when you see the context you’ll find that the quote should give no solace to the faithful...*
> ...


I understood that when I said it, I thought he would gobble it up, I never expected that response. No good deed goes unpunished I guess. I'm bowing out of this mess. Have a great day !


----------



## james bond (Oct 23, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Einstein’s Famous Quote About Science and Religion Didn’t Mean What You Were Taught​The scientist actually offers No solace to believers​
> Albert Einstein was the most famous scientist of our time, and, because he was so smart, his opinions on non-scientific issues were often seen as incontrovertible. One of the most famous is a pronouncement much quoted by religious people and those claiming comity between science and faith. It comes from Einstein’s essay “Science and religion,” published in 1954.
> 
> This quote is often used to show both Einstein’s religiosity and his belief in the compatibility—indeed, the mutual interdependence—of science and religion.*  But the quote is rarely used in context, and when you see the context you’ll find that the quote should give no solace to the faithful...*
> ...


Aren't you trolling the science forum with your religion?  If you want to discuss Einstein's religion, then it wasn't Christian.  He's not one I would consider on the creation science side.  Anyway, that wasn't what was being discussed.  You miss the key point, as usual.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 23, 2021)

james bond said:


> Aren't you trolling the science forum with your religion?  If you want to discuss Einstein's religion, then it wasn't Christian.  He's not one I would consider on the creation science side.  Anyway, that wasn't what was being discussed.  You miss the key point, as usual.


No you Brain-Dead Haysoos Cultist.
*I'm just correcting the Misleading and Out of Context Einstein 'quote' ('quote Mining' it's called) with his Real opinion.

`*


----------



## Hollie (Oct 23, 2021)

james bond said:


> Young Earth was a response to the old Earth the atheists made up to counter creationists who ruled the world of science.  Afterward, this Darwinism led to Nazism, the Holocaust, eugenics, and other horrors of atheism in this world.  Most of all evolution and evolutionary thinking of no God/gods.  You are one who believe in these horrors and fake godless science that is not observable nor have any evidence.



This is not the forum for sharing the sermons at your madrassah.


----------



## james bond (Oct 23, 2021)

abu afak said:


> No you Brain-Dead Haysoos Cultist.
> *I'm just correcting the Misleading and Out of Context Einstein 'quote' ('quote Mining' it's called) with his Real opinion.
> 
> `*


So I'm quote mining.  I can't just respond to a statement of "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." and take it as a stand-alone statement and apply it to myself lol?  I guess it bugs you to no end that "science without religion is lame."

Again, you don't answer why you don't reply to Stann?  Is it because I'm known to defeat atheists and their science practically always on this forum?  The evidence is that you always end up with ad hominem attacks against me while I point out the truth against you and the atheists.


----------



## james bond (Oct 23, 2021)

Hollie said:


> This is not the forum for sharing the sermons at your madrassah.


You're still stuck on scientism or "the conviction that the methods of science are the only reliable ways to secure knowledge of anything, that . . . science provides all the significant truths about reality."

I just pointed out "Science without religion is lame."  However, that religion is only Christianity.  If we have atheism or any other religion, then I don't know how science fits with it.  Let's say we assume that there was no creator.  Then we have no observable evidence and thus it fails the basis for science.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 23, 2021)

james bond said:


> ...
> 
> Again, you don't answer why you don't reply to Stann?  Is it because I'm known to defeat atheists and their science practically always on this forum?  The evidence is that you always end up with ad hominem attacks against me while I point out the truth against you and the atheists.


You're not known for "defeating atheists," you're known for brainwashed GodDidIt nubaggery.
You have Never posted a shred of evidence for any 'god.'
while I and other Science posters have put up tons of evidence for evolution.

Go have milk and cookies with the rest of the patients.
`

`


----------



## james bond (Oct 23, 2021)

abu afak said:


> You're not known for "defeating atheists," you're known for brainwashed GodDidIt nubaggery.
> You have Never posted a shred of evidence for any 'god.'
> while I and other Science posters have put up tons of evidence for evolution.
> 
> ...


It IS because of defeating atheists and their scientists all the time.  Otherwise, you didn't answer my question of why not reply to Stann?  You even had him on the run, but he got away.

Not only does evolution not have any observable evidence and not meet the scientific method, it does not fit genetic characteristics, ecological systems, evolutionary trees, enzyme properties, and other facts of living organisms.

Your science cannot square “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.”  Second, natural selection does not create a common ancestor and turn in into a new species through mutation.  Finally, you and the atheist scientists ignore God as creator or intelligent design and continue to believe in the lie of evolution.  God as creator and intelligent design have more observable and physical evidence.

Finally, you continue to use ad hominem attacks to try and refute my posts.  It just means I have won and it's over.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 23, 2021)

james bond said:


> God as creator and intelligent design have more observable and physical evidence.


...?


----------



## james bond (Oct 23, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> ...?


Sheesh.  You don't know?

What's this argument called?

Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a First Cause.
To back that up, we have the COBE from the discovery of the CMB which led to the Big Bang and...

What all this means is that there is very strong evidence that the universe had a beginning. If the universe had a beginning, then it had a first cause. And if it had a first cause, then it makes sense to ask what kind of first cause is necessary to explain the origin of the universe. It must be:

A cause outside of the universe
Capable of generating all the matter and energy in the universe
Capable of generating all the order we see in inherent within the universe (more on this coming up).
There are also the Fine Tuning Facts -- List of Fine-Tuning Parameters.

We have the Origin of Information in the DNA, the Origin of Life and the Origin of Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines, and the Origin of Animals.

The three basic arguments are 1) Irreducible Complexity, 2) Specified Complexity, and 3) The Anthropic Principle.

As for evidence of God, we have:
Humans beings have a natural sense of God
Logic points to God
General observations support the evidence of God
History, literature, and archaeology support the evidence of God
Personal experiences support the evidence of God
Science supports the evidence of God

The above is part of the reason why creation science and ID should be taught in public schools. 
​


----------



## abu afak (Oct 24, 2021)

james bond said:


> Sheesh.  You don't know?
> What's this argument called?
> 
> Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
> ...


It's called the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
An ancient philosophical idea popularized by William Lane Craig in his 1979 book of the title.
Lane is a Christian Apologist
It is, of course, just a giant God of the Gaps: We don't know/know yet. so it must be god/GodDidIt fallacy.
Your link of course, another kweationist apologetics website.
`


----------



## james bond (Oct 24, 2021)

abu afak said:


> It's called the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
> An ancient philosophical idea popularized by William Lane Craig in his 1979 book of the title.
> Lane is a Christian Apologist
> It is, of course, just a giant God of the Gaps: We don't know/know yet. so it must be god/GodDidIt fallacy.
> ...


Thanks for answering the questions.

What do you mean by "just a giant God of the Gaps?"

>>We don't know/know yet.<<

Shouldn't you know by now?  How many billions of years do you need?

See I have the answers, but the atheists here don't.  I think you're missing WLC's key points believing in atheism and the big lie.


----------



## Clyde 154 (Oct 24, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 94%? Well that sucks. So we can only visit about 12 billion galaxies.
> 
> Eventually that 94% of galaxies will disappear over the horizon like a sailboat.
> 
> ...


Thus far.......100% of our own galaxy (outside our own solar system) is beyond man's reach.  All man can do is look upon the heavens and ask questions......then attempt to answer themselves through theory based speculation, assumptions, conjectures and subjective rhetoric.

What makes anyone assume that all universal planets, stars, moons, etc., are any different than that which is naturally occurring within own solar system?  There are just so many elements in the known universe.  Thus far Carbon based life is the only example of life that can be proven through science and the laws of physics.  All life is carbon based........carbon may not be the greatest element found in life but is the most fundamental and essential to all life forms.   Thus, is any surprise that all life is related through the basic element of carbon?  What's surprising is the fact that some see this relation and claim that makes evolution a fact.   In truth there has never been an example of life evolving outside its own species.....proving that adaptive evolution, i.e., horizontal evolution has its limitations and nothing new can be added naturally to a species DNA.   Mutation never adds new DNA it takes away from existing DNA and is in actuality a deformation of a perfect DNA signature.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 24, 2021)

Clyde 154 said:


> Thus far.......100% of our own galaxy (outside our own solar system) is beyond man's reach.  All man can do is look upon the heavens and ask questions......then attempt to answer themselves through theory based speculation, assumptions, conjectures and subjective rhetoric.
> What makes anyone assume that all universal planets, stars, moons, etc., are any different than that which is naturally occurring within own solar system?  There are just so many elements in the known universe.  Thus far Carbon based life is the only example of life that can be proven through science and the laws of physics.  All life is carbon based........carbon may not be the greatest element found in life but is the most fundamental and essential to all life forms.   Thus, is any surprise that all life is related through the basic element of carbon?  *What's surprising is the fact that some see this relation and claim that makes evolution a fact.   In truth there has never been an example of life evolving outside its own species.....proving that adaptive evolution, i.e., horizontal evolution has its limitations and nothing new can be added naturally to a species DNA.   Mutation never adds new DNA it takes away from existing DNA and is in actuality a deformation of a perfect DNA signature.*


First, you've put up giant and vacuous non sequiturs and wacky conflation/s.
The fact that all life (we know) is carbon based would Not in any way preclude life on other planets.
There are billions in the 'Goldilocks'/temperate possibility zone, many would have the right elements.

What you're really trying to show is that life is unlikely, NOT evolution.
Additionally, that abiogenesis is unlikely, NOT evolution.
Evolution only starts After life does, and does Not depend on how it started.
Evolution is a Fact as well as a theory on this planet.

So you're mixing and matching so many things so illogically your 'reasoning' is a total disaster.

Then you say there is no example of life evolving outside it's species.
In fact, ALL evidence points to exactly that, nothing else.
The fossil record (which gets filled in with 'Tweeners' more every year as only evo would predict) points to exactly that.
As does DNA and every other science discovered since Darwin.
Many sciences (or ie, fossils in the wrong age/geological strata) could have disproved it, NONE do.
All relevant ones help confirm it. None contradict it.. of course.

So from your initial really goofy conflations you went to absolutely Wrong.


`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 24, 2021)

Ignoring the usual father spam...


Clyde 154 said:


> Thus far.......100% of our own galaxy (outside our own solar system) is beyond man's reach. All man can do is look upon the heavens and ask questions......then attempt to answer themselves through theory based speculation, assumptions, conjectures and subjective rhetoric.


And evidence. Whoops, you left that out. How very bizarre, considering science is the one arena where the evidence is all that matters.

But you are trying to put your childish, magical beliefs on the same shelf as science. In order to do so, you must ignore the concept of evidence.

Your behavior is transparent, predictable, childish, and stupid. Just another desperate magical thinker, trolling a science board because he has nothing else to offer to support his childish, magical beliefs.

You bring nothing original to any of these discussions. You repeat the same pseudo-intellectual psychobabble that squealing cultists have been vomiting for centuries, whenever their iron aged fantasies collide with reality. Which is quite often. But what else can you do, besides throw little hissy fits? You have no evidence or good argument. So you are stuck brainwashing children and being laughed out of the room by adults. This is the life you chose for yourself. Own it.


----------



## james bond (Oct 24, 2021)

abu afak said:


> We don't know/know yet. so it must be god/GodDidIt fallacy.
> Your link of course, another kweationist apologetics website.


The creation science side knows it's not a fallacy nor God of the Gaps (I couldn't remember what it was).  If anything, it is evolution of the gaps.  Plenty of gaps as you admitted you do not know yet.  How long do you need?  You supposedly had 13.7 B years.  It really is a joke when Kalam's Cosmological Argument shows what happened.  You and the atheist scientists could not reply.  Thus, the creationist side and I won again.  Also, I presented the ID and other truths.  What has happened is the you and other atheists continue to believe in myths and be wrong.

Where is the _absolute proof_?  There really isn't any until we die and experience the afterlife.  Thus, we have the creation science vs atheist science in S&T today and from the 1850s on.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 24, 2021)

james bond said:


> The creation science side knows it's not a fallacy nor God of the Gaps (I couldn't remember what it was).  If anything, it is evolution of the gaps.  Plenty of gaps as you admitted you do not know yet.  How long do you need?  You supposedly had 13.7 B years.  It really is a joke when Kalam's Cosmological Argument shows what happened.  You and the atheist scientists could not reply.  Thus, the creationist side and I won again.  Also, I presented the ID and other truths.  What has happened is the you and other atheists continue to believe in myths and be wrong.
> 
> Where is the _absolute proof_?  There really isn't any until we die and experience the afterlife.  Thus, we have the creation science vs atheist science in S&T today and from the 1850s on.


You "won again"?
Forget the false standard of "absolute proof."
There is no such thing except in math.
Evolution has Overwhelming Evidence across the sciences, god has None.
You have never shown a shred of Evidence for god you Lying Lunatic.
`


----------



## Hollie (Oct 24, 2021)

james bond said:


> You're still stuck on scientism or "the conviction that the methods of science are the only reliable ways to secure knowledge of anything, that . . . science provides all the significant truths about reality."
> 
> I just pointed out "Science without religion is lame."  However, that religion is only Christianity.  If we have atheism or any other religion, then I don't know how science fits with it.  Let's say we assume that there was no creator.  Then we have no observable evidence and thus it fails the basis for science.


You just announced the failure of your madrassah to teach you any meaningful cognitive processes.


----------



## james bond (Oct 24, 2021)

abu afak said:


> You "won again"?
> Forget the false standard of "absolute proof."
> There is no such thing except in math.
> Evolution has Overwhelming Evidence across the sciences, god has None.
> ...


Sure, I won again because I use the Bible and science backs up the Bible.  Evolution isn't backed up by science or else you would've won already.  Instead, you confessed you and your side didn't know.  It is YOUR SIDE that has no observable evidence and you continue to argue for the atheist science side shows you are the lunatic and liar.  I am calm because I know I AM 100% CORRECT while you continue to don't know.


----------



## james bond (Oct 24, 2021)

Hollie said:


> You just announced the failure of your madrassah to teach you any meaningful cognitive processes.


Do you know what scientism is?  I doubt it and thus I beat you again due to your ignorance.


----------



## james bond (Oct 24, 2021)

I have to admit winning is a great, great, great feeling even though it is against atheists and their scientists who believe in lies.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 24, 2021)

james bond said:


> I have to admit winning is a great, great, great feeling even though it is against atheists and their scientists who believe in lies.


Hilarious that you announce you’re a “winner”. Does your madrassah award Jimmy Swaggert autographed Pom Poms for flailing around?


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 24, 2021)

I read that in many trillions of years the accelerating expansion of the universe will cause all galaxies to be beyond our reach except possibly those in our galaxy cluster which may all consolidate. Even the CMB may recede to zero. 

If an intelligent species pops up in a star system at that point, they may never have any idea that a big bang existed. And would hypothesize a galaxy-centric universe.

.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Oct 25, 2021)

I thought all galaxies were beyond our reach at this time

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Batcat (Oct 25, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 94%? Well that sucks. So we can only visit about 12 billion galaxies.
> 
> Eventually that 94% of galaxies will disappear over the horizon like a sailboat.
> 
> ...


Actually our own galaxy should provide all the opportunities for exploration we will ever need.


----------



## james bond (Oct 25, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Hilarious that you announce you’re a “winner”. Does your madrassah award Jimmy Swaggert autographed Pom Poms for flailing around?


I'm the winner because of no abiogenesis and no sign of life in our solar system.  All you have to do is find one algae or single cell somewhere besides Earth, but there isn't lol.  I am that confident while you're still struggling with a flat Earth and thinking about romancing with Jimmy.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 25, 2021)

james bond said:


> I have to admit winning is a great, great, great feeling even though it is against atheists and their scientists who believe in lies.


You've LOST for Years.
You're known for brainwashed GodDidIt nubaggery.
*You have Never posted a shred of evidence for any 'god.'
while I and other Science posters have put up tons of evidence for evolution.*

`


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 25, 2021)

We don't have to worry about visiting our closest neighboring galaxy, Andromeda, because it's going to collide with the Milky Way in a few billion years


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Oct 25, 2021)

White 6 said:


> During the lifetimes of you and me, 100% of the galaxies beyond our own cannot and will not be able to be visited.


The Andromeda galaxy will collide with the Milky Way in about 4 billion years.


----------



## White 6 (Oct 25, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> The Andromeda galaxy will collide with the Milky Way in about 4 billion years.


4 Billion years, eh.  So I can go ahead planning my winter ski trip, right?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 25, 2021)

james bond said:


> I'm the winner because of no abiogenesis and no sign of life in our solar system.  All you have to do is find one algae or single cell somewhere besides Earth, but there isn't lol.  I am that confident while you're still struggling with a flat Earth and thinking about romancing with Jimmy.


Does your winning get you a pair of autographed Pom Poms from Jimmy Swaggert?


----------



## james bond (Oct 25, 2021)

abu afak said:


> You've LOST for Years.
> You're known for brainwashed GodDidIt nubaggery.
> *You have Never posted a shred of evidence for any 'god.'
> while I and other Science posters have put up tons of evidence for evolution.*
> ...


I've won ever since arriving here because you, atheists, atheist scientists, and other sinners have lost since the 1850s.  All you had to do was produce one OBSERVABLE evidence for evolution and would have won.  For example, a monkey that walks like a human.  Or a bird that can crush or devour a human in short time.  Or show that the universe is flat and in the shape of a piece of paper, i.e. omega = 1.  You can't even provide the evidence for an old universe and rely on a forgotten man from the 1950s.  Instead, all I see is a sea of losers who believe in the _fairy tale_ of evolution.  The atheists were wrong about an eternal universe and now they're wrong about no creator.

All I have been doing is providing the evidence, but I can't help it if you cannot get over your atheism and atheist science lies run by the other guy.  Just admit you are stupid af and are a loser.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 25, 2021)

james bond said:


> I've won ever since arriving here because you, atheists, atheist scientists, and other sinners have lost since the 1850s.  All you had to do was produce one OBSERVABLE evidence for evolution and would have won.  For example, a monkey that walks like a human.  Or a bird that can crush or devour a human in short time.  Or show that the universe is flat and in the shape of a piece of paper, i.e. omega = 1.  You can't even provide the evidence for an old universe and rely on a forgotten man from the 1950s.  Instead, all I see is a sea of losers who believe in the _fairy tale_ of evolution.  The atheists were wrong about an eternal universe and now they're wrong about no creator.
> 
> All I have been doing is providing the evidence, but I can't help it if you cannot get over your atheism and atheist science lies run by the other guy.  Just admit you are stupid af and are a loser.


Such ignorant drivel.


----------



## james bond (Oct 25, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Does your winning get you a pair of autographed Pom Poms from Jimmy Swaggert?


You REALLY have a thing for Jimmy now since the flat Earth was disproven and science backed up a spherical Earth.  I'm not going to argue against you getting his auto photo to hang in your bedroom.



Hollie said:


> Such ignorant drivel.


Still nothing observable.  How can you win if you have no evidence anyone can see?

ETA:  You and your scientists believe in invisible matter and invisible energy somewhere way beyond out there in the universe .


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 25, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> I read that in many trillions of years the accelerating expansion of the universe will cause all galaxies to be beyond our reach except possibly those in our galaxy cluster which may all consolidate. Even the CMB may recede to zero.
> 
> If an intelligent species pops up in a star system at that point, they may never have any idea that a big bang existed. And would hypothesize a galaxy-centric universe.
> 
> .


Yep. Hubble would lose the Great Debate.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 25, 2021)

Batcat said:


> Actually our own galaxy should provide all the opportunities for exploration we will ever need.


It may indeed. 200 billion stars, and even more planets.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 25, 2021)

james bond said:


> You REALLY have a thing for Jimmy now since the flat Earth was disproven and science backed up a spherical Earth.  I'm not going to argue against you getting his auto photo to hang in your bedroom.
> 
> 
> Still nothing observable.  How can you win if you have no evidence anyone can see?
> ...


Are you going to flail your Jimmy Swaggert autographed Pom Poms for everyone?


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 25, 2021)

Batcat said:


> Actually our own galaxy should provide all the opportunities for exploration we will ever need.


It's hard to imagine that we would need more space than that.


----------



## Iamartiewhitefox (Oct 31, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 94%? Well that sucks. So we can only visit about 12 billion galaxies.
> 
> Eventually that 94% of galaxies will disappear over the horizon like a sailboat.
> 
> ...


It is that way now.  People have a fallen body. That will change when the saved get a new body.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 31, 2021)

Iamartiewhitefox said:


> It is that way now.  People have a fallen body. That will change when the saved get a new body.


Your magical spells and incantations hold no weight, here.


----------



## Stann (Sep 20, 2022)

realtorsezfv said:


> Sometimes it amazes me how easily humanity is able to analyze other planets that are hundreds of light years away from Earth. Of course, I know that many factors are evidence of water or a hot core. I'm not a physicist to figure it out, but I love watching science videos about planets on YouTube. This topic amazes me. It also amazes me that people invented astrology and realized that all stellar bodies really do affect the lives of living beings. I realized long ago that even the moon's phases affect my success and moods. And the fact that I'm also Midheaven in Leo has turned my full understanding of life choices upside down, you know.


" All the powers in the universe are already ours. It is we who have put our hands before our eyes and cry that it is dark. " - Swami Vivekananda


----------



## Mushroom (Sep 22, 2022)




----------



## Stann (Sep 22, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 94%? Well that sucks. So we can only visit about 12 billion galaxies.
> 
> Eventually that 94% of galaxies will disappear over the horizon like a sailboat.
> 
> ...


Saying permanently is about the same thing as saying never. We do not know what the future will bring. I am optimistic, new technology is evolving everyday. I believe that our limitations as human beings are only those that place upon ourselves.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 22, 2022)

Stann said:


> Saying permanently is about the same thing as saying never. We do not know what the future will bring. I am optimistic, new technology is evolving everyday. I believe that our limitations as human beings are only those that place upon ourselves.


Yes, never*

* as far as we can tell


----------



## Death Angel (Sep 22, 2022)

MarathonMike said:


> Fort Fun Indiana Unless the space-time continuum can be short cut through worm holes.


Nope. If you travel at the speed of light, you can visit ANY place in the universe INSTANTANEOUSLY.
Time doesn't move at 100% the speed of light.


----------



## Stann (Sep 22, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, never*
> 
> * as far as we can tell


Thank you for the clarification, " as far as we can tell. " And that will change in no time. Be confident and move forward. You are the only one holding you back.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 22, 2022)

Death Angel said:


> Nope. If you travel at the speed of light, you can visit ANY place in the universe INSTANTANEOUSLY.


Um, no, I don't believe that's true.


----------



## Stann (Sep 22, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Um, no, I don't believe that's true.


The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second. The universe is 93 billion light years in diameter at present and still expanding. If you're only going at the speed of light you will never reach The event horizon.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 28, 2022)

Stann said:


> The universe is 93 billion light years in diameter at present and still expanding.


It appears. Again, as best we can tell. But we don't know yet. Suppose at some later date, after years of crunching the Webb telescope image data, we find that many of the distant galaxies look exactly like much nearer ones? Repeats of the Big Dipper?


----------



## Brick Gold (Oct 25, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 94%? Well that sucks. So we can only visit about 12 billion galaxies.
> 
> Eventually that 94% of galaxies will disappear over the horizon like a sailboat.
> 
> ...


I don't believe the human race will invent a technology that will allow travel between galaxies.  In fact, I don't believe we will get advanced enough to even reach the center of this galaxy, let alone the other end.


----------



## Brick Gold (Oct 25, 2022)

Anomalism said:


> This is assuming it's not possible to move faster than the speed of light, and perhaps it's not, but do we really know that for absolute certain? Maybe it's possible to tear holes in spacetime and pop into another section of the universe or something, or maybe not.


My wild guess is that if the humans do ever discover this technology then they will have become something different than our physical happenstance right now, part energy or detached from Earth.  At that point it will not have been as fascinating and wondrous.


----------



## Brick Gold (Oct 25, 2022)

abu afak said:


> In fact, right now 100% of the Stars beyond our sun are unreachable by us any time soon.
> At current rates, the closest star, Proxima Centauri (app a mere 4 Light Years) would take 73,000 years to reach.
> A fact a little more graspable but still breathtaking.
> Wonderful as it was, Star Trek gave us false hopes.
> `


Forget Star Trek, NASA is the greatest false hope of all.


----------



## Stann (Oct 25, 2022)

Brick Gold said:


> I don't believe the human race will invent a technology that will allow travel between galaxies.  In fact, I don't believe we will get advanced enough to even reach the center of this galaxy, let alone the other end.


I honestly believe that human race on this planet is that a precipice ; it can go either way. It's either going to get very good or very bad. The choice is up to each and every one of us, we need to uplift and save each other. We've wasted way too much time attacking one another and tearing each other down.


----------



## Brick Gold (Oct 25, 2022)

james bond said:


> Venus' atmosphere is over 90% sulfuric acid, so some hideous being would have to live there.
> 
> Yet, we have do our due diligence and visit there -- UAF researcher on science team for unmanned Venus mission


Balloons in the upper Venus atmosphere is their next step, 50 years after that they'll be selling vacations.


----------



## Stann (Oct 25, 2022)

Brick Gold said:


> My wild guess is that if the humans do ever discover this technology then they will have become something different than our physical happenstance right now, part energy or detached from Earth.  At that point it will not have been as fascinating and wondrous.


I do I believe the rate of human evolution is accelerating, a quantum leap in the advancement of the human race on this planet is possible in the near future ; that is if the foolish earthlings don't destroy themselves first.


----------



## Brick Gold (Oct 25, 2022)

Stann said:


> I honestly believe that human race on this planet is that a precipice ; it can go either way. It's either going to get very good or very bad. The choice is up to each and every one of us, we need to uplift and save each other. We've wasted way too much time attacking one another and tearing each other down.


We're all doomed unless someone takes real control and forces humanity to save the Earth.  Thats my premise.


----------



## Stann (Oct 25, 2022)

Brick Gold said:


> Balloons in the upper Venus atmosphere is their next step, 50 years after that they'll be selling vacations.


Not in the Goldilocks zone.


----------



## Brick Gold (Oct 25, 2022)

JoeMoma said:


> Whit in the next 500 years we may have a million or more people living off Earth which will be a small fraction of the billions of people living on earth (if we don't destroy our selves first).


Do you honestly believe humanity has 500 years left?


----------



## Stann (Oct 25, 2022)

Brick Gold said:


> We're all doomed unless someone takes real control and forces humanity to save the Earth.  Thats my premise.


" Someone ? " Or all of us. The technology is there already. Watch and see what happens next.


----------



## Stann (Oct 26, 2022)

Brick Gold said:


> Do you honestly believe humanity has 500 years left?


A few years ago I'd say it was a 50-50 chance ; right now we've lost ground.


----------



## Brick Gold (Oct 26, 2022)

Stann said:


> I do I believe the rate of human evolution is accelerating, a quantum leap in the advancement of the human race on this planet is possible in the near future ; that is if the foolish earthlings don't destroy themselves first.


If there is a "next step" it will be through a complete AI assist, and odds look unfavorable for humans under robot rule.


----------



## Brick Gold (Oct 26, 2022)

Stann said:


> " Someone ? " Or all of us. The technology is there already. Watch and see what happens next.


There is no 'all of us' in the survival of the human race, should it decide to continue living.


----------



## Brick Gold (Oct 26, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Yes but your article does NOT say Venus is 90% Sulfuric acid you lying Blind POS>
> 
> "Your article doesn't even mention "Sulfuric acid" you Deluded Moron.
> `


Well, you cant breathe it and the pressure is so great youll be a pancake when you land.  Does it really matter


----------



## Stann (Oct 26, 2022)

Brick Gold said:


> If there is a "next step" it will be through a complete AI assist, and odds look unfavorable for humans under robot rule.


As opposed to a planet of the apes type situation. Science is interesting, science fiction even more so.


----------



## Stann (Oct 26, 2022)

Brick Gold said:


> There is no 'all of us' in the survival of the human race, should it decide to continue living.


Humans are being pulled every which way, and the direction is still undecided.


----------



## Brick Gold (Oct 26, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> You have it backwards.


Truth is knowing you are right and the confidence in that is a hormonal response of reward, the anxiety of getting it wrong is much the same, so really, education is parallel with other human hormonal reward systems.  When genetics fucks your balance up thats when you get flunkies and dumbasses.

My point is neurologists are superior to psychologists.


----------



## Stann (Oct 26, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> We're only constrained by our flawed idea that awareness is limited to the Lego blocks of the physical Universe


Mankind is only limited by the restraints it places upon itself.


----------



## Brick Gold (Oct 26, 2022)

james bond said:


> It sounds like Venus is the next planet in our solar system to explore, but I doubt it will be found habitable for us.  I don't think Mars was either, but NASA's atheist scientists won't admit it.  They may still want to send humans there, but that's a mistake imho.


You can walk on Mars, thats why everyone wants to go there.


----------



## Brick Gold (Oct 26, 2022)

Anomalism said:


> There is nothing humble about your opinions.


I am so humble I will be kissing ass and stroking egos for the rest of my life.  Maybe I should charge a fee.


----------



## Stann (Oct 26, 2022)

Brick Gold said:


> If there is a "next step" it will be through a complete AI assist, and odds look unfavorable for humans under robot rule.


Might the brain implants for the hearing impaired be looked upon as a beginning step in that process. Always expanding the mind, that should be our collective goal. That is how we will survive.


----------



## Brick Gold (Oct 26, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Any planet is "habitable", if we protect ourselves from the environment. Is outer space "habitable"? People live in outer space.


Humans will create warp drive before they are able to explore Jupiter.  No human can survive a passing in Jupiters path.


----------



## Brick Gold (Oct 26, 2022)

Stann said:


> Might the brain implants for the hearing impaired be looked upon as a beginning step in that process. Always expanding the mind, that should be our collective goal. That is how we will survive.


Every brain chip comes with a free memory wipe and unbreakable remote internet connection.


----------



## Stann (Oct 26, 2022)

Brick Gold said:


> You can walk on Mars, thats why everyone wants to go there.


Used to be in the goldilock zone. The little blue star has the nearest habitable planet. mostly a water world.


----------



## Brick Gold (Oct 26, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, and the shoddy headlines that a lot of "science" articles carry don't help. "Scientists discover they were wrong all along about _____"
> 
> (One study, may not even really mean that, etc. And i haven't even gotten to intentional misinformation, yet. Just shoddy headlines. Cosmology related articles are especially plagued by this.)
> 
> So what to do? We have to trust somebody most times, just like scientists have to place trust (a bet) on something they think is likely true, in order to test it and to do further science. Professional scientists explain what they know against a back drop of not knowing jack shit about the rest. They happily admit what they dont know. They spend their hours trying to figure out not just what data tells us, but also what it DOESN'T tell us.


The hugest mistake you people make is the assumption that these university professors and famous scientists are the only ones.  These are the outsiders, the white coats.  What you dont think about are the other scientists without a public profile, living a mile underground in secret laboratories, inventing things and developing things we won't know about for 100 years, if at all.  They wear black coats and dont give a flying fuck about you, me or anyone else on the surface.


----------



## Brick Gold (Oct 26, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Mostly I find that people read things badly. When they see "could" "may" "might" they read "is". But yes, I'd assume some articles, especially in newspapers where the writer has no idea what they're talking about but has read some other article and is pilfering it.


Science articles are almost always direct copies of a press release or written up by some researcher using AAAS papers and then copied by everyone else.  A lot of news is like that nowadays, actually.


----------



## Stann (Oct 26, 2022)

Brick Gold said:


> Every brain chip comes with a free memory wipe and unbreakable remote internet connection.


Thank you, humor is appreciated.


----------



## Brick Gold (Oct 26, 2022)

james bond said:


> I have to admit winning is a great, great, great feeling even though it is against atheists and their scientists who believe in lies.


Winning unscathed is a great feeling, winning by a threadbare and an inch of your life isnt rewarding at all.


----------



## Brick Gold (Oct 26, 2022)

Batcat said:


> Actually our own galaxy should provide all the opportunities for exploration we will ever need.


We couldn't get our fill if we had instantaneous travel to anywhere we'd want to go, our galaxy is too vast to ever fully explore in billions of years.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 26, 2022)

Brick Gold said:


> Science articles are almost always direct copies of a press release or written up by some researcher using AAAS papers and then copied by everyone else.  A lot of news is like that nowadays, actually.



And that's where people get their "knowledge" from.
First rule of knowledge is to ask yourself questions like "who wrote it?" "Why did they write it?" "Where does it come from?" etc etc. 

Basic thinking that eludes a lot of people.


----------



## Stann (Oct 26, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> We don't have to worry about visiting our closest neighboring galaxy, Andromeda, because it's going to collide with the Milky Way in a few billion years


Change the paradigm then. Simply look at time differently.


----------



## Stann (Oct 26, 2022)

Brick Gold said:


> We couldn't get our fill if we had instantaneous travel to anywhere we'd want to go, our galaxy is too vast to ever fully explore in billions of years.


You have to decide. Do you want to live in a world where nothing is possible, or a world where everything is possible. Then simply bend time to accomplish it.


----------



## Likkmee (Oct 26, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 94%? Well that sucks. So we can only visit about 12 billion galaxies.
> 
> Eventually that 94% of galaxies will disappear over the horizon like a sailboat.
> 
> ...


GOODFERTHEM
The last thing they(or anyone else) need is special delivery of FreeDumb and DemoNcracy, US style
OTOH They may need a GREAT vaccination program.....and a Windoze update


----------



## Batcat (Oct 26, 2022)

Brick Gold said:


> We couldn't get our fill if we had instantaneous travel to anywhere we'd want to go, our galaxy is too vast to ever fully explore in billions of years.


Exactly.

As i said, “ Our own galaxy should provide all the opportunities for exploration we will ever need.”


----------



## JoeMoma (Oct 26, 2022)

Brick Gold said:


> Do you honestly believe humanity has 500 years left?


Why wouldn't I?  Barring some kind of apocalypse that kills all life (or almost all life) on Earth, there is bound to be some humans 500 years from now.


----------



## Stann (Oct 26, 2022)

Likkmee said:


> GOODFERTHEM
> The last thing they(or anyone else) need is special delivery of FreeDumb and DemoNcracy, US style
> OTOH They may need a GREAT vaccination program.....and a Windoze update


This is not a political form. Your politics isn't wanted or needed here. When official contact occurs they will tell you where you can put your politics.


----------



## JohnDB (Oct 26, 2022)

Then there's two other things that need to be circumvented to even travel to the nearest solar system outside of our own.  

The first is the time dilation effect.  
Basically explained that as you approach a significant fraction of lightspeed time for the traveller slows down in relationship to the sender.  Meaning that we on earth will continue to age and move through time but the traveler will not.   500 years is a nothing in the vastness of space.  But consider world history 500 years ago.  The 1500's were a time when America was a distant,  far off land that was just a rumor of a place nobility heard about.  It wasn't a place you could hop on an airplane and be there in a few hours.  
How much of the 1500's has been forgotten? 
The governments all have changed several times since then...been a few world wars as well.   

Then there's the mass issue.   
As an object increases its speed and gets a significant portion of light speed it's mass also increases.  Meaning that more energy, focused on propulsion, is required to propel it faster.  As well as that the propulsion method itself needs to produce energy that is faster than light.  

We can never travel to the stars.


----------



## Stann (Oct 26, 2022)

JohnDB said:


> Then there's two other things that need to be circumvented to even travel to the nearest solar system outside of our own.
> 
> The first is the time dilation effect.
> Basically explained that as you approach a significant fraction of lightspeed time for the traveller slows down in relationship to the sender.  Meaning that we on earth will continue to age and move through time but the traveler will not.   500 years is a nothing in the vastness of space.  But consider world history 500 years ago.  The 1500's were a time when America was a distant,  far off land that was just a rumor of a place nobility heard about.  It wasn't a place you could hop on an airplane and be there in a few hours.
> ...


Saying  " never " is just asking for trouble. It's just another obstacle to overcome.


----------



## JohnDB (Oct 26, 2022)

Stann said:


> Saying  " never " is just asking for trouble. It's just another obstacle to overcome.


Those obstacles are rather huge to overcome.


----------



## Stann (Oct 26, 2022)

JohnDB said:


> Those obstacles are rather huge to overcome.


I imagine it seems so to most people.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 26, 2022)

JohnDB said:


> Then there's two other things that need to be circumvented to even travel to the nearest solar system outside of our own.
> 
> The first is the time dilation effect.
> Basically explained that as you approach a significant fraction of lightspeed time for the traveller slows down in relationship to the sender.  Meaning that we on earth will continue to age and move through time but the traveler will not.   500 years is a nothing in the vastness of space.  But consider world history 500 years ago.  The 1500's were a time when America was a distant,  far off land that was just a rumor of a place nobility heard about.  It wasn't a place you could hop on an airplane and be there in a few hours.
> ...


500 years ago you woulda been the dude saying it's impossible to fly.


----------



## JohnDB (Oct 26, 2022)

Anomalism said:


> 500 years ago you woulda been the dude saying it's impossible to fly.


Nope...
Birds fly all the time.   DaVinci had models that flew...toys but they flew.  Kites flew as well.   I would have had many things that modeled flying to choose from.   

Interstellar travel has none.


----------



## Stann (Oct 26, 2022)

Anomalism said:


> 500 years ago you woulda been the dude saying it's impossible to fly.


"All things are impossible, until they become possible. "


----------



## Stann (Oct 26, 2022)

JohnDB said:


> Nope...
> Birds fly all the time.   DaVinci had models that flew...toys but they flew.  Kites flew as well.   I would have had many things that modeled flying to choose from.
> 
> Interstellar travel has none.


None that are common knowledge.


----------



## james bond (Oct 27, 2022)

Brick Gold said:


> You can walk on Mars, thats why everyone wants to go there.


NASA wanted to go there, but US Presidents cancelled them.  Now, NASA is working with private cos such as Space X and their funding to go to Mars.  I think we'll see man walking on Mars in the 2030s.


----------



## Likkmee (Oct 27, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> The Andromeda galaxy will collide with the Milky Way in about 4 billion years.


Can I buy an advance ticket for a good seat ?


----------



## Likkmee (Oct 27, 2022)

Likkmee said:


> Can I buy an advance ticket for a good seat ?


OK wait. I checked. I'm booked in that weekend


----------



## Stann (Oct 27, 2022)

Likkmee said:


> OK wait. I checked. I'm booked in that weekend


We are in the Milky Way galaxy, we will all have a front row seat.


----------



## badger2 (Oct 31, 2022)

SweetSue92 said:


> I'm a space geek, but only an armchair one. I love space documentaries. What is striking is: the more astrophysicists, etc discover, the less they really understand. Like what you mention. Space is not only expanding, but it is expanding at an ever increasing rate.
> 
> That's just one aspect of space they seem to understand less. Which is fascinating really
> 
> They basically tapdance all around God. Which is also fascinating. And funny


Your "tap-dance" is a an envious projection from someone who does not know that the expanding universe is proof itself of a non-existent god. If you were in college and given this reading assignment, you would be tested and (graded [italics]) on it:

'Derrida's treatment of God is the inverse of negative theology. Negative theology proceeds from the premise that whatever story we can tell about God, whatever image or predicate we employ to describe God, cannot be adequate to the positive infinity of God. To describe God is to make him dependent on conditions that apply to temporal finitude. It is on order to save God from such mortal contamination that negative theology refuses to predicate God.

Derrida's argument is exactly the opposite, since he holds that God is as dependent on temporal finitude as everyone else. When Derrida employs the name of God, or reads a story that involves God, it is to show that even the supposedly indivisible is divisible and that whoever says I am [italics]) confesses that he is mortal.

Such radical atheism follows from thinking of the trace that informs Derrida's writing from beginning to end. The structure of the trace entails that everything is subjected to the finitude of time and consequently that God himself is "an effect of the trace." It follows that any notion of God as positive infinity is contradicted from within by the spacing of time, which cannot be appropriated by religion.

As Derrida writes in "Faith and Knowledge," the spacing of time "will never have entered religion and will never permit itself to be sacralized, sanctified, humanized, theologized." '
(Haegglund, Radical Atheism: Derrida and the Time of Life, p. 143)


----------



## Stann (Oct 31, 2022)

SweetSue92 said:


> I'm a space geek, but only an armchair one. I love space documentaries. What is striking is: the more astrophysicists, etc discover, the less they really understand. Like what you mention. Space is not only expanding, but it is expanding at an ever increasing rate.
> 
> That's just one aspect of space they seem to understand less. Which is fascinating really
> 
> They basically tapdance all around God. Which is also fascinating. And funny


Makes you wonder if all that we perceive to exist is incomprehensible because we ourselves exist only in the mind of GOD and the reason the universe is expanding is because it's all just I fading thought.


----------



## Stann (Oct 31, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> At 52 I doubt I will see the time when many people will travel to Space -- even Earth's orbit.


At 71,000 I seen all of this world I care to; it's not what it used to be. Most of it's glorious adventure lies in it's past. This is my last visit here. Good luck to all who choose to stay.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 31, 2022)

Stann said:


> We are in the Milky Way galaxy, we will all have a front row seat.


A lot of people get the wrong idea about what will happen. The night sky may look a little different, but that's about it. There won't be a bunch of stars and planets colliding in some galaxy-wide armageddon. There's too much space between stars, and even if some stars did get close, they would just start to orbit each other.


----------



## Stann (Oct 31, 2022)

Anomalism said:


> A lot of people get the wrong idea about what will happen. The night sky may look a little different, but that's about it. There won't be a bunch of stars and planets colliding in some galaxy-sized armageddon. There's too much space between stars, and even if some stars did get close, they would just start to orbit each other.


I think of it as a super super slow motion car wreck. Surely the two entities cannot simply meld together into one cohesive unit, especially at they're differing magnitudes and velocities.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 31, 2022)

Stann said:


> I think of it as a super super slow motion car wreck. Surely the two entities cannot simply meld together into one cohesive unit, especially at they're differing magnitudes and velocities.


Colliding galaxies can and do do exactly that. It actually happens quite often on a universal scale, and we can observe it in various stages. Also entire galaxies can get trapped in orbit together. It won't be a disaster. Like I said, there's just way too much space between stars. It'd be like shooting a projectile from Earth and Mars blindfolded and them hitting each other.


----------



## Stann (Oct 31, 2022)

Anomalism said:


> Colliding galaxies can and do do exactly that. It actually happens quite often on a universal scale, and we can observe it in various stages. Also entire galaxies can get trapped in orbit together. It won't be a disaster. Like I said, there's just way too much space between stars. It'd be like shooting a projectile from Earth and the Moon blindfolded and them hitting each other.


Talk about climate change ! That would definitely be significant when such an event occurred. Again, at a super super slow right. I don't think life would survive such a change, especially if the change were to one extreme of the other.


----------



## Mushroom (Nov 1, 2022)

Stann said:


> I think of it as a super super slow motion car wreck. Surely the two entities cannot simply meld together into one cohesive unit, especially at they're differing magnitudes and velocities.



Well, actually they do not.  And there are many simulations that show what will happen.


In fact, a lot of recent research into the Magellanic Cloud dwarf galaxies now have many speculating that was their origin.  That at some point the Milky Way had a collision with a much smaller galaxy, and those are the remnants that were thrown off during that collision.  And we now know that the larger mass of our Milky Way is already "sucking" matter from those into our own galaxy and they are moving towards us.

The distances between the stars is vast, though.  Think of it more as if two flocks of birds or schools of fish passing through each other.  Except when talking about large amounts of mass unlike living beings, the one with the most mass will almost always absorb the smaller one.

But there will be several "passes", during which essentially both galaxies will tear each other apart.  Then eventually reform into a more massive galaxy, about 1/2 Andromeda, and 1/2 Milky Way.

And we know how it works, because we have been seeing such in Hubble for decades, and now from the JWST.


----------



## Mushroom (Nov 1, 2022)

Stann said:


> Talk about climate change ! That would definitely be significant when such an event occurred. Again, at a super super slow right. I don't think life would survive such a change, especially if the change were to one extreme of the other.



It would likely have no impact at all on our Solar System.  Unless our sun was unlucky enough to be one of those thrown off into the void.

Of course, by the time that happens the Earth will actually already be inside the sun, so there would be no life left here anyways by that point.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Nov 2, 2022)

The Earth will be uninhabitable (~1 billion years) long before the Milky Way collides with Andromeda (~5 billion years) and the planet gets absorbed by the Sun (~7.5 billion years). 








						Future of Earth - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Grumblenuts (Nov 3, 2022)

And Jesus mumbled, "Oh shit, I forgot that Rapture stuff, didn't I?" "If 94% remains beyond man's reach, why create it in the first place?" "Where's that damned fallen angel supposed to reside now?"..


----------

