Does the universe has a starting point?

All the individual stars you see are in the Milky Way galaxy. Until the
1920's, that seemed to be the only galaxy. You probably know, though,
that observations with larger telescopes have since proved otherwise.
Our universe contains at least 50,000,000,000 galaxies. We do not mean
50 billion stars-but at least 50 billion galaxies, each with billions
of stars like our sun. Yet it was not the staggering quantity of huge
galaxies that shook scientific beliefs in the 1920's. It was that
they are all in motion.

Astronomers discovered a remarkable fact: When galactic light was
passed through a prism, the light waves were seen to be stretched,
indicating motion away from us at great speed. The more distant a
galaxy, the faster it appeared to be receding. That points to an
expanding universe!

Even if we are neither professional astronomers nor amateurs, we can
see that an expanding universe would have profound implications about
our past-and perhaps our personal future too. Something must have
started the process-a force powerful enough to overcome the immense
gravity of the entire universe. You have good reason to ask, 'What
could be the source of such dynamic energy?'

Although most scientists trace the universe back to a very small, dense
beginning (a singularity), we cannot avoid this key issue: "If at
some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a singular
state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask
what was there before and what was outside the Universe. . . . We
have to face the problem of a Beginning."-Sir Bernard Lovell.

This implies more than just a source of vast energy. Foresight and
intelligence are also needed because the rate of expansion seems very
finely tuned. "If the Universe had expanded one million millionth
part faster," said Lovell, "then all the material in the Universe
would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million
millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the
Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of
its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no
life."

On 15 Jan 2007 06:28:18 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
"Lieken" wrote in
.com:
All the individual stars you see are in the Milky Way galaxy. Until the
1920's, that seemed to be the only galaxy. You probably know, though,
that observations with larger telescopes have since proved otherwise.
Our universe contains at least 50,000,000,000 galaxies. We do not mean
50 billion stars-but at least 50 billion galaxies, each with billions
of stars like our sun. Yet it was not the staggering quantity of huge
galaxies that shook scientific beliefs in the 1920's. It was that
they are all in motion.

Astronomers discovered a remarkable fact: When galactic light was
passed through a prism, the light waves were seen to be stretched,
indicating motion away from us at great speed. The more distant a
galaxy, the faster it appeared to be receding. That points to an
expanding universe!

Even if we are neither professional astronomers nor amateurs, we can
see that an expanding universe would have profound implications about
our past-and perhaps our personal future too. Something must have
started the process-a force powerful enough to overcome the immense
gravity of the entire universe. You have good reason to ask, 'What
could be the source of such dynamic energy?'

Although most scientists trace the universe back to a very small, dense
beginning (a singularity), we cannot avoid this key issue: "If at
some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a singular
state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask
what was there before and what was outside the Universe. . . . We
have to face the problem of a Beginning."-Sir Bernard Lovell.

This implies more than just a source of vast energy. Foresight and
intelligence are also needed because the rate of expansion seems very
finely tuned. "If the Universe had expanded one million millionth
part faster," said Lovell, "then all the material in the Universe
would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million
millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the
Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of
its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no
life."

Where did Lovell say this? In what context?

Yes, if the universe were different the universe would be different. Did
you have a point here?

Lieken wrote:
All the individual stars you see are in the Milky Way galaxy. Until the
1920's, that seemed to be the only galaxy. You probably know, though,
that observations with larger telescopes have since proved otherwise.
Our universe contains at least 50,000,000,000 galaxies. We do not mean
50 billion stars-but at least 50 billion galaxies, each with billions
of stars like our sun. Yet it was not the staggering quantity of huge
galaxies that shook scientific beliefs in the 1920's. It was that
they are all in motion.

Astronomers discovered a remarkable fact: When galactic light was
passed through a prism, the light waves were seen to be stretched,
indicating motion away from us at great speed. The more distant a
galaxy, the faster it appeared to be receding. That points to an
expanding universe!

Even if we are neither professional astronomers nor amateurs, we can
see that an expanding universe would have profound implications about
our past-and perhaps our personal future too. Something must have
started the process-a force powerful enough to overcome the immense
gravity of the entire universe. You have good reason to ask, 'What
could be the source of such dynamic energy?'

Although most scientists trace the universe back to a very small, dense
beginning (a singularity), we cannot avoid this key issue: "If at
some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a singular
state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask
what was there before and what was outside the Universe. . . . We
have to face the problem of a Beginning."-Sir Bernard Lovell.

This implies more than just a source of vast energy. Foresight and
intelligence are also needed because the rate of expansion seems very
finely tuned. "If the Universe had expanded one million millionth
part faster," said Lovell, "then all the material in the Universe
would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million
millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the
Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of
its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no
life."


Just because things happened to work out for our current universe to
exist as it does, doesn't imply a designer or creator. To say so is like
claiming that because the human eye absorbs light in a fashion conducive
to sight, that some "intelligence" developed it!

RCL

nightbat wrote

Rich Corinthian Leather wrote:

Lieken wrote:

All the individual stars you see are in the Milky Way galaxy. Until the
1920's, that seemed to be the only galaxy. You probably know, though,
that observations with larger telescopes have since proved otherwise.
Our universe contains at least 50,000,000,000 galaxies. We do not mean
50 billion stars-but at least 50 billion galaxies, each with billions
of stars like our sun. Yet it was not the staggering quantity of huge
galaxies that shook scientific beliefs in the 1920's. It was that
they are all in motion.

Astronomers discovered a remarkable fact: When galactic light was
passed through a prism, the light waves were seen to be stretched,
indicating motion away from us at great speed. The more distant a
galaxy, the faster it appeared to be receding. That points to an
expanding universe!

Even if we are neither professional astronomers nor amateurs, we can
see that an expanding universe would have profound implications about
our past-and perhaps our personal future too. Something must have
started the process-a force powerful enough to overcome the immense
gravity of the entire universe. You have good reason to ask, 'What
could be the source of such dynamic energy?'

Although most scientists trace the universe back to a very small, dense
beginning (a singularity), we cannot avoid this key issue: "If at
some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a singular
state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask
what was there before and what was outside the Universe. . . . We
have to face the problem of a Beginning."-Sir Bernard Lovell.

This implies more than just a source of vast energy. Foresight and
intelligence are also needed because the rate of expansion seems very
finely tuned. "If the Universe had expanded one million millionth
part faster," said Lovell, "then all the material in the Universe
would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million
millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the
Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of
its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no
life."


Just because things happened to work out for our current universe to
exist as it does, doesn't imply a designer or creator. To say so is like
claiming that because the human eye absorbs light in a fashion conducive
to sight, that some "intelligence" developed it!

RCL


nightbat

It's true for it all boils down to cause and effect, for your
Mother and Daddy physically made you. So the eyes you got were cause
parents made and you are the effect. The physical observable Universe
however is the effect without natural known or explainable cause.

ponder on,
the nightbat

You have no idea what cause and effect mean, frootie!

Saul Levy


On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:46:11 -0500, nightbat
wrote:

It's true for it all boils down to cause and effect, for your
Mother and Daddy physically made you. So the eyes you got were cause
parents made and you are the effect. The physical observable Universe
however is the effect without natural known or explainable cause.

ponder on,
the nightbat

After the original BB all other universes came out of it. Reason black
holes. My theory is the starting point of a new universe is when a BH
reaches its critical mass density. I( estimate it has to absorb 6
trillion Suns to achieve this critical mass. its horizon will implode
into the core at the speed of light. It all fits Bert

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:26:18 GMT, Rich Corinthian Leather
wrote:

Lieken wrote:
All the individual stars you see are in the Milky Way galaxy. Until the
1920's, that seemed to be the only galaxy. You probably know, though,
that observations with larger telescopes have since proved otherwise.
Our universe contains at least 50,000,000,000 galaxies. We do not mean
50 billion stars-but at least 50 billion galaxies, each with billions
of stars like our sun. Yet it was not the staggering quantity of huge
galaxies that shook scientific beliefs in the 1920's. It was that
they are all in motion.

Astronomers discovered a remarkable fact: When galactic light was
passed through a prism, the light waves were seen to be stretched,
indicating motion away from us at great speed. The more distant a
galaxy, the faster it appeared to be receding. That points to an
expanding universe!

Even if we are neither professional astronomers nor amateurs, we can
see that an expanding universe would have profound implications about
our past-and perhaps our personal future too. Something must have
started the process-a force powerful enough to overcome the immense
gravity of the entire universe. You have good reason to ask, 'What
could be the source of such dynamic energy?'

Although most scientists trace the universe back to a very small, dense
beginning (a singularity), we cannot avoid this key issue: "If at
some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a singular
state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask
what was there before and what was outside the Universe. . . . We
have to face the problem of a Beginning."-Sir Bernard Lovell.

This implies more than just a source of vast energy. Foresight and
intelligence are also needed because the rate of expansion seems very
finely tuned. "If the Universe had expanded one million millionth
part faster," said Lovell, "then all the material in the Universe
would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million
millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the
Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of
its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no
life."


Just because things happened to work out for our current universe to
exist as it does, doesn't imply a designer or creator. To say so is like
claiming that because the human eye absorbs light in a fashion conducive
to sight, that some "intelligence" developed it!

RCL

To exclude the possibility of a designer strikes me as careless. I
have my own problems with religions, but see no way to rule out some
form of Intelligence as one possibility.

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 07:19:52 -0600, Dick
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:26:18 GMT, Rich Corinthian Leather
wrote:

Lieken wrote:
All the individual stars you see are in the Milky Way galaxy. Until the
1920's, that seemed to be the only galaxy. You probably know, though,
that observations with larger telescopes have since proved otherwise.
Our universe contains at least 50,000,000,000 galaxies. We do not mean
50 billion stars-but at least 50 billion galaxies, each with billions
of stars like our sun. Yet it was not the staggering quantity of huge
galaxies that shook scientific beliefs in the 1920's. It was that
they are all in motion.

Astronomers discovered a remarkable fact: When galactic light was
passed through a prism, the light waves were seen to be stretched,
indicating motion away from us at great speed. The more distant a
galaxy, the faster it appeared to be receding. That points to an
expanding universe!

Even if we are neither professional astronomers nor amateurs, we can
see that an expanding universe would have profound implications about
our past-and perhaps our personal future too. Something must have
started the process-a force powerful enough to overcome the immense
gravity of the entire universe. You have good reason to ask, 'What
could be the source of such dynamic energy?'

Although most scientists trace the universe back to a very small, dense
beginning (a singularity), we cannot avoid this key issue: "If at
some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a singular
state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask
what was there before and what was outside the Universe. . . . We
have to face the problem of a Beginning."-Sir Bernard Lovell.

This implies more than just a source of vast energy. Foresight and
intelligence are also needed because the rate of expansion seems very
finely tuned. "If the Universe had expanded one million millionth
part faster," said Lovell, "then all the material in the Universe
would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million
millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the
Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of
its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no
life."


Just because things happened to work out for our current universe to
exist as it does, doesn't imply a designer or creator. To say so is like
claiming that because the human eye absorbs light in a fashion conducive
to sight, that some "intelligence" developed it!

RCL

To exclude the possibility of a designer strikes me as careless. I
have my own problems with religions, but see no way to rule out some
form of Intelligence as one possibility.

There is no objective evidence that any such designer exists. That's
sufficient reason to rule out the possibility. I suppose it's possible
that new evidence might require a re-think of that position sometime
in the future, but for now, it seems more sensible to me to simply
assume the proposition is false until such time as evidence can be
presented to support it than to assume it may be true and hope the
evidence turns up.

John Baker wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 07:19:52 -0600, Dick
There is no objective evidence that any such designer exists. That's
sufficient reason to rule out the possibility.

The problem with evidence, as with beauty it is in the eye of the
beholder or the mind of the seeker.
A question that has been asked before is; What evidence do you want?

I suppose it's possible
that new evidence might require a re-think of that position sometime
in the future, but for now, it seems more sensible to me to simply
assume the proposition is false until such time as evidence can be
presented to support it than to assume it may be true and hope the
evidence turns up.

Not very scientific. Why spend millions on Seti? Worry about
extraterrestial life forms when they
come knocking on our door.

Dick wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:26:18 GMT, Rich Corinthian Leather
wrote:

Lieken wrote:
All the individual stars you see are in the Milky Way galaxy. Until the
1920's, that seemed to be the only galaxy. You probably know, though,
that observations with larger telescopes have since proved otherwise.
Our universe contains at least 50,000,000,000 galaxies. We do not mean
50 billion stars-but at least 50 billion galaxies, each with billions
of stars like our sun. Yet it was not the staggering quantity of huge
galaxies that shook scientific beliefs in the 1920's. It was that
they are all in motion.

Astronomers discovered a remarkable fact: When galactic light was
passed through a prism, the light waves were seen to be stretched,
indicating motion away from us at great speed. The more distant a
galaxy, the faster it appeared to be receding. That points to an
expanding universe!

Even if we are neither professional astronomers nor amateurs, we can
see that an expanding universe would have profound implications about
our past-and perhaps our personal future too. Something must have
started the process-a force powerful enough to overcome the immense
gravity of the entire universe. You have good reason to ask, 'What
could be the source of such dynamic energy?'

Although most scientists trace the universe back to a very small, dense
beginning (a singularity), we cannot avoid this key issue: "If at
some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a singular
state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask
what was there before and what was outside the Universe. . . . We
have to face the problem of a Beginning."-Sir Bernard Lovell.

This implies more than just a source of vast energy. Foresight and
intelligence are also needed because the rate of expansion seems very
finely tuned. "If the Universe had expanded one million millionth
part faster," said Lovell, "then all the material in the Universe
would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million
millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the
Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of
its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no
life."

Just because things happened to work out for our current universe to
exist as it does, doesn't imply a designer or creator. To say so is like
claiming that because the human eye absorbs light in a fashion conducive
to sight, that some "intelligence" developed it!

RCL

To exclude the possibility of a designer strikes me as careless. I
have my own problems with religions, but see no way to rule out some
form of Intelligence as one possibility.


The Designer or Creator *as presented* is highly improbable and
therefore unworthy of belief.

Everything of which we are capable of detecting shows *absolutely* no
proof of intelligent of planned design.

RCL