Strange

Sorry, you misunderstood me. I meant I was interested why people don't accept the evidence for things like evolution and prefer their own (baseless) beliefs.

I don't think we are in Kansas any more.

The photons of 700 and 400 nm will not have the spectrum of hydrogen. They are single frequencies.

What does the fact that humans have created logos based on triangles or pyramids have to do with the subject of evolution and/or abiogenesis?

I said no such thing. I though we were discussing evolution and/or abiogenesis. If this is just going to be a thread on your personal religious views then I have no interest (and I expect the mods will take a dim view).

I quoted the sentence where you said you were. It seems very civil to me. Certainly compared to many other forms where this sort of thing comes up. If you think some posts are offensive, please feel free to report them. But you seem to think that asking for evidence (remember, this is still a science forum) or suggesting that we discuss science, are somehow personal attacks on you. Well, initially, I thought you were interested in discussing the science of evolution and/or abiogenesis. Both are areas I am interested in. When it became clear that you are not interested in discussing the science, I became more interested in what you believe and why. I am always fascinated why people choose to believe things that are unsupported or contradicted by the evidence.

As there were no guns involved, it is hard to see how. This event is particularly newsworthy because this sort of thing [almost] never happens in Japan.

It is basic arithmetic. Consider a number of galaxies separated by the same distance (far enough apart that the expansion of space is significant and the same between all of them). At time 0, they are 1 unit apart: A.B.C.D.E.F After some time they are 2 units apart: A..B..C..D..E..F After the same time again, they are 3 units apart: A...B...C...D...E...F And so on: A....B....C....D....E....F Now, if we look at the distance between B and C, for example, it increases by 1 at every time step. But the distance between B and D increases by 2 at every step. So the distance between B and D is increasing twice as fast as the distance between B and C; i.e. the speed of separation is twice as great. Choose any pairs of galaxies and you will see that apparent the speed of separation is proportional to the distance between them. Take two objects far enough apart and the speed of separation will be greater than the sped of light. No forces and no acceleration.

The fact that there wasn't life and now there is. Because the conditions have changed? Because if there were a suitable environment for prebiotic chemical evolution, then it would be destroyed by living organisms exploiting it as a food source.

There is no evidence the universe was created in the big bang. So that's OK. There is no evidence that the universe is not spatially infinite. So that's OK too. And the universe may well be eternal, as well. None of this seems to have much connection with the OP. Apart from confirming that you are a creationist ("I do believe he is God, the creator of the universe") contrary to your denials previously. But that's OK. We are used to that level of dishonesty from religious people. Can we assume that you have no interest in discussing the science of either abiogenesis or evolution? You have your beliefs and the evidence doesn't matter.

And we are back to: abiogenesis is a big area of research with many possible explanations and hypotheses. Have you read up on any of these? Do you have any specific questions on the relevant science?

In this case, the absence of evidence tells us nothing one way or the other. It is not like we have failed to find evidence where there really should be some (in which case absence of evidence could be evidence of absence). So we are back to: we don't know.

Even if the answer is "yes" that doesn't imply the existence of something called "creative power". Unless you can define what you mean by "creative power" and provide some evidence for its existence. Is evolution by natural selection the same thing as creative power? After all it has the ability to create novel solutions (in both life and engineering). Is the combination of gravity and the other fundamental forces of nature the same thing as "creative power"? After all, that has the ability to create stars, planets, new elements and hence everything we see around us.

I thought you said you were looking for empirical evidence? Is that why this is under religion, because you believe in the existence of ETs in the absence of any evidence?

They (and GPS systems) use spread-spectrum technology that allows a weak signal to be detected (even if it is below the background noise level).

Thank you. You didn't say that these were particles, previously. I assumed you were just working out the mass-equivalent of particular frequencies.

The cell phone uses radio towers for communication and GPS for location. Using phones to track location in this way is pretty standard. I think you can get adapters to do that.

Is there another property that is related to space in the same way? Momentum? I'm just wondering if there is some sort of transformation between space-time coordinates and energy-something state space ...

Well, we would need to define what "creative power" is, before asking that question. And to go any further, it would need to be quantified, in some way. I'm not sure this is going to go anywhere though. If you are not interested in discussing the current scientific work in this area, I think I will leave it there.

The problem is not with the word "create". But if you want to evaluate whether this creative power is sufficient to do X (create a cell, for example) then it needs to be quantified.

Well, lets see if we can try and make this more scientific. First: How do you quantify "creative power"? What units is it measured in? How do you measure it, objectively? Second: How do quantify the "complexity of a thing? What units is it measured in? How do you measure it, objectively? Third: How do you determine how much of this "creative power" is required to create an object of given complexity? If we could do those things, then it might be possible to look for cases that fit or do not fit the model. Are you aware of any scientific research that attempts to quantify any of these things? (I'm not. So I can't help with that.) Also, we would have to be careful because it is not clear that the first cells were, or needed to be, anywhere as complex (however we measure that) as the simplest current cells.

Actually, since before Hubble. I am fairly sure that Lemaire had worked out the theory, found that the data matched and published an initial estimate of what we now call the Hubble constant a couple of years before Hubble published his results. Also, red-shifts are one of the least compelling bits of evidence for expansion. It was the detection of the CMB that was the final nail in the coffin of steady state theories. How are you going to explain the CMB? It is the best model that fits all the evidence. Many smart people over the past nearly a century have attempted (and are still attempting) to find alternative models. But GR just seems to work so well. It seems very unlikely it is totally wrong. Therefore you seem to be suggesting a finely balanced universe where "something" prevents expansion but something else produces all the evidence consistent with expansion. How can you believe that?

So, that is a different subject. (Which is why I think you have two threads.) Which particular evidence do you have a problem with? Are you aware of any evidence that shows evolution to be wrong? Or (as you use the word "believe") is this just a gut-feel thing, perhaps based on not knowing enough about the subject? (It is the use of words like "believe" that may trigger an emotional reaction when discussing science. It tends to imply that you favour your own opinions over evidence.)

Not at all. I am not in the least emotionally committed to evolution. However, I do feel quite strongly about evidenced-based science, critical thinking, and the correct use of logic. I'm not sure. You have studiously avoided any relevant science. Great! What questions or views do you have about current scientific hypotheses, evidence, experiments, work, etc in the area of abiogenesis? This is a fascinating and developing area, so this should be an interesting discussion. It is also not an area I know very much about, so I hope to learn from it. Let's go! Please stick to the science, as Simon has requested. I have always quite liked the idea that hydrothermal vents could provide the energy and chemical gradients necessary: http://www.livescience.com/26173-hydrothermal-vent-life-origins.html But I haven't seen any recent work confirming or contradicting this. Anyone else? p.s. Simon: if you don't want to start a new thread on abiogenesis, perhaps you could ask the mods to change the title?

It uses the same radio signals that are used for voice calls. What do you mean by "laptop internet"? Most (all?) smartphones also have Wi-FI. The accuracy of GPS is a couple of metres, I think. If you have an iPhone, then you can track it using the "Where's my iPhone" service. I expect there is something similar for Android.