Strange

An argument from personal incredulity is not very compelling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Of course, that implies something was created in the first place. There is no evidence for that. The definition of logic is part of philosophy. Philosophy is (should be) about the rigorous application of logic to analyse questions.

Maybe he was just pointing down to say, "your flies are undone"

It is rather annoying that popular science documentaries never say that they are giving a simplified analogy, rather than the "real science". People then take the illustrations and metaphors as being what the science really says and end up confused. I suppose it is better than no science communication. But I do think they could do better.

I think it is pretty obvious that things are separated by both time and space. When you walk around your house, you don't think you are moving to different positions? You think Paris, Tokyo and Jupiter are all inside your house? But according to you, those things (and all their combinations) are finite and, therefore, it could be known and calculated in principle? You think that is merely difficult? Do you know of a model that is able to do that? I doubt it is even possible. Weather is one of the classic examples of unpredictable (chaotic) systems. So, this sounds like just another of your silly straw man arguments (disagreeing with things that no one says). "People mistake models for reality" - No they don't. "People think it is possible to predict the shape of clouds" - No they don't. "No one knows what I am talking about" - Entirely possible. Yep. You are very fond of these vague claims. Never anything specific beyond "take a different perspective". About as useful as doing nothing.

The distance between things can become curved in the presence of mass (or energy). This means, rather like measuring distances on Earth, the distance (or time) between events can depend on the path you take through spacetime (e.g. how fast you go). It is the geometry that changes, rather than any physical "stuff".

You could. But it would be dishonest because we know cars are designed and made by people (for people). None of those stages would happen without human intervention. Glass sheets don't appear at factory doors by natural processes. Cars don't assemble themselves by the force of gravity. This is the standard Creationist tactic: "it looks like it was designed, therefore there there must be a designer". Look at Chesil beach, for example. No one sorts the pebbles by size. It is just the result of natural processes (minimising energy). These processes will never produce a motor car.

The density of dark matter is so low that its effects would not be detectable at these scales. It would be quite bizarre if we were in an area devoid of dark matter. Do we?

Key point: the fact of evolution has been known about for millennia -- ever since people domesticated plants and animals. There have been theories about how it works for just as long. Most of these don't really work (e.g. Lamark). But Wallace and Darwin came up with the idea of natural selection, based on existing ideas and their own observations. Experiments and observations have largely confirmed the basic idea, but various extensions and changes have been made ('cos that's how science works). We also understand the genetic mechanisms now, which nether Wallace or Darwin nor any of their predecessors did.

I don't think so. Clouds of gas collapse under their own gravity (because that is what gravity does). Some of this gas forms stars (because that is what compressed hydrogen does). These stars create heavier elements (because that is in the nature of stars). Those heavier elements are mixed with the clouds of gas and eventually form planets (gravity, again). Some of the planets have water and are warm enough that chemical reactions take place (just chemistry). Some of that chemistry becomes "life". Some of that life speculates on where it came from and why. No reason, no purpose. Just physics and chemistry (basically always attempting to minimise energy).

That is an example of the fallacy of begging the question. It is possible for conditions to arise with no purpose. It is then possible for someone to come along and convince themselves that there must have been a purpose. Purpose is not a cause. It is something you imagine. There is no evidence for anything being created from nothing.

Space is a quantity. It is the distance between things. Typically defined with three orthogonal coordinates. That wasn't a joke. Apart from being a reference to the common definition that "time is what clocks measure". We have instruments that measure space (rulers) and instruments that measure time (clocks). They are just the dimensions of space-time. And it is those measurements that increase when space "expands" (a dubious and apparently confusing metaphor).

There is no reason to think there was any such purpose.

Space is what rulers measure.

Famous peppered moth's dark secret revealed "Scientists have discovered the specific mutation that famously turned moths black during the Industrial Revolution." It is interesting that no one has done this before. I have read some articles by creationists saying: this is nothing special, there was always a variation in colour, it is genetically simple, nothing new happened. Well, guess what? They are wrong. (Surprise!) It is an unusual type of mutation (a transposon) It is a (relatively) recent mutation. (It certainly wasn't part of the pre-existing colour variation.) And it is not simple, as the gene into which the extra sequence was added does not appear to be related to pigmentation.

I suspect it may also be because religious people like to claim (and maybe believe) that people only accept the theory of evolution "because Darwin said". That they think they can criticise the theory because it is based on faith is oddly ironic. I'm sure a lot of them just don't get the concept that science is based on evidence rather than the words of a Darwin or an Einstein.

Sounds cool.

This sounds quite plausible. But it is a bit disturbing that "I'm not going to shoot you" is considered equivalent to "You're very welcome, old chap" or "We cool, bro".

It doesn't expand into anything. Your mental model of space like a sphere is completely unrealistic. What happens is that the distance between points in space increases. What we observe is that everything is moving away from everything else (not from some central point). This makes sense because the "location of the big bang" is everywhere. One way to visualise this is to wind the clock back. Over time galaxies would get closer and closer together. Ultimately everything would be in the same place. That "place" is where the big bang happened. As space expands, that place expands and everything is still in that place. Also, the big bang didn't "happen"; it is still happening. It is a model of the evolution of the universe from an early hot, dense state.

It will be interesting to see where this goes. And I think that is a key point. As far as we know, conscious life evolved quite late in the universe's history. So most of the development of the universe happened without it (outside of religion and science fiction).

Good. Then there is no reason to insist, as you do, that infinity does not exist. In future, perhaps you could you phrase it as, "for no particular reason I don't think infinity exists. But I could be wrong." So you don't think that distance exists? You think everything in the universe exists in a single point? If the universe is infinite in extent (which you concede it could be) then we can point to the universe and say it is a manifestation of infinity. The interesting thing is, according to you this incredible complexity can, in principle, be fully quantified. Because it is not infinite. I don't think that is true. Everyone sees the incredible complexity of nature. Science attempts to produce useful, even if hugely simplified, models of nature. The reason being that the models are useful - they have practical results. Nobody (apart from you) mistakes the models for reality. I am not sure what the alternative is. Presumably, just stand there slack-jawed saying "wow" and achieving nothing.

And none of those are obviously relevant to the universe. There is no obvious "reason" (cause, justification) for the universe to exist. The universe is not "done" yet (even the big bang is a continuing process). There is no evidence the universe was "created". So you have just shifted the problem from "what is the purpose" to "what is the reason". Which is (not surprisingly) the same question. Similarly, before considering the creation of the universe, you need some evidence it happened.

It's a little statistical quirk (nothing to do with religion). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19331938 https://www.theguardian.com/science/commentisfree/2015/may/24/business-genetic-ancestry-charlemagne-adam-rutherford There have been a couple of threads on this subject in the past.

If Abraham existed then Mohammed would have been a descendant. As would everyone else alive at the time.

Someone beat you to it: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95480-another-universal-expansion-hiccough/