The immensity of the universe;addendum (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Sunday, March 19, 2017, 11:28 (2805 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID’s comment: The article makes the point that with inflation the universe became vast before the time arrived when carbon and the metal were formed that support life. It took much time to have carbon appear in stars which then had to age and explode and spread the carbon around. The vastness is due to the slow evolution of the necessary elements for life to appear. Simple concept. Still no answer to multiple humans colonies concept. Could be. Vastness required!

dhw: Until we discover how life originated, whether there are other forms of life elsewhere in the universe, what sort of forms they are, what is the actual nature of the universe, whether it is limited, and also whether it is true that it is expanding*** (I have always questioned the Big Bang theory), it is patently absurd to state that the vastness is necessary. Wallace’s “may be necessary” is as far as one can go, and every theory related to the origin of life is a “may be” – including the existence of God.
*** Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study ...
www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

DAVID: Interesting outlier study, with the redshift reasoning unexplained, and the vastness of the universe also unexplained by their theory. Brightness has always been a problem in figuring out astronomical distances. We are beyond 'standard candle' studies such as this inept one uses. They object to supernova studies which make expansion much clearer?

I am in no position to debate the issue. I do know, however, that these are not the only scientists to question the whole concept of expansion. This was merely one point among several to explain why it is patently absurd to state that the vastness is necessary. I presume you now agree.