most complex life today comes with either four appendages or six(those with eight just converted antenna to legs or claws) if you look at the Burgess Shales life at that time had far more options, it did resemble a star wars bar scene, had there not been a major extinction event it's very doubtful 4 and 6/8 life forms would be the dominant life forms today...only a series of cataclysmic extinction events gave us an opportunity to develop, had the meteor not destroyed the dinosaurs they would like still be roaming the planet today and likely the dominant life form, and with no need to develop further...apex predators such as T-rex and great white sharks need little evolution when they're perfectly adapted as they are... we've been around in primate form for 5million yrs? spiders solitary,cannibalistic and without a society have been around successfully for 400million, complex societies are not a guarantee of survival(mammoths, neaderthals), societies are just another survival but not essential agreed...
you can watch the video at your own pace as well...it's probably the best source of info on the multi-verse hypothesis, Genuine experts the actual people who came up with the concept not links to blog sites or a creationist wacko who has no clue as to what he's yammering on about.... I'm not too keen on the super complex astronomy world these people live in (it's way above my pay grade) and not normally something I could sit through but I found it very informative...
Indeed, Prager's argument is tautological, unconvincing and irrelevant. Ultimately, the existence or the non-existence of other universes has no bearing on the existence of God or an allegedly fine-tuned universe. Nevertheless, God does exist and He did fine-tune the universe for us. : ) Personally, I'd be pleased and excited by the discovery of some reasonably sure evidence for a multiverse. We're just not there yet, and the assessment of recent data is mixed and confusing. . . . From my blog: The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, including the classic laws of logic, the fundamental operations of human apprehension (the analogous, the univocal and the metaphoric) and the ontological imperatives of origin demonstrate that the conclusion that God must be is perfectly rational, and the unqualified rejection of intelligent design is the stuff of sheer fanaticism, more at the unwitting imposition of a metaphysical naturalism on reality, as opposed to the pre-Darwinian mechanistic naturalism of the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, Newton. . . . Metaphysical naturalism is the philosophy of some masquerading as the only rational or legitimate presupposition for science. In some cases, it's the arrogance and the sneer of a mind as closed as a slammed shut door. As for science itself, it cannot affirm or falsify the existence of God; however, this does not necessarily mean that the discoveries of science in the light of reason do not point toward God's existence. Some mistake the limitations of science for the limitations of reality itself. As for multiverse theory, the fact of the matter is that there may very well be other universes beyond the cosmological horizon and/or "the other side" of the gravitational energy of a pre-Big Bang quantum vacuum. And if there are . . . this would have no affirmative bearing whatsoever on the existence or non-existence of God either! And while the notion of a multiverse matrix may be unfalsifiable, we are searching for patterns of collisions with other universes in cosmic microwave background radiation and for evidence of the gravitational effects of other universes on ours. In any event, the notion that the rational considerations of a divine origin and design of material existence is incompatible with the concerns or the findings of science is nonsense as Planck himself, the father of quantum physics, rightly observed: "Both Religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view." As for Planck's presumptuous, indemonstrable and teleological repudiation of the mysticism and the miracles of Judeo-Christianity, for example, as if his pronouncement in this wise were anything else but the stuff of just another opinion, as if the fallen state of mankind and Christ's sacrificial atonement unto life everlasting for whosoever will were overthrown by it: nobody's perfect. --Rawlings http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2013/07/slammed-shut-doors.html Also note the links to the related stories: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5907 http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Science/article1261602.ece http://www.newscientist.com/article...ncks-new-view-of-the-cosmos.html#.UesAy2Ln-M8 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ence-multiverse-revealed-time-cosmic-map.html
As opposed to atheists yammering on as if abiogenesis were an established theory or even discernibly falsifiable (staggering ignorance and stupitiy!), and who don't bother to read enough to know that I don't even agree with the essence of Prager's teleological irrelevancy! How stupid, close-minded and arrogant is that? But then your signature from that second-rater Mill, next to Locke, tell the discerning all they need to know about you.
Rawlings, you said: So fine, leave it at that. If God could make one Universe he could make an infinite number, so what? Stop trying to find an argument where there isn't any. One of the more accepted theories of modern evolution is that of Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit priest, and the Big Bang theory was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre another Jesuit. There's no conflict between Science and Religion and really never has been except in the heads of some fanatics who want to make up arguments to advance their agenda, like the Cardinals who used an unwitting Galileo to advance themselves in the Church hierarchy
"Stop trying to find an argument where there isn’t any"?! Multiverse theory is not universally accepted among cosmologists. It's not an established theory in any experimental sense as of yet and may not even be subject to falsification. There most certainly is an argument. Get your facts straight. Notwithstanding, you're clearly not reading my posts. . . . I don't have a problem with the notion of a multiverse at all. In fact, I believe it to be the likeliest scenario, even though the early assessments of the Planck satellite's cosmic map are somewhat mixed (for example, anomalies indicating the gravitational pull of other universes and yet the apparent lack of evidence for dark flow). Also, while Prager means well and I understand what he's trying to get at, his argument is tautologically inconclusive. I know there's no conflict between true scientific knowledge and true religion. Evolution is the pseudoscientific claptrap of metaphysical naturalism. I know all about the Big Bang theory and who Lemaitre is. That's common knowledge. You actually attached a link to that *yawn* of a non sequitur? And the apostate Roman Catholic Church—full of murder, falsehood, tyranny and oppression, which imposed Aristotelian geocentricism on the word of God—has nothing to do with me, let alone God. Finally, the only fanatics around here—boorishly argumentative, close-minded, bigoted, confounding the subjective beliefs of some with the theoretical imperatives of science, or making insane and vile declarations—are atheists. For example:
Just like all Christian leaders since, Jesus was an agent of the ruling class. Imperial Rome assigned him to lead the rebellious Hebrews off into mystical otherwordly concerns. "Render therefore unto Caesar," "My kingdom is not of this earth," "Turn the other cheek" and other slavish sissiness. In order to sucker people into his pacifying fake religion, Jesus was taught the ruling class's secret and exclusive medical science and outright magicians' frauds. When his faith-healing failed to lead the Hebrews away from patriotism into escapist fairy tales, his Roman bosses executed him.
My simple brain says if it can happen on Earth, no matter the variables like meteor strikes, volcanic eruptions, etc., it can happen elsewhere. And in our evolutionary process seems to me most of it makes sense which again in my pea brain means we're not necessarily unique. Regarding those dinosaurs, it was just a matter of time before they went extinct or be killed off by man...assuming man was to sustain himself. And your point about T-rex and great white sharks basically being perfect in their form with no need to evolution means to me that as man evolved man would find a way to survive. Complex societies are not a guarantee for anything except taxation but nonetheless there are make-sense behaviors which develop such as grouping. Regarding multiverses, not only do we have the gigantic numbers of galaxies/planets possible, but with enormous amounts of time involved like billions/trillions of years, perhaps intelligent life forms come and go a 100 times or more? If all of this is possible, then I would tend to believe that we will find a lot of commonality...
I have no doubt the video is interesting, and I do enjoy NOVA, however my life just doesn't allow a lot of time for this stuff. Reading is my best venue. This entire topic is over my head! Referencing those Russian dolls again when I think that outside of our galaxy is another 100+ billion galaxies, and perhaps outside of our Universe there are 1 to 100+ billion more universe's, and my logic says why stop there so there must be more 'stuff' beyond the multiverses, to rationalize the space and time associated with this, and what lies beyond, and to think there is no end to this system, is so mindboggling it hinges on not making any sense at all. I'm guessing >99% of people will never try to grasp or rationalize or accept the enormity of a system we're talking about...
if not 99.9999%....but we both did because we both feel the need to know and understand but not necessarily become experts...
I don't disagree at all... mammals lived with the dinosaurs for 100+ million years and never evolved to challenge dinosaur supremacy, in order for a subordinate specie to evolve to become the dominant specie there needs to be cleaning of the slate, a global extinction event(asteroid)...without that slate cleaning mammals could not dominate dinosaurs, and the same applies today no animal can replace us as the dominate specie unless we are wiped out... sure... I don't doubt there is life elsewhere I just don't assume it resembles anything we're familiar with...
Why make up an imaginary being who's existence is completely unnecessary? If the Universe were only slightly different than it actually is, I would have had Mexican for lunch, instead of Chinese. But I had Chinese, because the Universe is exactly the way it is. Not because God fine tuned the Universe, the universe required no fine tuning.
Get this straight. God exists. He created the universe. He fine-tuned it for us. I didn't make Him up
You didn't make him up, you don't have the imagination for that, but someone made him up, and passed on the delusion. See if you can figure out why abiogenesis makes sense, there was no life and then there was life, if the process was natural, then it was abiogenesis. If it was supernatural, then it was mythical. Why would I believe in a supernatural process, when there isn't a shred of evidence of the supernatural than can withstand even cursory examination?
You're asking me questions I don't know the answers to. I know more about abiogenetic research, evolution and biochemistry than cosmology. I'd be willing to educate myself a bit further in cosmological concerns to help you better understand the matter, but I just don't have the time right now. Other priorities. In any event, you say in the above that "if it can happen on Earth". What do you mean by "it" exactly? Abiogenesis? You do understand that abiogenesis has never gotten beyond the stage of hypothesis, right? Appears to be unfalsifiable at best, right? You do understand that the Pasturian law of biogenesis stands, right? I'd be willing to bet that I know more about abiogenetic research than anyone else on this board. You'ld do well to read my article. You'ld readily discover that it's current and covers the very best science on the matter. Make no mistake about it, the leading lights of abiogentic research, which included the late Miller, have nothing but utter contempt for the presumptuously rash and ignorant blather of phonies like wyly. The very best of them do not talk about abiogenesis as if it actually occurred, were a fiat accompli, something to be taken for granted. It's mostly atheistic laymen know nothings who talk like that. The matter is staggeringly complex and befuddling. If you're under the impression that the evidence actually supports abiogenesis, you are way off the truth. Read my article. Whether you agree with my theological perspective or not, youÂ’ll quickly see that my review of the science is accurate and objective. YouÂ’ll see that I obviously know what IÂ’m talking about. That's my topic of expertise. Ask me questions about that. You have the scientific nuts and bolts of the matter right before you; the rest is just blather.
I don't have the imagination? You don't have the sense God gave gnats. I won't waste too much time on you, for I don't tolerate fools for long. This is your last post. The construct of a sentient origin, for obvious reasons, is not a figment of human culture; it's potentiality is a universally self-evident, ontological imperative. Only thoughtless buffoons and philosophical retards, indeed, only those who live an atheism of the unexamined and intellectually dishonest kind talk your trash. From my blog: As for your incoherent prattle about abiogenesis: all you're really saying is that God doesn’t exist; therefore, all that exists is material substance. Tautological claptrap, pseudoscientific baby talk. Either abiogenesis occurred or didn't. Either there is evidence for it or there is not. Either it is falsifiable or it is not. That's science. The reassertion of your unexamined and intellectually dishonest atheism is not science. You don't know jack about the matter, and anyone who listens to you is a damn fool.
No, I'm saying that there is no reason to look to the supernatural for explanations. And all the mumbo-jumbo in the world isn't going to change that.
a new theory is that universes evolved, they are grown from black holes, the more black holes a universe creates the more likely it's type is to survive, thus universes like our exist to produce black holes, a universe that has the laws of physics to produces large numbers of black holes is also great for life to survive, lucky for us right... just like our purpose is to live and procreate.. the universe also lives and procreates... does that mean the universe is alive .
The goal of this mental masturbation is not to know, but to glow. It gives escapists the feeling of power and superiority over practical concerns. It is dark matter that gives warmth and fuzziness but no light.
Man is a mammal. I think dinosaurs would have a hard time finding enough food to sustain themselves, plus other changes in the atmosphere and climate, and it was just a matter of more time before most of them were gone. I give man a little more credit for figuring out how to conquer dinosaurs as necessary whether it was for food or safety. I also don't believe dinosaurs would be considered the dominant species over 'modern' man but I guess we'll never know. Regarding no animal replacing humans, if those humming birds go on the Oprah diet and figure out how to grow in size to maybe 50 pounds, they will rule the Earth! IMO the evolutionary process on Earth just seems to make a lot of sense. Sure there are variables but no matter the outcome just seems to make sense. For example, if giant spiders were to grow their brains, I think one of the first challenges would be to dump the spider look and think about looking more like humans. Of course we can't know today, but given another 100,000 years, if we don't annihilate ourselves, with a similar environment, how much will humans actually change? If we wanted immediate change tomorrow, how would we improve our human shape and capabilities? Maybe we grow taller or shorter, maybe better hearing and sight, we'll still have legs and arms and digits, an inny and an outy, and obesity will still be a problem! But IMO we're going to look very similar. I think Earth humans are somewhat prototypical in the sense that everything that follows will be similar...
I know well mammals had about 100 million years to replace dinosaurs and they never came close, the gap/advantage was to large....climate change/asteroid gave them the opportunity as all large life forms went extinct, tiny mammals came out of hiding... birds are certainly intelligent I would think they'd need to convert those wings into something suited for technology absolutely, evolution works incredibly well...eight appendages are way better than what we have... IMO we will evolve very little if any, the need and conditions to evolve are no longer present, geographical/genetic isolation is no longer a factor...sexual selection plays little part now as well...and there is no environmental need for us to adapt as technology neutralizes the environment, any body type can live anywhere on the planet...
Well...you said 'mammals lived with the dinosaurs for 100+ million years and never evolved to challenge dinosaur supremacy' yet part of this evolution was man and eventually man would conquer the dinosaurs...or perish. There might have been a lot of carnage before man could conquer dinosaurs but eventually man would succeed. On the geological time scale, 100 million years is mouse nuts. If dinosaurs and modern man could have lived at the same time, I'm placing my money on modern man. Once dinosaur meat reached a certain market price man would have slaughtered them into extinction. Birds won't convert their wings until they are forced to live a life on the ground or in the water. It's just that those humming birds are ferocious and have an attitude and if they were bigger would become a menace. Kind of hard to argue that eight appendages are better than the four we currently have? As man evolved, if it was 'better' to have eight appendages then man would have evolved in this fashion. Once again, IMO man's evolution makes sense to me and if I tried to imagine how to make man better I'm not sure what this might be...assuming a similar environment prevails. Sexual selection plays little part?? http://www.bigleaguewiffleball.com/...le-chest.jpg#Rosie ugly hair on chest 315x298
Well since this thread is about multiverse's I suppose all of our discussion should be cosmological? Yes...abiogenesis. I don't believe life requires life in order to be created. And Pasteur or anyone else never proved or will prove that life cannot be created chemically...
man's evolution didn't begin until 60 million years after the dinosaurs, the top of the pyramid was held by dinosaurs, they weren't displaced by mammals and wouldn't have been had it not been for an extinction event...if there was no extinction event we might have a intelligent specie today but it would likely have been a dinosaur and not a mammal... but we're not talking geological time scale but biological, man couldn't have developed under those circumstances... birds lose their flying ability not because they are forced to but because it's safe to do so... mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians all have four limbs because they have a common ancestor and it worked not because it was better, spiders have eight because it works, they didn't evolve to higher levels because they had no need to, not because four limbs is better than eight, they were perfectly suited for what the niche they occupy just like a shark...
Human evolution in terms of Homo species has only been 2-3 million years. It really started about 2 billion years in the primordial muck. But back to dinosaurs, they were around 150 million years and didn't evolve much. And birds and crocodiles are still around from that time and haven't evolved much. But look how much humans have evolved in a very short period of time. If humans evolved in parallel with dinosaurs then there is no doubt in my mind humans would quickly become the dominant animal. Man started developing 2 billion years ago. Again...this thread is about multiverse so we need to stick to that topic...
