Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

[JimBowie1958]

With mysticism, it's all about "argument".

With evolution, it's all about "evidence".

See how that works out?

Mysticism has nothing at all to do with rational argument.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Here's a simple mathematical illustration for how nature can generate highly precise and complex outcomes without a conscious intelligence being responsible.

Say you have a process which, totally at random, places a dot on a piece of paper.

Say you have another process which removes the dot if it is not inside a certain boundary.

Say you have a third process which removes the dot if, with the addition of that dot, the collection of dots in a particular region exceeds a certain density.

Over time, the addition of dots at random and their removal by these two processes results in a highly complex abstract picture somewhat resembling a multi-shaded layer construction like a striped stone.

How would that explain the fine tuning argument in reference to the gravitational constant, the expansion of water when it freezes, etc? These are not evolutionary coincidences but are sown into the very fabric of our universe.

Nor is evolution the only such process. Another example is the formation of crystals, in which random movements of molecules input into the selection of molecules according to a pattern of possible connections between them, ultimately generating a regular solid object.

So why is water about the only compound that expands as it freezes? That is a critical quality for life to exist.

What IS intelligence, after all? It is a refinement of a process in nature that does not seem very intelligent at all, namely trial and error, which is another way of thinking about selection. Our own brains operate by trial and error, but with two important refinements. One is the ability to conduct trials in the imagination rather than in real life, which lets us "try" various possibilities and eliminate the stupider ones before proceeding to real-life trials. The other is the ability to generate comparisons between two similar types of trial, and apply the lessons learned from one to the other. These refinements allow us to vastly accelerate the exact same trial-and-error process that occurs more slowly in nature, but do not change its basic quality.

What you describe is not design but the exact opposite of evolutionary development by trial and error. Would you want to drive across a bridge every day designed by trial and error and chance that the particular error that will bring it down simply has not been applied until the day you drive across it? lol

What this means is that a similar level of "intelligence" to the outcome can be achieved by nature as we can achieve with our own minds, but much more slowly, and in fact all of the processes which seem at first glance to indicate the existence of a conscious, intelligent creator are very slow processes, doing the same sort of thing that we could do ourselves, but at a much more ponderous speed.

Final outcome comparison, maybe, but not in terms of efficiency and complex systems whose components are all interdependent. No one makes a watch by putting all the peices in a box, closing the lid and then shaking it and expect the watch fall together if you simply shake it enough.

We would need to posit an intelligent designer if we saw a process happening that was not only as refined and precise as we can achieve ourselves, but also as fast. But we don't.

IMO, ID is not in the realm of science really. It is a philosophical view of the universe based on theology. There is no evidence as to which is true that is 'air tight'.

It all boils down to what you find to be more plausible and credible.

Did the watch fall together after billions of years of being shook or did someone design it?

Science really cannot prove or disprove either one.

 

[rdean]

With mysticism, it's all about "argument".

With evolution, it's all about "evidence".

See how that works out?

Wrong there is more evidence of purposeful design then purposeful accidents.

Only in your delusional mind. Only there.

 

[rdean]

With mysticism, it's all about "argument".

With evolution, it's all about "evidence".

See how that works out?

Mysticism has nothing at all to do with rational argument.

mysticism - definition of mysticism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Def of mys·ti·cism (mst-szm)
n.
1.
a. Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God.
b. The experience of such communion as described by mystics.
2. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.
3. Vague, groundless speculation.
1. belief in or experience of a reality surpassing normal human understanding or experience, esp a reality perceived as essential to the nature of life
2. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) a system of contemplative prayer and spirituality aimed at achieving direct intuitive experience of the divine
3. obscure or confused belief or thought




Def of re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny
2. any formal or institutionalized expression of such belief the Christian religion
3. the attitude and feeling of one who believes in a transcendent controlling power or powers
4. (Christianity / Roman Catholic Church) Chiefly RC Church the way of life determined by the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience entered upon by monks, friars, and nuns to enter religion

Under Religion, you find:

mysticism
1. the doctrine that an immediate spiritual intuition of truth or an intimate spiritual union of the soul with God can be achieved through contemplation and spiritual exercises.
2. the beliefs, ideas, or practices of mystics.

occultism
a belief that certain secret, mysterious, or supernatural agencies exist and that human beings may communicate with them or have their assistance. — occultist, n., adj.

Def of oc·cult (-klt, klt)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or dealing with supernatural influences, agencies, or phenomena.
2. Beyond the realm of human comprehension; inscrutable.
3. Available only to the initiate; secret: occult lore. See Synonyms at mysterious.
4. Hidden from view; concealed.
1.
a. of or characteristic of magical, mystical, or supernatural arts, phenomena, or influences
b. (as noun) the occult
2. beyond ordinary human understanding

----------------------------------------------------------

Should I also list "supernatural"? According to the dictionary, they are all pretty much different sides of the same coin.

If you believe in spirits, demons, angels, ghosts (and the Holy Ghost is a Ghost), and other magical creatures, then you believe in the occult, the supernatural and so on.

It's not like you can deny it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

AGRUMENT #1 FOR AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR:

For the average person, precision indicates that an intelligent person guided the outcome. According to Webster's New World College Dictionary, the word "precision" is defined as follows:

"the quality of being precise; exactness, accuracy"


The reverse of precision is an accident aka a spontaneous event that happen by chance with no one guiding the outcome. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as:

"a nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results"


Scientific evidence shows there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world. This precision renders the evolution theory mere fiction, for precision leaves no room for error or for accidental events. Take, for example, the first discovered 60 elements on the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth. Some of these 60 elements are gases and are therefore invisible to the human eye. The atoms--from which the Earth's elements are made--are specifically related to one another. In turn, the elements--e.g. arsenic, bismuth, chromium, gold, krypton--reflect a distinct, natural numeral order based upon the structure of their atoms. This is a proven LAW.

The precision in the order of the elements made it possible for scientists such as Mendeleyev, Ramsey, Moseley, and Bohr to theorize the existence of unknown elements and their characteristics. These elements were later discovered, just as predicted. Because of the distinct numerical order of the elements, the word LAW is applied to the Periodic Table of the Elements. (Sources: (1) The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, (2) "Periodic Law," from Encyclopædia Britannica, Vol. VII, p. 878, copyright 1978, (3) The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography


SIDE NOTE: Laws found in nature, as defined by Webster's New World Dictionary, are:

"a sequence of events that have been observed to occur with UNVARYING UNIFORMITY under the same conditions."


QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
1. Were it not for the precise relationship among the first 60 discovered elements on the Periodic Table, would scientists have been able to accurately predict the existence of forms of matter that at the time were unknown?

2. Could the precise law within the first 60 discovered elements (on the Periodic Table) have resulted by chance aka spontaneously aka by accident? Or is this evidence for the existence an intelligent Designer/God who guided the outcome?

3. Evolution relies upon things happening by chance aka at random. If evolution were a fact, how does it account for the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth in which the first 60 discovered elements are so precise, and so interrelated with one another, that it has been assigned the word "LAW"?

I recommend the Harper's article, by a physicist and a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, that is highly supportive of your position:

In part:
"On one thing most physicists agree: If the amount of dark energy in our universe were only a little bit different than what it actually is, then life could never have emerged. A little more and the universe would accelerate so rapidly that the matter in the young cosmos could never pull itself together to form stars and thence form the complex atoms made in stars. And, going into negative values of dark energy, a little less and the universe would decelerate so rapidly that it would recollapse before there was time to form even the simplest atoms. Here we have a clear example of fine-tuning: out of all the possible amounts of dark energy that our universe might have, the actual amount lies in the tiny sliver of the range that allows life. There is little argument on this point. It does not depend on assumptions about whether we need liquid water for life or oxygen or particular biochemistries. As before, one is compelled to ask the question: Why does such fine-tuning occur? "


The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith
By Alan P. Lightman
The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith?By Alan P. Lightman (Harper's Magazine)

A: Multiverse

A neg rep because I made you look like the ass that you are in post #9?

What better proof could there be.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

A: Multiverse

Thank's for falling into a little trap I set.....

I suspect that you don't understand what the "multiverse concept" implies: all of the 'facts' of science are no longer 'facts.'


The concept was made up by dolts who were afraid of what the 'fine-tuned universe' implies.

It wasn't 'made up' - it follows from the Einstein field equations and quantum mechanics.

And accepted by other dolts.

Shoe fit?


From chapter seven of Berlinski's "The Devil's Delusion,"...

"Dawkins, among others, has embraced the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea, that there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours. Why, then, scruple at the Deity? After all, the theologian need only apply to a single God and a single universe. Dawkins must appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos. And- the entire gargantuan structure scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to expericnce.

Now, get this: Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.”


Didn't understand what a mistake it was to write "A: Multiverse" did ya'?


What say you?

Dawkins? Eternal inflation is PHYSICS, not biology, and it was first proposed by Andrei Linde. And Berlinski is a biologist by training, isn't he? If you want to learn about cosomology, shouldn't you be more concerned what the physcists and cosmologists have to say?

Do you know what you are talking about? Please first go and study general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Multiverse ???.....what a joke you are.

It means that there are no facts in science....

But you didn't understand the concept, did you?
Next time do a little study before you pretend you know something.

I can explain it to you, I just can’t comprehend it for you.


Looking forward to your repeat of that highlight-reel faceplant.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Thank's for falling into a little trap I set.....

I suspect that you don't understand what the "multiverse concept" implies: all of the 'facts' of science are no longer 'facts.'


The concept was made up by dolts who were afraid of what the 'fine-tuned universe' implies.

It wasn't 'made up' - it follows from the Einstein field equations and quantum mechanics.

And accepted by other dolts.

Shoe fit?


From chapter seven of Berlinski's "The Devil's Delusion,"...

"Dawkins, among others, has embraced the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea, that there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours. Why, then, scruple at the Deity? After all, the theologian need only apply to a single God and a single universe. Dawkins must appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos. And- the entire gargantuan structure scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to expericnce.

Now, get this: Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.”


Didn't understand what a mistake it was to write "A: Multiverse" did ya'?


What say you?

Dawkins? Eternal inflation is PHYSICS, not biology, and it was first proposed by Andrei Linde. And Berlinski is a biologist by training, isn't he? If you want to learn about cosomology, shouldn't you be more concerned what the physcists and cosmologists have to say?

Do you know what you are talking about? Please first go and study general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Multiverse ???.....what a joke you are.

It means that there are no facts in science....

But you didn't understand the concept, did you?
Next time do a little study before you pretend you know something.

I can explain it to you, I just can’t comprehend it for you.


Looking forward to your repeat of that highlight-reel faceplant.

You can explain the multiverse to me? LOL! OK, then go ahead! Start with the Einstein field equation and take it from there! This is going to be good.


I must say its quite amusing to find someone who probably doesn't even know multidimensional calculus claiming she's an expert on cosmological theory.

 

[Dragon]

How would that explain the fine tuning argument in reference to the gravitational constant, the expansion of water when it freezes, etc? These are not evolutionary coincidences but are sown into the very fabric of our universe.

It doesn't. What explains that is simply that you are looking at it from the wrong end. The laws of nature are not designed to facilitate life (if they were, we would find life supported in a lot more of the universe than we do). Rather, life evolved to accommodate the laws of nature.

To suppose the possibility of multiple different values for these constants and laws is also to suppose the possibility of multiple universes. Imagine, then, a group of universes all sitting isolated in a row. In ours, the laws of nature are such that life is possible. In all the others, let's suppose -- although we don't actually know this -- that life is impossible. In our universe, life has emerged, and so there are people who can ask questions about where it came from. In all of the others, no life emerged, and so no questions are asked.

The parameters of physics are not such as can support life because we are here. Rather, we are here because the parameters of physics are such as can support life.

So why is water about the only compound that expands as it freezes? That is a critical quality for life to exist.

First of all, water ISN'T the only substance that expands as it freezes. Secondly, see above. You are addressing the causality from the wrong end.

What you describe is not design but the exact opposite of evolutionary development by trial and error. Would you want to drive across a bridge every day designed by trial and error and chance that the particular error that will bring it down simply has not been applied until the day you drive across it?

No, I'm describing design, too. I realize it's counter intuitive, but think about how you go about developing a new idea. In fact, think about how that bridge got designed, and the whole history of bridge building and engineering that developed the design elements that went into it -- and into your car, too. Trial and error lies at the root of it. Our brains just introduce a couple of refinements to the process that dramatically speed it up.

As for applying trial and error "every day," you are making a typical error about evolution common to creationists. You see the randomness, but you don't see the part that ISN'T random: natural selection. Natural selection allows the genome to "learn." It isn't applying guesses all the time. It's applying "knowledge" successfully gained from all its PAST guesses -- those of them that were "correct," those that worked, i.e. that enhanced the chance of survival and procreation.

Our brains work the same way. They just enhance the process through imagination and abstraction, along with a different and for some purposes more efficient medium of memory, and make it all much faster. Also reduce the casualties. This is the only difference between deliberate design and what nature does without a conscious intent (as far as we know) of any kind.

So, once more: that something emerging from nature resembles something that has been designed in no way proves there has been a designer. That's exactly what we should expect. What would show a designer is the same result occurring much faster than nature normally can generate it: as quickly as our own brains can short-cut the natural process and in some cases telescope millions of years of trial and error into a short sequence of imagination. If we had evidence the world really was made in six days, THAT would show design. But since the evidence we have shows that it took billions of years, that's well within the compass of nature, unassisted by conscious design.

Final outcome comparison, maybe, but not in terms of efficiency and complex systems whose components are all interdependent. No one makes a watch by putting all the peices in a box, closing the lid and then shaking it and expect the watch fall together if you simply shake it enough.

No, neither does evolution work that way. See above.

IMO, ID is not in the realm of science really. It is a philosophical view of the universe based on theology. There is no evidence as to which is true that is 'air tight'.

It all boils down to what you find to be more plausible and credible.

ID can certainly exist in the realm of theology and in truth, I believe something approximating it myself; that is, I believe that the universe IS intelligent, and that the processes we observe happening which are at root the same as our own intelligence (as observed above), on the huge scale of the universe, can be thought of as actually being intelligent. But that's not the same as ID, which proposes an alternate mechanism for the origin of species and suggests that evolution can't account for what we see, using arguments similar to the ones you have presented in this thread. In doing that, ID advocates are presenting it as a scientific theory, not as a theological concept. And in this, I believe, they are wrong.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It wasn't 'made up' - it follows from the Einstein field equations and quantum mechanics.





Dawkins? Eternal inflation is PHYSICS, not biology, and it was first proposed by Andrei Linde. And Berlinski is a biologist by training, isn't he? If you want to learn about cosomology, shouldn't you be more concerned what the physcists and cosmologists have to say?

Do you know what you are talking about? Please first go and study general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Multiverse ???.....what a joke you are.

It means that there are no facts in science....

But you didn't understand the concept, did you?
Next time do a little study before you pretend you know something.

I can explain it to you, I just can’t comprehend it for you.


Looking forward to your repeat of that highlight-reel faceplant.

You can explain the multiverse to me? LOL! OK, then go ahead! Start with the Einstein field equation and take it from there! This is going to be good.


I must say its quite amusing to find someone who probably doesn't even know multidimensional calculus claiming she's an expert on cosmological theory.

Your side can't even agree on this.

The Case for Parallel Universes: Scientific American

3. Scientific American: “The Case for Parallel Universes”

Faith in the multiverse

The “anthropic principle”—the idea that the physical features of our world are ideally suited for life on earth—has been an annoyance to those who believe that our universe and life on earth are products of random processes. Indeed, it has been difficult to explain even the physical constants of the universe without resorting to some sort of “intelligent design” position. Multiverse to the rescue!

The notion that parallel universes exist is not a new idea. The latest versions of the multiverse concept postulate that there exist other realities in which even the physical laws which govern our universe are different. Thus, given enough time and enough realities, random processes could result in absolutely anything. And the random processes which produced “us” are just the only ones we know about.

Recent articles in Scientific American have explored various scientists’ opinions on the multiverse issue. Those that oppose the possibility must necessarily do so on the basis of the physics in this universe. Those who accept the possibility can argue from an “anything goes” position in which the only rules which exist are those they choose to imagine. Thus the multiverse would be completely untestable based on any scientific principles.

The latest Scientific American article tries to recruit the inflationary hypothesis3 espoused by big bang cosmologists to scientifically demonstrate that multiverses should exist while still allowing that the absence of evidence for their existence is equally okay. After all, enough time may not have passed, the writer reasons, for the big-bang-generated bubble which represents our universe to have bumped into other reality bubbles!

The Scientific American article concludes that those who reject the multiverse’s existence are arrogantly claiming to be omniscient or at least capable of intuitively understanding all physical realities. Then it appeals to the inflation paradigm on which current big bang cosmology depends (as if either the inflationary hypothesis or the big bang were proven facts) and uses it as scientific support for the multiverse.

The multiverse question must of necessity be a matter of faith, and not even the kind of faith held by Bible-believing creationists who are able to see that no valid indisputable scientific observations violate God’s Word. Yet reputable secular scientists are able to freely discuss their faith-filtered scientific opinions on the multiverse question while mocking the positions held by creation scientists.

The article equates faith in the Bible’s account of creation with faith in “comfortingly familiar childhood notions like Santa Claus, local realism, [and] the Tooth Fairy.” How curious that the scientifically supportable information in the Bible is mocked while faith in a multiverse—by definition allowed to violate any scientific laws—is respected! While multiverse notions make good fodder for sci-fi, we need to remember that the idea represents one more effort to randomize God out of the reality human beings must face in this world and the next.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/07/23/news-to-note-07232011

 

[Dragon]

Your side can't even agree on this.

Of course not. That's the primary difference between science and dogma. Scientists don't all agree. That's because they're actually THINKING, instead of just believing as they're told.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your side can't even agree on this.

Of course not. That's the primary difference between science and dogma. Scientists don't all agree. That's because they're actually THINKING, instead of just believing as they're told.

Why do you think there are so many different religions within Christianity nor can ID and Creationist agree on the evidence.

Don't you get it ? they are only opinions among the educated.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your side can't even agree on this.

Of course not. That's the primary difference between science and dogma. Scientists don't all agree. That's because they're actually THINKING, instead of just believing as they're told.

Do you know what they say about opinions

 

[Dragon]

Your side can't even agree on this.

Of course not. That's the primary difference between science and dogma. Scientists don't all agree. That's because they're actually THINKING, instead of just believing as they're told.

Why do you think there are so many different religions within Christianity

Because dogmatists always fight.

Creationists and ID advocates don't agree on the evidence because they are advocating slightly different things, and the "evidence" for them is driven by the conclusion rather than the other way around.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Of course not. That's the primary difference between science and dogma. Scientists don't all agree. That's because they're actually THINKING, instead of just believing as they're told.

Why do you think there are so many different religions within Christianity

Because dogmatists always fight.

Creationists and ID advocates don't agree on the evidence because they are advocating slightly different things, and the "evidence" for them is driven by the conclusion rather than the other way around.

That comment must be directed at your side as well.

 

[Dragon]

Why do you think there are so many different religions within Christianity

Because dogmatists always fight.

Creationists and ID advocates don't agree on the evidence because they are advocating slightly different things, and the "evidence" for them is driven by the conclusion rather than the other way around.

That comment must be directed at your side as well.

If one is completely ignorant of the way scientific method operates, as you obviously are, then I suppose that's true.

Dogmatists disagree because they are dogmatists and so what they believe is dependent on their dogma. Scientists disagree because they are pursuing the truth and don't always have it; that's how science progresses.

Dogmatists, if allowed to by law or chaos, often actually FIGHT, that is, physically try to kill each other. That's something scientists generally don't do.

 

[Newby]

Before we get started on this, let's see if we can lay to rest the most basic criticism of intelligent design: that it is not falsifiable, and hence not a scientific theory. If it is not a scientific theory, then it cannot compete with evolution, which is one, and therefore there is not much need to discuss it.

However, this is easily remedied, I would think. To "falsify" a theory is to present a test or experiment or observation that, if it results in A instead of B, means that the theory is not correct.

Can someone tell me a test that would, if it turns out a certain way, prove that intelligent design is false? If so, then we must consider it falsifiable and hence a scientific theory. (Note: this does not mean claiming that it IS actually false, just presenting a test that would prove it false, IF it is.)

I await your responses with great interest.

What sets humans apart and make them superior from all other species ?

That is not a test that would falsify intelligent design. Perhaps you didn't understand the concept. Here's what you need to do.

Describe an experiment for me to perform. (It doesn't have to be one that, practically speaking, I actually can perform, just one that might conceivably be done.)

Describe an outcome of that experiment that, if it occurs, would mean that intelligent design is FALSE.

If you can do this, then you will have shown that intelligent design is a scientific theory and deserves consideration. Have at it.

EDIT: None of the material you presented in your last post qualifies, either. This is really very simple. Tell us a test we could perform, that would prove intelligent design is FALSE. If there is such a test, then ID is a scientific theory. If not, then it isn't one.

Why don't you point your hypothesis at the 'theory' that life is random? Describe an experiment that you can perfrom that proves or disproves random life? Describe an outcome of that experiment that means that randon life is FALSE?

So, is the idea that life is random truly a scientific theory?

 

[PoliticalChic]

It wasn't 'made up' - it follows from the Einstein field equations and quantum mechanics.





Dawkins? Eternal inflation is PHYSICS, not biology, and it was first proposed by Andrei Linde. And Berlinski is a biologist by training, isn't he? If you want to learn about cosomology, shouldn't you be more concerned what the physcists and cosmologists have to say?

Do you know what you are talking about? Please first go and study general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Multiverse ???.....what a joke you are.

It means that there are no facts in science....

But you didn't understand the concept, did you?
Next time do a little study before you pretend you know something.

I can explain it to you, I just can’t comprehend it for you.


Looking forward to your repeat of that highlight-reel faceplant.

You can explain the multiverse to me? LOL! OK, then go ahead! Start with the Einstein field equation and take it from there! This is going to be good.


I must say its quite amusing to find someone who probably doesn't even know multidimensional calculus claiming she's an expert on cosmological theory.

You pretend-scientists are the easiest to take apart.

You never studied....you merely memorized.
Thinking is too darn much trouble for you.

Bet the number of times you questioned a professor or disagreed is slightly less
than the number of heads you have.


That's exactly why you negged when I laughed at your choice of 'Multiverse' as
an answer: because you didn't understand that what it means is that every fact of science must be thrown out!
Multiverse: there are no universally true facts or laws!
Multiverse is explained right in the post you linked, dunce.


Got you, didn't I.
Be honest and admit it: to believe in the multiverse concept, one must suppose some
universe where gravity pushed things away.

Well....do you believe that????

Consider this your Kodak moment.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Multiverse ???.....what a joke you are.

It means that there are no facts in science....

But you didn't understand the concept, did you?
Next time do a little study before you pretend you know something.

I can explain it to you, I just can’t comprehend it for you.


Looking forward to your repeat of that highlight-reel faceplant.

You can explain the multiverse to me? LOL! OK, then go ahead! Start with the Einstein field equation and take it from there! This is going to be good.


I must say its quite amusing to find someone who probably doesn't even know multidimensional calculus claiming she's an expert on cosmological theory.

Your side can't even agree on this.

The Case for Parallel Universes: Scientific American

3. Scientific American: “The Case for Parallel Universes”

Faith in the multiverse

The “anthropic principle”—the idea that the physical features of our world are ideally suited for life on earth—has been an annoyance to those who believe that our universe and life on earth are products of random processes. Indeed, it has been difficult to explain even the physical constants of the universe without resorting to some sort of “intelligent design” position. Multiverse to the rescue!

The notion that parallel universes exist is not a new idea. The latest versions of the multiverse concept postulate that there exist other realities in which even the physical laws which govern our universe are different. Thus, given enough time and enough realities, random processes could result in absolutely anything. And the random processes which produced “us” are just the only ones we know about.

Recent articles in Scientific American have explored various scientists’ opinions on the multiverse issue. Those that oppose the possibility must necessarily do so on the basis of the physics in this universe. Those who accept the possibility can argue from an “anything goes” position in which the only rules which exist are those they choose to imagine. Thus the multiverse would be completely untestable based on any scientific principles.

The latest Scientific American article tries to recruit the inflationary hypothesis3 espoused by big bang cosmologists to scientifically demonstrate that multiverses should exist while still allowing that the absence of evidence for their existence is equally okay. After all, enough time may not have passed, the writer reasons, for the big-bang-generated bubble which represents our universe to have bumped into other reality bubbles!

The Scientific American article concludes that those who reject the multiverse’s existence are arrogantly claiming to be omniscient or at least capable of intuitively understanding all physical realities. Then it appeals to the inflation paradigm on which current big bang cosmology depends (as if either the inflationary hypothesis or the big bang were proven facts) and uses it as scientific support for the multiverse.

The multiverse question must of necessity be a matter of faith, and not even the kind of faith held by Bible-believing creationists who are able to see that no valid indisputable scientific observations violate God’s Word. Yet reputable secular scientists are able to freely discuss their faith-filtered scientific opinions on the multiverse question while mocking the positions held by creation scientists.

The article equates faith in the Bible’s account of creation with faith in “comfortingly familiar childhood notions like Santa Claus, local realism, [and] the Tooth Fairy.” How curious that the scientifically supportable information in the Bible is mocked while faith in a multiverse—by definition allowed to violate any scientific laws—is respected! While multiverse notions make good fodder for sci-fi, we need to remember that the idea represents one more effort to randomize God out of the reality human beings must face in this world and the next.


News to Note, July 23, 2011 - Answers in Genesis

"faith in a multiverse—by definition allowed to violate any scientific laws—is respected!"

Bravo! Skewered him!

This deserves the Edmund Rostand-Cyrano line: "Then as I end the refrain, thrust home!"

 

[Dragon]

Why don't you point your hypothesis at the 'theory' that life is random?

As there is no such theory, I hardly see the point.

EDIT: i see that PC made the same mistake. You should realize that people you disagree with don't actually believe the way your caricatures of them suggest.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I doubt the species who are a part of the 99.9% that ended up extinct would agree with the whole precision in nature view.