The Multiverse????

[Montrovant]

Perhaps it does suggest what you say, but considering the less than 200 years since the theory of evolution was proposed is an extremely short period of time, in the context of that theory; and considering we neither know every species on the planet now nor all those that have existed prior to now; and considering we cannot keep track of every place or every animal on the planet, it seems only a small suggestion.

"...but considering the less than 200 years since the theory of evolution was proposed is an extremely short period of time,..."

1. The less than 200 years is one factor.....combined with the factor of how many scientists are at work currently.
a. ...and the fact that one loses grants, status, and livelihood if one posits that Darwin was wrong.


2. Darwin said this:
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”

“Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures.To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine

“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”

“The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.”


3. This is the heart of Darwin's thesis:
. The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)


There are numerous examples which show the very opposite of Darwin's theory.
"The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.




So...if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true...and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.

This is not the case.

Does anyone claim that Darwin was correct in all aspects of his theory? Evolutionary theory has changed over the years.

"Evolutionary theory has changed over the years."

Would you mind supporting your claim?

I don't want to get into an in depth debate on evolution, but clearly we have knowledge of things related to evolution which were unavailable, perhaps unimagined, in Darwin's time. Our understanding of DNA, for example, was something Darwin did not have. As such, he could not take it into account in his theory.

Here, though, is a simple search which gives plenty of different sites to look at on the subject :
how evolutionary theory has changed since darwin at DuckDuckGo

Whether one believes in evolutionary theory or not, it clearly is not exactly the same as what Darwin proposed.

I need no "different sites to look at on the subject..."

I'm an expert on the subject....as shown by the fact that every single thing I've posted is correct and accurate.


And....rather than hot air....whenever you're ready....provide changes in Darwin's theory that are presented to students.

An expert on the subject?

You have fun with that. I provided what you asked for, that being evidence that evolutionary theory has changed since first proposed by Darwin. I both gave an example of how human understanding has grown regarding subjects directly related to evolution, and I also gave a link to a search about how evolutionary theory has changed since Darwin. If you are unable to see that this is just what you asked for, you might want to rethink your claims of expertise. Actually, you should probably rethink those claims either way.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Why is this so important?"

Because it suggests that Darwin's theory is incorrect as an explanation for the diversity of life on our planet.

And....if you had the courage to rock the boat, it might cause you to question why Darwin's theory is taught in government schools as the nearest thing to fact.

And...if you really wanted to live dangerously....you might wonder why this practice is so very important to the powers in our society.

Perhaps it does suggest what you say, but considering the less than 200 years since the theory of evolution was proposed is an extremely short period of time, in the context of that theory; and considering we neither know every species on the planet now nor all those that have existed prior to now; and considering we cannot keep track of every place or every animal on the planet, it seems only a small suggestion.

"...but considering the less than 200 years since the theory of evolution was proposed is an extremely short period of time,..."

1. The less than 200 years is one factor.....combined with the factor of how many scientists are at work currently.
a. ...and the fact that one loses grants, status, and livelihood if one posits that Darwin was wrong.


2. Darwin said this:
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”

“Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures.To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine

“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”

“The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.”


3. This is the heart of Darwin's thesis:
. The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)


There are numerous examples which show the very opposite of Darwin's theory.
"The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.




So...if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true...and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.

This is not the case.

Does anyone claim that Darwin was correct in all aspects of his theory? Evolutionary theory has changed over the years.

"Does anyone claim that Darwin was correct in all aspects of his theory? Evolutionary theory has changed over the years."

Of course they do.

1. Infectees of public school education come away with the belief that Darwin's theory is a law of some sort.


2. While the science establishment continues to stone-wall the public, "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." This was the testimony of Eugenie Scott to the Texas State Board of Education in January when the Board was debating new state science curriculum standards.Dr. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), ..." Stutz, T.Texas education board debates teaching of evolution.Dallas Morning News,January 21, 2009....

a. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer produced a binder of one hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in which biologists described significant problems with the theory.
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt."


b. The attempt to prevent students from hearing of the problems with evolutionary theory is exactly the kind of indoctrination that critics of the Left have been railing about.


One would hope that the intelligent observer would recognize these problems with Darwinian theory......and begin to wonder why it is pushed so fervently.

You'll forgive me if I don't lend much credence to Stephen Meyer.

I do not subscribe to the idea that there are no weaknesses in evolutionary theory. That seems to be a silly statement.

What attempt to prevent students from hearing of the problems with evolutionary theory are you talking about? If it is a matter of not teaching intelligent design as science, or not teaching the views of the Discovery Institute, I would disagree with your assessment.

Are students taught that Darwin's theory has never been documented in either the laboratory or in nature?

How about the fact that the fossil record, specifically the Chengjiang discoveries and the Burgess Shales show the very opposite pattern from that of Darwin's proposals?


And this:
"You'll forgive me if I don't lend much credence to Stephen Meyer"
No, I won't because you haven't read his well documented tome....I have....nor can you state why he is incorrect.


And...your link from the Smithsonian....
Perhaps you don't know that they fire any who dispute Darwin.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Why do you think a religious individual would know what a creator would provide?"

I said nothing of the sort, Monty.

The import of the post, of the series of posts, is that noted scientists have stated that he particular perimeters extant are exactly.......exactly.....what would be dictated to support life.

Scientists....whether religious or not.


a. Physicist Alan Lightman has written this:

"…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.


On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life.

The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720



b. "Michael Turner, astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab: “The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bullseye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.”...

Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, writes that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at its creation is “one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123.” That is “a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.”
Why Some Scientists Embrace the ‘Multiverse’


Would you care to comment on any of those analyses?

You 'said nothing of the sort'? I'm not sure how you can say that after reading your own quote. One must know what a creator would provide to say that something is exactly what a creator would provide.

I find it odd to look at life, which obviously already exists, and discuss how unlikely it is for life to arise. The universe is as it is. If it were different, life as we know it might not exist. Of course, if it were different, we have no idea whether some other form of life would have arisen. If an omnipotent creator is responsible for the universe, is there any reason to think such a being could not create a different kind of life in a universe that follows different rules?

I question the basis to calculate the odds of life arising without a creator, but whatever the odds may be, life is here.

Why do you think a religious individual would know what a creator would provide?"

I said nothing of the sort, Monty.

The import of the post, of the series of posts, is that noted scientists have stated that he particular perimeters extant are exactly.......exactly.....what would be dictated to support life.

Scientists....whether religious or not.


The quotes are from scientists, speaking as exactly that.

Most of the observable universe is actually antithetical to life as we know it.

What does this post of yours have to do with anything????

If you want to bring up the idea that the universe is exactly what would be needed to support life, it seems entirely relevant to point out that most of the universe is inimical to life as we know it. What is hard to understand about that?

"...but considering the less than 200 years since the theory of evolution was proposed is an extremely short period of time,..."

1. The less than 200 years is one factor.....combined with the factor of how many scientists are at work currently.
a. ...and the fact that one loses grants, status, and livelihood if one posits that Darwin was wrong.


2. Darwin said this:
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”

“Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures.To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine

“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”

“The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.”


3. This is the heart of Darwin's thesis:
. The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)


There are numerous examples which show the very opposite of Darwin's theory.
"The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.




So...if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true...and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.

This is not the case.

Does anyone claim that Darwin was correct in all aspects of his theory? Evolutionary theory has changed over the years.

"Evolutionary theory has changed over the years."

Would you mind supporting your claim?

I don't want to get into an in depth debate on evolution, but clearly we have knowledge of things related to evolution which were unavailable, perhaps unimagined, in Darwin's time. Our understanding of DNA, for example, was something Darwin did not have. As such, he could not take it into account in his theory.

Here, though, is a simple search which gives plenty of different sites to look at on the subject :
how evolutionary theory has changed since darwin at DuckDuckGo

Whether one believes in evolutionary theory or not, it clearly is not exactly the same as what Darwin proposed.

I need no "different sites to look at on the subject..."

I'm an expert on the subject....as shown by the fact that every single thing I've posted is correct and accurate.


And....rather than hot air....whenever you're ready....provide changes in Darwin's theory that are presented to students.

An expert on the subject?

You have fun with that. I provided what you asked for, that being evidence that evolutionary theory has changed since first proposed by Darwin. I both gave an example of how human understanding has grown regarding subjects directly related to evolution, and I also gave a link to a search about how evolutionary theory has changed since Darwin. If you are unable to see that this is just what you asked for, you might want to rethink your claims of expertise. Actually, you should probably rethink those claims either way.

" I provided what you asked for, that being evidence that evolutionary theory has changed since first proposed by Darwin."

Of course you did no such thing.

 

[Montrovant]

You 'said nothing of the sort'? I'm not sure how you can say that after reading your own quote. One must know what a creator would provide to say that something is exactly what a creator would provide.

I find it odd to look at life, which obviously already exists, and discuss how unlikely it is for life to arise. The universe is as it is. If it were different, life as we know it might not exist. Of course, if it were different, we have no idea whether some other form of life would have arisen. If an omnipotent creator is responsible for the universe, is there any reason to think such a being could not create a different kind of life in a universe that follows different rules?

I question the basis to calculate the odds of life arising without a creator, but whatever the odds may be, life is here.

Why do you think a religious individual would know what a creator would provide?"

I said nothing of the sort, Monty.

The import of the post, of the series of posts, is that noted scientists have stated that he particular perimeters extant are exactly.......exactly.....what would be dictated to support life.

Scientists....whether religious or not.


The quotes are from scientists, speaking as exactly that.

Most of the observable universe is actually antithetical to life as we know it.

What does this post of yours have to do with anything????

If you want to bring up the idea that the universe is exactly what would be needed to support life, it seems entirely relevant to point out that most of the universe is inimical to life as we know it. What is hard to understand about that?

Does anyone claim that Darwin was correct in all aspects of his theory? Evolutionary theory has changed over the years.

"Evolutionary theory has changed over the years."

Would you mind supporting your claim?

I don't want to get into an in depth debate on evolution, but clearly we have knowledge of things related to evolution which were unavailable, perhaps unimagined, in Darwin's time. Our understanding of DNA, for example, was something Darwin did not have. As such, he could not take it into account in his theory.

Here, though, is a simple search which gives plenty of different sites to look at on the subject :
how evolutionary theory has changed since darwin at DuckDuckGo

Whether one believes in evolutionary theory or not, it clearly is not exactly the same as what Darwin proposed.

I need no "different sites to look at on the subject..."

I'm an expert on the subject....as shown by the fact that every single thing I've posted is correct and accurate.


And....rather than hot air....whenever you're ready....provide changes in Darwin's theory that are presented to students.

An expert on the subject?

You have fun with that. I provided what you asked for, that being evidence that evolutionary theory has changed since first proposed by Darwin. I both gave an example of how human understanding has grown regarding subjects directly related to evolution, and I also gave a link to a search about how evolutionary theory has changed since Darwin. If you are unable to see that this is just what you asked for, you might want to rethink your claims of expertise. Actually, you should probably rethink those claims either way.

" I provided what you asked for, that being evidence that evolutionary theory has changed since first proposed by Darwin."

Of course you did no such thing.

Sure I didn't.

Why don't you go read some Discovery Institute silliness, I have no desire to argue with your 'expertise'.

 

[MaryL]

1. What the heck has happened to science??

I mean real science, the kind that is based on testable ideas, with real data, reproducible experimental results....i.e., the vaunted Scientific Method?


Prologue;
Since the Enlightenment, the attempt has been made to replace religion with science, and the view that mankind can explain, and, ultimately replace, God and religion. In actuality,the faith and belief that was once invested in religion is now, in the same way and to the same degree, in what we call 'science.'

Whatever comes out of the mouths.....computers.....of scientists is given the same acceptance as was once attributed to the utterances of priests.


You know, there are more working 'scientists' today than the total of all of 'em in earlier times....so, perhaps the glut, the overabundance, has done to intelligent exploration just as the government's working the monetary printing presses overtime has done to the value of money.

Science today suffers from inflation.


How else to explain the nonsense that passes for science today?





2. Case in point: at one time, science endeavored to discover the laws that explain our world, our universe, and how it came into existence. Science, today, seems content to accept every crackpot view with a thoughtful look and sincere stroking of one's chin, as though it actually made sense.



a. "The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them."
Multiverse - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



3. Brian Greene, "an American theoretical physicist and string theorist. He has been a professor at Columbia University since 1996 and chairman of the World Science Festival since co-founding it in 2008. (Brian Greene - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia"

"The Hidden Reality is a book by Brian Greene published in 2011 which explores the concept of the multiverse and the possibility of parallel universes. It has been nominated for the Royal Society Winton Prize for Science Books for 2012.
(The Hidden Reality - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia"

a. From an Amazon review of the book:
"...on the state of post-relativistic physics and cosmology as it is currently accepted by the majority of the academic physics community.
That is just the problem. None of string theory may be true at all. There has been no experimental verification of any of the elements of mathematically based string theory after 30 years or so of work, and, in fact, the theory may not even be "falsifiable." That is, it appears not to be subject to the rigors of the experimental scientific method, although the string theorists hope that with higher energy colliders and the like it may, someday, be testable."
Amazon.com Customer Reviews The Hidden Reality Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos




4. Science today.
Well, OK....'scientists' have to make a living, too. But there are dunces who not only accept this nonsense, but they try to use this kind of ordure as an attack on religion. You can see an interview with Greene about this book, here: Book Discussion Hidden Reality Video C-SPAN.org

Asked to elaborate about the multiverse theory, or about any experimental proof, the professor would say "the math tells us so, and I believe the math." Faith in a new religion.


a. Dr. Berlinski points out the absurdity of using the new religion of 'science' in hypothetical mathematics, and using it to attack religion:

"Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities."
David Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion," chapter five.




So.....how many scientists can dance on the head of a pin??

Isn't your area politics? This branch of science helped created the PC you are using, and the a-bomb and the orbits of comets 3 thousand years from now. It isn't voodoo, and if they are wrong, they will figure it out. It isn't dogma. Like a RELIGION or something...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why do you think a religious individual would know what a creator would provide?"

I said nothing of the sort, Monty.

The import of the post, of the series of posts, is that noted scientists have stated that he particular perimeters extant are exactly.......exactly.....what would be dictated to support life.

Scientists....whether religious or not.


The quotes are from scientists, speaking as exactly that.

Most of the observable universe is actually antithetical to life as we know it.

What does this post of yours have to do with anything????

If you want to bring up the idea that the universe is exactly what would be needed to support life, it seems entirely relevant to point out that most of the universe is inimical to life as we know it. What is hard to understand about that?

"Evolutionary theory has changed over the years."

Would you mind supporting your claim?

I don't want to get into an in depth debate on evolution, but clearly we have knowledge of things related to evolution which were unavailable, perhaps unimagined, in Darwin's time. Our understanding of DNA, for example, was something Darwin did not have. As such, he could not take it into account in his theory.

Here, though, is a simple search which gives plenty of different sites to look at on the subject :
how evolutionary theory has changed since darwin at DuckDuckGo

Whether one believes in evolutionary theory or not, it clearly is not exactly the same as what Darwin proposed.

I need no "different sites to look at on the subject..."

I'm an expert on the subject....as shown by the fact that every single thing I've posted is correct and accurate.


And....rather than hot air....whenever you're ready....provide changes in Darwin's theory that are presented to students.

An expert on the subject?

You have fun with that. I provided what you asked for, that being evidence that evolutionary theory has changed since first proposed by Darwin. I both gave an example of how human understanding has grown regarding subjects directly related to evolution, and I also gave a link to a search about how evolutionary theory has changed since Darwin. If you are unable to see that this is just what you asked for, you might want to rethink your claims of expertise. Actually, you should probably rethink those claims either way.

" I provided what you asked for, that being evidence that evolutionary theory has changed since first proposed by Darwin."

Of course you did no such thing.

Sure I didn't.

Why don't you go read some Discovery Institute silliness, I have no desire to argue with your 'expertise'.

"I have no desire to argue with your 'expertise'

How about you tell the truth and say 'ability' rather than 'desire.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. What the heck has happened to science??

I mean real science, the kind that is based on testable ideas, with real data, reproducible experimental results....i.e., the vaunted Scientific Method?


Prologue;
Since the Enlightenment, the attempt has been made to replace religion with science, and the view that mankind can explain, and, ultimately replace, God and religion. In actuality,the faith and belief that was once invested in religion is now, in the same way and to the same degree, in what we call 'science.'

Whatever comes out of the mouths.....computers.....of scientists is given the same acceptance as was once attributed to the utterances of priests.


You know, there are more working 'scientists' today than the total of all of 'em in earlier times....so, perhaps the glut, the overabundance, has done to intelligent exploration just as the government's working the monetary printing presses overtime has done to the value of money.

Science today suffers from inflation.


How else to explain the nonsense that passes for science today?





2. Case in point: at one time, science endeavored to discover the laws that explain our world, our universe, and how it came into existence. Science, today, seems content to accept every crackpot view with a thoughtful look and sincere stroking of one's chin, as though it actually made sense.



a. "The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them."
Multiverse - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



3. Brian Greene, "an American theoretical physicist and string theorist. He has been a professor at Columbia University since 1996 and chairman of the World Science Festival since co-founding it in 2008. (Brian Greene - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia"

"The Hidden Reality is a book by Brian Greene published in 2011 which explores the concept of the multiverse and the possibility of parallel universes. It has been nominated for the Royal Society Winton Prize for Science Books for 2012.
(The Hidden Reality - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia"

a. From an Amazon review of the book:
"...on the state of post-relativistic physics and cosmology as it is currently accepted by the majority of the academic physics community.
That is just the problem. None of string theory may be true at all. There has been no experimental verification of any of the elements of mathematically based string theory after 30 years or so of work, and, in fact, the theory may not even be "falsifiable." That is, it appears not to be subject to the rigors of the experimental scientific method, although the string theorists hope that with higher energy colliders and the like it may, someday, be testable."
Amazon.com Customer Reviews The Hidden Reality Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos




4. Science today.
Well, OK....'scientists' have to make a living, too. But there are dunces who not only accept this nonsense, but they try to use this kind of ordure as an attack on religion. You can see an interview with Greene about this book, here: Book Discussion Hidden Reality Video C-SPAN.org

Asked to elaborate about the multiverse theory, or about any experimental proof, the professor would say "the math tells us so, and I believe the math." Faith in a new religion.


a. Dr. Berlinski points out the absurdity of using the new religion of 'science' in hypothetical mathematics, and using it to attack religion:

"Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities."
David Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion," chapter five.




So.....how many scientists can dance on the head of a pin??

Isn't your area politics? This branch of science helped created the PC you are using, and the a-bomb and the orbits of comets 3 thousand years from now. It isn't voodoo, and if they are wrong, they will figure it out. It isn't dogma. Like a RELIGION or something...

There is 'science' and there is 'science'.....let's see if you are actually teachable.


1. Frequently I have posted critiques of what is contemporaneously known as 'science.' It has become a catchall phrase that covers a multitude of areas, may of which are no more than conjecture, philosophy, foolishness, and a healthy dollop of Marxist materialism.

Thanks to government schooling, gone are the days when the scientific method was the Litmus Test of what is, and what is not, science.



What you have accepted as 'science,' that which encompasses global warming and Darwin's theory, are no more than aspects of a political agenda designed to round up and herd the less astute.


2. "Isn't your area politics?"
The world is my 'area,' and everything in it.

Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that all life is "political."

And so it must be to those of us opposed to communism and oppression.

 

[Montrovant]

1. Frequently I have posted critiques of what is contemporaneously known as 'science.' It has become a catchall phrase that covers a multitude of areas, may of which are no more than conjecture, philosophy, foolishness, and a healthy dollop of Marxist materialism.

It's funny that you would bring up philosophy, considering Stephen Meyer, who you used as a source earlier, has a PhD in philosophy of science.

 

[Montrovant]

Most of the observable universe is actually antithetical to life as we know it.

What does this post of yours have to do with anything????

If you want to bring up the idea that the universe is exactly what would be needed to support life, it seems entirely relevant to point out that most of the universe is inimical to life as we know it. What is hard to understand about that?

I don't want to get into an in depth debate on evolution, but clearly we have knowledge of things related to evolution which were unavailable, perhaps unimagined, in Darwin's time. Our understanding of DNA, for example, was something Darwin did not have. As such, he could not take it into account in his theory.

Here, though, is a simple search which gives plenty of different sites to look at on the subject :
how evolutionary theory has changed since darwin at DuckDuckGo

Whether one believes in evolutionary theory or not, it clearly is not exactly the same as what Darwin proposed.

I need no "different sites to look at on the subject..."

I'm an expert on the subject....as shown by the fact that every single thing I've posted is correct and accurate.


And....rather than hot air....whenever you're ready....provide changes in Darwin's theory that are presented to students.

An expert on the subject?

You have fun with that. I provided what you asked for, that being evidence that evolutionary theory has changed since first proposed by Darwin. I both gave an example of how human understanding has grown regarding subjects directly related to evolution, and I also gave a link to a search about how evolutionary theory has changed since Darwin. If you are unable to see that this is just what you asked for, you might want to rethink your claims of expertise. Actually, you should probably rethink those claims either way.

" I provided what you asked for, that being evidence that evolutionary theory has changed since first proposed by Darwin."

Of course you did no such thing.

Sure I didn't.

Why don't you go read some Discovery Institute silliness, I have no desire to argue with your 'expertise'.

"I have no desire to argue with your 'expertise'

How about you tell the truth and say 'ability' rather than 'desire.'

In either case, the quotation marks are to indicate that the terms are what you've used, not what is actually true.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Frequently I have posted critiques of what is contemporaneously known as 'science.' It has become a catchall phrase that covers a multitude of areas, may of which are no more than conjecture, philosophy, foolishness, and a healthy dollop of Marxist materialism.

It's funny that you would bring up philosophy, considering Stephen Meyer, who you used as a source earlier, has a PhD in philosophy of science.

And that has what to do with whether or not he is correct?

You appear to be struggling to find some way to disagree that mitigates your lack of knowledge on the subject.

Don't your hands hurt from holding on by a thread for so long?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What does this post of yours have to do with anything????

If you want to bring up the idea that the universe is exactly what would be needed to support life, it seems entirely relevant to point out that most of the universe is inimical to life as we know it. What is hard to understand about that?

I need no "different sites to look at on the subject..."

I'm an expert on the subject....as shown by the fact that every single thing I've posted is correct and accurate.


And....rather than hot air....whenever you're ready....provide changes in Darwin's theory that are presented to students.

An expert on the subject?

You have fun with that. I provided what you asked for, that being evidence that evolutionary theory has changed since first proposed by Darwin. I both gave an example of how human understanding has grown regarding subjects directly related to evolution, and I also gave a link to a search about how evolutionary theory has changed since Darwin. If you are unable to see that this is just what you asked for, you might want to rethink your claims of expertise. Actually, you should probably rethink those claims either way.

" I provided what you asked for, that being evidence that evolutionary theory has changed since first proposed by Darwin."

Of course you did no such thing.

Sure I didn't.

Why don't you go read some Discovery Institute silliness, I have no desire to argue with your 'expertise'.

"I have no desire to argue with your 'expertise'

How about you tell the truth and say 'ability' rather than 'desire.'

In either case, the quotation marks are to

Well....then, you should have no trouble quoting things I have said about Darwin's theory that are not true.

What does this post of yours have to do with anything????

If you want to bring up the idea that the universe is exactly what would be needed to support life, it seems entirely relevant to point out that most of the universe is inimical to life as we know it. What is hard to understand about that?

I need no "different sites to look at on the subject..."

I'm an expert on the subject....as shown by the fact that every single thing I've posted is correct and accurate.


And....rather than hot air....whenever you're ready....provide changes in Darwin's theory that are presented to students.

An expert on the subject?

You have fun with that. I provided what you asked for, that being evidence that evolutionary theory has changed since first proposed by Darwin. I both gave an example of how human understanding has grown regarding subjects directly related to evolution, and I also gave a link to a search about how evolutionary theory has changed since Darwin. If you are unable to see that this is just what you asked for, you might want to rethink your claims of expertise. Actually, you should probably rethink those claims either way.

" I provided what you asked for, that being evidence that evolutionary theory has changed since first proposed by Darwin."

Of course you did no such thing.

Sure I didn't.

Why don't you go read some Discovery Institute silliness, I have no desire to argue with your 'expertise'.

"I have no desire to argue with your 'expertise'

How about you tell the truth and say 'ability' rather than 'desire.'

In either case, the quotation marks are to indicate that the terms are what you've used, not what is actually true.

"...indicate that the terms are what you've used, not what is actually true."

Well....then, you should have no trouble quoting things I have said about Darwin's theory that are not true.


Shall I wait for you to do so....or simply go ahead with a long and eventful life?

 

[Montrovant]

If you want to bring up the idea that the universe is exactly what would be needed to support life, it seems entirely relevant to point out that most of the universe is inimical to life as we know it. What is hard to understand about that?

An expert on the subject?

You have fun with that. I provided what you asked for, that being evidence that evolutionary theory has changed since first proposed by Darwin. I both gave an example of how human understanding has grown regarding subjects directly related to evolution, and I also gave a link to a search about how evolutionary theory has changed since Darwin. If you are unable to see that this is just what you asked for, you might want to rethink your claims of expertise. Actually, you should probably rethink those claims either way.

" I provided what you asked for, that being evidence that evolutionary theory has changed since first proposed by Darwin."

Of course you did no such thing.

Sure I didn't.

Why don't you go read some Discovery Institute silliness, I have no desire to argue with your 'expertise'.

"I have no desire to argue with your 'expertise'

How about you tell the truth and say 'ability' rather than 'desire.'

In either case, the quotation marks are to

Well....then, you should have no trouble quoting things I have said about Darwin's theory that are not true.

If you want to bring up the idea that the universe is exactly what would be needed to support life, it seems entirely relevant to point out that most of the universe is inimical to life as we know it. What is hard to understand about that?

An expert on the subject?

You have fun with that. I provided what you asked for, that being evidence that evolutionary theory has changed since first proposed by Darwin. I both gave an example of how human understanding has grown regarding subjects directly related to evolution, and I also gave a link to a search about how evolutionary theory has changed since Darwin. If you are unable to see that this is just what you asked for, you might want to rethink your claims of expertise. Actually, you should probably rethink those claims either way.

" I provided what you asked for, that being evidence that evolutionary theory has changed since first proposed by Darwin."

Of course you did no such thing.

Sure I didn't.

Why don't you go read some Discovery Institute silliness, I have no desire to argue with your 'expertise'.

"I have no desire to argue with your 'expertise'

How about you tell the truth and say 'ability' rather than 'desire.'

In either case, the quotation marks are to indicate that the terms are what you've used, not what is actually true.

"...indicate that the terms are what you've used, not what is actually true."

Well....then, you should have no trouble quoting things I have said about Darwin's theory that are not true.


Shall I wait for you to do so....or simply go ahead with a long and eventful life?

Why don't you find something to cut and paste? It's what you're good at. Perhaps something from the eminently legitimate Discovery Institute.

Your implication that the theory of evolution has undergone no changes since it was proposed by Darwin is enough to see how laughably foolish you are going to be about this subject.

 

[sealybobo]

.

The various religions of the world say (and have always said) that they have The Answer, which is what is written in their books and practiced in their traditions.

Science willfully, happily, gleefully admits that it's just scratching the surface, that we're curious and learning more all the time, and still have a long, long way to go.

Comparing the two is apples and oranges.

,

It's been over a century and a half since Darwin advanced his theory of evolution...and, with more 'scientists' at work today than the cumulative total of same for all of history before.....

....do you have a timetable for when the first new species of higher life will be produced?


Or are you one of the acolytes of the new religion known as 'science'?

I can tell you when the first new species of higher life was produced. In the last few days of the year of the cosmic calendar.

December 25th.

You seem to not realize that the reason we can't answer some of your questions is that we just don't know. You claim to know. You keep asking questions suggesting you don't understand evolution.

.

The various religions of the world say (and have always said) that they have The Answer, which is what is written in their books and practiced in their traditions.

Science willfully, happily, gleefully admits that it's just scratching the surface, that we're curious and learning more all the time, and still have a long, long way to go.

Comparing the two is apples and oranges.

,

It's been over a century and a half since Darwin advanced his theory of evolution...and, with more 'scientists' at work today than the cumulative total of same for all of history before.....

....do you have a timetable for when the first new species of higher life will be produced?


Or are you one of the acolytes of the new religion known as 'science'?

I can tell you when the first new species of higher life was produced. In the last few days of the year of the cosmic calendar.

December 25th.

You seem to not realize that the reason we can't answer some of your questions is that we just don't know. You claim to know. You keep asking questions suggesting you don't understand evolution.

"You keep asking questions suggesting you don't understand evolution."
Really?

Well...then, why don't you take a shot at this query?

It's been over a century and a half since Darwin advanced his theory of evolution...and, with more 'scientists' at work today than the cumulative total of same for all of history before.....

....do you have a timetable for when the first new species of higher life will be produced?

Clearly you didn't watch the video
There was no first human

a short video explaining to non-scientists why there was no first human.

If you go back far enough. trace your fathers all the way back to your first father (and mother of course), we know that modern humans came from Mesolithic man. Mesolithic man came from Paleolithic man. Then Homo Erectus. But 25 millions of years ago we were more like monkeys, then before that squirrels. Before that we came from Hylonomus. That was more like a reptile.

Point is there was no first human. Paleolithic man eventually evolved into Mesolithic man. It didn't just happen one day.

I don't believe I referred to any 'first human.'

Why would you?

If this is the only universe what is beyond our universe and why do you put God in a box?