Red shift, cosmic microwave background radiation, 2nd L.o.T. all prove the universe had a beginning.
Not one of those is false so why do you accuse me of being a liar?[/COLOR]
It validates what I affirmed to you.
yes but your source itself is invalid so where does that leave you.
Very well, what causes quantum fluctuations?
the interaction of non similar universes.
No, those are your words. I simply pointed out the fact that vast, financial expenditure on research does not validate the research any more than substantial outlay on illegal drugs, prostitution, porn, or drunkenness validates those things.I can only speculate as to motivation just like you.
my words, yes, but they summarise what you are postulating. conclusion, you are very bad at drawing causal links and not fit to discuss sich points.
How many times must I point out your inability to control your rage? I am starting to suspect that you need psychological help. But this is not meant to demean you but to raise your awareness. I don’t want you to hurt someone because you cannot control your actions.
how considerate of you. ill start behaving better in your eyes when you start LEARNING, how about that?
Again, these links offer a valid explanation:“Thus, we conclude that the dispersion at Babel broke up a large interbreeding group into small, interbreeding groups. This ensured that the resultant groups would have different mixes of genes for various physical features. By itself, this dispersion would ensure, in a short time, that there would be certain fixed differences in some of these groups, commonly called “races.” In addition, the selection pressure of the environment would modify the existing combinations of genes so that the physical characteristics of each group would tend to suit their environment.
There has been no simple-to-complex evolution of any genes, for the genes were present already. The dominant features of the various people groups result from different combinations of previously existing created genes, plus some minor degenerative changes, resulting from mutation (accidental changes which can be inherited). The originally created (genetic) information has been either reshuffled or has degenerated, but has not been added to.”
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-skincolor.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-definition.html
sigh. WHAT exactly do you think alleales are? water colours?! that can be mixed around to create an infinite spectrum?! WRONG they are FINITE in number, with FINITE combination. jia have you studied combinations and permutations in mathematics and how they deal with finite quantities??? because if you had, youd understand what im referring to. ir better yet, try to do a BASIC genotype/phenotype combination in a highschool biology textbook, the idea will appear clear as day to you. im sorry, i refuse to fail at trying to educate you any more, your sources are complete bullshit written by people who dont even have college level education of basic biology. adam and eve without evolution can not account for the available number of alleales and hence phenotypes in the world today on top of the fact that geography tends to favour the phenotypes of the people.
Answered above.
sigh
Likewise?
reciprocation without knowledge seems to be a trademark of christians these days {among other things}
just to reiterate, I'm not sure if it was this thread or another, but no self respecting astrophysicist is going to speak about the beginning of the universe in anything but hypotheticals.
The best evidence to date suggests that at some point, the universe experienced nearly instantaneous expansion, from the size of a point to the size of a golf ball, which has been termed the big bang. The big bang is not suggestive of either a universe with a single beginning, nor a universe in which constant expansions and contractions are occurring cyclically, it is only suggestive of this instantaneous expansion.
There are mathematical models of how such expansion might have occurred, but, given physical evidence of this is essentially only obtainable at the point in time that our universe expanded, none would be considered concrete scientific theories (ie, they are mathematical models).
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
A matter of faith no doubt but the Bible has held up under intense scrutiny so my faith is well founded.You challenged me to prove that God is not natural. It is common knowledge that He is not. That is why I used the term implicitly obvious.
You cannot prove that macroevolution has occurred--no one can. It is scientific belief that quantum fluctuations caused the big bang from nothing (naturally) i.e. spontaneously. There is no proof of any other universe, and quantum fluctuation is far from being understood let alone proven. The whole case for dark matter is proof that the scientific community is at a loss for explaining how galaxies remain intact when there is not enough mass for them to. They don't understand why galaxies have not dispersed at the speeds that they spin.
the bible breaks down factually even under the slightest scrutiny.
implicitly obvious in a fantasy with vague axioms not lending to reason or cause-affect princinples. i was referring to the real world so you fail.
yes i can, and people have, you not accepting it doesnt change that. stop lying, you have been informed again and again that quantum fluctuations are not uncaused. there is massive proof for parallel universes, again you not accepting it is another matter, only your intelligence in suspect here, nothing else. the CASE for dark matter has to do with the rate of expansion of the universe and options of cold death or warm death, you are misinformed. have you ever heard of blackholes and quasars? read up on them, and perhaps youll be better informed on the progress of cosmology and why galacies are kept together. and again, dont put out blanket claims like "They don't understand why galaxies have not dispersed at the speeds that they spin ".
Originally posted by leonheartmm
the bible breaks down factually even under the slightest scrutiny.implicitly obvious in a fantasy with vague axioms not lending to reason or cause-affect princinples. i was referring to the real world so you fail.
yes i can, and people have, you not accepting it doesnt change that. stop lying, you have been informed again and again that quantum fluctuations are not uncaused. there is massive proof for parallel universes, again you not accepting it is another matter, only your intelligence in suspect here, nothing else. the CASE for dark matter has to do with the rate of expansion of the universe and options of cold death or warm death, you are misinformed. have you ever heard of blackholes and quasars? read up on them, and perhaps youll be better informed on the progress of cosmology and why galacies are kept together. and again, dont put out blanket claims like "They don't understand why galaxies have not dispersed at the speeds that they spin ".
Don't be bitter and mad. 😂 😛
Originally posted by leonheartmm
there is massive proof for parallel universes
God, I hate to do this, because I agree with everything else you are saying, but:
The copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics is the most widely accepted view of quantum mechanics within the field of physics.
Not saying there is no evidence for many-worlds, just that it is not the most widely accepted.
I hate being such a dick somethimes
Re: parallel universes, from what I understand...
One of the hopes of the LHC is that it will provide indirect evidence of other, unseen dimensions. The thinking is: it is expected that a certain quantity of particles and radiant energy will appear in the collisions. However, if some mass is missing--mass not accounted for by the radiant energy--the theory is that these particles disappeared into another dimension, possibly a parallel universe, the point being, they're no longer in our space.
Leonheartmm, what have you heard? Not to put you on the spot, but I've always found theories like chaotic inflation as excellent counters (if nothing else) to any intelligent-design claims of creation.
Originally posted by inimalist
God, I hate to do this, because I agree with everything else you are saying, but:The copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics is the most widely accepted view of quantum mechanics within the field of physics.
Not saying there is no evidence for many-worlds, just that it is not the most widely accepted.
I hate being such a dick somethimes
Well, nothing you said (I think) directly contradicts the phrase 'there is massive proof for parallel universes.'
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Well, nothing you said (I think) directly contradicts the phrase 'there is massive proof for parallel universes.'
There is general disagreement in the scientific community against parallel universes, however. The copenhagen interpretation denies the idea of "many worlds" and posits that wavefunctions are objective.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
So scientific orthodoxy may differ from many-worlds theory, but that doesn't prevent there being 'massive proof for parallel universes' does it?
It certainly suggests that there is not.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
What would constitute proof for parallel universes, anyway?
Finding one?
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
scientific orthodoxy
by which you mean best, most comprehensive interpretation of empirically verifiable evidence.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
What would constitute proof for parallel universes, anyway?
something like this:
Originally posted by Mindship
One of the hopes of the LHC is that it will provide indirect evidence of other, unseen dimensions. The thinking is: it is expected that a certain quantity of particles and radiant energy will appear in the collisions. However, if some mass is missing--mass not accounted for by the radiant energy--the theory is that these particles disappeared into another dimension, possibly a parallel universe, the point being, they're no longer in our space.
though, that is only testing the null hypothesis that no mass will be missing, and not saying anything about where it is going.
Given we don't have the technology to measure other universes, it will be almost impossible to test a hypothesis other than "will it disappear?"
mind, vanishing mass is not in line with currently held theories, so it would be evidence that needed to be further explored.
EDIT: Mindship, any good reading on this? My skeptical nature keeps me as far away from quantum physics as I can get. I've always tended toward the "we have inacurate models" approach, which says that the weirdness of quantum physics comes more from errors in what we know, making physics at the two levels seem totally different. lol, if there were some weird evidence for many worlds, or whatever, I'd love to hear it.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Have I really been misusing that? I was basically thinking 'majority rules' of those informed enough to make an informed decision.Sounds silly when articulated. Huh. Damn.
I don't know, the "orthodoxy" of science is sort of make the most comprehensive model of available evidence.
There is lots of cronyism, sure, but there is also competition, and the results are verifiable. The term "scientific orthodoxy" seems, to me, a little pejorative, as if there is an orthodoxy that scientists have to follow with their conclusions. If there is any orthodoxy, it comes in following empirical evidence, not in interpretations. Maybe I misread your meaning.
Originally posted by inimalist
God, I hate to do this, because I agree with everything else you are saying, but:The copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics is the most widely accepted view of quantum mechanics within the field of physics.
Not saying there is no evidence for many-worlds, just that it is not the most widely accepted.
I hate being such a dick somethimes
barring the weakness of gravity and anti matter. i have always considered time dilation to be pretty good evidence for parallel universes. e.g. the twins paradox and subjective time etc.
Originally posted by inimalistWasn't the "inaccurate models" approach something like what Einstein preferred? Ie, he opted for "hidden variables," a kind of "physics of the gaps" which would later account for the apparent weirdness of quantum physics.
[b]Mindship, any good reading on this? My skeptical nature keeps me as far away from quantum physics as I can get. I've always tended toward the "we have inacurate models" approach, which says that the weirdness of quantum physics comes more from errors in what we know, making physics at the two levels seem totally different. lol, if there were some weird evidence for many worlds, or whatever, I'd love to hear it. [/B]
Anyway, I try to catch whatever science/physics/cosmology shows pop up on the science channels for overall views and then defer to google for details or follow-up (or just now and then, I hit google anyway with keywords, just to see what crops up). I'd love to be able to understand even 1/100th of the math involved on the real physics sites, but since I can't, I grok what I can from them pertty computer graphics.
Afaik, regarding proof of parallel u's...ain't nothin' yet. But I do have faith (yeah, I said it) in the suspicions of J.B.S. Haldane ("The universe is not only weirder than we imagine, it is weirder than we can imagine"😉 and Eden Phillpotts ("The universe is full of magical things, patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper"😉.
😮💨