...and M-theory has been proven wrong...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

interesting

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

I agree with Julie.
Calculations have shown there isn't enough mass in the universe to cause that. Also, you have the acceleration of expansion, which hasn't yet been shown to be slowing down, so as far as I can see, there isn't any evidence to support a crunch.

Steve

Not enough mass, to cause a 'crunch', is about present observations, and theory's of mass. These may prove to be wrong.

That there is mass is the reason we will see a crunch.

Gravity was at one time the strongest force. We will see that time again. Ummm, sorry I didn't really mean 'we' as in you and I.

Hypothesis- after all the red dwarfs fall into the last three massive black holes (that will be one light year from each other) gravity will latch onto the cosmic background noise and roll it back.

The last three will become one, the cosmic background noise will come rushing back and slap the singularity just like a doctor slapping a child to make him/her take a breath.

We live inside the only perpetual motion machine that I know of...

LOL!

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

We live inside the only perpetual motion machine that I know of...

LOL!

OK. So you believe in an 'Always Was - Always Will Be' Theory. Not a Before/After.

Would believing one over the other, be Philosophical or Scientific?

I, for one, would say Philosophical.

Ummm, not exactly. Just like any machine, who/what built it?

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

I agree with Julie.
Calculations have shown there isn't enough mass in the universe to cause that. Also, you have the acceleration of expansion, which hasn't yet been shown to be slowing down, so as far as I can see, there isn't any evidence to support a crunch.

Steve

Not enough mass, to cause a 'crunch', is about present observations, and theory's of mass. These may prove to be wrong.

That there is mass is the reason we will see a crunch.

That version of events has been ruled out by observations.

Gravity was at one time the strongest force. We will see that time again. Ummm, sorry I didn't really mean 'we' as in you and I.

I think this statement is badly written or you don't quite understand how forces work.

Hypothesis- after all the red dwarfs fall into the last three massive black holes (that will be one light year from each other) gravity will latch onto the cosmic background noise and roll it back.

Huh? What does this even...

The last three will become one, the cosmic background noise will come rushing back and slap the singularity just like a doctor slapping a child to make him/her take a breath.

This makes no sense at all. What are you even trying to say????

We live inside the only perpetual motion machine that I know of...

LOL!

There is no evidence of that.

---

Reality Internet Personality

That version of events has been ruled out by observations.

Thank you Es!! Reality, truth my friend.

There is no evidence of that.

ID will never be the same as (empirical) Science!

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

So has every other hypothesis been shouted down by someone. So we come to the point of who's scientist is better then the rest. And as I have pointed out to you---that IS science. ;-)

Stephen Hawking explains how imperfections in the early universe allowed structures to form. He asked us to think of the hydrogen atoms made in the creation event as ball bearings. Gravity plays the biggest part in this theory and a lack of just one bearing is what caused the grouping of hydrogen into large clouds and later supermassive stars that collapsed and formed the anchors we see in all galaxy's today.

My theory isn't much of a stretch. As a matter of fact you have shown a huge lack of understanding of the basics of our universe. You also have a serious lack of imagination. And to top all of that your reaction is petty.

Just as it was at the start, gravity was the strongest of forces, and at the end gravity will once again be the strongest of forces. And the number of supermassive black holes left at the end plays a huge part as does the distance from each other.

I chose the questions of yours I answered; I also chose the questions you asked that I didn't answer. Do you have any idea why? LOL!

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

So has every other hypothesis been shouted down by someone. So we come to the point of who's scientist is better then the rest. And as I have pointed out to you---that IS science. ;-)

Its a small part of science. A small part.

Stephen Hawking explains how imperfections in the early universe allowed structures to form. He asked us to think of the hydrogen atoms made in the creation event as ball bearings. Gravity plays the biggest part in this theory and a lack of just one bearing is what caused the grouping of hydrogen into large clouds and later supermassive stars that collapsed and formed the anchors we see in all galaxy's today.

Which has nothing to do with your assertion that gravity was stronger back then. It was working over small distances so as its strength is proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance it would have more of an effect. That is not the same as saying something is stronger because that is the equivalent of suggesting that the Universal Gravitational constant was stronger then. Although there are variations in G because of relativistic effects, this is not the same as claiming that gravity was stronger at the beginning of the universe. Stronger than the nuclear forces perhaps, but not stronger than now.

My theory isn't much of a stretch. As a matter of fact you have shown a huge lack of understanding of the basics of our universe. You also have a serious lack of imagination. And to top all of that your reaction is petty.

Your theory? It seems to be based on a major misunderstanding about the nature of forces and for some reason, what the microwave background radiation is. Considering the fact that I have a degree in Astrophysics and have done the math it is quite obvious which of us has a HUGE lack of understanding of the basics of our universe.

Just as it was at the start, gravity was the strongest of forces, and at the end gravity will once again be the strongest of forces. And the number of supermassive black holes left at the end plays a huge part as does the distance from each other.

You don't understand the basic nature of forces. How can gravity suddenly have more of an effect than the other forces when the separation between massive objects is INCREASING according to observation? What you are saying simply doesn't make sense. At all. It is utter nonsense.

I chose the questions of yours I answered; I also chose the questions you asked that I didn't answer. Do you have any idea why? LOL!

Because you have no idea what you are talking about and are probably on drugs.

---

Reality Internet Personality

ID :) Hi! How are you? And of course everyone else too :)

Dilemma! Been really enjoying the origins and demise of the universe – figuratively speaking of course - in between composing the following with regard to evolutionary theory... aka neo-darwinism :) and am loathe to distract everyone from any "shouting down" they may still want to do...
*light furrowing of brow* could two debates work do you think... in the same thread...?

Anyway, before I waste time “debating” points in evolutionary theory we may in fact agree on ID – could you clarify something for me?

Do you diverge from any of the basic tenets of Intelligent design theory (as I have summarised below) as gleaned from Intelligent design briefing pack for educators...

Evolution #1: The life forms we see today are different than the life forms that existed in the distant past. Evolution as “change over time” can also refer to minor changes in features of individual species which take place over a short amount of time. Even sceptics of Darwin’s theory agree that this type of “change over time” takes place.

Evolution #2: Some scientists associate the word “evolution” with the idea that all the organisms we see today are descended from a single common ancestor somewhere in the distant past, known as the Theory of Universal Common Descent. This theory paints a picture of the history of life on earth as a great branching tree.

Evolution #3: Finally, some people use the term “evolution” to refer to a cause or mechanism of change, the biological process Darwin thought was responsible for this branching pattern. Darwin argued that natural selection had the power to produce fundamentally new forms of life. Together, the ideas of Universal Common Descent and natural selection form the core of Darwinian evolutionary theory. “Neo-Darwinian” evolution combines our knowledge of DNA and genetics to claim that mutations in DNA provide the variation upon which natural selection acts.

I will call this question 1. Which of the above do you have problems with? :)

According to the education pack's author ...

When you see the word evolution, you should ask yourself, “Which of the three definitions is being used?” Most critics of neo-Darwinism today focus on Evolution #2 or Evolution #3. But the discussion gets confusing when someone takes evidence for Evolution #1 and tries to make it look like it supports Evolution #2 or Evolution #3. Conversely, someone may discuss problems with Evolution #2 or Evolution #3, but is then falsely accused of rejecting Evolution #1, as well. This is simply not the case, for even biologists who dissent from neo-Darwinism accept Evolution #1

How do you feel on this? Agree? Disagree? Partly agree? I will call this question 2 :)

Annie's "red herring" disclaimer: From the point of view of modern evolutionary theory... the quotes from the site are littered with red herrings... you will be pleased to know we do not have to worry about these... From the point of view of intelligent design theory, they are not... (oh... unless ID tells me they are... you know, if he fundamentally disagrees with something as stated in the briefing pack itself)

Hi,

I'll get back to you later tonight or tomorrow for sure for a more detailed answer.

Would you be shocked to know that many believe in genetic drift who also believe in Intelligent Design theory?

Also many believe in one species changing into another and also believe in Intelligent Design theory.

Of course I agree with the Intelligent design briefing pack for educators...

Where we disagree with “Neo-Darwinian” evolution is the cause and that there is a design.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

ffs

---

Reality Internet Personality

Welcome to the pick-n-mix sweet counter :)

Would you be shocked to know that many believe in genetic drift who also believe in Intelligent Design theory?

Also many believe in one species changing into another and also believe in Intelligent Design theory.

Re your first question: No. They're correct to do so. :)

Re your second question: "one species changing into another" How? Perhaps you could address this when you let me know your views on Evolution # 1, 2 and 3? :)

Conditions for NO evolution...
mutation is not occurring + natural selection is not occurring + the population is infinitely large + all members of the population breed + all mating is totally random + everyone produces the same number of offspring + there is no migration in or out of the population

Of course I agree with the Intelligent design briefing pack for educators...

Where we disagree with “Neo-Darwinian” evolution is the cause and that there is a design.

Given the planet we live on... I'm beginning to think NO evolution would be more convincing of a designer at work...


EDIT: Hi Es :) You alright? :) Thought you were my daughter for a minute :))))

Later Edit: Accidentally dropped a bit off your last post ID - have reinstated it :)

LMMFAO!

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Evolution #1: The life forms we see today are different than the life forms that existed in the distant past. Evolution as “change over time” can also refer to minor changes in features of individual species which take place over a short amount of time. Even sceptics of Darwin’s theory agree that this type of “change over time” takes place.

I agree with this statement. We do so ourselves with animals everyday of the week, right down home on the farm. We do so for weighty cows and pigs. We select chickens so they have huge breast. Nature does so for the advancement of a species too. Man learns from nature and applies it also. We, over time, have learned to farm by selecting plants to grow and in doing so applied our own evolution. We have created nothing ourselves, we manipulate what has been given to us.

Evolution #2: Some scientists associate the word “evolution” with the idea that all the organisms we see today are descended from a single common ancestor somewhere in the distant past, known as the Theory of Universal Common Descent. This theory paints a picture of the history of life on earth as a great branching tree.

I agree here. And I also disagree.

It has to do more with Kingdoms then anything else. I have already stated that we can look at bacteria for hundreds of more years if you like but we will not see that change into anything else other then bacteria. Refer to # 1 once more, it will change a little over time but will not move up the tree of life into another species. There is a reason for more then one kingdom.

Evolution #3: Finally, some people use the term “evolution” to refer to a cause or mechanism of change, the biological process Darwin thought was responsible for this branching pattern. Darwin argued that natural selection had the power to produce fundamentally new forms of life. Together, the ideas of Universal Common Descent and natural selection form the core of Darwinian evolutionary theory. “Neo-Darwinian” evolution combines our knowledge of DNA and genetics to claim that mutations in DNA provide the variation upon which natural selection acts.

Simply put, you have no proof. I have asked many times now and no one has given any proof at all. I'm still waiting. I too won't dispute the National Academy of Sciences definition of 'science fact'.

But Neo Darwinism is pulling a bait-and-switch: they will be using relatively trivial examples of evolution #1 to bolster more controversial definitions of "evolution." So if by "evolution" one means universal common descent (evolution #2), or neo-Darwinian evolution (evolution #3), where the primary adaptive force building the complexity of life is unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations, then many scientists would argue that such "evolution" most certainly is not a fact, but still a hypothesis. And will forever remain a hypothesis because no proof exist for evolution #3 correctly identified by me as Neo-Darwinism, many times now.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Charles Darwin - What a joke he really is!

Charles Darwin will go down in history as the man who successfully deceived millions of people into thinking living creatures magically evolve by themselves.

Charles Darwin the Joker. He is good for a laugh alright!

John.

---

Oh boy, religious fanatics... They're the worst............

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

If the Faith was true we wouldn't be seeing this result.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

yelping... lets everyone know that someone's stepped on your tail... :)

*sigh*

I wish I still had a tail...

does anyone know how to turn that gene back on...?

(edited due to trail of thought processes in my brain... :))

I believe it's your turn...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

If the Faith was true we wouldn't be seeing this result.

I believe you're contradicting yourself here ID:)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures