really?

That is what read in more than one source. It's been a few years so don't ask me what they where.

I won't... but I think you mean the idea that the universe forever expands and contracts, big bang-big crunch... but I read that actually the universe may just keep expanding forever.

I used the rebirth as that is how they phrased it.

"Dark energy" as according to the latest ideals seems to be dominate. But there still is some ideals some cosmologist are pitching about, that my change that.

may change

i just don't understand what the big deal is, who cares if the ear was put here by God or if it evolved. just because you can't explain something doesn't mean it didn't happen, and that goes for all things, and all the arguments on this thread. otto can you truly prove that God is irrational, and ZaZa can you truly prove that the ear didn't evolve? everyone has their different beliefs i just feel that a diplomacy forum page isn't the place for arguing whether or not God exists or if evolution is right or wrong.
i don't see why people can't understand that other people have different beilifs and leave it at that. why does it matter if someone believes something different, you have your beliefs so stick to them. after all, everything will work itself out oneway or another, people who believe in evolution will die and no one knows for sure what will happen to them after that, and people who believe in God and creationism will die and know one knows what will happen to them after that.

sorry for any spelling or grammatical errors. but that is my 2 cents

yes, I read a book that considered many of these interesting questions, it seems 94% (I think that's the right percentage) of matter (or at least a gravity) is unaccounted for.
The universe looks to be expanding faster now than it used to be.. which is unexplainable and looks set now to expand slower and slower and slower until it basically stops moving, but not contract again.

I read my monthly Scientific American they frequently cover such issues. This month they have an artical on Life in the Multiverse.

the multiverse... sounds interesting.
Is that like dimensions, or universes resulting from chance?

the many-worlds interpretation is utter crap

Why is that, Acosmist? Why can't there be, in theory, an infinite number of worlds where every decision made by a conscious entity results in a new universe (or more, depending on if it was a simple binary decision or not).

I'm not saying it is real, because we make the decisions based on the knowledge at hand and our world experiences. So each decision is a foregone conclussion and we just need to understand why we made that given decision. I know, I know. I sound like the Oracle from the Matrix series, but it is as truthful a statement as one can make regarding our choices in life. If we could go back and make the decision again, we would make the exact same decision unless we could bring the knowledge of said decision back with us. Therefore, there was never a real decision to make, only a conclussion to arrive at.

@Draugnar
So you don't believe in free will but are a Christian, am I right?
Its an extremely interesting stance, and one I think I would also take... hard to defend at times though.

To your earlier comment, why will this universe one day contract to nothing again?
Scientists believe the universe had infinite density before the big bang... so that is your critical mass. With such gravity though, (infinite gravity) why would it expand?

http://www.amazon.com/Universes-Thicker-Than-Blackberries-Pseudoscientific/dp/0393325725

The ideal that Muliple unverses may have emerged from the same primordial vacuum as ours, each with there own laws of physics. Some compatable to life others not and what is compatable.

Hahahahaha. I don't have time to peruse this entire topic, but I wish I did.

I love the argument against evolution, it gets me everytime.
1) I don't understand complex biology
2) Evolution involves complex biology
Therefore evolution is false.

Nice one guys.
1) I don't know the physics behind Gravity
2) Gravity is only a theory
3) I can't really explain why I fall to earth
4) A secondary source of an ancient prophet tells me that there is a giant vacuum cleaner sucking me to the centre of the earth.

Therefore Gravity can suck it.

The universe is mostly vacuum there for the universe sucks.

"First your ideal that single cells do not have senses is wrong. They respond to light, tempature, chemicals in their enviroment(taste and smell), vibrations, and touch. They even communicate with each other. All the basics are there allready. The difference is that we have many specialized cells doing only one thing instead of one cell doing it all. As for the ear, many of the steps have been found in the fossil record. For example the bones in the middle ear started as jaw bones of are reptile ancesters. The rest I do not recall in enoff detail. Even if I did no one can give you a detailed step by step account. Rather it is more like a large jigsaw puzzle, you know what the picture is even when pieces are missing."

And the big bang created this single-organism that has he ability to do all of that?

When I said single-cells I was particularly referring to the first ones.

@Acosmist Not the same ideal as in the book. There are several theories called multiverse, not at all related to each other. What I'm talking about is not at all like the kind in the book.

Explain how what you are talking about is falsifiable, annnnnd go!

zaza see my post page 4 @ bishop. 2nd Yes it did after billions of years of nuclear fussion in the hearts of stars, and billions more of complex organic chemistry. Infact the develpment of life in this universe is unavoidable.

@ Acosmist I'm not going to try to prove the concept of Multiverse when the whole ideal is still mostly a mathmatical concept. Just an interesting ideal. Perhaps if we had advanced degrees in mathmatics we could take a stab at it. perhaps you would like to debate with Alejandro Jenkins of Florida State High energy Physics group, or Gilard Perez at Weizmann Institute of Science in Revovot Israel, or Roni Harnik of Standford, or Graham D Kribs University of Oregon.

Appeal to authority? Hey, I don't have an advanced degree in mathematics but I think that's a fallacy :/

Surely an appeal to authority has its place though Acosmist?
There are times when it is okay to say well such and such is a fact and although I can't prove it myself all the experts agree etc. No?

</flamewar>

Point the first: Evolution cannot be "proven." Modern science explicitly rejects the idea of a "provable" theory. Scientific theories hold until they are *disproven.*

Point the second: "The Short Proof of Evolution".
http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm

For those too lazy to click through, the "Cliff's Notes of The Short Proof of Evolution":

1) All living creatures must spawn from a living parent (see Pasteur's disproof of spontaneous generation).
2) There are many different types of animals, each of which had such a living parent, each of which had living parent, and so on back in time ad infinitum.
3) As you go back in time, the fossil record shows continuously more and more simple organisms. Without evolution, it would be impossible that plants and animals of the past were not identical to their descendants. Therefore, the simple organisms must have somehow given rise to the more complex ones - a process we now call "evolution."
4) No part of the fossil record has ever weakened these arguments. They have only become progressively more convincing as more "missing links" are uncovered.

Hope this lets some of you get some sleep, although for all I know it could be the middle of the day where you are. It's waaaay too late over here.

However, note that none of the above is a religious or anti-religious argument in any sense of the term, nor does it address the initial source of life. So please don't take it to be an argument on any of those terms.

"all the experts agree"

Completely false.

Take the speed of light for example. It's about 300,000 km per second - fact. How do I know this? Because the experts agree. It is an uncontroversial fact. Now if it were the situation that only some experts agreed or 50% of experts agreed, then I couldn't say "it is a fact that....". Neither you or I are qualified to conduct experiments that will verify the fact, but I suspect you, as much as me believe this fact. Why? Because the experts agree.