Re: What's the Problem?


Ye Old One wrote:
On 7 Aug 2006 21:55:08 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:


Ye Old One wrote:
On 27 Jul 2006 19:32:44 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:


Ye Old One wrote:
On 24 Jul 2006 15:25:31 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

Now, please show me scientific evidence that multiple universes
exist. Please show me scientific evidence that a "universe generator"
exists.

Please show one single scrap of scientific evidence that god(s) exist.

You first, buddy.

I can't. After 40 years of searching I cannot find one scrap of
scientific evidence that god(s) exist.

No, no. I am waiting for the evidence that multiple universes exist.

The question to you has been outstanding far longer, but you do your
best to avoid it - because you know there is no evidence for god(s).

I've given you much evidence. You didn't like it. Now, it's your
turn. And, according to your beliefs, there should be ample scientific
evidence to support it.

Now, let's try one last time.

Now, please show me scientific evidence that multiple universes exist.
Please show me scientific evidence that a "universe generator" exists.

You cannot provide any evidence because none exists. But, I'll be fair
and give you the chance anyway. You'll probably just reply with some
innuendo or off-the-cuff remark like normal. And this coming from such
a learned man. Tsk. Tsk.


You made the assertion. Back it up. Certainly, there must be
scientific evidence at the ready, otherwise you would have never used
the existence of such to balance the fine-tuning argument.

All you have is links to websites. Don't you know any of this stuff
yourself? Or did you have to Google using "multiple universes" and
"theory"?



http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewnews.php?id=69507

There is NO evidence at all, just imaginative postulations. Dude, what
the heck were you thinking by adding this website to the list of those
with supporting evidence? Did you even read this website before
copying and pasting its links?!?!?

Or do you just have...faith...that multiple universes exist? Sounds
like you do, in fact, have a religion after all.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/5mysteries_universes_020205-1.html

NO EVIDENCE AT ALL.

Here are some highlights for our amusement:

"Of course, that's not an idea astronomers take seriously."

Hello?!? Because there is no evidence. Duh!

"There's a reason some theorists want other universes to exist: They
believe it's the only way to explain why our own universe, whose
physical laws are just right to allow life, happens to exist. According
to the so-called anthropic principle, there are perhaps an infinite
number of universes, each with its own set of physical laws. And one of
them happens to be ours. That's much easier to believe, say the
anthropic advocates, than a single universe "fine-tuned" for our
existence."

Notice how you and other theorists "want other universes to exist".

Oh, this is a good one, from an "objective" science-minded proponent:

"Not everyone rejects the multiple-universe idea out of hand. At the
University of California, Virginia Trimble is more accepting. "I find
it neat. In much the same way that I think it would be neat if there
were reincarnation." "

So much for objective, testable unbiased science...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_universes#Multiverse_hypotheses_in_physics

Again, no evidence, just reliance on the hope that quantum mechanic
theory is accurate. And, if quantum mechanic theory is accurate, then
it is hoped that such is the cause of the Big Bang. And, if such is
the cause of the Big Bang, then it is hoped that quantum mechanics
explains multiple universes.

You know, when you pile bullcrap on top of bullcrap, eventually you get
nothing but a mountain of crap falling down. You know, and I am being
honest here, you denigate those who have faith in something unseen.
Yet, it takes more faith to believe in mutliple universes, quantum
mechanics, the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and the theory of evolution than
it does to believe that a man walked on water 2,000 years ago. They
really ought to call your theories a religion too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

Here is a good indication of the scientific value of the ideas in the
article:

"MWI removes the observer-dependent role in the quantum measurement
process by replacing wavefunction collapse with quantum decoherence."

How convenient. No longer is the testable,
reproducible-under-controlled-conditions apsect of science necessary.
Now, we can do a few mathematical equations, conclude something about
the cosmos, and have lunch. And you wonder why the public ever came up
with the words "junk science".

http://www.lydiamcgrew.com/PhilChristiLikelihoods.pdf

The author speaks only about the proper manner in which to do a
heuristic study of probabilities that an assumed universal generator
would produce one universe with life-giving qualities. He neither does
the actual mathematical work nor does he make any conclusions.

This article is nothing but a long-winded speech concerning how to set
up a probability study, much less do one.

Now I know that you didn't read these articles. You simply copied and
pasted the links.



Anyway, if the science is so persuasive, then there
should be tons of evidence that such universes exist.

One universe is enough for me, but if one can exist then why not
others?

Pure guess. Speculation.

Ok, but it another way. Our universe cannot be so special that there
are not others.

Sure it can. You're assuming a natural process again. Anyway,
abiogenesis was supposedly a natural process, and proponents of such
are quick to declare that it was probably a rare event indeed. Being a
natural process doesn't mean that it has to occur more than once.


Heck, I might as well postulate that, if bacteria and humans exist with
everything in between, then a superior Supreme Being can exist.

Oh superior beings exist, just not the god(s) of your fairy tales.

Yeah, I forgot that you believe yourself to be a superior being.
Whatever, professor.



Except...there
is zero evidence. Excuse me for being skeptical.

I think this article will sum up the cases, for and against, for you.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/5mysteries_universes_020205-1.html


"There's a reason some theorists want other universes to exist: They
believe it's the only way to explain why our own universe, whose
physical laws are just right to allow life, happens to exist."

That says it all right there. I don't ever want to here about
scientists not interjecting person desire and remaining objective.
There wilfull rejection of any intelligence as a source makes them as
biased, if not more so, than any creationist.

"And in quantum mechanics, "There's a possibility that almost anything
happens." Including other universes. And if cosmologists are queasy
about that, they don't have a choice. "It comes out of the
mathematics," Albrecht explains. "It's forced down our throats.""

Baloney! The math that Albrecht is talking about was created to try to
explain mathematically this quantum theory.

And in so doing it forces us to accept that other universes exist.

Sure. If I wanted to, I could come up with some equations that force
us to accept that this universe is the only one. Anyway, the math was
created from scratch to justify the theory. It's not like the math was
done first and then enlightened everyone by showing the way to the
theory. The math came after the theory in a vain and biased attempt to
buttress the idea.


It came about after the
idea of quantum fissures was created. Now, Albrecht is trying to use
circular reasoning to support quantum mechanics. That's like saying
that the Bible's existence proves God when it was speculated first that
God exists and the Bible was written later as a description of that
God.

That is exactly what happened. Your god(s) exist only in the minds of
man.

God exists. Quantum mechanics, at least as far as the Big Bang and
multiple universes, don't.


You may also find part of this article interesting.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/finetuning.html

The author seems to spend more time showing how the Christian worldview
is deficient and not how anyone can get around the fine-tuning
argument.

I guess that you agree. Good. We're making progress.





Please procede anyway.


Please show one single scrap of scientific evidence that we did not
evolve from earlier life forms.

I nicely asked you first.

No you didn't.

There is no scientific evidence that our DNA was ever related to
another species' DNA.

Of course there is. Mountains of it.

Nope. We've been over this before, remember? The closest anyone has
ever gotten to providing "evidence" is an analysis showing the
similarities between human and chimp DNA. It was a well done analysis,
but hardly conclusive.


To say that they are similar and, thus, linked
is to say that a helium balloon is linked to our sun.

In what way are the two even closely related?

Ah, helium?


Show me the exact process by which chimp DNA mutated into human DNA.

It didn't moron. Do take the time to learn a little about evolution so
you don't make such a consistant fool of yourself by posting such
brain-dead questions.

You cannot provide any evidence. All you have seems to be faith.

And it was indeed some version of ancestral chimpanzee from which we
supposedly evolved, if you believe in the current theory of evolution.


--
Bob.

.

Loading