Sorcerer

I don't know Essay, but perhaps cephalopods, a very resilient Class of biota, have a chance of undergoing a "3rd big-bang" as u put it or perhaps already have. And also as far as my BELIEF in existence is concerned there are plenty of other ways intelligent life exists and will continue to exist. Be copernican there is nothing special about our place in the universe(existence). Feel free to delete (or ban me) for this: As for you right wing, almost on the verge of full circle communist facists, who think that Global Warming is a conspiracy by left wing evironmentalists to threaten your capitalist way of life and remove your oh so precious money from ur all ready over full pockets : well try thinking about other people for a change, try thinking not even about people but about things from a "Gods eye" point of veiw (I'm sure the majority of you are theists). You are partaking in the sin of ignorance.

This is a very common question from people who have not learnt evolutionary theory, generally this question is taught in schools with a religious agenda. It is supposedly a rhetort to evolutionary theory, but a very weak one, perhaps you will catch a layman up in this trap. During the evolution of humans from their ancestors there were very specific selective processes and the niches for them to fill. (I really can't find the words to put it simpler, sorry I can see by your post that your english isn't very good). In order for any modern apes (for example chimpanzees/bonobos) to be forced to apapt in a similar way, so as to evolve a larger cerebral cortex, these selective processes would need to be repeated. Unfortunately, humans currently fill this niche, chimpanzees/bonobos population is small and even if their environment is forcing them into a similar place, humans will outcompete them. So why aren't they evolving (or havent evolved) into smarter lifeforms, because they don't have the specific selective factors and the available niches that our ancestors did. In other words they are more sucessful (produce more offspring) the way they are now. Perhaps if you manage to survive a few million years (LOL) you could answer your own question. As for history, look at homo erectus, before homo sapiens migrated out of africa there were many populations of homo erectus adapted to niches throughout eurasia and what's now indonesia. We outcompeted them and interbred with them. You could equally ask why they didn't evolve larger brains, well they probably were, it just happened we had the edge.

Faded - Ben Harper

I understand what you're saying but to be pedantic, it is neither "good" or "bad". Life has adapted through worse, if it means the extinction of Homo Sapiens, I'm sure the universe won't say "oh that was bad". (well not sure, but given my knowlegde it isn't a conscious being) But yeah, we're seriously making it hard for our own species future, even if our technology (or our evolution) can overcome this change we're going to cause a mass extinction and we are going to be living in a very inhospitable world. But what isn't good to drive evoltution (punctuated equilbrium model) but a mass extinction/bottle neck/inhospitable evironment. However I'm confident life will find a way, and I'm confident the majority of life on earth will find the planet a better place without us.

It is far more relevant to say the universe alway existed than saying theres something "north of the north pole". Even though I'm not 100% convinced there actually was a big bang and that quote was Hawkings metaphor on the subject, it still applies to any first cause argument. How can there be a first cause, when a cause was needed to make that first cause, it is just an endless repetition. It is so much easier to say the universe always existed, take from that what u want. It can be applied to the big bang theory, it can be applied to a total 0 energy universe, it can be applied to a multiverse, a cyclic universe and a created universe from God, after all theists claim God always existed. I'm saying nothing doesn't exist, so therefore something alway existed, how hard is that to understand for a 1 premise single conclusion argument?

@iNOW seen it a few years ago from memory in the video he says something along the lines of "so why then did the universe come to exist? well becasue it had to." If it had to, then why wasn't it always in existence?

True zapatos I should've said all the simple niches, i.e. the ones that would be easy for a new abiogenesis to exploit. I don't really see an abiogenesis event going straight to a highly evolved (niche specialised) pathogen.

Hi I was wondering if u could do this on ur Community Forum Software by IP.Board 3.1.4 ? I've seen it done on phpbb sites and it is really helpful for quickly seeing responses to ur previous posts and threads ur following. If you could implement this I'd be impressed, lol I dunno what other incentive I can give

Is philosophy relevant to science? Yes science is a philosophy.

ok I will read ur post more thoroughly when I am sober, however I could not resist now but pick out this point. You just confirmed ur first poll result without wanting to. The big bang is a point with zero entropy. Edit (and still drunk) - Ok I'll admit u added the conditional "if", so maybe not confirmed. However to further ur analogy, peices of broken mugs can make something too, peices of peices can make something too. Heat death just means a slower transfer of energy. If the universe is expanding at an increasing rate and entropy is increasing, where does it end? Only when the hubble volume of a single quanta is all that is left. Why is that quanta not then an infinite point of density in space? Edit easier way to say that is : why doesn't a single quanta within is own hubble volume have zero entropy?

nothing If u can find a way to measure a soul perhaps u can try to answer ur own question. Good Luck! lol Hint: first try defining it.

Ok just reading the original post: I beleive that the scientific method can produce better answers than postulations written down in religious doctrines. I am a sceptic so I do not beleive everything that the scientific community holds as concensus as fact, but I beleive it is far closer to the truth than some story written down long ago (the bible). I am a moral relatavist, and therefore I see peoples actions on a spectrum, there are far to many variables within peoples lives to conclude absolutely wether their choices were right or wrong. Just look at things like the crusades, Christians justified murder, even though "thou shalt not kill" is dogma. Atleast I'm not a hypocrite. I prefer society as it is now, I have read alot of history...... our society at present isn't perfect but its a lot better than the societies that have come before. Cultural evolution - perhaps deleterious, but better for me. See John Lennon Imagine. BTW can anything really destroy society? I mean even an anarchy is still in some ways a society. To destroy society wouldn't u need to make the whole of humanity go extinct? How can it be done gradually? And how is science doing it gradually?

Didn't read anything cept the fist post. First u need the potential to create something, nothing doesn't have potential. I think ur confusing the place holder on a number line (0) with nothing. I don't know about God, but there was something there and always was. DUDE! My hands talking to me and it IS GOD! oh wait that's just LSD.

Yes swansont but its equally arguable that mass effects light, not that mass effects space. Your assumption is that light always travels in a straight line. and only because space is warped by mass that it curves. Why not just assume light it warped by mass, seems much simpler to me.

Thanks martin/md65536 I fully understand that now. Was looking for a way to refute that to a friend. ""I have never seen anywhere any observational evidence corroborating the bolded part, that "at a later time, some objects within the Hubble limit no longer will be observed (by us) as they are today." Are objects vanishing from our telescopes over time? "" and a very good question, u would think so wouldn't u, but since we've been observing for a limited time with telescopes that can veiw these places I guess we wouldn't have much evidence yet. If I put it this way for argument would I be correct? : Our hubble volume is increasing as our light cone expands, however the ammount of universe we observe proportional to its total remains the same, because the universe expands at the same rate. Thus our hubble volume remains the same fraction of the observable universe as it was just after inflation. Or should I rephrase that to account for dark energy?

IMO entropy is only relative to the observer within the system. Entropy always increases. BUT can u define minimum entropy or infinite entropy? Well rhetorical, but no because the laws of physics break down at these points. SO even if what we observe is entropy increasing, it is just a point on an infinite timeline that is everything, perhaps the only period in which we can exist to observe it, perhaps not. oh btw I shouldve voted, #1 but u didnt explain it in words properly and I didn't look at ur graph untill now. And #1 is the closest I would depict it graphically, but not nearly close all the same. "1) The second law is sacred - succeeding Big Bangs have larger and larger entropy" There isn't a suceeding big bang implied here, unless u take my idea (inflation as default) into account. This is basically stating ur first option and twisting it. But yes I see the increase in entropy leading to more and more overlapping systems (hubble volumes) with increased entropy. Oh I will read http://www.sciencefo...able-spacetime/ when I'm sober, I got to thought experiment and did a raspberry.

Ok I won't vote but if ur hypothesising a big crunch, at the equilibrium(center) entropy starts to reverse. You can test this on any closed system in the lab - although u need to increase entropy outside the system to create such an effect. Current observations suggest the universe will expand at and ever increasing rate and entropy will approach infinity. Although any entropy is enough for life to "feed" off it may just have to do it at an ever decreasing rate (but what is time to and organism but observational), that is if this type of universe is conducive to any type of "life" (jim but not as we know it). See my post, on "the default state of the universe is inflation" Ok I did vote to #2 even though current observations don't see it as possible. Btw it's reasonable, not reasonably.

I didn't read anything anyones already said but: I saw a factory that makes cars, the engine block comes down a ramp, it lands on a trolley, this trolley has a spring that is unwound and a conveyer belt on it, the potential energy from the engine block forces it forward, and the engine block rolls onto the main conveyer belt. The spring is then coiled and the trolley returns to its original position. As for energy from gravity, look at hydroelectric dams. If ur looking for perpertual motion.... well the hydro cycle drives that in this case, and the sun is the energy source. In the case of the trolley, the friction of the spring winding is over powered by the potential energy given to it by the engine block, which was lifted to that height at some stage, or the completed product will have to be lifted out. YES TIDAL ENERGY IS GENERATED BY THE MOON AS IT ORBITS THE EARTH. YOU COULD TAP IT! Unless u apply a force(energy) to the top nozzel, the water level will remain constant: its not going to flow out of the top. Have u ever used a U bend to level a surface?

Time is the movement of matter within space, that has NOTHING to do with nothing.

With fusion?

Yes the garlic provided nutrients for bacteria to grow on would be my conclusion. Although u'd have to look at the organisms under the microscope and have some knowledge of microbiology to confirm wether it was bacteria or fungi. IMO the experiment was flawed, there should be a control with 2 seperate dishes, one with pure agar the other with agar and garilic only.

Any reason to celebrate is a good reason, just remember why ur celebrating! In this case ur celebrating nothing and its AOK!!!! What I love about Christmas is the time I get to spend with my family, what I hate about Chirstmas is the expectation ur gonna spend money to make it good.

Ribosomes are not THAT simple. I know plasmids/transposons/viruses need enzymes to facilitate their spread efficiently into other genomes, but whats efficient now would have been SUPER efficient then. DNA/RNA in close proximity and in the right environment will combine sometimes. Yes I have heard the simple explanation of abiogenesis and it's not sufficient for me, very lacking. Sorry if I'm imposing my pseudo-hypothesis on u because what I was taught doesn't measure up to my expectations. Edit: sorry with ribosomes and RNA we are reducing ourselves to a chicken or the egg argument. Proteins help multiply RNA and proudces proteins (ribosomes) with aid of tRNA. How did the RNA gain the complexity to produce the protiens? IMO through horizontal transfer - in a pre-biotic sense.

Actually observations cannot extend beyond the CMB, and the Hubble volume. IMO the idea of a creation event, as in the big bang is just as much fantasy as God the creator. Instead of trolling why not try to INFORM me?

^ what he said, in short No not necessarily, but u increase the odds of displaying a recessive phenotype(form) the closer the relative u interbred with is. Also recessive phenotypes are not necessarily deleterious (harmful), although more than often they are. An example of a neutral (non-harmful) recessive phenotype is white skin colour. (I could actually agrue positive for certain environments (cultures too but let's not )) An example of a deleterious recessive phenotype is haemophilia. Google "Haemophilia and Monarchy" Also read about Gregor Mendel's genetics, it will help u understand about recessive, dominant and co-dominance. Unfortunately not all genetics is that simple. Also for an idea of what close interbreeding produces, look at the genetics and evolutionary history of Cheetahs. Edit: see also Sickle cell anemia, and interesting case where the hetrogenous type was favoured, while the homogenous type is fatal.