Multiverse?

Originally posted by Dasa
When I say the Vedas are from India I must qualify that information.

Actually the Vedas are eternal and when they first were given to mankind a long time ago there was not the India we know today but the continents were joined and we had something of a one earth model which means the Vedas belong to the whole world not only India.

Over time the continents ...[text shortened]... answer that the Vedas come from India is an answer given in a contextual field of current times.

"The answer that the Vedas come from India is an answer given in a contextual field of current times."

It can be hard to admit a goof. But we should all take note of "[Fill in anything embarrassingly challenged] is an answer given in a contextual field of current times." It is a get out of jail free card.

Originally posted by googlefudge
oh sorry one more point, if we are going to be correct about this...

[b]Sonhouse quote "There are fossil records of a large number of species that evolved over the years, for instance, dinosaurs are now chickens. "

dinosaurs did not become chickens.

dinosaurs became extinct.

however the evolutionary forerunner for dinosaurs and bir ...[text shortened]... .

I know you were being simplistic but that was an oversimplification too far (for me ;-) )[/b]

Therapods evolved into birds. What common ancestor are you referring to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maniraptora

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Therapods evolved into birds. What common ancestor are you referring to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maniraptora

There is currently a big debate over the origin of birds.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110727/full/news.2011.443.html

for example.

So the evolutionary tree shown in the wiki is being debated, and possibly re-drawn.

None of the bird like dinosaurs we know of today evolved into birds... Birds or their
ancestors were living at the same time as them.

The root common ancestor of both is thus earlier. And may or may not be classed as
a dinosaur.

This is one of those lets wait for more evidence moments.

However the statement "dinosaurs evolved into birds" is so woolly and inaccurate that
it is just the sort of thing creationists jump on to show 'how silly evolution is'.
The vast majority (at least) and certainly all the ones we know about, of dinosaurs
went extinct.

One particular species of early dinosaur (or a precursor to the dinosaur's)
split into two different species, one of which went on to become all the birds we see
and the other to become bird like dinosaurs.


It's a bit like the problem of saying we evolved from apes and people turn around and
say what we mean we evolved from that gorilla sitting there...
You need to make it clear that we evolved from a creature that no longer exists that
became both us and the gorilla sitting there.

Not necessarily to convince the creationist (as that is usually nie-on impossible)
but to show clear arguments and reasoning for those whose minds are not made up
and might be swayed by good arguments.

Originally posted by googlefudge
There is currently a big debate over the origin of birds.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110727/full/news.2011.443.html

for example.

So the evolutionary tree shown in the wiki is being debated, and possibly re-drawn.

None of the bird like dinosaurs we know of today evolved into birds... Birds or their
ancestors were living at the same time ...[text shortened]... nd reasoning for those whose minds are not made up
and might be swayed by good arguments.

Ok, chickens may not have evolved directly from dino's but they are related genetically, the morphology of the bones shows that.

Wonder how many other present day animals are related to dino's?

All birds?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Ok, chickens may not have evolved directly from dino's but they are related genetically, the morphology of the bones shows that.

Wonder how many other present day animals are related to dino's?

All birds?

All birds have a common evolutionary ancestor.
And that ancestor is closely related (exactly how is under debate) to dinosaurs.


All creatures are eventually related to each other if you go back far enough,
but I don't know of any other present day creature that is closely related to
dinosaurs other than birds.

Trouble is with a double whammy of meteorite and Deccan traps there wasn't a
whole lot that survived the KT boundary.
Which worked out well for us as mammals were one of the few things that did.


EDIT:

Hah, which brings us to yet another problem with hundred+ million year old humans
How did they survive multiple global mass extinctions?
Stone age man couldn't do it, you need high technology for humans to survive that kind of
event, the kind of stuff we are only just getting around to inventing now.
To invent this kind of stuff you need a big population.
And a technologically advanced population that large would be unmissable in the geological
record.

Originally posted by googlefudge
All birds have a common evolutionary ancestor.
And that ancestor is closely related (exactly how is under debate) to dinosaurs.


All creatures are eventually related to each other if you go back far enough,
but I don't know of any other present day creature that is closely related to
dinosaurs other than birds.

Trouble is with a double whammy o ...[text shortened]... technologically advanced population that large would be unmissable in the geological
record.

You really expect a rational answer to that last question from Vedas? You should be able to predict their answer. More quotes. Come on Dasa, don't disappoint us, give us your totally rational explanation for his last question. I can't wait. Let's see. One answer might be we had very advanced civilizations back then but they were floating cities and they all left when the ecological disasters hit.

Evolutionist,s tell us....... that things evolve without intelligent direction and without plan and without pre-arranged guided design.

The possibility of matter evolving through random chance to give us the principles of flight enabling a creature to fly in the sky is impossible impossible impossible.

And you know this.

And this is why I keep saying that statements supporting evolution are dishonest and are fabrications.

Originally posted by Dasa
Evolutionist,s tell us....... that things evolve without intelligent direction and without plan and without pre-arranged guided design.

The possibility of matter evolving through random chance to give us the principles of flight enabling a creature to fly in the sky is impossible impossible impossible.

And you know this.

And this is why I keep saying that statements supporting evolution are dishonest and are fabrications.

It really is not impossible.

For descriptions of how I would point you in the direction of one of a number
of good books on evolution for the general public.

Simply screaming its not possible over and over again will not get you anywhere
as people have shown over and over again that everything creationists claim to
not be possible actually is.

So please stop telling us we 'know' what we are saying is untrue, first it isn't untrue.
and second we know it isn't untrue.

We are not being dishonest. No matter how many times you say we are, it still will
not be true.

You don't have a proper understanding of exactly how evolution works.
As evinced by your description of evolution.

I would recommend that you go away and study it, with an open mind, using books
and materiel written by mainstream scientists who understand what they are talking
about, instead of books by conspiracy nuts and creationists.

Books like:
"The origin of species" (always good to go to the source)

"Almost like a whale"

"The blind watchmaker" (plus Dawkins follow-up works)

(if a Pratchett fan, and if not you should be) "Darwin's Watch - The science of Discworld III"
(I and II good also but III is about evolution)

If you go away and really get to grips with what evolution is and how it works and all the
evidence for it then you should be able to see the answers to your questions/disputes
with evolution.

But you have to start with an open mind.

If you come at it believing that your religion must be right and thus evolution must be wrong...
Then you will continue to live in ignorance.


Either way, We (and science) are not trying to con you. We are not lying, this IS, with huge
experimental backing, and mountains of evidence, what we believe.

You may disagree, but please stop calling us all liars. We are not, and it is insulting and wrong
to do so.

I do note that your post fails to address any of the massive holes I and others punched in your
assertions that man has been around for hundreds of millions of years.

If you are going to call us dishonest, I would suggest that you can't in the face of the evidence
really believe what you say, and that you must be consciously ignoring the evidence and reason
that say your ideas are wrong.

I would suggest you should look see what your house is made of... Mines made of solid granite,

what's yours made of?

Originally posted by googlefudge
It really is not impossible.

For descriptions of how I would point you in the direction of one of a number
of good books on evolution for the general public.

Simply screaming its not possible over and over again will not get you anywhere
as people have shown over and over again that everything creationists claim to
not be possible actually is. ...[text shortened]... your house is made of... Mines made of solid granite,

what's yours made of?

There is no evidence.

You haven't seen any evidence either.

There are just certain things that are similar.

And you know what happens when a science person sees two things that are similar.

He constructs a theory around it.

He speculates and fabricates.

Your suggesting that cells without direction come together and create the principles of flight and then incorporate these principles into a creature that has also come about without intelligent direction..............but by random chance.

And you are suggesting this without ever witnessing this ever happening.

Its all based on a theory ...............and atheistic theory created to support atheism.

Its not scientific to be biased by atheistic values when doing research.

You must be unbiased towards atheism for your science to be true to itself.

Originally posted by Dasa
There is no evidence.

You haven't seen any evidence either.

There are just certain things that are similar.

And you know what happens when a science person sees two things that are similar.

He constructs a theory around it.

He speculates and fabricates.

Your suggesting that cells without direction come together and create the principles of fli ...[text shortened]... doing research.

You must be unbiased towards atheism for your science to be true to itself.

sigh. You have no comprehension about what it is you are arguing about.

To have this debate properly you need to go and study evolution so we
are actually talking about the same thing.

Till you have done that there is no point in arguing as you don't know what
you are talking about.


By the way, if you want to insult Evolution... call it a hypothesis.

A scientific theory is backed by iron clad evidence and experimentation.

A hypothesis is a suggestion about how something might work, and we
should do more research to test it.


Evolution by natural selection is a Theory.

It has Mountains of evidence.
We see evolution happening all around us.
We can see evolution happening through the fossil record.
We can trace evolution through genetics.
It is the ONLY viable scientific explanation of how the multitude of species came
to be on this planet.
And it is a logical inevitability that any self replicating life form based on DNA/RNA will
over time evolve via natural selection.

The entirety of science says you are wrong.
Reason, and rationality say you are wrong.

Evolution is a Theory, and proud of it.


Also, go read this article about Scientific Scepticism.

http://sd4kids.skepdic.com/scientificskepticism.html

You might learn something.

Originally posted by Dasa
There is no evidence.

You haven't seen any evidence either.

There are just certain things that are similar.

And you know what happens when a science person sees two things that are similar.

He constructs a theory around it.

He speculates and fabricates.

Your suggesting that cells without direction come together and create the principles of fli ...[text shortened]... doing research.

You must be unbiased towards atheism for your science to be true to itself.

Your fairy tale of men being here for billions of years may have fooled the savages 3000 years ago and those words were recorded so we can read them now, those words do not cut the mustard in light of 21st century science and technology.

3000 years ago, 2000 years ago, 1000 years ago, 50 years ago even, there was not the slightest hint there was anything like DNA or RNA or even bacteria or virus activity in the body that can raise havoc with humans and all other multi-cell life forms.

Now we know so much more, those fairy tales of Vedic so-called knowledge are now shown to be just stories written by men yearning to be near their non-interacting god, or non-existent god.

Either way, if there are god/s they don't interact with us or they just plain don't exist.

We know how gravity works, even if we don't fully understand it yet. Notice I said "Yet". The longer our civilization goes on without major crises the more we are going to learn and the further from the truth will your religion recede just like Christianity and Islam, all your religions are doomed for irrelevance in the light of science.

What you call dishonest science is simply science that refutes your irrational stories that may have convinced gullible primitives a few thousand years ago and even a few hundred years ago but science has shown your religion for the bull shyte it really is, not to just be picking on Vedic so-called knowledge but the other organized religions as well.

I no longer have the hatred I used to have for organized religions but now just try to tell people how deluded they all are believing in fairy tales.

I am not trying to denigrate you, just the delusions brainwashed into your head by those who think they have answers but they step over the line when they insist men have been here for billions of years.

That is so pathetic an argument as to be laughable, so humans would be in the position of being genetic cripples, doomed to have the same weak bodies, weak minds and weak morals a billion years ago as we do now, when all around us animals have undergone complete transformations millions of times.

That is ludicrous on the face of it.

To say nothing of what humans would have eaten a billion years ago when there was nothing on earth but bacteria.

Originally posted by googlefudge
sigh. You have no comprehension about what it is you are arguing about.

To have this debate properly you need to go and study evolution so we
are actually talking about the same thing.

Till you have done that there is no point in arguing as you don't know what
you are talking about.


By the way, if you want to insult Evolution... call it a hy ...[text shortened]... epticism.

http://sd4kids.skepdic.com/scientificskepticism.html

You might learn something.

Selection implies decision.

Decision implies intelligence especially if all the decisions are creating complex living beings.

Cheating science tells us that all this is taking place without intelligent direction but by random chance.

This is unacceptable by honest persons.

Originally posted by Dasa
Selection implies decision.

Decision implies intelligence especially if all the decisions are creating complex living beings.

Cheating science tells us that all this is taking place without intelligent direction but by random chance.

This is unacceptable by honest persons.

Answer me this: Do you know what quantum mechanics is all about? I mean the basic ideas behind it not all the ins and outs, just what it means. I am leading to a point.

Originally posted by Dasa
Selection implies decision.

Decision implies intelligence especially if all the decisions are creating complex living beings.

Cheating science tells us that all this is taking place without intelligent direction but by random chance.

This is unacceptable by honest persons.

Do you have any other tricks?

Originally posted by vistesd
Me too. I suggested that “manifold universes” made more sense as a term. If there is no relationship between multiple universes (i.e., there is no information exchanged?), then the hypothesis is simply not falsifiable. The notion of manifold universes certainly requires one to address the question of how one then defines the Whole (the all-of-all-of-all-o ...[text shortened]... to terminology, and, like you, would like to know how the cosmologists are handling such terms.

Bumped for physicists.