Where does "physics" say that? The origins of the multiverse are still very much up in the air. And how do you know that the universe will always be here? If the big crunch is the fate of our universe, then our universe will indeed end.


That's hardly what people usually mean by "God". God is supposed to be the creator of everything, if he is nothing else. Clearly we did not create everything.

Speaking of multiverses, do you think that time is divided into segments? I was thinking about it today as I ate my noodles.

Like if time were sort of like frames in a video game, except more like trillions of trillions of quadrillions, etc. frames per certain amount of time. The reason it must be divided like so is because of all the minute and tiny interactions of every single particle of the Universe.

And then, I was thinking, that if there were multiple universes, each one could be a single frame apart, and therefore would be an almost infinite amount of universes. Once one cycle ended, it would immediately begin all over again.

The idea of this would also allow for time travel if we travelled to a completely different universe. We could move a certain amount of frames back, unless the travel to which universe could not be specified.

My head is spinning from these concepts.

You should definitely read about the digital physics hypotheses.

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

That was fairly interesting, but quite a big read. I skimmed through it. Well I guess we can never pin down anything, huh? It's quite a shame. We know so much, yet so little...

Indeed. I suggested that article because it goes with your idea of a smallest time unit. If physics is digital, then your idea is correct.

Hydrogen earlier: Thank you, that makes a lot more sense.

It's amazing what I can think of while I'm eating (or doing any other thing that doesn't require much thinking, like showering). Sometimes I can't see how we'd ever progress much farther in terms of large technological jumps, but then I look back 50 years, 100 years, 200 years, and see that in due time amazing things will happen. I am sad that I cannot be around to witness everything.

You might be around. Science is working on the immortality thing.

If we ever grow organs from stem cells then that would still take an enormous amount of money and surgery, and eventually it wouldn't be worth it. As for organs staying healthy forever, I don't know what to think. Eventually, people are tired of life and welcome death gladly.

Apparently they're developing organ replacement drugs which allow you to 'grow' a new organ inside of your body when yours has begun to fail - no surgery required.

Where would the remnants of the old organ go? I wouldn't want it to decompose in my body... And where would there be room for the new organ to grow in? There's a lot of questions to be answered in terms of organs and replacing them to prolong life.

Ahem. Anyways, I think that instead of "Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design" as the title you should include abiogenesis somewhere around there, which should take a lot more flak than evolution is taking.

There are so many people I know that completely swear to creationism and intelligent design without taking a look back at what they haven't thought about. It makes me cringe to see that they won't even at least modify their beliefs to let in evolution, which doesn't get in the way of intelligent design or creationism.

Evolution is not compatible with certain literalistic Christian creationist accounts though.

True, but I know plenty of people who don't accept evolution but aren't as "serious" or "literal" with Christianity.

Replying to the original posted question, evolution makes the most sense currently. As to how we got here, well, the only thing I can imagine is that on a long enough time line, everyone's survival rate drops to zero (and judging by macman's avatar, s/he should know where that quote is from).

But also, on a long enough time line, something is bound to happen. The universe is infinitely old, and for all we know, we're the zillionth generation descended from a race that has been around for as long as the universe has.

Perhaps a newtonian law applies differently here, that where for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So when inanimate, unthinking things arrived, so did animate things.
Just a thought.

What makes you think the universe is infinitely old? Also, that's definitely a misapplication of Newton's 3rd law.

Well, duh, only if you're not willing to think of other ways it could be applied. :P

But infinitely old--matter cannot be created or destroyed.

• - The universe is only as big as the farthest object, aka, the universe is gauged by the things it is made of. The size and matter of the universe is what the universe is, etc, whatevs, you know that, just demonstrating that I do too.

So even if the matter the universe is made up of came from somewhere else, the universe consists of the stuff in it. Mainly the matter and energy. Which, cannot be created or destroyed. So it must have been around forever. Literally forever.

We have no reason to believe that energy could not have been created at the time of the big bang. Current physical theories break down in the first few fractions of a second of the big bang.

Firstly, the big bang is still a theory. Even though there is evidence of an explosion, there is no evidence that matter or energy was created by that explosion alone; only that the explosion pushed a whole lot of stuff away from where it happened.

*ahem*

EVERYTHING in science is 'just a theory'. Using that as a counterpoint in any argument is like saying "Yo, what up. I don't know science."
Also, to call it an 'explosion' is a bit disingenuous. The worst thing about the big bang theory is its fucking name. So much misconception thanks to that name. Seriously.

The big bang theory says that the universe was very very very hot and very very very small, and then it expanded very very very quickly and it was no longer as hot or small.

If you read further than the first couple words of my post, you'd know that my counterpoint wasn't that everything in science is a theory, it was that not only has it not been proven yet, but the fact that there is evidence of a, uh, "bang" doesn't mean that matter and energy were created during it.
Citing it as fact is incorrect, especially incorrect if it's proving that matter and energy were created during it, which there is no real evidence of at all, other than their existence. Matter and energy would have actually had to exist before the "bang" in order for them to have been "propelled" in the ways they were, especially if that matter was to be pushed by oh, right, energy, which is generally how it works.

Second, don't worry, it's ok, really, I know the theory pretty well. Forgive me for putting the label "explosion" on "giant, unoriginable, matter propelling force." I hope you find my word labeling system better this time.

Thirdly, sorry for the slight derailment. On topic>> What makes me wonder though, is what the difference is between viruses and sentient beings. They sort of live, but they don't really. So the whole evolution thing makes me wonder which one came first, while creationism and intelligent design pretty much explain it flat out.

A theory is never proven. It is only shown to be valid as a model for the available data. The big bang theory is scientifically valid, and thus carries similar weight to germ theory, evolutionary theory, relativity, and others.


Certainly not. We don't yet have an accepted theory for where the energy of the universe originated. (By the way, there was no matter in the big bang - only energy.) My point was that you have no reason to claim that there was or wasn't matter or energy before the big bang, nor do you have a reason to claim that the multiverse has always existed or that it came into existence. Science has neither confirmed nor denied these claims.




How does non-evolutionary creationism or intelligent design explain anything?

Edit: That is, how do they explain anything in terms that have application in the real world (since they are not observable or repeatable)?

Evolution, full stop. ID is just creationism in a cheap suit.