It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Anyways back to the vid in the OP if you were to watch the first 15 minutes of it, it has a reoccuring theme about how mathematics only describes things and does not create them, what is your take on that?
"Before" the big bang is beyond math and beyond reason.
They then apply the same reasoning towards before the Big Bang
Phage
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
No. Redshift is well understood. Ever since Christian Doppler. It's what waves do.
edit on 12/29/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)
The expansion of the Universe causes light to "stretch" (redshift), to increase its wavelength (reduce its frequency), and thus reduce its energy level. Since its wavelength is increased the question becomes what happens to the energy it carried at shorter wavelengths.
Before the big bang is beyond math and beyond reason.
Woodcarver
reply to post by Brotherman
What hawkings is saying is that the universe is bound by physical laws. When he says that physics created the universe he is alluding to these laws and that watever caused the start is also bound by some kind of laws. We just cant observe the act so we cannot say what these laws were.
www.nhm.ac.uk...
sexual reproduction is more efficient Bacteria multiply rapidly by asexual reproduction. In many ways asexual reproduction is the better evolutionary strategy: only one parent is needed and all of their genes are passed on to the next generation. All bacteria, most plants and even some animals reproduce asexually at least some of the time. Sex is less efficient. Finding a mate can take time and energy, and any gametes that aren’t fertilised go to waste. Plus, each parent only passes half of its genes to the offspring. But despite these drawbacks, sexual reproduction evolved and is abundant within the animal world. Why?Text
Why did sex develop since sex has slowed down evolution and asexual reproduction is more efficient.
Willtell
Hers another mark on the evolution dogma
Why did sex develop since sex has slowed down evolution and asexual reproduction is more efficient.
By the theory of Darwinian evolution sex shouldn’t even be here!.
This is another conundrum for the dogma of Darwinian evolution.
www.nhm.ac.uk...
sexual reproduction is more efficient Bacteria multiply rapidly by asexual reproduction. In many ways asexual reproduction is the better evolutionary strategy: only one parent is needed and all of their genes are passed on to the next generation. All bacteria, most plants and even some animals reproduce asexually at least some of the time. Sex is less efficient. Finding a mate can take time and energy, and any gametes that aren’t fertilised go to waste. Plus, each parent only passes half of its genes to the offspring. But despite these drawbacks, sexual reproduction evolved and is abundant within the animal world. Why?Text
Xcalibur254
reply to post by Willtell
Fine tuned for life? The vast majority of the universe is a vaccuum. The harshest of environments.
One could also argue why life is an apparent rarity in the cosmos, if it is indeed fine-tuned for it.
Lastly, as should be obvious, why would a god - who is all powerful - need to wait for billions of years to create life on this planet?
Ironically, the Anthropic Principle is actually an argument against an all powerful deity.
Brotherman
reply to post by Ghost147
Mirror Neuron Brain Evolution
From the majority of what I read about this I found to be one of the most insightful essays I have read in a while simply because I have never heard of this and I am very interested in proto-language and this essay kind of puts all kinds of concepts I am interested in, into a simple even for me to read and follow format.edit on 29-12-2013 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)
FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by Ghost147
What is your definition of "sight?"
Are you only considering the physical process of light exciting receptors in the eye or are you talking about the translation into electrical signals which are interpreted by mechanisms within the brain?
What is vision?
FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by Ghost147
Your argument essentially breaks down to the form of, "I don't understand, therefore it does not exist."
FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by Ghost147
Also your terminology such as 'need' or 'have to' demonstrates a lack of understanding of the nature of God as described by the book you are criticizing.
PhotonEffect
reply to post by Ghost147
One could also argue why life is an apparent rarity in the cosmos, if it is indeed fine-tuned for it.
How could one go about arguing the "apparent rarity" of life in the cosmos based on our limited perspective?
PhotonEffect
reply to post by Ghost147
Lastly, as should be obvious, why would a god - who is all powerful - need to wait for billions of years to create life on this planet?
Is this a typical argument against ID?
If you're invoking God, a supernatural entity of some sort, then time would not apply. And from my limited understanding, time is relative to those of us who are bound by it. Not to mention that there are some who believe time may not even exist at all.
PhotonEffect
reply to post by Ghost147
Ironically, the Anthropic Principle is actually an argument against an all powerful deity.
How so?
Brotherman
reply to post by Ghost147
Mirror Neuron Brain Evolution
From the majority of what I read about this I found to be one of the most insightful essays I have read in a while simply because I have never heard of this and I am very interested in proto-language and this essay kind of puts all kinds of concepts I am interested in, into a simple even for me to read and follow format.
edit on 29-12-2013 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to point out with this?