farmerman wrote:Quote:You are either saying that you understand it, and few if any others do........ or you are saying that NOBODY understands it. (you seem to be saying a little of both for purposes of cya)
My question in either case is: what is your evidence that the 'multiverse' exists?
Have you (or anybody else) observed what is outside our universe?
If not, how do you know who understands it and who does not?
I think its more of a conversation when people post what they put in their own words and thus describe some kind of understanding of the subject. (As opposed to merely cutting, pasting, and sending ).
I like to look at these posts in an evidentiary mode. The entire story is whether a Biblical basis for the origins and development of the earth and its life is scientific. (You claim a hypothesis which centers around a young earth, solar system, and by extension a young Universe). .
We have very strong evidence of an old (4.5 BY) earth. Several lines of evidence converge here, as does the evidence regarding the occurence and development of life.(Simply looking at the parallax to distant stars and the travel time of light , and the ability to determine their speeds of separation is just one small area of evidence)
Your hypothesis has no evidence at all. (NONE) and is countered by the scientific evidence in many areas. SO I have to ask myself that if we know that some of your hypotheses are in error, what does that have to do with the sum total of your beliefs?
You have no evidence regarding the occurrence of life. None.
The two leading hypotheses are bereft of anything that could politely be called 'evidence'.
a. You don't 'know' how dead chemicals put themselves together into an incredibly complex replicating molecule to jump start life. In fact, even chemists who are sympathetic to evolution admit the improbability of such a start to life. Thus aside from having no 'evidence' that such an event DID occur, you cannot even show reasonably that it MIGHT HAVE.
b. Alternately, you also don't 'know' how dead chemicals organized on a small scale and still were able to generate information, transmit information and replicate a self contained system that can achieve rudimentary respiration, excretion, defense, maintenance of itself. Again, the MIGHT HAVE would be a huge step up from where you are.
Also, the environment and conditions needed even in the kindest interpretation cannot be shown to have existed.
Your use of the word 'evidence' to describe your position when describing the generation of first life is an exercise in wishful thinking.
'Evidence' implies (at least) that you have empirical data to back you up. You have no evidence that dead chemicals EVER put themselves together into a living organism of ANY description.
You can't even show that abiogeneis is 'likely' to have occurred, and the mathematical odds against your dream make even the use of the word 'possible' to be a huge stretch.
