Is the universe finite?

[IamJoseph]

Then why are there billions/trillions of life forms? Why is this 'not allowed' by the time factor?

Do the math. How long does it take for one specie to develop? How many species and sub-species does the earth contain?

Also, humans aren't, and can't be, the most recent species. That implies that evolution has stopped somehow, since humans evolved. We are also still evolving, by implication.

Yes, we are the last species. When we are told of any new species post-humans, like new forms of virus, this applies to following their own kind/species/trajectories. Notwithstanding a new species has to be a more elevated life form: read, more elevated than any other - else elevation [evolving] has no meaning. We have not seen a true new life form for millions of years, or at least since man was around - but we should have seen billions. This then gives the ratio of time which must apply of all life stemming from one life.

And another thing: big brains, intelligence and 'speech' are evolutionary advantages, but so are flippers. Or hooves. Or the ability to run faster than a predator, dive underwater and stay there for a while, etc.

Agreed. Each species graduates to further the requirements of its own, not of another - they follow their own kind. In effect, what ToE calls survival of the fittest must better be called destruction of a species. Change is being transcended by another - making a death of the former. This again reduces the time factored display of trillions of life forms occuring the last billion years on earth. One must differentiate elevations within the same group - and that which constitutes a wholly and holistically new life form - else we are subscribing to genesis, not ToE.

 

[IamJoseph]

Density is most definitely a physical-mathematical concept. Roughly, it's the amount of material in a unit volume.
Or more exactly it's the number of particles with a given mass per unit volume--see, for instance Avogadro's number and the volume of this number of molecules of gas at STP.

Classic fail.

Why fail - you repeated what I said.

But humans appear to have closely related species--the great apes. What's the 'ratio' between humans and apes/chimps?
We can't claim to be "on our own" at all--we depend heavily on other animals, and on various species of plants, fungi, bacteria, even viral forms appear to be required.

Double fail...

No sir. You must distinquish between following their own kind - and also having the same base elements [all from one dust]. The former shows why apes follow the ape species; the latter explains the commonality. This is Genesis - not ToE.

 

[arfa brane]

Why does Genesis regard humans as a "separate" species, and what exactly are humans separated from? The rest of the world? I don't think that works very well.

Oh bupkis, I missed this before:

Yes, we are the last species.

The last species of what?

 

[IamJoseph]

Why does Genesis regard humans as a "separate" species, and what exactly are humans seperated from? The rest of the world? I don't think that works very well.

Oh buokis, I missed this before:The last species of what?

[1]. Genesis says all life are basically made from the same elements of the earth, which it refers to by a mysterious word translated as 'dust' of the earth. This refers to everything which is from this planet, like phosperous, water, fire, iodine, salt, quarks, molecules, mud, etc. This explains the commonality and why one species can resemble another. Its vindicated. It also answers your question, FROM WHAT?


[2]. Genesis also says each species will follow their own kind. This too is vindicated.

ToE is saying one above [1] is its proof all life emerged from one singular life ultimately.

In effect, ToE is agreeing Genesis is half right. My view is Genesis is right on both counts.

 

[arfa brane]

But you haven't answered the question: what makes humans separate, and what are they separated from?
It can't be the world; it isn't the animal kingdom; humans eat plants so it isn't the plant kingdom. In fact humans aren't separated at all from myriads of other species, on which they depend.

The separation is actually the one that humans themselves consider is a function of intelligence. But intelligence is just one of a myriad of evolved functions. So we separate ourselves, by thinking , with, you know, our brains, that there is a qualitative difference between humans and any other lifeforms.

I wonder if chimps think humans are inferior to chimps? Would it make any difference to humans? Does it make a difference to chimps or chipmunks if humans think they are less intelligent?

Humans saying they are more intelligent, is like a beaver slapping its tail. Wonderfully adapted tail, mind you.

 

[IamJoseph]

In fact humans aren't separated at all from myriads of other species, on which they depend.

1. All came from one [Genesis], then [2] seperation thresholds were made to distinguish them [Genesis]. The seperation thresholds are very real and reflect [3] 'EACH FOLLOWS THEIR OWN KIND' [Genesis].

ToE uses 1 to prove 2 and 3. But all three are vindicated best via Genesis' mode of evolution - the first one, 1000's of years before Darwin shouted Eureka!

 

[James R]

Galeleo did not just refute a flat earth: he proved it as incorrect.

Galileo didn't refute a flat Earth. That job was done about 1600 years earlier.

Even if the universe is immeasurably vast with immeasurable other space bodies - it says the unknown is more like the known than not. It should not be complicated to get an agreement here: the odds for life are NO as opposed we don't know.

Even if the odds for life on any given planet are very low, in an "immeasurably vast" space with lots of "space bodies", the odds are good that there is life elsewhere.

To test if the universe is finite - check if its expanding.

That doesn't decide the question. The universe is infinite, yet it expands.

To check if something is infinite, check if it is subject to changes.

Changes have to do with time, not space. Are you still confused about the difference between time and space?

I concur and its not mere semantics to conclude the universe cannot be infinite - all indicators display a finite universe.

I've previously explained to you that this is factually wrong.

Now that you've been corrected many times on what the latest scientific findings about this are, you will stop making this basic mistake, I hope.

However, all life did not/could not have emerged from one source - cats and dogs are different, displaying only that original certain head groups emerged and branched out according to their own kind.

Cats and dogs are both mammals. Both vertebrates. Both animals. Both share many of the same internal organs and bone structures. Both share large fractions of their DNA.

To claim that they are unrelated is just ignorant.

The time factor does not allow billions [trillions?] of ocean life forms to have emerged from one source - and never mind the insect and virus worlds.

There has been plenty of time - about 4 billion years.

Based on ToE, bears should have gone to the moon before man - why ever not when they have the advanage of time to select the most powerful tool in the universe - 'speech'?

Bears fill a particular environmental niche. They have a lower brain-body mass ratio than human beings. Their niche did not select for a large brain.

You lack any understanding of the theory of evolution. That much is clear.

But all indicators and evidences [as opposed actual proof] say the universe is finite and cannot in any wise be infinite: the universe is expanding - it was not infinite 10 seconds ago; an infinite cannot fit into a finite realm.

I've previously corrected you about this error. I am happy to answer questions if you didn't understand the explanation.

Do the math. How long does it take for one specie to develop?

From what?

Yes, we are the last species.

Yeah, and the ipad is the last electronic e-reader device. No, wait! Samsung just brought out a new one. So that must be the last one.

We have not seen a true new life form for millions of years, or at least since man was around - but we should have seen billions.

We haven't seen a new e-reader for several months. My guess is that we should have seen .. er ... 7. Something is wrong in computerland. The theory of computer development doesn't work!

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Here are great sources of information on the Galileo controversy:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0305sbs.asp

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2009/0907tbt.asp

 

[IamJoseph]

Galileo didn't refute a flat Earth. That job was done about 1600 years earlier.

Its the principle - he had to prove his refutation of the then held flat earth.

Even if the odds for life on any given planet are very low, in an "immeasurably vast" space with lots of "space bodies", the odds are good that there is life elsewhere.

No. This looses against the available evidence. Vastness alone does not impact here.

That doesn't decide the question. The universe is infinite, yet it expands.

Do you honestly believe that - or just defending for the sake of it, as in a religious belief? I guess it depends what definition one has of infinite. The traditional understanding is that which has no beginning or end. Like eternal.

Changes have to do with time, not space. Are you still confused about the difference between time and space?

Time is generic, space, if it changes, is dependent on time generically - as are all things. But when a change occurs, I agree this is the sole factor which defines finite and infinite. It is quite errie how this is done in the Hebrew bible, occuring as a response of Moses asking what is the creator's source of power. The next verse says I am God I have not changed - I am the God of your forefathers [ who lived 400 years earlier and in another region - here the mastering of both space and time are seen]. I mean, aside from the fact if this is true or myth, its literally essence is great. To say that change as the factor of power, and that this transcends time and space is remarkable. Change then is the only thing which can denote infinity - this you argue about, but its clear your arguement is based on a stretch.

I've previously explained to you that this is factually wrong.

You gave your view - we must agree to disagree. My universe is 100% finite.

Cats and dogs are both mammals. Both vertebrates. Both animals. Both share many of the same internal organs and bone structures. Both share large fractions of their DNA.

So what of it - what is the conclusion you are making? They are also land based and seperate sub-groups, which part contradicts Genesis?

To claim that they are unrelated is just ignorant.

They are related, being made of the same earthly components [dust]. But this does not contradict their seperate sub-species.

There has been plenty of time - about 4 billion years.

And what time span applies for a specie to emerge? How many billions of species are there?

Bears fill a particular environmental niche. They have a lower brain-body mass ratio than human beings. Their niche did not select for a large brain.

What makes you agree that a brain niche determines the bear, as opposed a directive program embedded in its host seed? Which is more conducive?

You lack any understanding of the theory of evolution. That much is clear.

I've previously corrected you about this error. I am happy to answer questions if you didn't understand the explanation.

Give one reason why the universe can be evidenced as infinite? We know that nothing contained in the universe is finite, and we know that all these are subject to change.

From what?

From the point is was not that specie.

Have you considered what marks the difference between Genesis' evolution and Darwin's?

The big factor in the universe is if it was finite and has a universe maker, what is the connectivity between universe maker and universe: where did the physicality come from if not as part of the maker? This is the biggest question for one who accepts a universe maker and a finite universe.

 

[James R]

IamJoseph:

Even if the odds for life on any given planet are very low, in an "immeasurably vast" space with lots of "space bodies", the odds are good that there is life elsewhere.

No. This looses against the available evidence. Vastness alone does not impact here.

Wrong.

Let me give you an example. I line up 100 boxes in front of you. I open one box and you see that it contains an egg. I tell you that other boxes may or may not contain eggs as well. You open another 10 boxes. None of them contain eggs.

On the basis of the data you now have, what do you estimate is the probability that any of the other boxes contains an egg? Please have a serious attempt at answering this question.

According to your argument up to this point, there's no chance that there's another egg in any of the boxes. There can be only one egg, according to you.

That doesn't decide the question. The universe is infinite, yet it expands.

Do you honestly believe that - or just defending for the sake of it, as in a religious belief?

I believe it based on the most widely accepted current scientific cosmological theory.

Why do you believe the universe is finite? Wait, don't tell me! Because you think Genesis tells you it's finite. Right?

I guess it depends what definition one has of infinite. The traditional understanding is that which has no beginning or end. Like eternal.

I think you're still confused about the difference between space and time.

Time is generic, space, if it changes, is dependent on time generically - as are all things.

Do you accept that time and space are separate concepts?

You gave your view - we must agree to disagree. My universe is 100% finite.

Fine, but you must realise that you're arguing against the best scientific evidence. And based on what? An ancient book written by people who knew nothing of scientific cosmology.

Cats and dogs are both mammals. Both vertebrates. Both animals. Both share many of the same internal organs and bone structures. Both share large fractions of their DNA.

So what of it - what is the conclusion you are making?

I'm concluding that cats and dogs are not unrelated "kinds" like you say they are.

They are related, being made of the same earthly components [dust].

So, updating your ancient language, you're saying that cats and dogs are both made of atoms. I think we can agree on that.

And what time span applies for a specie to emerge?

From what?

How many billions of species are there?

About 0.1 billion, at most. Perhaps 0.002 billion.

What makes you agree that a brain niche determines the bear, as opposed a directive program embedded in its host seed? Which is more conducive?

Not brain niche. Environmental niche. Like I said before, it doesn't matter what you think is more "conducive". The facts are in front of you.

Give one reason why the universe can be evidenced as infinite?

The average mass density is less than the critical value that would be necessary for a closed, finite universe.

Have you considered what marks the difference between Genesis' evolution and Darwin's?

Yeah. One is science. The other is outdated myth. Hint: Genesis is the myth one.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat - Closure and Redirect

Mod Hat — This one is over

Medicine - introduced in the Hebrew bible: post # 76.

That's it? Of all the issues you were asked to cite and demonstrate validity, you picked one? That leaves a few others, don't you think? And, yet, you chose to pick nits about the counterpoints instead of address the fundamental issue of medicine and folklore. Insisting—

"It is only the introduction of medicine as a science."​

—without supporting your point does not make for a useful argument.

And this is but one small issue about this thread. The farce has gone on long enough. This thread is clearly an exercise in ego gratification for you, and not anything reasonably academic. Your arguments are smug and determined to pretend facts fit presuppositions. This is not science.

"Test Genesis finite factor - the universe is expanding! Test genesis seed factor - it is the fundamental initiator of life. Test the process which introduced the premise of incurable deseases."​

You might as well be telling people to test the existence of God. A single question persists, which you refuse to address: How do we test these propositions?

But even those that can be easily examined, such as whether Genesis is the "first" anything (e.g., its age is estimated between 400-500 BCE, according to its literary structure, and appears to borrow themes and stories from earlier sources, including the Enua Elish, which dates, at its latest, to around 1100 BCE), are hard to consider since you won't actually present a comprehensible, arguable thesis. This speaks nothing of the more obscure assertions that need to be more specifically defined before any reasonable hypothesis can be developed and tested.

Such development and testing are clearly not what you're after. Rather, you seem more interested in an egotistical abuse of metaphysics than anything else. And, to be honest, you're not accomplishing anything better than embarrassing yourself.

Like I said, I'm a mystic. I'll put up with a lot more wacky pucky than some of my colleagues. But I have this little, annoying standard that wacky pucky ought to lead somewhere useful, and on that count this thread fails in every dimension. And as farces go, this is the kind that leaves people feeling embarrassed for the actor.

But I won't go so far as to call this a mercy closure. That is, the thread is not closed in order to save you from further self-denigration. Rather, it's closed because it's a waste of time. We aren't your ego fluffers.

Closed and redirected appropriately.