Processing your request, Please wait....
A Universe From Nothing (Lecture)
Click Stars Below to Vote!
Lawrence Krauss gives a talk on our current image of the universe, how it will end, and how it could have come from nowhere.
Krauss is the author of many bestselling books in physics and cosmology, including “The Physics of Star Trek.”
If you’ve ever wanted to answer that nagging question: “How could the universe formed from nothing”, then watch this video.
Lawrence Krauss is fun, informative, and if you see the whole video (which is more than an hour, so you could pause a couple of times), that will blow your mind. Lawrence looks like a cool guy.
A Universe From Nothing (Lecture),
@oneballuno And let’s be clear – nobody is claiming evolution (loosely construed) doesn’t happen. What I am saying is that it is almost totally uknown whether the mechanisms in the current ToE can account for the diversity of life. One reason being that we don’t even know well enough yet what the diversity of life is to know how it could come about. We know nothing, eg, about what consciousness is, and we know very little about how any animal works.
@oneballuno Beliefs held so strongly and well beyond the evidence for them can be said to be pathological. For example, belief that the current ToE is a fact as regards accounting for all the diversity of life is held fanatically by many people and is held way over and above what the evidence shows. As such, that belief bordrers on the pathological. One straightforward point being that we know for a fact that the evolutionary mechanism in the ToE do not account for all the diversity of life.
@DJockovic1 Pathological? Wishful thinking? I really dont understand your viewpoint. I dont wish it to be true, it just is. And you can go on about the fossil record all you want, you are still wrong. Ignore the fossil record, concentrate on the genetic evidence that proves that all species have a common ancestor and evolution is still proven. There is also artificial selection as another confirmation.
@oneballuno And I never claimed it wasn’t true. I said, completely appropriately, that claims that the current ToE, as an explanation for all the diversity of life, is a fact is wishful thinking bordering on the pathological.
@RePete360 It’s not weak at all. If we define As as things which lack a belief in X, then anything that lacks a belief in X is an A by defintion. But when we start adding to that defintion to rule out underpants, walnuts and cats, we find we rule out babies as well. And so, I don’t think you have definition of the term in anything like the way you think you do. If you do, then let’s hear it, because nothing you’ve offered so far does the trick.
@wHisperis001 But when you say something is a fact you have to have more than just a suggestion. You have to show the mechanism is adequate to the task, and you have to explain why what is expected in the fossil record is not there at all. Until these problems are accounted for a healthy scepticism is in order rather than blind devotion to an idea for (anti)religious purposes.
@DJockovic1 Well perhaps metaphor wasn’t the best term, but it is most certainly a terribly weak and extraneous comparison. And it isn’t a suggestion that that’s all it takes. However, the term isn’t applicable to lifeless objects; you see the idiocy in comparing humans to underwear don’t you? If you don’t, I fear for your future arguments. Walnuts have no awareness, but yes, cats are atheists. What you’re arguing is a definition. It is concrete, and using stupid examples isn’t helping you.
@RePete360 Firstly, atheism is not really defined the way you claim. It is mostly defined as an active rejection of a belief in a supreme being. In that sense babies are not atheists. And if we use the term atheist in a way that includes babies then we empty of meaning of it to such an extent that we need a new word to refer to people like you.
@DJockovic1 This isn’t a matter of opinion. Babies are born without a belief in a supreme being. Sure, the term only makes sense to them when they have the capacity to understand it, but until they’re introduced to a religion, they are most certainly atheists whether you like it or not. It’s funny; you’re fighting something that is simply true for the sole reason that you fear any association with atheism. Why are you fighting a definition that is so clearly set?
@wHisperis001 I can give you a very good estimate of how many atoms are in my body. You can give nothing even close to that accuracy as regards the number of intermediaries needed to get to a trilobite. In addition, when we look to see how many of those (big number of) changes are represented in the fossil record we find there is nothing there at all. As regards the origins and devlopment of life – nobody has a clue what happened.
@DJockovic1 Well it would be more clear if you’d make a stance on what you do believe about the origins and development of life… kinda hard to be on the same issue if only one side has a claim and the other just denies half of everything
@wHisperis001 Nobody claimed evolution (by RM and NS) hasn’t been observed, but to claim that everything we see is just more of the same when we don’t yet have a clue what kind of changes/processes could actually result in what we see is nothing but an intellectual flight of fancy. That is, we don’t even understand how any of the current end points of evolution we see all around us work let alone how they came to be and what is needed for it to happen.
@wHisperis001 But the fossil record isn’t just incomplete, it’s nonexistent in the case I raised. And in such a case it is only sensible to maintain a healthy scepticism about claims to have pretty much solved the puzzle, and it is sensible to dismiss claims that it is a fact that it happened that way as wishful thinking or, indeed, fantasy.
@DJockovic1 If you want a full 100% complete story of evolution before you could believe it then good luck with that. That’s the same like me asking you how much exactly atoms does your body carry? Don’t have an answer? Well then I don’t believe you exist
@DJockovic1 Stop worrying so much about the fossil record, it’s incomplete and will always be, everybody knows that, but all evolutionary scientists say that even if we didn’t have any fossils at all – evolution would still be a fact. Again you’re asking irrelevant points, hey it might be a million transitions, it might be a billion, evolution has a random factor and you can’t put a finger on it like that, but it doesn’t disprove everything that we do know about it
@PerdiePerduta256 My scientific insights on relativity and the earth’s tell tale electro magnetic transmissions are spot on
)PerdiePerduta256 10 hours agoWow! I always thought that I was conceited. In the 1930s Edington was asked to comment on “Only 3 people really understand relativity.” He remained silent.When prompted he said, ” I’m trying to think who the 3rd person is.”
@wHisperis001 But you’ve got the whole thing worked out, or so you keep saying. And this is a very basic point for ToE. I mean, you claim all this happened in this particular way, and yet you can’t even put any kind of figure on it. Note also that I didn’t ask for the exact figure – I asked if it was closer to six, or six million or six hundred million.
@DJockovic1 What a random question. The answer could be anything between 2 very large numbers, i’m no scientist to say what numbers they would be but evolution certainly doesn’t have to predict exact number of transitional species. That’s such a strawman I can’t believe you asked that.
@scienceandmusiclover Almost none of the conversations are over my head because virtually none of them concern areas where I have little or no expertise. By contrast, you have so little expertise on almost anything discussed here that you simply hover around abusing people, running spambots, and making up little maths puzzles that nobody is interested in.
@scienceandmusiclover I guess nobody understands the tortuous workings of your mind. My best guess is that you think there is some great point to be made about crying foul over multiple accounts whether or not they are actually multiple accounts and even where it is clear they have been made to avoid the spambots you admitted running. But, as I said, who knows your psychotic though processes. What I find funny is how it has backfired and burned your ass.