Problems & confusion with the Multiverse

[shunyadragon]

• Cosmological constant problem: Why does the zero-point energy of the vacuum not cause a large cosmological constant? What cancels it out?

You spent a lot of time concerning what Physics questions are not answered with a simple list on a web site. What is the purpose?

Why not let's also discuss what Physics has learned about our universe instead of 'arguing from ignorance?'

Any alternat explanations based on what we presently know about the origins of our universe?

 

[nPeace]

You spent a lot of time concerning what Physics questions are not answered with a simple list on a web site. What is the purpose?

Why not let's also discuss what Physics has learned about our universe instead of 'arguing from ignorance?'

Any alternat explanations based on what we presently know about the origins of our universe?

I would like to have a discussion, but that can't happen if a person sits on a high horse refusing to answer questions and only berating, and parroting their favorite lines - like "arguing from ignorance", "objectively verified" etc., throughout.
Especially when that person cannot back up their assertions, but post irrelevant pages from a website.

 

[shunyadragon]

What explanation do you have that is true?
Since you know of none, why do you want to argue over beliefs?

I do not believe science argues as to what is 'True?'

Again . . . What would be a alternate explanation for the evidence we presently have?

I would like to have a discussion, but that can't happen if a person sits on a high horse refusing to answer questions and only berating, and parroting their favorite lines - like "arguing from ignorance", "objectively verified" etc., throughout.
Especially when that person cannot back up their assertions, but post irrelevant pages from a website.

Sounds like your argument simply based on cookie cutter google searches on unanswered question in Physics and nothing else constructive.

 

[nPeace]

I do not believe science argues as to what is 'True?'

Again . . . What would be a alternate explanation for the evidence we presently have?

Sounds like your argument simply based on cookie cutter google searches on unanswered question in Physics and nothing else constructive.

Parrot, and ignore.
You will repeat this question even though the answer stares you in the face.
It's irrelevant since all you have are explanation which are not even true, and can never be verified.
So, what is the use of arguing over any other explanation?
Oh. I know. "My explanation is better than yours, because blah blah blah, so there." Beats chest and feels pride rise.

 

[ratiocinator]

The fact that inflation of the universe is objectively observed is the primary objective evidence for the inflation of the universe.

This is just not true. You seem to be confusing inflation with the expansion of the universe today. They are very different concepts.

Cosmic inflation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[shunyadragon]

This is just not true. You seem to be confusing inflation with the expansion of the universe today. They are very different concepts.

Cosmic inflation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I believe you are 'picking frog hairs over terminology. I believe the red shift is evidence of an expanding universe today. Yes, there is an inflationary model for our universe.

Future of an expanding universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[shunyadragon]

Parrot, and ignore.
You will repeat this question even though the answer stares you in the face.
It's irrelevant since all you have are explanation which are not even true, and can never be verified.
So, what is the use of arguing over any other explanation?
Oh. I know. "My explanation is better than yours, because blah blah blah, so there." Beats chest and feels pride rise.

OK!

I do not believe science argues as to what is 'True?'

Again . . . What would be a alternate explanation for the evidence we presently have?

 

[We Never Know]

I believe you are 'picking frog hairs over terminology. I believe the red shift is evidence of an expanding universe today. Yes, there is an inflationary model for our universe.

Future of an expanding universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"New research looking at the cosmological constant problem suggests the expansion of the universe could be an illusion"

The expansion of the universe could be a mirage, new theoretical study suggests

New research looking at the cosmological constant problem suggests the expansion of the universe could be an illusion.

www.space.com

 

[shunyadragon]

"New research looking at the cosmological constant problem suggests the expansion of the universe could be an illusion"

The expansion of the universe could be a mirage, new theoretical study suggests

New research looking at the cosmological constant problem suggests the expansion of the universe could be an illusion.

www.space.com

Could maybe possibly be, but the present evidence indicates the universe is expanding as the space between the galaxies is increasing..

 

[ratiocinator]

I believe you are 'picking frog hairs over terminology. I believe the red shift is evidence of an expanding universe today. Yes, there is an inflationary model for our universe.

You're just doubling down on your confusion. If the inflation hypothesis is correct, then inflation is no longer happening. The current expansion of the universe is a different process.

Read the link. Look at the diagram:

 

[nPeace]

OK!

I do not believe science argues as to what is 'True?'

Again . . . What would be a alternate explanation for the evidence we presently have?

The evidence I presently have is that the universe is orderly, and "fine tuned", and the earth is designed to support and sustain life.
It's evidence that is in agreement with the Bible, for which evidence exist in confirmation of its reliability and truthfulness.
They are both unifying evidence of an intelligent creator.
What evidence do you have?

 

[ratiocinator]

"New research looking at the cosmological constant problem suggests the expansion of the universe could be an illusion"

The expansion of the universe could be a mirage, new theoretical study suggests

New research looking at the cosmological constant problem suggests the expansion of the universe could be an illusion.

www.space.com

Okay, I found the paper (pdf) here: Cosmology in Minkowski space. Classical and Quantum Gravity looks like it's proper journal. Unfortunately my general relativity is not yet fluent enough for me to easily go through this (it would basically take me ages to even try) but I'd be interested in any comment from @Polymath257 about it.

 

[Polymath257]

Okay, I found the paper (pdf) here: Cosmology in Minkowski space. Classical and Quantum Gravity looks like it's proper journal. Unfortunately my general relativity is not yet fluent enough for me to easily go through this (it would basically take me ages to even try) but I'd be interested in any comment from @Polymath257 about it.

Color me unimpressed. In essence, this author takes the usual equations for general relativity and re-writes them using a different notation. In the new notation, you can interpret the universe as static, etc.

From what I can see, this amounts to saying the heliocentric solar system is wrong because we can rewrite newtons laws in a coordinate system where the Earth is at rest. of course, in this system, there are HUGE Coriolis forces and the coordinate system is anything but inertial. it can be done, but it isn't useful or even really a different system: just a more complicated system with exactly the same physics.

 

[Polymath257]

The evidence I presently have is that the universe is orderly, and "fine tuned", and the earth is designed to support and sustain life.

Neither of which is established, I might add. The 'fine tuned' aspect is assuming the physical constants *could* be other than they are, or that there are no unknown processes governing how they can change. Most examples of fine tuning have been dismissed because they take the wrong perspective.

One example is the claim that the Earth is 'designed to support life'. There is very little evidence that the Earth is special OR that it was initially capable of supporting life as we know it today. In fact, the original Earth would have been incredibly hostile to human life. it was compatible with anaerobic bacteria, but not much more complicated than that.

It wasn't until life started producing large amounts of oxygen that muticellular life became possible. The Earth of 2 billion years ago was a quite different planet than the Earth of today. If we found a planet like the Earth of 2 billion years ago, most people would argue that it was inhospitable for life.

It's evidence that is in agreement with the Bible, for which evidence exist in confirmation of its reliability and truthfulness.

Not even close. There is no 'firmament' that separates 'waters' above and below. There are no 'pillars of the Earth'. The sky is NOT like a tent that is 'spread out' over the Earth. Light existed well before 'the deep' (which was clearly water).

As a description of the universe, the Bible fails badly.

They are both unifying evidence of an intelligent creator.
What evidence do you have?

The actual universe as it is. The vast majority of the universe is hostile to life. The vast majority works by simple rules (minimize volume to get spheres, for example). it is what we expect from a physical system with feedback and NOT what would be expected by an intelligent designer (which would involve very simple systems to do complicated things as opposed to complicated system to do simple ones).

if the universe was designed, it was designed by a being complete uninterested in life as we know it or one that is completely inept.

 

[gnostic]

As you rightly said, some models are kept, and adjusted, and I would add, some hypotheses are proposed as solutions to retain the model, even if those solutions cannot be tested or verified... or might be assumed to be correct, even if there can be other explanations, or those solutions have problems themselves.

Hypotheses are “proposed solutions“, PERIOD!!!

They can extend, expand or modify existing models (or existing scientific theories), BUT ONLY AFTER THE HYPOTHESES HAVE BEEN TESTED RIGOROUSLY & VERIFIED…and not before they have been tested.

No hypotheses are accepted automatically or by-default as true, until they have tested & verified.

They are either verified or refuted, all depending upon the tests each explanation/prediction must undergo…and that there must observations.

OBSERVATIONS, as in observing the evidence, observing through experiments. And observations as in data, obtained through discoveries of evidence & experiments.

Of course, there are times when “parts” of a hypothesis have already been tested and verified, but will require more evidence either to complete the verification of the hypothesis, or the hypothesis itself is incomplete, therefore require more research on the matter or there are more to learn.

just about every scientific theories fit this bill. There are always more to learn and to understand.

The evidence I presently have is that the universe is orderly, and "fine tuned", and the earth is designed to support and sustain life.
It's evidence that is in agreement with the Bible, for which evidence exist in confirmation of its reliability and truthfulness.
They are both unifying evidence of an intelligent creator.
What evidence do you have?

Why is that creationists always pursue pseudoscience concepts?

it would seem that any pseudoscience claims that are out there, they are like magnets for creationists.

Previously, they were the geocentric model of Ptolemy and the Flat Earth. Then there were revised version of spontaneous generation and the Watchmaker analogy in the 19th century.

in the 20th century, they would continue to follow any woo-concepts, like Intelligent Design (which would include the pseudoscience of Irreducible Complexity and Specified Complexity), and this Fine-tuned Universe.

it is perhaps not so surprising, when you consider that every time that have been new hiccups in the world, that are those doomsayers announcing the signs of end of the world as Book of Revelation narrated, only to find they were wrong again. Genesis and Revelation always seemed to draw the most nuttiest concepts from creationists and doomsayers.

 

[nPeace]

The evidence I presently have is that the universe is orderly, and "fine tuned", and the earth is designed to support and sustain life.
It's evidence that is in agreement with the Bible, for which evidence exist in confirmation of its reliability and truthfulness.
What evidence do you have?

Neither of which is established, I might add.

Established? By whom?

The 'fine tuned' aspect is assuming the physical constants *could* be other than they are, or that there are no unknown processes governing how they can change.

There are a lot of may bes and could bes out there. I hope we made clear to you why yours don't make sense. If you don't recall, I can remind you... if you like.

Most examples of fine tuning have been dismissed because they take the wrong perspective.

The wrong perspective? What perspective are you coming from?

One example is the claim that the Earth is 'designed to support life'. There is very little evidence that the Earth is special OR that it was initially capable of supporting life as we know it today.

Very little? That suggest you are saying there is some evidence.
Would you mind listing those "little" bits you reject, and why you don't accept them?

Be aware though that I disagree with your claim of there being "very little evidence that the Earth is special".
I am prepared to list the evidence for you, that show the earth is of special design.

I believe everyone knows that the earth in its initial state was incapable of supporting life. It's right there in the first book on creation. Genesis 1:2

In fact, the original Earth would have been incredibly hostile to human life. it was compatible with anaerobic bacteria, but not much more complicated than that.

We know. Everyone should know that even before scientists today found out.
Actually, that ought to be something persons like yourself, should take note of.
It could be headlines actually... "Long before scientists in the 19th century, discovered that "the original Earth would have been incredibly hostile to human life", people living 50-60 centuries ago, already knew."

If those people actually had the privilege to be alive today, and have front row seat to a blockbuster film "The Amazing Knowledge of Modern Man" featuring recent scientific discoveries, they would probably look at each other like... 'They now know that...' and go 'Ha Ha Ha'. The rest of the audience might wonder what's wrong with those nuts up front.

It wasn't until life started producing large amounts of oxygen that muticellular life became possible. The Earth of 2 billion years ago was a quite different planet than the Earth of today. If we found a planet like the Earth of 2 billion years ago, most people would argue that it was inhospitable for life.

If you said that at my former school, during that time, some would go... "Columbus!" Or "Duh"... meaning, 'you aren't being informative'.

Not even close. There is no 'firmament' that separates 'waters' above and below.

Currently, there is water above the expanse. Yes.

Can you see it?

However, you don't know that there was not more water above the expanse, than today. The Bible does not say the amount of water. However, the ancients knew what has been discovered today as well. Why not benefit from the previous lesson? Over 50 centuries of knowledge.
There are lots of things they knew, which you are now finding. All it takes is humility Poly.

NASA says this.
The Solar System and Beyond is Awash in Water
It's easy to forget that the story of Earth's water, from gentle rains to raging rivers, is intimately connected to the larger story of our solar system and beyond. But our water came from somewhere -- every world in our solar system got its water from the same shared source. So it's worth considering that the next glass of water you drink could easily have been part of a comet, or an ocean moon, or a long-vanished sea on the surface of Mars. And note that the night sky may be full of exoplanets formed by similar processes to our home world, where gentle waves wash against the shores of alien seas.

The chemical elements in water, hydrogen and oxygen, are some of the most abundant elements in the universe.
The atmospheres and interiors of the four giant planets — Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune — are thought to contain enormous quantities of the wet stuff, and their moons and rings have substantial water ice.

Space clouds contain water enough to fill oceans
We’re detecting alcohol in space, and most importantly, water

So, you don't know very much about our universe, to be able to claim that there was no water above the expanse, as God said.

There are no 'pillars of the Earth'.

Neither does the earth have four corners. Nor does the sun rise and set, but we use such expressions... perhaps because we humans tend to be a little 'poetic'... if you like.
It's probably because we like to use comparative analogies. I don't know.

So yeah. There are pillars of the earth, and four corners of the earth

...and the sun rises and sets where I live.

The sky is NOT like a tent that is 'spread out' over the Earth.

Of course it is.
You are still smarting from being unable to refute the fact that the ancients knew the earth hangs upon nothing, centuries in advance of common knowledge, aren't you.
Let's be reasonable here. The sky is indeed like - Similar to (Like means ‘similar to’. Not is) a tent. Have you looked up lately?
If a child told you, the sky is like a tent, you wouldn't get ridiculous with them, and tell them it's not would you?

Light existed well before 'the deep' (which was clearly water).

Light existed well before anything known to man. So did time. Yet, man says they both existed at a point in time. Why? Because they measure from a particular time.
Similarly, since light had not reached the earth until a particular time, light came to be... upon the earth... at that particular time.

As a description of the universe, the Bible fails badly.

No it doesn't. It actually quite accurate. ...but it's clear you desperately wish it weren't... and we both know why.

The actual universe as it is. The vast majority of the universe is hostile to life. The vast majority works by simple rules (minimize volume to get spheres, for example). it is what we expect from a physical system with feedback and NOT what would be expected by an intelligent designer (which would involve very simple systems to do complicated things as opposed to complicated system to do simple ones).

if the universe was designed, it was designed by a being complete uninterested in life as we know it or one that is completely inept.

People say the same about our earth.
I mean... look at it. This world is not conducive to life, so some conclude that either God isn't, or if he is, he is uninterested.
So, I think a good question to ask is, why? Why is the world so chaotic? Perhaps the answer is the same for the universe.

Humans aren't just making Earth warmer, they are making the climate chaotic, a stark new study suggests.

It's something to think about.
If Elon Musk's cars were used by buyers, in demolition derbies, I'm sure he would take a hands off approach as well... until he found responsible users.
God has allowed the chaos to run its course. The responsible users are being prepared to reap the goods... spoil, if you like.

Why is that creationists always pursue pseudoscience concepts?

it would seem that any pseudoscience claims that are out there, they are like magnets for creationists.

Is that what you call it?
It's not science. Why do you think everything must be science.
If I choose to plant trees in front of my home, because I believe they will do a good job of keeping the sun out, and at the same time I can enjoy the birds singing, I don't need a science paper to believe that.

Using common sense is a human ability. It doesn't require lab coats.

Previously, they were the geocentric model of Ptolemy and the Flat Earth. Then there were revised version of spontaneous generation and the Watchmaker analogy in the 19th century.

in the 20th century, they would continue to follow any woo-concepts, like Intelligent Design (which would include the pseudoscience of Irreducible Complexity and Specified Complexity), and this Fine-tuned Universe.

it is perhaps not so surprising, when you consider that every time that have been new hiccups in the world, that are those doomsayers announcing the signs of end of the world as Book of Revelation narrated, only to find they were wrong again. Genesis and Revelation always seemed to draw the most nuttiest concepts from creationists and doomsayers.

You can choose to believe whatever you want mate... including whatever opinion you may have that cannot be verified.
As for me, until I see a house build itself, I will not believe that intricately designed things which man try so hard to duplicate, are a product of natural undirected processes.
We ought to know what design is.

As, you are entitled to your beliefs, I am entitled to mine.
You can call them what you like, we have a term for yours also.

 

[gnostic]

As for me, until I see a house build itself, I will not believe that intricately designed things which man try so hard to duplicate, are a product of natural undirected processes.

Of course, humans designed and built houses. There are evidence for humans existing and for architects designing, for construction company employing builders or hire subcontractors to build houses.

Everyone involved in the building houses are not invisible or imaginary or mythological people.

The same cannot be said about God, Creator or Designer, there are no evidence for their existence, let alone evidence of them creating anything.

Humans exist, god don’t.

Are you so daft that you cannot distinguish what is real and what is not?

All you are doing, are making false comparisons, between what humans can really do, with myths of being that don’t exist and cannot possibly create anything.

Do you know what a “False Equivalence” is?

That’s what creationists do with analogies. The use of analogies are honest comparisons, and they certainly don’t make whatever you are comparing to as facts.

 

[nPeace]

Of course, humans designed and built houses. There are evidence for humans existing and for architects designing, for construction company employing builders or hire subcontractors to build houses.

Everyone involved in the building houses are not invisible or imaginary or mythological people.

The same cannot be said about God, Creator or Designer, there are no evidence for their existence, let alone evidence of them creating anything.

Humans exist, god don’t.

Prove your claim.

Are you so daft that you cannot distinguish what is real and what is not?

Don't get personal because of your ignorance and inability to demonstrate your beliefs are actually reality.

All you are doing, are making false comparisons, between what humans can really do, with myths of being that don’t exist and cannot possibly create anything.

No. I have evidence... whether you chose to accept that, or believe otherwise.

Do you know what a “False Equivalence” is?

That’s what creationists do with analogies. The use of analogies are honest comparisons, and they certainly don’t make whatever you are comparing to as facts.

No. It's the ability to reason. It's no different to what all scientists do... including those that do not agree with what you believe.
In case you haven't noticed, scientists do not agree. There is a reason why. Your beliefs cannot be verified.

 

[gnostic]

Prove your claim.

Before changing my career into IT & computer programming, I was qualified civil engineer, but my first job was 6 month as a draughtsman working for state government in the Design and Project department, a department that were responsible for government-own housing, that include renovation and maintenance.

As I was assisting a number of architects, I can tell they are real people, not invisible entities, like your nonexistent and imaginary god.

I cannot prove or disprove any god that don’t exist, but since you are the one who believe in such a being, then the actual responsibility for the burden of proof falls upon you, since you were the one who made the extraordinary claims:

The evidence I presently have is that the universe is orderly, and "fine tuned", and the earth is designed to support and sustain life.
It's evidence that is in agreement with the Bible, for which evidence exist in confirmation of its reliability and truthfulness.
They are both unifying evidence of an intelligent creator.

You are the one making such claims, then it falls upon you to back those claims up with evidence about your “fine-tuned universe”, the “designed life” and your “intelligent creator”.

You don’t shift your responsibility upon others who just disagree with you and nonsensical opinions.

 

[Polymath257]

Established? By whom?

There are a lot of may bes and could bes out there. I hope we made clear to you why yours don't make sense. If you don't recall, I can remind you... if you like.

Sure, go ahead.

The wrong perspective? What perspective are you coming from?

Attempting to discover the truth, but wanting it to be clear not false.

Very little? That suggest you are saying there is some evidence.
Would you mind listing those "little" bits you reject, and why you don't accept them?

Sure. Some people claim that the fact that Jupiter exists in our solar system makes Earth special. Jupiter would serve to 'mop up' asteroids and reduce the number hitting other planets. This neglects the influence of Jupiter on preventing asteroids from condensing into a planet in the first place.

That's the only example I have seen that makes any sense at all.

Be aware though that I disagree with your claim of there being "very little evidence that the Earth is special".
I am prepared to list the evidence for you, that show the earth is of special design.

Please do if you are willing to listen to the refutations.

I believe everyone knows that the earth in its initial state was incapable of supporting life. It's right there in the first book on creation. Genesis 1:2


We know. Everyone should know that even before scientists today found out.
Actually, that ought to be something persons like yourself, should take note of.
It could be headlines actually... "Long before scientists in the 19th century, discovered that "the original Earth would have been incredibly hostile to human life", people living 50-60 centuries ago, already knew."

You aren't listening. The early Earth was hostile to the point that no plants, animals, fungi, or ANYTHING other than anaerobic bacteria could live. This is quite different than life being har 5000 years ago. There was almost no oxygen in the atmosphere early on, which would prevent humans being about to live on Earth at all.

The hostility of 5000 years ago was a pleasure palace compared to what i am talking about.

If those people actually had the privilege to be alive today, and have front row seat to a blockbuster film "The Amazing Knowledge of Modern Man" featuring recent scientific discoveries, they would probably look at each other like... 'They now know that...' and go 'Ha Ha Ha'. The rest of the audience might wonder what's wrong with those nuts up front.


If you said that at my former school, during that time, some would go... "Columbus!" Or "Duh"... meaning, 'you aren't being informative'.


Currently, there is water above the expanse. Yes.

Can you see it?

However, you don't know that there was not more water above the expanse, than today. The Bible does not say the amount of water. However, the ancients knew what has been discovered today as well. Why not benefit from the previous lesson? Over 50 centuries of knowledge.
There are lots of things they knew, which you are now finding. All it takes is humility Poly.

Sorry, but that makes no sense in the context of the Bible. The 'water' we have found in outer space has NOTHING to do with the Earth. it isn't separated by a firmament.

NASA says this.
The Solar System and Beyond is Awash in Water
It's easy to forget that the story of Earth's water, from gentle rains to raging rivers, is intimately connected to the larger story of our solar system and beyond. But our water came from somewhere -- every world in our solar system got its water from the same shared source. So it's worth considering that the next glass of water you drink could easily have been part of a comet, or an ocean moon, or a long-vanished sea on the surface of Mars. And note that the night sky may be full of exoplanets formed by similar processes to our home world, where gentle waves wash against the shores of alien seas.

The chemical elements in water, hydrogen and oxygen, are some of the most abundant elements in the universe.
The atmospheres and interiors of the four giant planets — Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune — are thought to contain enormous quantities of the wet stuff, and their moons and rings have substantial water ice.

Space clouds contain water enough to fill oceans
We’re detecting alcohol in space, and most importantly, water

So, you don't know very much about our universe, to be able to claim that there was no water above the expanse, as God said.

How can you read Genesis and see this as being at all relevant to what is said in the Bible?

Neither does the earth have four corners. Nor does the sun rise and set, but we use such expressions... perhaps because we humans tend to be a little 'poetic'... if you like.
It's probably because we like to use comparative analogies. I don't know.

So yeah. There are pillars of the earth, and four corners of the earth

...and the sun rises and sets where I live.


Of course it is.
You are still smarting from being unable to refute the fact that the ancients knew the earth hangs upon nothing, centuries in advance of common knowledge, aren't you.
Let's be reasonable here. The sky is indeed like - Similar to (Like means ‘similar to’. Not is) a tent. Have you looked up lately?
If a child told you, the sky is like a tent, you wouldn't get ridiculous with them, and tell them it's not would you?

Yes, I would, unless I was just enjoying their type naive outlook. The sky is NOTHING at all like a tent. Tents have material that can separate an inside from an outside. And, it is clear that the 'firmament' of Genesis was viewed in that way. But it isn't at all what is reality.

Light existed well before anything known to man. So did time. Yet, man says they both existed at a point in time. Why? Because they measure from a particular time.
Similarly, since light had not reached the earth until a particular time, light came to be... upon the earth... at that particular time.

Huh? How would light have not reached Earth? it was produced in the sun and the Earth formed after the sun.

No it doesn't. It actually quite accurate. ...but it's clear you desperately wish it weren't... and we both know why.

No, the Bible has a universe that is quite small. This was the typical view at the time (we have a text from Archimedes that computes the universe to be about a billion miles in radius).

People say the same about our earth.
I mean... look at it. This world is not conducive to life, so some conclude that either God isn't, or if he is, he is uninterested.

I'm not clear about whether you are being deliberately dense or whether you really don't grasp the differences here. The Earth currwently is quite hospitable to complex life. That is because it has changed greatly from what it was 2 billion years ago. Look around. You can see complex life everywhere.

So, I think a good question to ask is, why? Why is the world so chaotic? Perhaps the answer is the same for the universe.

Humans aren't just making Earth warmer, they are making the climate chaotic, a stark new study suggests.

It's something to think about.
If Elon Musk's cars were used by buyers, in demolition derbies, I'm sure he would take a hands off approach as well... until he found responsible users.
God has allowed the chaos to run its course. The responsible users are being prepared to reap the goods... spoil, if you like.


Is that what you call it?
It's not science. Why do you think everything must be science.
If I choose to plant trees in front of my home, because I believe they will do a good job of keeping the sun out, and at the same time I can enjoy the birds singing, I don't need a science paper to believe that.

Using common sense is a human ability. It doesn't require lab coats.


You can choose to believe whatever you want mate... including whatever opinion you may have that cannot be verified.
As for me, until I see a house build itself, I will not believe that intricately designed things which man try so hard to duplicate, are a product of natural undirected processes.
We ought to know what design is.

As, you are entitled to your beliefs, I am entitled to mine.
You can call them what you like, we have a term for yours also.

Yes, you are entitled to your beliefs, however wrong they are. People are allowed to belief strange and false things. You can believe in trolls or the Loch Ness Monster, or Big Foot if you want. Nobody is going to stop you.

But they aren't true.