Dinosaurs co-existed with man.

[jneul]

highwaystar101 said:

jneul said:

highwaystar101 said:

jneul said:

we will only know when revelations comes true

OT: different people have different beliefs, I myself believe the universe too complicated to be created by accident (i.e big bang), just think about what it would take to create the perfect solar system for earth and it just happened to be habitable, funny if it happened by accident, because that would be lucky

The Big Bang wasn't an accident per se. But that's not the point.

The Big Bang theory is well supported, and I would love for people to understand the evidence a little better because it's such a beautiful and fascinating theory. For example, the Big Bang theory is supported by the metric expansion of space, which has been observed in detail many times through the colour shift (from the Doppler effect) in other galaxies. If you extrapolate the expansion backwards you find that everything in the universe had to be part of a singularity around 13.7 - 0.02 Bn years ago.

I mean, that's just incredible and it's even more amazing that we've sat and worked it out.

I asked Pizzahut what his interpretation of this was because he didn't accept the Big Bang theory either (well, he called it a retarded theory), but he never replied. And I would love to genuinely know how Big Bang sceptics treat that evidence.

The Big Bang is also interesting because it doesn't involve removing the notion of god, yet many people treat it like it does. I can note many people who have been religious and accepted the Big Bang theory, such a pope Pius XII, pope John Paul II, George Lemaitre, etc. i don't understand the automatic reflex against it.

It doesn't involve the removal of god and it it is backed up with lots of compelling and wonderful evidence. 

no i accept god could have started the big-bang but it was no accident that's what i ment, which is why the universe is so complicated, just my view of course.

Sorry, I didn't get that

In that case you need to extend this to the anthropic principle, which is my view. Essentially it is the notion that it takes life to observe life, and no matter how unlikely life is, the illusion of high chances is removed because only life can recognise that life exists.

I liken it to winning the lottery. reality is a place full of desperate odd, but with those desperate odds are high numbers to accommodate them. Week in week out people win the lottery, but the odds of you winning are astronomical.

Only those who win the lottery know what it is like to live the life of a lottery winner, and the average person is extremely unlikely to live that life, yet people do.

 

This all also assumes that we are the only combination of life that can exist. That us fleshy Carbon based life forms are the only ones.

In a different Universe with different laws of physics another type of life would exist. A lifeform in a Universe with no gravity would be different to us, but it has been hypothesised and well supported that such life can exist. A lifeform in a Universe with little Carbon could probably use Silicon as their base element.

We mustn't forget the very real likelihood that our type of life is the type of life that is supported by our universe, yet in another universe with different laws of nature a different type of life will exist.

in a way that makes a lot of sense to me when I actually think about it, I just never did, in a way you are right and we could have adapted to our environment to put it in simple terms, I mean just look at people who ,live in hotter areas of the earth they are more resilient to the heat but feel the cold more, and people who went to live at higher altitude's have stated it took them a while to adapt and they thought it would be impossible to have children in new situations, but it eventually happened and apparently the children were acclimatised, just some info I found out on the internet

does this make sense to you, did I understand right??