[Chandler Frank]

Iclaudius

Quote by: Chandler Frank Thus in the same sense you have also proved that God exists. Your theory is flawed. You have proved that anything at all exists, you have proved that any two diametrically opposed point of view (not these two, as there can be crossover) could co-exist, though by your own logic again they could not. I'm sure you are smart enough to figure that out without an allegory. And I hope you'll drop it.

I haven't proved God exists, because (among many other reasons) God reflexively has the ability to alter laws of physics at will. This makes him an impossible possibility, therefore, even in the context of infinity, he doesn't exist. I was referring to all things physically possible being existent, and not extra-physical constructs.

I fail to see how diametrically opposite possibilities being simultaneously possible and impossible would disprove that the universe is infinite.

There is also the Second law of Thermodynamics to consider, which tends to a finite universe. The red shift and expansion of the universe point to a starting point at some time. (Although I have seen an interesting article on the fact that the universe may now be expanding, but rather light may be slowing down - quite interesting) As well as the Theory of the Big Bang, which is a theory posed to explain the finite universe.

The real problem with the second law of thermodynamics isn't that there's an inconsistency, it's that you don't understand it. If the universe is infinite, then there is infinite matter. In an infinite universe with infinite matter, everything has already reached dynamic equilibrium with respects to the 2nd law. All closed systems reacting correspond directly to other system(s), and their actions together balance each other out. In a closed system, yes, things tend to entropy, but in a system as vast as that which we speak of, these closed systems are a very small part of the picture.

As for the Big Bang, I don't remember saying I subscribed to it, and I don't see why I should rebut it, since you've already done that yourself.

read this link: A Theory of Small Evolution Sure, with your 'infinite universe' rubbish you can justify your claim once again, but then we get the same old story. This guy does a very good job at the scientific evidence. In fact I would challenge you to read the rest of his material, he knows his stuff, and does a much better job than I at articulating such stuff. (Also saves me time in reiterating many of the same arguments ) in particular read: The Mutation Problem Introduction to this Web Site (this is in fact the site with the light slowing down theory, also) Yeah, I know it's a long read, but it would be just as long a read should I explain the same theories...

Eh, I don't have the time or energy to read all that right now, but I'll get to it eventually. But regardless of what you think, the universe is infinite, and evolution does exist. If not here, then somewhere. I've read dozens of sites claiming to debunk evolution with supposed evidence, but I've yet to see compelling evidence not to believe the theory.