This is getting a bit off topic but as a courtesy I will respond.
I never put any faith into the Big Bang creation of the Universe.
I have my own ideas on that and they work enough for me.

Basically, think percolation of heat from a state of absolute zero.
Not atomically transmitted but quantumly at the smallest instance of energy.
Everything was frozen completely.
"Something" moved and poof the Universe erupted quantumly everywhere at once.
Particles and anti-particles erupted. Some were annihilated, some were not. The resulting movement would appear to be percolating and would have no starting location or directionality.
The eruption of mass would interact and larger structures would form, having mass and gravity.
Evolve that 14 billion years or so any you get what we see now.

Blimey , I'm clearly a bit out of my depth, and very tired. I must look at this thread again when I've had some sleep. I feel like I'm in a room with Dr Sheldon Cooper. For some reason I can't help but think of shelleys fankenstein , and gene wilder

Simulated means absolutely nothing.

Within the simulation, the simulated percieves the rest of the simulation as a reality because, to them, it is.

I see the Universe as a collection of energy of different densities.
Even what we think of as empty space is full of energy.
The only state that has no energy is TRUE absolute zero.
True Absolute Zero cannot happen in a Universe full of energy.
The only way True Absolute Zero can happen is if all the engergy also comes to a halt (Frozen).
Which is the state at the very beginning of the Universe in my model.

interesting concept there.

there are some astrophysicists who claim it would take trillions [not billions] of years to evolve to where we are in our current state. they claim the evolving process is much slower than what current science believes.

anyway, you are correct and we are off topic. will definitely watch your responses to this forums threads to achieve better insight

I see your point of view definitely.
like the star going nova. it's constantly consuming energy. therefore, dark matter, plasma, particles, and other objects are full of consumable energy.

My views are my own.
You should embrace your own views.
Find the ones that make you content.

Evolution happens constantly and at different rates.
Human beings can barely grasp the concept of 100 years let alone a million or a billion.
Its because we don't live (experience things) that long.
There are many that will not believe the Universe is older than they are because they have not seen it any longer.
Always and forever are absolutes with no definition. Like infinity.
All scientific theories of distance and age of the Universe are based on extrapolations of some witnessed experience.
Decay rates, speed of light in a vacuum and on and on and on...
Problem is chaos.
Chaos is ignorance of all knowledge.
Without posessing knowledge of everything, everywhere, everywhen, chaos will exist.

I have my own theories and idealism

I also like to question scientific evidence. my major is mathematics and I prefer inherited traits over natural selection. I also have issue with scientific dating methods. whenever you take a test sample from an unstable environment and test it in a stable enclosure appears you want to determine age based upon preference, not of fact. and radiology-uranium-carbon seem to falter due to this very process.

to me, when science begins to skew its findings in order to appease its financiers due to personal beliefs, you have become the same as those you are direct opponents to [those who believe in God/creationism].

and in my own views, I feel science has not proven there is no God, but has proven there is in fact a God.

Awesome discussion y’all, I AM, Tom, R2, rockz. It is always inspiring to wonder about how we fit it in to this astronomical world. In my opinion, forming in words an unfettered explanation of the world (science) is a form of prayer. Engineering gets into asking for things in prayer. Free thinking is important for any faith. God is certainly in my vocabulary. Since there is a beginning and end in this universe, maybe successful adaptation is about how to practice religion.

Either way, I don’t think winning is about domination, but identity rather. And I was thinking more along the lines of stealth, isolationism, courtship, and family life to win, rather than by outright death of others. People are a little bit differently evolved in each of the different European countries. I think it would be important, whether in evolution or mere adaptation in life, to make the worst outcomes impossible and the best outcome possible.

Cheers y’all

Arfvedson, you might find a few of these links an interesting read...

First just some wiki~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocultural_evolution



The evolution of society
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781882/

Societies evolve in steps
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101013/full/news.2010.537.html

The Rise of Civilization and the Evolution of Personality
http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/smith.html

I have not read all of the latest posts, I confess. 1stly a retort 2 tomruthere. No I didn't know that we are currently in an ice age. This baffles me as it is warm sometimes. Yes I'm aware there is a difference between evolution (which I'm aware is perpetual) and civilization, however I would argue that the 2 are linked. I would say that civilization is a product of humans evolution, and that evolution itself cannot be controlled by us . if this is so perhaps it would be better to focus on something we could possibly have an impact on.

I also this think all this boils down to which theory do you subscribe to - god - alien intervention or random chance ( there are perhaps other theory's I have not considered or are even aware of)

I prefer to think of nature as a divine sort if force, and I do think she can sometimes be manipulated though whether this is a good thing I'm unsure.

Also somewhat linked to your own keyboard thoughts and somewhat of a philosophical musing I think. Do we not need thought and fantasy for things to become a reality. And which is more real and evoloved the physical reality or the one that manifests itself on physical and unphysical reality. Food for thought indeed.

Thank you for your kind words Tom, you rock too, I will mail you my name, I would prefer not to post it as I think I've been hacked and would prefer to remain somewhat anonymous

Plus, there is what is known of as
Transhumanism (abbreviated as H+ or h+) is an international intellectual movement that aims to transform the human condition by developing and making widely available sophisticated technologies to greatly enhance human intellect and physiology.

http://whatistranshumanism.org/
Transhumanism is a class of philosophies of life that seek the continuation and acceleration of the evolution of intelligent life beyond its currently human form and human limitations by means of science and technology, guided by life-promoting principles and values.
– Max More (1990)

Kurzweil accelerating intelligence
http://www.kurzweilai.net/

Transhumanist Values ~ Oxford University, Faculty of Philosophy
http://nickbostrom.com/ethics/values.html
Transhumanism advocates the well-being of all sentience, whether in artificial intellects, humans, and non-human animals (including extraterrestrial species, if there are any). Racism, sexism, speciesism, belligerent nationalism and religious intolerance are unacceptable.

As I've said before here, I don't see a problem with God and Science coexisting. I don't see it as an either/or type of thing.
Since we don't know all that is knowable, I think it could be possible, perhaps even probable.

and I believe this is where science as a whole is at to a certain degree. according to PEW RESEARCH POLL...

According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.
Scientists and Belief | Pew Research Center
www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

I find this to be most fascinating to think those within science [lab rats] may attend a church service while believing in a greater power or God Yahweh/Yeshua, and claim their work had brought them to this conclusion of the existence of a God, but then can return on Monday and be a vital piece of the scientific puzzle for the betterment of mankind and discovery.

but then again, if we understand history concerning the person called Galileo [believer of GOD] [great mathematician who visibly understood pattern formation within the stars = big dipper, little dipper examples of pattern formation = our universe pattern to understand there are more universes out there]...he and science battled in his day. back then math and science were separate entities. basically, scientific proof was just an opinion back then since it had not involved mathematics to create formulas and scientific proof. even quantum mechanics came much later due to Einstein in the early 1900's.

but as someone who works with mathematics daily I also see Einstein's flaws. and much of why I prefer Tesla's theories over Einstein's in the world of electronics!!

but I am amazed that even science itself evolved. it went from a theory based upon opinions to theories backed by mathematics.

I look at this way. the term alien is a perfect expression from the atheist viewpoint. anything with higher knowledge outside of the universe is alien in nature to them. but then again, so is the concept of God. so, in my opinion, when science claims alien it means God. because God is alien to the atheist!!

something else interesting. mathematics vs science. science on its own fails without mathematical proofs. this automatically means mathematics is the purest and highest form of truth we have. and did you know that Galileo said, "Mathematics is the alphabet by which God created the universe?"

well, when you consider how quantum mechanics works [formulas], it does take mathematics to explain all things we know from gravity, electromagnetics, singularity, even our weather patterns are determined by algorithms. all defined by the highest form of truth we know!!

Magik number ey, don't know much about Tesla, but it seems money spoils everything I like Trevor bayliss who invented a wind up radio and chose 2 make nothing so people in poorer parts of the world could benefit from it, whether that happened or not I'm not sure but that was his intention

I am an atheist and am a supporter for gay marriage and abhor any kind of prejudice that considers them to be evil or lesser people because they're gay. On the other hand I'm a straight male who finds gay men alien to myself because I don't understand how they can find men attractive instead of women. Does that mean god is gay?

Here's an entertaining thought;

Y'know how ants and bees have developed drones? A long time ago ants and bees were herto but went gay. They evolved into sexless drones. Stop using it, ya lose it.

Now, imagine if all humans were suddenly gay. First of all it would certainly curtail the over-population issue. Then, there would be a period of evolution where we would generate population thru scientific means.
However, over evolutionary change our manufactured humans would posess less and less sexuality.
How many generations would it take to evolve into sexless drones?
Might your God then be the mutated exception that posesses sexual reproductive abilities like a queen and her males?

I'm not qualified to answer that question, but its an interesting 1. I don't know if I even believe in god. If there is 1, or more , surely he/she/they can't be prejudice

scientifically speaking here:

there is a belief the mental make-up of someone claiming to be gay is similar to those diagnosed as psychologically damaged.

now, what if this is true. someone really is not born gay, but is born mentally unstable.

i bring this up because there is a large population of gay people within science....and that leads to a serious question: are they just claiming to be born this way because being known as psychologically damaged sounds bad?

i find it fascinating because if a young boy is abused sexually they many times just go gay. this does not mean that boy was gay when he was raped and abused. it means after being traumatized he became gender confused, imo.

or, the young boy being fed soy beans and no meat and ends up over loading on estrogen because of vegan parents. was this boy born gay, or did his parents make him feminine?

i just don't buy the being born that way, when i know mentally they are the same as those diagnosed as being psychologically damaged!!

i just find it is an excuse because explaining you are mentally damaged would scare some people.