If you don't believe in evolution, do not post in this thread. This is a question aimed towards those who, like me, believe in the concept of evolution.
So here is my question for you, evolution shows that we were once monkey type animals at one point, and look at where we are now. In a million years, if we were still alive, what do you think we would become? Or, do you think that we would continue to change and evolve?
Yep! The energy that we have now will not be destroyed and be created later. What we have is what we will have forever. Seeing that this is the law of conservation proves my point. Saying that the universe was created is blasphemy, while saying that there is an endless cycle of it is not. If matter has always been here and will always be here, the universe just recycles it continuously.
You can't blaspheme against science, duh. The conservation of energy and mass bring up a good point though; basically where did the original energy and mass come from?
If it isn't in a cycle and there was an origination of the matter, strangely there is a sound explanation, unlike if you're talking about a cyclical Universe. If there was a single Big Bang to kick off the Universe, then assuming time is relative to space, time would be all in the singularity as well - without any form of sequence, there would be no law of cause and effect and therefore no need for an origin of the matter - it could just pop into existence, reach critical mass, and explode.
See that's harder for me to believe than the existence of God or some form of deity. On second though their both equally difficult for me to believe because something popping into existence would seem to defy the laws of physics.
well it depends on how long. in a long time girls will stop growing hair on their legs, armpits, ect. we could be very fat if we keep eating has much as we do... Americans anyway. or we might not be here at all if there is some sort of run in involving the U.S. and Russia
its a tough call. i think that we will start growing more and eventually become an average height of 10 feet tall.... looking at statistics of the last 2000 years anyway
I honestly think we will become Perfect Androids. Perfect androids are pretty much humans, but with mechanical bodies, and a few modifications on our brains. Or if we make a supercomputer, we may end up with the perfect video game (the matrix is that). There are just too many possibilities, but I we're more on the Perfect Android path than they perfect video game.
honestly think we will become Perfect Androids. Perfect androids are pretty much humans, but with mechanical bodies, and a few modifications on our brains.
Do you mean like cyborgs, just the entire body, instead of parts of it?
See that's harder for me to believe than the existence of God or some form of deity. On second though their both equally difficult for me to believe because something popping into existence would seem to defy the laws of physics.
I'm going to sum up the thrust of the argument here:
TERMINATOR.
Okay, with that out of the way:
The energy that we have now will not be destroyed and be created later. What we have is what we will have forever.
TANGENT TIEM!
I take it that you mean "not be destroyed nor created later". But you haven't mentioned the second law of thermodynamics: entropy.
Given that you use the law of conservation in this way, your premise appears to be that you consider the universe to be a closed system. I don't know whether I agree on this or not, but I will use this premise for the sake of pointing out that, simply put, within a closed system, order will trend towards chaos, and the costs of imposing order is more chaos. Thus, according to the laws of thermodynamics, what we have being forever is not exactly meaningful, if the word forever is taken to be meaningful.
My understanding of this is only rudimentary, but the "cyclical universe" theory appears to contradict the 2nd law, given the 2nd law describes irreversibility in nature.
What I have just described above, in essence, is the theory of Heat death of the Universe*. If you want to see a list of some of the theories of the fate of the universe, you might want to skim this*.
* Note: both these links are Wikipedia pages. I make no claims as to their integrity, as that is not related to the purpose for my having posted them here.
Seeing that this is the law of conservation proves my point.
Your phrasing appears to represent a tautology. You stated an interpretation of a definition and then restated the title of the definition claiming that in there, somehow, was an argument where, well, none exists.
