Just to put the last nail in the 'argument from complexity' coffin...

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

The three possible types of expanding universes are called open, flat, and closed universes. If the universe were open, it would expand forever. If the universe were flat, it would also expand forever, but the expansion rate would slow to zero after an infinite amount of time. If the universe were closed, it would eventually stop expanding and recollapse on itself, possibly leading to another big bang. In all three cases, the expansion slows, and the force that causes the slowing is gravity

.

I know the biggest problem most people have, and that is reading and understanding what they read.

Read this again: The three possible types of expanding universes are called open, flat, and closed universes.

What are you discussing here! The infinite or which shape our universe has?

There is a big difference between the shape our universe might have,and what shape the infinite dimension has. The probability that the infinite doesn't have a shape is staggering.

Non the less, it doesn't matter what shape our universe has. Because non of the shapes can be infinite.They are all a finite mass of compressed infinite energy that might have different shapes do to a expansion speed.

You have to stop talking about our universe as if it was infinite. Because it is not infinite, it is expanding/changing.

If it was infinite it wouldn't change, and it wouldn't have a shape. The only way we can observe a shape is if there is a space/back ground surrounding it that is different than the shape observed. What would you call that space?

reply to post by ACTS 2:38


Wow...someone missed the point. The point was that the copper wires are less complex yet they aren't natural...and that the wall of driftwood is far more complex than the brick wall...

And now you're just going ahead and moving on to the DNA thing...which science has sort of tackled. Most people in the field of abiogenesis don't posit that DNA arose with the first life forms....so...you don't really have much of a point.

reply to post by spy66


It's clear to see you're not willing to accept that you're wrong.

Go ask some reputable physicists and/or cosmologists.

Joseph Silk admits we don't know but he also goes on to say that the model we are most comfortable with right now is...THE FLAT UNIVERSE....source

and straight from NASA

The shape of the universe is determined by a struggle between the momentum of expansion and the pull of gravity. The rate of expansion is expressed by the Hubble Constant, Ho, while the strength of gravity depends on the density and pressure of the matter in the universe. If the pressure of the matter is low, as is the case with most forms of matter we know of, then the fate of the universe is governed by the density. If the density of the universe is less than the "critical density" which is proportional to the square of the Hubble constant, then the universe will expand forever. If the density of the universe is greater than the "critical density", then gravity will eventually win and the universe will collapse back on itself, the so called "Big Crunch". However, the results of the WMAP mission and observations of distant supernova have suggested that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating which implies the existence of a form of matter with a strong negative pressure, such as the cosmological constant. This strange form of matter is also sometimes referred to as the "dark energy". If dark energy in fact plays a significant role in the evolution of the universe, then in all likelihood the universe will continue to expand forever.

source

Go argue with them buddy. You're not convincing anyone here.

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


Well i am not afraid to challenge a source like some people, or most of you.

I do read what the different sources tell/say, but that doesn't mean i agree with everything they talk about.


I wasn't trying to convince you. I was trying to make you think on your own. I guess that is out of question.

Your knowledge is on hold until your sources can provide you with some more information.

originally posted by: madnessinmysoul
This is going to be quick and it's going to be mainly based in pictures...if you need further explanation, I bemoan the education system.

Naturally occurring:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c6b7165184ba.jpg[/atsimg]




Designed:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4f85d4088ad7.jpg[/atsimg]




Naturally occurring:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/55fc796552a0.jpg[/atsimg]




Designed
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bd425040e194.jpg[/atsimg]


Notice how all of the designed things there are simple and purpose built? Notice how all of the naturally occurring things are all complex and relatively unrefined? This is why the argument from complexity is downright stupid, as sometimes simplicity can be an indicator that something has been acted upon by an intelligent force.

This was one of my favorite threads. The complexity in nature is too complex to be acted upon by an intelligence. It's still as absurd today, as it was then.