I have heard the arguement each life form has a trait not shared by humans or any other group, alligning this reason to show humans are thus just another differential. It is purposefully faulty. While all life forms have their own distinct features, they can all also be groupted as one kind of life forms, and on the other side will be humans as distinct from all of the others.
You can have a sack of peas, and color each one different and give each a distinct dna imprint and a distinct serial number; but if one of them can sing and dance, all the other differentials will not allign them. Whether one chooses to agree on that or not, is the differentials which has caused two distinct views on this issue. Most leading scientists also turn away from the notorious example you counter me with - so don't be so confident.
quote:
We are taller.
Speech is not a variance of degree but of kind. There is an anomoly that only one species has it, despite life being so varied and able to attain all manner of differences distinct from another: this reason ultimately favors my position. Height variances are common to all life forms, thus not impacting here.
quote:
So your saying hubble is looking back to a point in space-time when there was no space-time. Can you think how this differs from what every other person who describes the Big Bang explains it?
Hubble was to look for something which would explain the universe complexity, what it is based on, and how it occured. Science is now at a stage it can detect what the eye cannot see, even including indicators of another non-corporeal realm, such as a 4th dimension - apparently there are imprints to gauge this today. But if there is nothing, no imprints, which resembles the premise of nothingness before and outside of the universe - what does that mean? I say, it shows an external impact, by reason of the elimination of all other options.
I say further, that the most recent findings already indicate this. If going back in time shows rare density of galaxies, and nothing else [gaps of void], and if the atoms are seen as born outside of the BB sphear [many millions of years later] - it indcates an external impact already. This is a new direction of thought emerging, and is based on recent scientific findings derived from hubble.
To deflect such findings from where it points, the black holes premise was re-examined, to determine if it leads to outside of the universe, and to determine if other universes exist, namely to avoid the nothing scenario. This possibility was negated as highly unlikely, the reason being a black hole is theoretical, and nothing can escape its vicinity. Photons were seen in hubble, which are theorised as remnants of the BB original, primal explosion/action; but these photons had a life span of millionth of a second, whereby they stretched to a degree they longer had mass [clumpings], so they appear and disappear, or they are something and then nothing again. So all indicators thus far point to nothingness before the BB point, and that the complexity of the universe occured well outside this point. Life emerged outside of this point, as we know this to be correct; the notion of life emerging as a result of past atoms and molesculescombining in certain, critical frmations, also becomes voided if those molescules were non-existant in the early space-times - this again favours an outside impact.
Here, the question is, what can be found which will negate the possibility of an external, independent impacting - I cannot even imagine an answer here, even one which is sureal, meta-physical or sci-fi based. The next question is, what does it mean if there is nothing behind the final brick wall? Semantics do not help - instead, one must examine this issue as if there is nothing past a certain point in space-time, to determine what it points to, even if to discredit it.
™ Version 4.2
