Lisa Randall on how some things will be known

[MMusashi420]

1:45 = Hilarious expression on her face.

[jcmmanuel]

@MMusashi420 You mean at 1:47. Someone (wownov83 ) already made the remark a year ago here ;-)

[angela1894]

Does anyone else notice how large and manly her hands are ?

[tangiblephoton]

milf... Nuff said

[slowgolf]

what a goof, she believes there's room in science for God to be "Discovered" , but she doesn't believe there is a God. Hope the "Science" doesn't let her down

[jcmmanuel]

@slowgolf Well at least she is not on a one-track mind. She's open to it - as opposed to people who already know everything about God .

[morpheusxnyc]

@jcmmanuel - I didn't hear her mention God.

But regardless, you misunderstand. Science, as a rule, is humble. It allows for the mathematical possibility of ANYTHING - God, pink unicorns, fairies, etc.

That doesn't mean that ANY of them are even remotely likely to be true in any infinitesimally way, shape or form, but Science allows for the possibility because it leaves room for intellectual growth.

Religions is an ancient work of fiction that is fixed and unchanging, regardless of new info.

[quidproquo2004]

@slowgolf You obviously misunderstand both science and atheism. Science requires us to demand empirical evidence before we are to believe that some proposition possess some truth value. Atheism is the default position and since there is only contradictory evidence for the Abrahamic god, it is not reasonable to believe in it.

That being said, there is a big difference between saying that "there is no (creator) god" and "I don't believe in (this) god because there is no evidence for it".

[jcmmanuel]

@quidproquo2004 That's right. And, by the way, an "Abrahamic God" would be a very small god. We could say that people (like Abraham) saw god as "their" god, but that doesn't mean they own god or even the explanation of who or what god is. Abrahamic religions have their own interpretation, which is interesting in terms of history and the human mind. But god can never be "Abrahamic".

[x1x2x3ct]

@jcmmanuel there is no god whatsoever you idiot, now god is an empty word and you are talking nonsense you fool. fucking moron

[jcmmanuel]

@x1x2x3ct Your foolish pride does not impress anyone here. Try elsewhere.

[csnowutube]

@slowgolf At least she wasn't condemning anyone to eternal torture for disagreeing with her.

[DaJayManable]

the extra dimension is pizza.

[jcmmanuel]

@DaJayManable I'd rather suggest a leaning tower of pizza.

[fight2Bfree]

My IQ went up a few points simply gazing into her eyes.

[mfentruck]

@fight2Bfree

She's fucking beautiful.

[morpheusxnyc]

@mfentruck - I love her mind, but her teeth are yellower than butter on corn (probably from coffee/cigarettes) and her face... well, she's no Playboy model.

Meanwhile, cosmologist Amy Mainzer.. HOLY FUCK... BOI-OI-OI-OING!

[OHHHmar1]

@morpheusxnyc you just managed to bring stupidity into one of the most intellectual videos on youtube... but i totally agree :D

[morpheusxnyc]

@OHHHmar1 Stupidity? You mean COMEDY. ;-)

[x1x2x3ct]

@mfentruck she was

[451TIMOTHY]

dANN UPP SANN , KEYY JOII SANNAK DARR, VEE SAA HUNN ,CHANN UPP tANN . xxx

[visiting31]

how'd you get this off the bigthink website? (assuming that's where you got it)

[jcmmanuel]

@visiting31 Good point. I just added a link in the video description. It should bring you straight to Lisa's videos on the Big Think site.

[visiting31]

@jcmmanuel: thanks, but what i meant was, how'd you download the videos?

[keriscorp]

so...when the absolute truth that you arent smart or rich enough to build a better mouse trap or pay your bills looms obvious, make up some crap that cant be proved, and some new words to go with it, write a book, and tell everyone that says its nonsense theyre not smart enough to understand it so they have to buy your book and attend your class......THEN you have $ to build your mouse trap and justify your existence...but youre probably still not smart enough...so...write another book and......

[abledanger6]

que?

[kokotxaband]

phisisist do it on a table....periodically!

[npg4591]

she talks fast

[14598175]

@npg4591 That's self illusion when someone smarter than you (all of us) speaks.

[neilzep]

She gives great rimjobs...you dont know what a pleasure that gives.

[hznfrst]

@wacrer What the hell are you talking about??

[ritter89]

Why does Salon/Big Think use such atrocious lighting during these interviews with scientists? They use the same harsh lighting during the Sam Harris bits. This is the type of lighting that celebrities dread because it emphasizes every defect, wrinkle, etc.

[nevertheless123]

Ok, great with all this talking. Can you solve a problem from Landau and Lifshitz? I doubt it.

Go ahead dream on in the world of abstraction !

[ScientificalnessUSA]

"The Trilateralist Commission is international...(and)...is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateralist Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power - political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical."  — Barry Goldwater (1909-1998), U.S. Senator

[hznfrst]

What's with all the metaphysical babble here? The ultimate authority to science is *evidence*, period. You may speculate all you want but if it contradicts the evidence your speculations are worthless. Less than worthless, because they detract from the search for truth to the extent that we can verify it. We are finite beings and will most likely never know everything, however that does not give any of this newage nonsense the least bit of credibility.

[jcmmanuel]

@hznfrst You didn't have to mock and sneer in order to make your point for the "Transputed Carbon" guy. The essence of what you say however is that science is about testable hypothesis, and with that I agree (of course - as this is how science is defined). I do not support your use of the word 'credibility' in the end - except if you mean scientific credibility. I don't think science is our only way of knowing (we don't know love through science, to kick an open door), but in science, yes.

[hznfrst]

@jcmmanuel What makes you think love is immune to scientific investigation? *Everything* is open to scientific investigation, including love, altruism, the sense of wonder, morality, etc. This has never been a big mystery to me and I think the cliche that science can't say anything about "meaning" is overrated. Humanity is a social species (when we're not murdering each other over insane points of theology) where caring for others is necessary for survival - simple.

[jcmmanuel]

@hznfrst Immune? I said nothing about cutting out science as one of the legal ways to gather knowledge. I'm just saying science doesn't cut out all other ways of knowing.

[hznfrst]

@jcmmanuel Science is defined as a *method* to verify our hypotheses. If these hypotheses are not subject to verification by reason, evidence, experimental reproduceability, and falsification then how can you say that "other ways of knowing" have any actual meaning? Yes, dreams, visions, and wild speculations are fun, but that's all they are until you test them rigorously against what we already know about reality. Whenever someone finds something truly novel s/he wins a Nobel prize!

[Vann7]

@hznfrst you cant measure something.. that dont have motion.. or shape..

or quantity.. can u measure .. space? what is the size of space? not all all.. you can

only measure the visible space.. or guessestimate.. same with emotions.. you can only measure only what can perceived to your senses.. there are no atoms to measure in any motion.. contrary to the string theory.. that comes from observation of visible microworld.. is like trying to measure life.

[hznfrst]

@Vann7 You are positively incoherent - get back on your meds, stat!

[Vann7]

@hznfrst you cant measure something.. that dont have motion/shape/quantity can u measure space? what isthe sizeof space? not all all.. youcan

only measure thevisible space.guessestimate..samewith emotions. you can only measure only what can perceived by senses there are no atoms to measure in any motion.contrary tothe string theory.that comes from observation of visible microworld. islike trying to measure ur imagination or life.you cant measure the infinite,the things that canhave no end.

[blackraider777]

@jcmmanuel "we don't know love through science" - wrong

[jcmmanuel]

@blackraider777 "we don't know love through science - wrong". 'Wrong' is poor communication, but I'll bite. Before the quoted words I said science isn't our only way of knowing. Ergo: we can't define love if we'd only look at it the scientific way, which may show the 'wiring' (how does arousal work chemically? How is happiness being stimulate? Etc.) which is hardly defining love at all. Unless you're a kind of physicalist of course.

[blackraider777]

@jcmmanuel that's like saying walking can't be described by "wiring" in the brain and chemistry of musles

[jcmmanuel]

@blackraider777 No it's like saying describing how something works doesn't define what something really is.

[blackraider777]

@jcmmanuel right, just like describing eveything about workings of leg doesn't describe leg, cuz leg is magic

[jcmmanuel]

@blackraider777 who wrote: "right, just like describing eveything about workings of leg doesn't describe leg, cuz leg is magic". -- Aaah - well, if you can't differentiate between a leg and the human brains and mind, then... I guess this approach might work for you. Good luck with that one.

[blackraider777]

@jcmmanuel yeah, so foolish of me, it's not leg that is magic it's brain-brain is magic .. good call there champ

[jcmmanuel]

@blackraider777 who wrote " it's brain-brain is magic". -- The word magic was your insertion, dude. I played with the toy you gave me but I'll give it back now. It's not about magic, it's about what philosophers call the ability to wonder. It isn't about the brain either, it's about the mind (but we are running in circles here).

[blackraider777]

@jcmmanuel ofcourse cuz mind is not brain, mind can appear in nature without brain, we all know that for instance stones and rivers have minds

Mind is magic that we can't understand cuz it works in mysterious ways

only God can know how mind works, we are so special cuz we have special and unknow minds

is that it?

[diees]

@hznfrst Well said, we've had enough of deceit and superstition

[biggyrat57]

@hznfrst -"evidence" is entirely subjective as is all "reality". "Science" evolves as subjective reality is expanded in the framework(s) of root assumptions about a given reality's nature. Good luck trying to fix "evidence" in infinity. Instruments expand as the universes within which they exist expand, as for example, thereby giving inaccurate measurements. These examples can be expanded upon infinitely.

[jcmmanuel]

@wacrer Spirituality? To me, geometry (and maths in general) remains the domain of science, and in the context of this video that's physics. Spirituality is a different domain, very much related to the essence of our human Be-Ing, but not to be mixed up with science because science has no intent to replace spirituality, it just investigates our wiring, not who we are and how we want to be spiritual. Of course, these don't have to be in conflict, but they shouldn't be mixed up either imho.

[FallofDarkness55]

she's very attractive to me. the thought of a woman studying string theory makes me go crazy. i love string theory and she's like the only woman studying string theory.

[ezcondition]

i think the reason we can't see them, if they are there, is because we didn't need to to survive. just enough to get by, that means we All are inherently lazy haha

[nickharvey7]

I always think this is like a Stone Age man hitting two flints together and giving the sparks names. We create quantum particles then we name them then we use greater energy to create more to try and explain it.

[pensieroveloce]

she X generation - like me - and we use very often 'family language": our books, TV movies, and so on...

for instance, she uses in a wonderful way the Lewiss-Carrol Novel "Alice Adventure in Wonderland"...

[JoeyMars1]

Can you imagine the tedious math work this gal has gone through to get where she is now?She is impressive!

[justinv3]

@JoeyMars1 I don't think it's been more or less than the tedious math that any other physicist like Brian Greene and Lawrence Krauss went through. What are you trying to say? That it was harder for her because she is a woman?

[JoeyMars1]

@justinv3 No nothing to do with gender..What im saying is math is no peace of cake..if you disagree to that than you are probably are not a math expert.....how can I say it more simpler than that?

[AntiSchiff]

That nose has to go.

[chantellesasha]

Intelligence is so sexy.

[Ramsez]

give this woman a million stars! NOW!

[quantumperception]

Thanks. Watched 4 part Charlie Rose, and it focused way too much on her personally and brushed over the physics. This is the concentrated good stuff! I appreciate it.

[Gordion2006]

She so hot!

[armitra]

Uffff.... I am tired

[ClamCrunchy]

I remember reading about higher dimensions of space and the Kaluza Klein theory in an encyclopedia when I was much younger, and I realized then and there that I wanted to be a physicist.

[angela1894]

I think she's gay

[netminderxp]

@angela1894 And she is gay because....?

[featheredmusic]

@angela1894 why is that?

[VannevarBush]

@angela1894

She does look rather nervous than gay. 

[leeroynaggins]

Kunta-Kinte particles!!??



[jcmmanuel]

@leeroynaggins No, Kaluza-Klein particles , theory by Theodor Kaluza & Oskar Klein.

[leeroynaggins]

@jcmmanuel

Thanks, Mr. Wizard!

[AtomicUprising]

@leeroynaggins liek in roots?

[thagodfather007]

@leeroynaggins lol wtf

[biohazardcel]

@leeroynaggins your name is Toby!

[wownov83]

Lol she goes majorly crossed eye at 1:47! Love this video though.

[jcmmanuel]

@wownov83 At 1:47 she's looking into another dimension - that's why she goes crossed eye;)

[48acar19]

According to recent statistics, the proportion of atheists and agnostics between the best scientists in the USA is about 93%.

The rest of 7 % pretend to be religiously oriented, but not toward the classic religions as they are preached in churches and seminaries.

[jcmmanuel]

@48acar19 Who cares? Don't throw this BS on a page where a scientist like Lisa Randall is being presented. We all know there's an inclination towards atheism among scientists, but first of all, most atheists are more anti-fundamentalists than anything else (I've talked to hundreds of atheists, I have 60 atheist friends, I know my stuff). Second: atheist or theist, you don't sell your personal state of mind as 'science', period. You can't change the rules.

[48acar19]

@jcmmanuel

And please, don't talk about "my state of mind" here at Lisa Randall's video! You are deviating again the discussion and putting the blame on me!

You have mental problems, not me, since you believe that a man or a god can be "the truth" or "the life" and since you are censuring the postings on your site.

All rigid Christians are censoring messages.

You have specialized yourself in very nasty put-downs.

And yes, I am a scientist! I don't know what you are!

[48acar19]

From time to time we can see "religionist" messages that show in what a degree the American mentality is shaped by an irrational wish to give religion a nice polish.

In fact all the sciences converge to the same direction: the conclusion that there is no god. No need for a god to bring rains, no need for a god to create live cells and no need for a god to "create" the Universe.

The so called Christian scientists, like Collins, are just laughable.

[jcmmanuel]

@48acar19 Don't be silly, lest you want to be perceived as an idiot. America is not the world. Collins is a scientist, but a bit clumsy in his expression on faith - most Christian scientists I know don't talk like him. That means nothing, you're taking occasional cases and generalize them. Science concludes there's no god? That is exactly what we call fundamentalist speak. To take science - a public service, and claim it to be identical to one particular mindset, is dangerous nonsense.

[48acar19]

@jcmmanuel :

You know something? I do not agree with you. In Sweden 85-90% of the population is agnostic, but here in the USA the proportion of "true-believers" is the same like in the Eastern Europe, after the communism has collapsed!

I don't care if Collins's speech is "clumsy" or not. You think I care HOW he talks. No, I care WHAT he talks about!

He is not able to answer in a rational way to Dawkins' statements. This is not because of his own defects, but because his position is wrong.

[jcmmanuel]

@48acar19 Dawkins is not rational either. Dawkins doesn't separate science from his atheistic agenda, and Collins did not separate science fro his theism. Both made the same mistake.

[wownov83]

@jcmmanuel Both have an agenda, but Dawkins is correct.

[Zephyrhillz]

What's so funny is that all of these religious and scientific fan-boys forget one logical possibility. Perhaps there is a creator (not the man made God's) that created the universe and at the same time the evolution of species is how we came into existence. If you think about it, that theory is more logical than the Bibles God or the belief of evolution and no creator of the universe.

[jcmmanuel]

@Zephyrhillz The funny thing is also that you contrast creator with man made gods - I'd say that's a contradictio in terminis anyway:) And the biblical god is not in contradiction with evolution - not for me and not for those many Christian scientists who accept evolution theory. Genesis 1 puts the focus instantly on the special position of the human being - the only species that writes history to begin with.

[misstex1812]

@jcmmanuel watch zeitgeist

[jcmmanuel]

@misstex1812 Zeitgeist is an atheist movement, if that's what you mean.

[Mr81points]

i would tap that.

[Andrewlohbihler]

Brilliant lady !! Listening to her makes me want to curl up in another dimension, and want more.

[axle90axle]

i want her to fuck me with her mind

[kunzy3000]

u bad bad boy

[danpt2000]

she looks good, but seems like her nose sways a bit to her right.

[deusAtheismus]

Lisas beauty lies in her brain and that's saying alot!

[abrahambivins]

I wonder how many of these scientist actually understand the math behind these theories, string theory, m-theory and such. I'm certainly not the sharpest tool in the shed if you will, but just trying to fathom an extra dimension puts my mind in a knot. I understand the that just because something isn't verifiable with empirical evidence doesn't make non-existent, but this is just way too deep for me. I'll have to take a leap of faith and accept it, but i don't understand it or like it one bit.

[jcmmanuel]

They are scientist for a reason - mathematicians in the first place. I think you have to see this in the context of research. There are some 20 quantum theories, no one can synchronize quantum theory with relativity theory as of yet. These are all models. But experience has demonstrated that the language of mathematics is an excellent one to describe the physical world. So it is in that spirit that the research goes on.

[scout6686]

@jcmmanuel

Wow well said I entirely agree.

[energycondensed]

cool

[brycebrown1221]

ahhhh... Lisa.

[gman20101]

she is too clever 4 me

[scout6686]

one of the few physicist I would have sex with

[ASKaPHYSICIST]

ditto

[Iammrspickley]

i think Lisa Randal is great

and shes a climber, thats a big plus in my book! :D

[SomeUser9753]

Fuck her digitialized ass. There are no particles. it's not digital

[jcmmanuel]

Did you just lose your job or is it just problems at home?

[SomeUser9753]

and how long do you think they'll invent non-existing particles ?

I'm starting a new job in 2 days.

The universe is analogous, not digital didn't you get it ?

Look, they're all puppets

[jcmmanuel]

Don't play the fool. No one says the universe is digital. Or it may be for the sake of an analogy, at best. Quantum Physics in general is about quarks, particles, waves (light is waves and particles all at once). Nothing digital. But it is very calculable - that's another thing.

[msgol1]

hehe awesome, i guess he didn't even listen to the whole video

[scout6686]

okay I did not mean to suggest so much.

[Thalysiakeuh]

fantastic vid 5*****

[surya2345b]

lisa is wonderful...just wonderful

[farouqnimer]

this woman is so attractive, but i dont think she's such a good wife

[nevertheless123]

maybe you have'nt seen women before.

[FlorentineBeauty]

Women should stay at home, and not pretend to be intelligent.

[thefragile900]

fuck off

[FlorentineBeauty]

I was just kidding. I wanted to see how many people would be infuriated, and so far you're the only one. I'm a woman myself.

[jcmmanuel]

lol

[nevertheless123]

I dont agree with you, although you are being sarcastic. But at the same time people should not tolerate non-intelligent women pretending to be intelligent, just because they are women. The word sexism has become such a bad word that everybody is afraid to say anything.

If a woman is a crappy scientist, just say it!!

[chriswf88]

Strongly disagree - but I did read down and understand you disagree too!

[ThePolishSausage87]

Jesus god she is gorgeous.

[sqchenen]

Agree. But I doubt her gender gives her more non-academic advantage in this business.

[ThePolishSausage87]

Regardless, I hope she never stops speaking about theoretical physics.

[danielhdez2718]

As a matter of fact, it gives her disadvantages. This "business" has been a mysoginistic one for a long time and we are not quite over it yet. Even being undoubtedly brilliant as it is her case, it is very likely that she has found some people reluctant to give her proper recognition.

This is changing though as more and more women join to scientific research, specially "hard" sciences like math or theoretical physics.

[sqchenen]

@danielhdez2718 I think the pressure is rather from outside than inside the "business". Nowadays scholars don't have much negative opinion of women, minority races, or homosexuality. The real discrimination actually is from the anti-intellectual society. It pushes the smartest boys and girls out of science research, and instead pushes them into Wall St (or even worse, American Idol).

[scout6686]

@ThePolishSausage87

your name is funny. Yeah I'd def show her whatsup up

[addis11100]

if ants are in two dimenstion how about birds are they in three dimenstion?

[fctchk]

Actually, the hardest of "hard atheists" would be the first to accept the supernatural claims of, say, Islam. Certainly long before any christian or follower of any other religion would, present substantiating evidence of the quality, for example, that Ms. Randall requires to substantiate the work that she does.

You will find Ms. Randall to be as "closed minded" i.e. skeptical as any self-respecting scientist vis-à-vis ideas thin on evidence; to wit her reserve vis-à-vis string theory.

[jcmmanuel]

To be skeptical and to be open minded are not the same thing. Skepticism is a quality needed in scientific theory construction. Open minded is what Einstein and all the great others helped to make discoveries - well aware that serendipities of all kinds have always been the triggers of new discoveries. Skepticism was never meant to dictate the entire human life - I think that's an important distinction.

[fctchk]

What I had taken issue with was your bizarre and indeed verging on the meaningless contention that Lisa Randall somehow  "has much more of an open mind" than "hard atheists". On what topic -the claim that Jesus is the son of the god of Abraham, born of a virgin, risen from the dead, imminently due to return?

If asked to evaluate these claims with the standards of evidence she applies to her work, professor Randall would inevitably arrive at the same conclusions atheists arrive at.

[jcmmanuel]

"Randall would inevitably arrive at the same conclusions atheists arrive at."

Not at all, because she does not mix science with atheism. Almost no top-scientists do so. Science is a methodology and belongs to no one. Atheism is a particular mindset or state of mind, it has no right whatsoever to 'claim' anything about science being theirs or even closer to their worldview.

[DanFrederiksen]

a lot of people are fooled by the unspoken lie that if they mock faith they are the clever ones and the desire for that self worth deceives them into accepting a blind belief without thought. you are such a person. Although argument by authority is somewhat dishonest I can mention that Newton had great faith and only Einstein and Tesla might eclipse Newton. Both of which also claimed metaphysical beliefs although Einstein's was fairly dosile.

[DanFrederiksen]

but the real clincher is the simple and obvious proof that the spiritual is real which follows from sensations such as pain being impossible in the mechanistic world view. you see a robot that screams when you burn its hand didn't feel pain, didn't need to nor could ever. yet the mindless evolutionists assume that pain and fear are traits to keep us out of trouble while the simple truth is that a machine (electrochem or otherwise) has no need for such to assess and evade a situation. think

[jcmmanuel]

@DanFrederiksen: I wouldn't say 'proof' for the spiritual, rather are the humanities - which are of course also science - a very different discipline and the exact sciences have another methodology. One particular discipline cannot exclude the other - the reality exists of multiple layers. But I understand what you mean. By the way, in stead of the "the mindless evolutionists" I would rather specify: "those evolutionists who inject their worldview in the theory of evolution".

[DanFrederiksen]

your first sentence doesn't seem to make sense.

try to look at the robot in your mind and compare to you. why do you have sensation when a physical being would not?. it's really that obvious to see that the spiritual is real and evolution is not. but you do have to try to understand. not just give me your thoughtless prejudice.

and it has nothing to do with hard sciences vs humanities. humanities is for the most part just sloppy 'logic'.

there is no chance I could be wrong about this proof.

[jcmmanuel]

@DanFrederiksen: Of course the spiritual is real. But this tells us nothing about evolution, which is a physical process.

With humanities I was hinting at the spiritual, calling it science was a slip of the tongue - I should have switched the subject to e.g. the social sciences at that point - those are sciences, but do not conform to the rules of the exact sciences. Neither does the study of history comply - history deals with singularities, contrary to physics for instance .

[DanFrederiksen]

@jcmmanuel the reality of the spiritual is exactly what allows us to rule out the mechanistic evolution because the spiritual is not a mechanistic quality. a component of us with free will free from physical deteminism and governed by different rules than the physical puts a huge hole in the theory of evolution. you could then argue that evolution can adapt to include the spiritual component but that is a rather large concession, embracing an increasingly untenable position vis a vis God

[jcmmanuel]

@DF: again you are reasoning from a preconceived exclusivity point of view. The idea that evolution would exclude a spiritual realm of things comes either from atheism or from creationism, certainly not from evolution theory. I'm not a materialist reductionists who wants to see all things through the narrow channel of physical mechanisms.

[DanFrederiksen]

@jcmmanuel you confuse your personal opinion with the meaning of evolution. if you wont accept the obviousness of the truth of its meaning perhaps you can take a poll among evolutionists if they think it allows room for the spiritual and indeed God.

evolution is simply a purely mechanistic notion. physical machinery. a deterministic system that once set in motion will have outcome according to rules giving rise to self replicating and preserving machinery of ever increasing complexity.

[jcmmanuel]

@DF: I am confusing nothing at all here. I'm well aware of most of the intricacies of evolution theory but I think you don't see the difference too well between atheism & evolution. And I cannot be angry for it, given the fact that atheists have done their utmost to use evolution as a comfortable vehicle for atheism (but so did socialists etc). The abuse of a theory however is not an argument against it. Thousands of Christian scientists have no trouble with evolution.

[DanFrederiksen]

thousands of christian scientists don't think it through. evolution says humans are spiritless mechanics, christianity says God created everything. they conflict. it's easier to say they don't but ease is not what Jesus proposed. he talked about us moving mountains and raising people from the dead. not about being being genes in progress. only unification is where 'evolution' is a vehicle for spiritual growth where those who want to live live and those who want to grow grow. no natural selection

[mikeroephonics]

@DanFrederiksen Standing above a crowd, he had a voice that was strong and loud. We'll miss him.

[addis11100]

Lisa why did you say creatures are in two dimenstion they are in three dimenstion.

Ants are not in three dimenstion?

[jcmmanuel]

I think it's about imagining them in 2 dimensions, in order to understand what 1 extra dimansion would look like, then.

[addis11100]

Well I think that is what she mean. But if you think when we fly in aeroplane we have 7 dimenstion including time. 3 axis of rotation and three axis of translation plus time. So here is another string theory.

[cananbalun]

Beautiful smart-tongue!