@desertastronomer Just the opposite

@desertastronomer. Read my bio, I think I understand the science pretty well. I just understand people like you, no offense intended.

@desertastronomer. Sounds good. I'll relook at original post and see if I offer some positive input. Have a goid day. Yeah General post is no more. Go figure.

@desertastronomer actually You don't need to Mansplain the word May to me..I am capable of understanding English rather well.
As for commenting on a rather vague and simplistic Creationist assumption on the evolution/beginning of the universe. I asked for evidence.
Perhaps You could have provided a Link to the article you referenced in the posting.
A LINK provides the reader with direct access to the information that you MAY have based your post on.
MAY the force be with you..

@desertastronomer Well, they believe that we originate from lizards from out of space.

@desertastronomer Have a nice time meeting women if you are lucky.

@desertastronomer As far as I know (and I'm certainly not a physicist), there's no hard evidence for the multiverse, but again it has a lot of appeal.

@desertastronomer Interesting, thanks for sending that. Of course, as they say it doesn't prove anything. "In this physical Universe, it's important to observe all that we can, and to measure every bit of knowledge we can glean. Only from the full suite of data available can we hope to ever draw valid, scientific conclusions about the nature of our Universe. Some of those conclusions will have implications that we may not be able to measure: the existence of the multiverse arises from that. But when people then contend that they can draw conclusions about fundamental constants, the laws of physics, or the values of string vacua, they're no longer doing science; they're speculating. Wishful thinking is no substitute for data, experiments, or observables. Until we have those, be aware that the multiverse is a consequence of the best science we have available today, but it doesn't make any scientific predictions we can put to the test."

Here's what occurs to me -- whenever we get a new scientific discovery it turns out to be only part of the real situation. Eventually, new science comes along and describes it more completely without negating the original discovery. So I'm inclined to think it's still pretty early in the multiverse exploration to draw any real conclusions.

The other part of this idea that gives me a problem is once they start saying that there's a new multiverse for every possible difference, then it seems only logical that there must also be an infinite number of totally identical universes. This may be possible but seems so outrageous that I can't imagine it.

@desertastronomer Uh, thanks?

Errrrr,,,,,Their Big Bang?

@desertastronomer it was a play on amisja responce..and the big crunch seems to be inevitable..