Search results

Eternal inflation is the expansion of the universe which explains lots of things from quantum fluctuation to big bang to galaxy formation. Multiverse is just one hypothetical aspect derived from eternal inflation. Multiverse is postulated by Stephen Hawking. Multiverse is NOT eternal inflation...

You still seem convinced your infantile comments, ridiculous assertions and a say anything approach is making an argument . But yes, you certainly do show your ignorance when it comes to basic terminology. So much so you use terminology - in particular "proves a negative" -which isn't...

I already responded to your "discussion" above. As usual you ignored it and like the dickbrain you are , just repost your "discussion" again as if that meant anything at all. Yeah that's right Jem, you changed context, posted edited comments, misrepresented what was actually being said...

Your photo, your ugly face and so follows, your nasty teeth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. How thick can you get. But when push comes to shove that's all you've really got isn't it. A big fat mouth, no argument and no clue.

As a complete idiot you seem to think photoshopping your plug ugly face and dramatically underlining extracts via your wiki eduction that don't apply to what is being said to you, is a smart thing to do. But then it has to be remembered, you are complete idiot. What part of impossible...

Do you have Tourette syndrome or something? You've referred both to Susskind and Hawking as Nobel prize winners before. Neither are. I have corrected you on dozens of things many times though you make no discussion , generally take no notice, but like a mad person usually create a tirade of...

How many times, Stephen Hawking is NOT a Nobel prize winner. You can't even get that much right even after it's been pointed out to you more than once. Face it Jem you are just being thick, pretending otherwise in the name of Jesus. You called yourself a lawyer yet couldn't spell the...

Just because you dreamt I admit something doesn't mean I admit something. There is no science that supports the fine-tuning argument. If it can be called an argument. You asserted a false choice between fine-tuning OR multiverse. Eternal inflation is about string theory, specifically...

Which means…. no such thing It means an assertion of fine tuning OR eternal inflation. I already mentioned earlier but as usual you ignore things you don't like; eternal inflation is NOT multiverse. Your false choice is just that. A false choice. How many times to get it into you thick...

Lol. That's truly pathetic. Between you and Jem in the No Clue Club, who is playing Grand Poobah . Err yeah right, sure you were talking about that! pffft. Evidently the penny has dropped at long last and so you have to try and change tack. What a goof. You've been relying on a wiki...

I'm arguing with two dickheads who together couldn't accomplish halfwittery , and supposedly as adults, have their only hope of intelligence evidently fucked over by a ludicrous urge to defend a common imaginary God friend with any clueless and inane methods they can dumb around with...

No... it does not say "we looked very fine tuned..." .....so why do you say it does ?? And why did you edit out ... again... that part which provides one alternative explanation to an appearance of fine tuned . You're dumb, you'll need a guide. I put it back. It's the other bit in red...

The result of 'square the circle' math problem does not prove something doesn't exist you fuckwit. It proves that a square equal to the given area of a circle under specific conditions cannot be produced. That in itself is not proof of no "square circles". That's why it's a bad example...

What the hell.... really Jem, yet another totally hopeless response. Because you can't rationally approach these topics, calling people liar and more all the time doesn't mean you have a point. You keep using the word design for intelligent design. As long as you keep doing very silly and...

By now then your nerves must be in a terrible mess. Probably better that makes you rofl though than self-harming. Yes it is, completely inappropriate. You turning blue in the face shouting "STUpid" all the time won't alter a thing. You were using goal and result synonymously. Neither at the...

Rubbish. In this case Math is the valid method and the 'goal' is not to prove a negative. The 'goal' to use your inappropriate parlance, is to solve a specific problem proposed under certain conditions to square a circle. The problem is proven to be logically impossible. You trolling...

What the hell is that? Don't tell me it's supposed to be an argument. Of course Stephen Hawking stating the laws of physics are all that's needed is completely in context of no intelligent design. Seriously, just why are you being so ridiculous all the time?

Proving a negative is your description of the outcome. It isn't what the math actually does. You don't know what math fundamentally is, do you? Like Jem you must think if you throw enough insult around no matter how wrong you are, it makes you right. It doesn't.

My you're an ugly mother. Could you pull that hat over your face? "proving one can't square the circle is absolutely proving a negative" Not in math it isn't. Go get some education . It's funny, though sad for humanity, watching you and Jem getting more and more angry as you both try...

Charming! You are really rattled by this aren't you. Having no real argument you constantly resort to vulgar profanity and name calling. So that's what religion does for you. 1. I have explained . You've ignored it. Here's just one difference, again. If the universe is tuned entirely...