Search results

I know you do pisspoor. It's why you're talking crap most of the time in a delusion blaming me for what you're doing. Let's face it, you've no clue or tolerance for anything but your own closed minded opinion, and wouldn't know a cogent point if it slapped you in the nuts. I've...

...so then go and shut the fuck up. Yes you're right. I debunked your shit. Yet there you go again .. trying to spin nonsense off of what your "great minds of science" state. It's you who is appealing to statements of authority not me. Get one that is unambiguous and you still start...

In your opinion it's only opinion, and you obviously can't do with anything other than your own opinion.

How many times. I've debunked YOU and the batshit nonsense spun from their quotes . Try to get a hold of that and you might start to get a clue. The only "Tuner" necessary is gravity. Your 'best minds in science' have told YOU in plain English that because there is gravity, the universe...

Lol. Right , so you're not repeating a video because you're linking to an update of it. And you imagine I have sock puppets why exactly....because you were caught red handed with a sock puppet. Brilliant arguments. Appealing to the douchebag gallery for support clearly appeals to you. I...

Sheer irony seeing how there goes the 24/7 pheonix trading bot kicking in. ...despite the facts. ....and now folks, welcome to the Jem bot. The worn out broken record devoid of intelligent discussion that just repeat posts the same debunked deadbeat assertions made on the back of the...

Lol what is amusing is you've just trolled out a response that tries to dance around the meaning of words like a poor imitation of bill clinton. You really are too ridiculous.

1. As well as being the property of a physical structure causing it to have weight in a gravitational field, mass is also defined as an ill-structured collection of similar objects or people. As far as communion goes, the latter would seem more approriate. 2. You mean in the sense that it's...

Fermion fields don't really meet in that way. The so called fine tuning you constantly repeat is not math. It's an idiomatic expression for values arrived at through math and science.

You're too irrational incoherent and angry to debate Jem, and can only repeat yourself anyway. Fine tuning is an idiomatic expression for values, which are not some other values due to natural laws. Still smiling at that bloomer .

Of course it is. It's simply that you are incorrect. That comment is what I'm saying is incorrect. Particle physics is not a case of "no idea". It might be far more accurate to say mathematics does not explain the big bang at singularity. But who said it does? I didn't. Warning...

Then nothing is the creator. I bet that's not what you meant to say. bullshit. What I have been arguing about, while you keep arguing against yourself, is that you can't even understand an appearance of fine tuning is no more use to explaining anything than an appearance of Flat Earth is...

"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." Stephen Hawking well then... You can't have it both ways. Either spontaneous creation IS the reason why there is something rather than nothing.... why there is so...

Oh I do check facts, and what you say is not correct. Science does have a very good idea. Quantum mechanical random fluctuations can explain how producing matter and energy from nothing, a big bang, without violating the laws of physics, is viable and all that's required. What you seem...

That's not how it works. If anything is creating theory then for sure, science creates scientific theory. Scientists discover them. Lol. You say Scientific theory supported by mathematics, science, physics and cosmology are all unsupported conjecture. Whilst make-believe and wild...

Indeed. The laws of physics are all that is required to create the universe. So big bang need only have occurred as the result of natural laws. A consequence, a coincidence of them. Scientifically it's all that's required. The term fine tuning of the universe is nothing but an idiomatic...

Well if that is not speculation, you've just shown Hawking is not speculating about what's being called "extremely fine-tuned". It is no more than a coincidence. The whole nine yards right there.. The laws of gravity and quantum theory are all that is required for this coincidence to...

"our universe appears fine tuned" is by definition, a speculative statement. None of your top scientists are saying "the universe is fine tuned" In fact they are saying quite the opposite. yet you ignore the fact that he states even more plainly.... "That is not the answer of modern...

Certainly. ...except that any kind of so called "fine tuning" is in essence physical properties reacting to environment..

Yes, that's what he really said, in context. You're either pleading to his authority or you are not. You want to say he does confirm your "fine tuning" when he doesn't, and doesn't confirm gravity is the reason for the universe when he does. Typical creationist confusion.