Search results

What link ? Look up cyclic universe. sheesh seriously, what is wrong with you?

Following one Religion 101 with another, now that's just plain dumb.

What you do have is nothing. Can you really still not see yet why a cyclic universe such as Penrose describes, does away with hints at big number odds against?

Religion 101: keep saying everything you don't understand or can't agree with is troll bs, repeat the same faulty claims a million times despite them being debunked, or just blurt out "random chance", in a generally random manner.

Go look up Cyclic universe and get a clue before making any more of an utter ass of yourself. Then it should be even more immediately obvious, even to someone as confused as you, why "odds are" has no relevance.

Yes we've been through this before. You get refuted and debunked in this and other threads so you wind back to the start and repeat the same ignorant remarks. You have no argument. You look absurd making one ridiculous comment after the next trying to sound as if you do.

It's all really straight forward once you stop trying to make this into something it isn't. Stephen Hawking explains a bottom-up approach to cosmology leads to one losing "all ability to explain cosmology’s central question - why our universe is the way it is." He makes it clear that...

Anyone who's genuinely interested knows full well Penrose puts forward a cyclic universe, his point being to dismisses any "enormous odds against" argument. I can link to the proof easily enough. So can anyone else. The proof is out there Spok. You're angry uncivil and closed minded in...

So what you're really saying when you keep posting only half a story is that not using the classical bottom-up model, but applying a top-down model instead as presented by Hawkings, resolves those appearances of design as if buy an outside agency as he explains. You are wrong in saying...

When you can learn to be civil. In the meantime all you have to do is understand that your reliance on copying a clip, purposely taken out of a video to mislead and give a wrong impression about what is actually being said in the video, is very dumb of you. That much I've advised you of...

Still getting the wrong end of the stick on purpose from repeating only one half of things I see. What you have c&p'd is why Stephen Hawking is proposing in that document 'top down' and not 'bottom up' , explaining that with 'top down', there need be no postulation of an initial state...

My "lying statement"...."may be correct". Are you drinking or can you just be that pathetic without trying? You wouldn't recognize the truth about Penrose or anything else on this topic if it smacked you around the head. You've already proved that much over and over again. Clearly you need...

What you have is a nonsensical insupportable assertion drawn from a video abbreviated in order to leave the wrong impression. In other words what you have is sweet f a.

But serioiusly, f#ck you too. :)

"I'll pray for you" A religious way of saying f#ck you without needing to cuss.

I don't accept threats as valid argument. Especially religious ones. What's all this "He" business anyway? Even if "He" were able to create me then "He" gave me a moral compass that screams "He" is an invention of major megalomaniacal proportions and first class bastard.... Thinking for...

..just further shows how little you actually do know about Penrose's work. You chose to brainlessly copy nonsensical claims based on things he doesn't say. Why the hell would you ever be interested or able to understand the things he does say?

I did no such thing. What I did say stands true. "W = 10^10^101 or W = 10^10^88" is NOT a mathematical probability calculation. He is presenting a "what are the odds" hypothesis so he can dramatically knock it over with his cyclic universe proposal. Face it jem, you can't even read a...

Quite so. Though it's not Penrose's argument of probability that the universe arose by chance. It is mainly the creationists' assertion that Penrose is making a probability argument that the universe arose by chance. He isn't. He can't be doing that simply because as a mathematician...

"Taking people out" eh? , destroying cities, countries, the world even at one point, all inhabitants, children, infants. Mass murderer, genocidal maniac. Either fit as a definition of "Him". "He" belongs right up there with your Stalins your Mao Zedongs, your Hitlers in that regard...