You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Are Evolutionists Delusional (or just in denial)?
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
To summarize then.
The science / quantum mechanics / physics that explains the existence of virtual particles which appear from nothing , and the science / physics which explains how time = 0 at a singularity.......
are all wrong because objections to those scientific findings are as follows
creationists want a link providing information they could easily link to themselves
creationists don't like anything mentioned more than once . It cracks them up.
there is a "potential"
Brilliant.
The science / quantum mechanics / physics that explains the existence of virtual particles which appear from nothing , and the science / physics which explains how time = 0 at a singularity.......
are all wrong because objections to those scientific findings are as follows
creationists want a link providing information they could easily link to themselves
creationists don't like anything mentioned more than once . It cracks them up.
there is a "potential"
Brilliant.
to summarize then anyone who has spent any time in an academic environment likes to see footnotes support a persons thesis.
to summarize any one with half a brain likes to see someone support their argument.
to summarize - I do not know what the hell you are talking about when it comes to creationists. I have found no biblical or scientific support for the fact the universe was only created about 6000 of our years ago.
I like to quote nobel prize winners when I discuss the creation of the universe.
to summarize any one with half a brain likes to see someone support their argument.
to summarize - I do not know what the hell you are talking about when it comes to creationists. I have found no biblical or scientific support for the fact the universe was only created about 6000 of our years ago.
I like to quote nobel prize winners when I discuss the creation of the universe.
In response to your summarizations then
to summarize then anyone who has spent any time in an academic environment likes to see footnotes support a persons thesis.
Evidenced by the way you write and spell, there is little or no indication let alone any footnotes provided, that you ever spent time in an academic environment. Name and shame them. Show footnotes. Itâs an outrage that any educational system burped up such low standards out of their so called academic environment.
However, a very large and informative footnote was repeatedly provided in the form of a Google search title , which you have ignored.
to summarize any one with half a brain likes to see someone support their argument.
Then your half brain is missing. It is needed to recognize that direct Google reference to links which descriptively and scientifically explain the thing you are having so much of a problem with. Thatâs the Standard Big Bang model where t=0, and is what for some strange reason you seem determined to stay in ignorance and denial of. It leaves you brainless.
to summarize - I do not know what the hell you are talking about when it comes to creationists. I have found no biblical or scientific support for the fact the universe was only created about 6000 of our years ago.
If you find biblical support for the account of a creation given in the Book of Genesis and insist it is true, then you are referred to as a creationist. If you insist something imaginary called God created the universe, it is also reasonable to describe someone a creationist. Putting deity/creation/universe together as a perceived reality is representing a creationist. It's not just about 6000 year old earths. Do you need a link or can you manage with that?
I like to quote nobel prize winners when I discuss the creation of the universe.
You like to misquote and misunderstand and misrepresent. You like to pretend someone is saying something they are not . You like to quote out of context. You like to cherry pick sentences which give the wrong impression just so long as it means you can pretend they support your own messed up ideas. All of which you have done many times before.
And by the way you havenât mentioned any Nobel Prize winners yet. Stephen Hawking who you mentioned in this thread and whose work you obviously do not understand, is not one. But you do of course like to give an impression, even though itâs a wrong one.
Perhaps though there is still something you can explain. What is it about t=0 anyway that puts you in all this denial? Just what exactly is it supposed to do to your imaginary God image that, as can be seen, destroys rationality for you?
Andâ¦I donât need a link. I can think for myself.
to summarize then anyone who has spent any time in an academic environment likes to see footnotes support a persons thesis.
Evidenced by the way you write and spell, there is little or no indication let alone any footnotes provided, that you ever spent time in an academic environment. Name and shame them. Show footnotes. Itâs an outrage that any educational system burped up such low standards out of their so called academic environment.
However, a very large and informative footnote was repeatedly provided in the form of a Google search title , which you have ignored.
to summarize any one with half a brain likes to see someone support their argument.
Then your half brain is missing. It is needed to recognize that direct Google reference to links which descriptively and scientifically explain the thing you are having so much of a problem with. Thatâs the Standard Big Bang model where t=0, and is what for some strange reason you seem determined to stay in ignorance and denial of. It leaves you brainless.
to summarize - I do not know what the hell you are talking about when it comes to creationists. I have found no biblical or scientific support for the fact the universe was only created about 6000 of our years ago.
If you find biblical support for the account of a creation given in the Book of Genesis and insist it is true, then you are referred to as a creationist. If you insist something imaginary called God created the universe, it is also reasonable to describe someone a creationist. Putting deity/creation/universe together as a perceived reality is representing a creationist. It's not just about 6000 year old earths. Do you need a link or can you manage with that?
I like to quote nobel prize winners when I discuss the creation of the universe.
You like to misquote and misunderstand and misrepresent. You like to pretend someone is saying something they are not . You like to quote out of context. You like to cherry pick sentences which give the wrong impression just so long as it means you can pretend they support your own messed up ideas. All of which you have done many times before.
And by the way you havenât mentioned any Nobel Prize winners yet. Stephen Hawking who you mentioned in this thread and whose work you obviously do not understand, is not one. But you do of course like to give an impression, even though itâs a wrong one.
Perhaps though there is still something you can explain. What is it about t=0 anyway that puts you in all this denial? Just what exactly is it supposed to do to your imaginary God image that, as can be seen, destroys rationality for you?
Andâ¦I donât need a link. I can think for myself.
Quote from jem:
to summarize then anyone who has spent any time in an academic environment likes to see footnotes support a persons thesis.
to summarize any one with half a brain likes to see someone support their argument.
to summarize - I do not know what the hell you are talking about when it comes to creationists. I have found no biblical or scientific support for the fact the universe was only created about 6000 of our years ago.
I like to quote nobel prize winners when I discuss the creation of the universe.
Your logic sucks once again.
I do not insist God made the universe.
What I insist is that it is illogical to argue that you know whether the universe is created or not. That is the big difference between me and you.
You mind is so distorted you think science supports you belief that there is no God.
Just about every scientist says that they do not know what caused the universe. Yet somehow you insist there is no God.
How fricken stupid is that?
I note once again instead of providing a link... you attack the messenger.
I could give a crap about typos on ET. this is for fun. Whether I have typos or not does not change the fact, that I supported my statements in the past with multiple physicists. Nobel prize winning physicists. You are just to emotional to accept science.
But - here is a note.
"IN THE VERY BEGINNING there was a voidâa curious form of vacuumâa nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place, and this curious vacuum held potential. Like a giant boulder perched at the edge of a towering cliffâ¦
Wait a minute.
Before the boulder falls, I should explain that I really don't know what I'm talking about. A story logically begins at the beginning. But this story is about the universe, and unfortunately there are no data for the Very Beginning. None, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billionth of a trillionth of a secondâthat is, some very short time after creation in the Big Bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up. We are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the Very Beginning (and so far She hasn't let on). "
from the God Particle - written by a nobel prize winning physicist.
Stu you are fucking kidding yourself if you think you know more about creation than nobel prize winners.
And when you argue as if you do it shows your ignorance.
I do not insist God made the universe.
What I insist is that it is illogical to argue that you know whether the universe is created or not. That is the big difference between me and you.
You mind is so distorted you think science supports you belief that there is no God.
Just about every scientist says that they do not know what caused the universe. Yet somehow you insist there is no God.
How fricken stupid is that?
I note once again instead of providing a link... you attack the messenger.
I could give a crap about typos on ET. this is for fun. Whether I have typos or not does not change the fact, that I supported my statements in the past with multiple physicists. Nobel prize winning physicists. You are just to emotional to accept science.
But - here is a note.
"IN THE VERY BEGINNING there was a voidâa curious form of vacuumâa nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place, and this curious vacuum held potential. Like a giant boulder perched at the edge of a towering cliffâ¦
Wait a minute.
Before the boulder falls, I should explain that I really don't know what I'm talking about. A story logically begins at the beginning. But this story is about the universe, and unfortunately there are no data for the Very Beginning. None, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billionth of a trillionth of a secondâthat is, some very short time after creation in the Big Bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up. We are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the Very Beginning (and so far She hasn't let on). "
from the God Particle - written by a nobel prize winning physicist.
Stu you are fucking kidding yourself if you think you know more about creation than nobel prize winners.
And when you argue as if you do it shows your ignorance.
Progress.Quote from jem:
I do not insist God made the universe.
There is no science anywhere, in metaphysical deities called God or otherwise. No science, no scientist Nobel Prize winners anywhere anytime. So why do you even mention " you like to quote Nobel Prize winners " ?
You want to make disconnects to Nobel Prize winners, but on a subject to which none has ever won any Nobel Prize. Why?
Do you imagine some of their brilliance in science may rub off on the ignorance of a creationist's religious beliefs?
Nowhere on this thread have you once directly addressed the points I've raised.
As per usual you shout and scream on un-associated topics, call me names, take no care to write and spell so you sound like an uneducated teenager, won't follow a direct link via a Google search, and then try to tell me I'm wrong about stuff I haven't even said, and at the same time declare it is I who is illogical .
You have the link. Use it. Get yourself out of that denial.
My question is twofold and straightforward .
a. Why are you so hung up on time=0
b. Doesn't the existence of Virtual Particles suggest a scientific reason why post singularity (are you following? ) the universe also exists.
Quote from stu:
Progress.
There is no science anywhere, in metaphysical deities called God or otherwise. No science, no scientist Nobel Prize winners anywhere anytime. So why do you even mention " you like to quote Nobel Prize winners " ?
You want to make disconnects to Nobel Prize winners, but on a subject to which none has ever won any Nobel Prize. Why?
Do you imagine some of their brilliance in science may rub off on the ignorance of a creationist's religious beliefs?
Nowhere on this thread have you once directly addressed the points I've raised.
As per usual you shout and scream on un-associated topics, call me names, take no care to write and spell so you sound like an uneducated teenager, won't follow a direct link via a Google search, and then try to tell me I'm wrong about stuff I haven't even said, and at the same time declare it is I who is illogical .
You have the link. Use it. Get yourself out of that denial.
My question is twofold and straightforward .
a. Why are you so hung up on time=0
b. Doesn't the existence of Virtual Particles suggest a scientific reason why post singularity (are you following? ) the universe also exists.
1. I have never said you have to believe in God. I have been quoting physicists to show that you can not prove there is no God. I also quoted physicists who say the universe looks designed. I have quoted probably a half dozen who have stated such a concept. It is you who does not accept the quotes of physicists - not me.
2. You continue to harp on creationist as if there are not very high numbers of scientist who do their work and also believe in God. On this subject I have to say you are psycho. We know the difference between belief and fact apparently you do not.
3. I am not hung up on t=0. I just asked you to prove your statement. So far you have done everything you can to avoid supporting your statement.
4. I am not well versed in quantum mechanics. Plus I have never liked the idea (from a science perspective) that an experiment is not independent of the observer. Therefore I have no concern or belief about your virtual particle argument.
Quote from jem:
1. I have never said you have to believe in God. I have been quoting physicists to show that you can not prove there is no God. I also quoted physicists who say the universe looks designed. I have quoted probably a half dozen who have stated such a concept. It is you who does not accept the quotes of physicists - not me.
2. You continue to harp on creationist as if there are not very high numbers of scientist who do their work and also believe in God. On this subject I have to say you are psycho. We know the difference between belief and fact apparently you do not.
3. I am not hung up on t=0. I just asked you to prove your statement. So far you have done everything you can to avoid supporting your statement.
4. I am not well versed in quantum mechanics. Plus I have never liked the idea (from a science perspective) that an experiment is not independent of the observer. Therefore I have no concern or belief about your virtual particle argument.
1. So what was it again that would be your point in trying to quote Nobel Prize physicists on religion?
The personal beliefs of physicists isn't science. I can quote plenty more than half a dozen that don't do God . Then it could be you who does not accept the quotes of physicists - not me.
No one proves a negative. If one could be proved, you would be able to prove how I cannot prove there is no God.
You see, I can prove there is no God. Now, you prove I can't.
2. That is exactly the same point as your one above ....but with insults. Can you not think?..... you psycho moron.
3. You have a Google search link to support my statement about t=0. So far you have done everything you can to avoid supporting your denial that you have no such link. You remain appearing bothered about confronting t=0.
4. Well, at least now, after I've pulled you up enough times, your latest post shows your writing has improved. It is without the usual spelling errors or incomprehensible sentences... AND A BONUS - now you know , like an atheist, what it feels like to have no belief .
Itâs like when you donât think about comprehension in your posts, you end up with muddled and garbled, incoherent, incomprehensible sentences, hardly in English and when you just donât think, you end up with God.
But I suppose keeping yourself in denial or ignorance about something which, unlike God, does exist and would make unnecessary the need for a magical Universe Creator, is one way to keep yourself fooled. Why though? To sound pathetic like your bad writing , when all the time you can make posts at least coherent in English when you try ?