word
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.
young earth creationists. how does your mind work?
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
word
Quote from jem:
Do you realize by defining evolution as pre-biotic evolution and biological evolution... you just proved my point.
You think the layman currently makes that distinction? You think the religious people denying evolution make that distinction. No, I can tell you a large percent of them are denying we evolved from primordial soup.
And I will bet a larger percent of the the pro evolution people mistakenly believe we have proof we came out of the primordial soup.
And I would imagine a so called sophisticated pro evolution guy like yourself does not even realize that chance we evolved from non life here on earth have been called next to impossible by the best minds in science.
You think the layman knows about Primordial Soup?
Get the fuck outta here!
Quote from Opulence:
I don't get it. How does a grown person believe that an invisible man created everything and have a hard time even entertaining any scientific theory? For the life of me, I can't figure that out. But maybe that's a good thing.
Education is liberal. Conservatives are allergic to any education besides maybe shop class.
1. you lie like a ingnorant troll again.
do you see the "or". ..
see quote below...
2. you once again lie... you use a quote... and do not give a link... why?
Well we already played this game. you quote shows I am correct.
Your quote is written in the context of the mulitiverse... we went through this before.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
...
In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.
do you see the "or". ..
see quote below...
2. you once again lie... you use a quote... and do not give a link... why?
Well we already played this game. you quote shows I am correct.
Your quote is written in the context of the mulitiverse... we went through this before.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
...
In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.
Quote from stu:
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 cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is."
He makes it clear that from his perspective, both carefully fine tuned or eternal inflation as a basis to work from, are both of no use as they prevent discovery.
Thus he proposes what he says is the more useful approach of top-down. An anthropic approach, which is not referring to any "appearance of design as if by outside agency", or for eternal inflation, and by the way once again, top-down does not require infinite other universes as you wrongly assert.
You like to repeatedly quote Stephen Hawking. He also states this. Why don't you ever use it instead of trying to misunderstand papers that don't say what you say they do?
No appearance or need of (intelligent)design nor unobservable eternal inflation, nor multiverses, just simply because there is gravity.......
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing".
"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."
Stephen Hawking
At least you constantly make it very obvious why religion needs to be kept clear of things that have real and practical implications for everyone.
This is typical liberal strawman bullshit. We have been reviewing the fact that scientists are stating a universe appears designed.
We have not been discussing specific beliefs.
We have not been discussing specific beliefs.
Quote from Opulence:
I don't get it. How does a grown person believe that an invisible man created everything and have a hard time even entertaining any scientific theory? For the life of me, I can't figure that out. But maybe that's a good thing.
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.
You have no argument. You look absurd making one ridiculous comment after the next trying to sound as if you do.
Quote from jem:
1. you lie like a ingnorant troll again.
do you see the "or". ..
see quote below...
2. you once again lie... you use a quote... and do not give a link... why?
Well we already played this game. you quote shows I am correct.
Your quote is written in the context of the mulitiverse... we went through this before.
troll b.s. at its finest... everything you believe has been debunked as 1950s worship of random chance type atheism ... completely debunked by current scientific understanding.
this paper debunks everything you have been saying for years...
our universe appears designed, as if by an outside agency.
You may choose to believe in a multiverse or eternal inflation if you wish.
But, that takes faith.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
...
In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.
this paper debunks everything you have been saying for years...
our universe appears designed, as if by an outside agency.
You may choose to believe in a multiverse or eternal inflation if you wish.
But, that takes faith.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
...
In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.
Quote from stu:
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.
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.Quote from jem:
troll b.s. at its finest... everything you believe has been debunked as 1950s worship of random chance type atheism ... completely debunked by current scientific understanding.
[blah blah...]
troll horsehit..
deny and distort Hawking and all the other top scientists.
Even though it obvious.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
...
In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.
deny and distort Hawking and all the other top scientists.
Even though it obvious.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
...
In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.