How Much of a Theist or Atheist are You?

[james bond]

Here's the kicker though. Stephen Hawking said sometime around 2010 that he wants to know why something is greater than nothing. He's asking why there is a universe vs nothing. He's asking why matter dominates over antimatter, and both matter and antimatter exist naturally. Part of it is common sense and the other part is quantum mechanics. Some think this is further evidence for God since antimatter does not dominate. If it did, then we could have universes pop into existence and have multiverses. However, this isn't the case. Thus, people who think the universe came from "nothing" are wrong and do not have evidence to back up their hypotheses. Matter annihilates antimatter, so they can't co-exist. Yet, Hawking and other atheist scientists keep trying to come up with an explanation. This was one of the biggest setbacks for atheist science. Something greater than nothing holds for many other atheist hypotheses such as quantum physics vs Newtonian (classic) physics. Or an evolutionary origin of the universe vs creation. It's always something vs nothing. We may as well admit that something is greater than nothing has held up since the millennium. It has held up since the beginning.

 

[BreezeWood]

Did you just say evolution is philosophy? Ha ha. I thought it was a religion. It may as well be since you have "faith" in it.

since you have "faith" in it ...

no, that is what I said evolution would be if made relative to creationism. without veracity. how creationism can answer questions evolution with veracity could not according to the christian posts.

* without veracity what isn't answerable.

Wrong. Singularity is very high temperature and very dense, close to infinite, environment or situation. What you described were quantum fluctuations.

singularity is the "moment" between energy and mass. the cyclical instant. the Sabbath - purity in completion.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evolution is eatablished fact, and one does not require any faith to believe it is the best explanation for all of the observations in biology. You faith types sure do slide seamlessly from trying to distinguish faith from other types of belief to calling everything faith. And back again. It's odd.

 

[james bond]

since you have "faith" in it ...

no, that is what I said evolution would be if made relative to creationism. without veracity. how creationism can answer questions evolution with veracity could not according to the christian posts.

* without veracity what isn't answerable.

Creationism has veracity in creation science.

singularity is the "moment" between energy and mass. the cyclical instant. the Sabbath - purity in completion.

You had to change your answer because I was right (which makes your first answer wrong).

Yet, you're highlighting "moment" when it should be the moment where temperature and density is INFINITE. This kind of infinite does not happen in our world since we do not divide by zero. In math, division by zero is undefined. For example, if one could divide by zero, then 12 times 0 = 144. This can't happen. The only way it can happen is there is a creator and the creator creates. In this case, it would be 12 objects created to equal 144. See how math proves the creator?

Veracity by mathematics is solid, BW.

 

[james bond]

Evolution is eatablished fact, and one does not require any faith to believe it is the best explanation for all of the observations in biology. You faith types sure do slide seamlessly from trying to distinguish faith from other types of belief to calling everything faith. And back again. It's odd.

Again, if evolution is FACT, then we can all use it. What part of evolution can I use? Very little, if any.

Oh, you're referring to biology? Even there, creation scientists and atheist scientists disagree on the rates of species change. Creationists favor rapid change while evolutionists favor slow millions of years change. Yet, we see much species change by natural selection within our lifetimes. It does not take millions of years for it to happen. So much for your evolution facts in biology.

 

[BreezeWood]

since you have "faith" in it ...

no, that is what I said evolution would be if made relative to creationism. without veracity. how creationism can answer questions evolution with veracity could not according to the christian posts.

* without veracity what isn't answerable.

Creationism has veracity in creation science.

singularity is the "moment" between energy and mass. the cyclical instant. the Sabbath - purity in completion.

You had to change your answer because I was right (which makes your first answer wrong).

Yet, you're highlighting "moment" when it should be the moment where temperature and density is INFINITE. This kind of infinite does not happen in our world since we do not divide by zero. In math, division by zero is undefined. For example, if one could divide by zero, then 12 times 0 = 144. This can't happen. The only way it can happen is there is a creator and the creator creates. In this case, it would be 12 objects created to equal 144. See how math proves the creator?

Veracity by mathematics is solid, BW.

.

In math, division by zero is undefined.

your such a smarty bond, but let me offer another clue - zero in mathematics occurs when mass in unison extends to its furthest trajectory from the point of singularity. without ever changing direction to further propel itself into the pending mass collision to create S/+2 ...

This can't happen. The only way it can happen is there is a creator and the creator creates.

it can only happen if the Almighty believes the metaphysical axioms are to their liking - that leaves you out bond ...

 

[james bond]

since you have "faith" in it ...

no, that is what I said evolution would be if made relative to creationism. without veracity. how creationism can answer questions evolution with veracity could not according to the christian posts.

* without veracity what isn't answerable.

Creationism has veracity in creation science.

singularity is the "moment" between energy and mass. the cyclical instant. the Sabbath - purity in completion.

You had to change your answer because I was right (which makes your first answer wrong).

Yet, you're highlighting "moment" when it should be the moment where temperature and density is INFINITE. This kind of infinite does not happen in our world since we do not divide by zero. In math, division by zero is undefined. For example, if one could divide by zero, then 12 times 0 = 144. This can't happen. The only way it can happen is there is a creator and the creator creates. In this case, it would be 12 objects created to equal 144. See how math proves the creator?

Veracity by mathematics is solid, BW.

.

In math, division by zero is undefined.

your such a smarty bond, but let me offer another clue - zero in mathematics occurs when mass in unison extends to its furthest trajectory from the point of singularity. without ever changing direction to further propel itself into the pending mass collision to create S/+2 ...

This can't happen. The only way it can happen is there is a creator and the creator creates.

it can only happen if the Almighty believes the metaphysical axioms are to their liking - that leaves you out bond ...

>>BW: your such a smarty bond, but let me offer another clue - zero in mathematics occurs when mass in unison extends to its furthest trajectory from the point of singularity. without ever changing direction to further propel itself into the pending mass collision to create S/+2 ...<<

Before we get to your statement, it is a FACT that humans cannot divide by zero because it is undefined. Notice it did not give us ∞ and that only the creator can. This means we can only have uncountable objects in the material world. A man's got to know his limitations, BW.

Let's look at your statement. What it sounds like you are saying is that we can get to zero when our cosmic expansion continues and then into some kind of mass collision. That does not sound good at all, BW. I'll bite. With what mass is our mass going to collide with, BW, so we become zero?

 

[BreezeWood]

since you have "faith" in it ...

no, that is what I said evolution would be if made relative to creationism. without veracity. how creationism can answer questions evolution with veracity could not according to the christian posts.

* without veracity what isn't answerable.

Creationism has veracity in creation science.

singularity is the "moment" between energy and mass. the cyclical instant. the Sabbath - purity in completion.

You had to change your answer because I was right (which makes your first answer wrong).

Yet, you're highlighting "moment" when it should be the moment where temperature and density is INFINITE. This kind of infinite does not happen in our world since we do not divide by zero. In math, division by zero is undefined. For example, if one could divide by zero, then 12 times 0 = 144. This can't happen. The only way it can happen is there is a creator and the creator creates. In this case, it would be 12 objects created to equal 144. See how math proves the creator?

Veracity by mathematics is solid, BW.

.

In math, division by zero is undefined.

your such a smarty bond, but let me offer another clue - zero in mathematics occurs when mass in unison extends to its furthest trajectory from the point of singularity. without ever changing direction to further propel itself into the pending mass collision to create S/+2 ...

This can't happen. The only way it can happen is there is a creator and the creator creates.

it can only happen if the Almighty believes the metaphysical axioms are to their liking - that leaves you out bond ...

>>BW: your such a smarty bond, but let me offer another clue - zero in mathematics occurs when mass in unison extends to its furthest trajectory from the point of singularity. without ever changing direction to further propel itself into the pending mass collision to create S/+2 ...<<

Before we get to your statement, it is a FACT that humans cannot divide by zero because it is undefined. Notice it did not give us ∞ and that only the creator can. This means we can only have uncountable objects in the material world. A man's got to know his limitations, BW.

Let's look at your statement. What it sounds like you are saying is that we can get to zero when our cosmic expansion continues and then into some kind of mass collision. That does not sound good at all, BW. I'll bite. With what mass is our mass going to collide with, BW, so we become zero?

.

With what mass is our mass going to collide with, BW, so we become zero?

zero is when all matter in unison reaches the furthest point of their trajectory's finite angle derived from the point of expulsion after the moment of singularity ... at which time all matter then propels itself without changing direction back to its origin causing the mass recompaction that eventually causes all matter to convert back to energy and at the same final instance of completion recreate the expulsion that makes BB a cyclical event.

The Boomerang Theory -

when a pitcher in outerspace tosses a curveball, the ball traveling at a finite angle will eventually return to its point of origin without ever changing direction. the motion of a boomerang. cyclical BB.


there is both zero and infinity bond, purity of the transition is all that is required and the prerequisite metaphysical axioms used to create life are inalterable by the providence of the everwatchful Almighty, gatekeeper of the Everlasting.

 

[james bond]

since you have "faith" in it ...

no, that is what I said evolution would be if made relative to creationism. without veracity. how creationism can answer questions evolution with veracity could not according to the christian posts.

* without veracity what isn't answerable.

Creationism has veracity in creation science.

singularity is the "moment" between energy and mass. the cyclical instant. the Sabbath - purity in completion.

You had to change your answer because I was right (which makes your first answer wrong).

Yet, you're highlighting "moment" when it should be the moment where temperature and density is INFINITE. This kind of infinite does not happen in our world since we do not divide by zero. In math, division by zero is undefined. For example, if one could divide by zero, then 12 times 0 = 144. This can't happen. The only way it can happen is there is a creator and the creator creates. In this case, it would be 12 objects created to equal 144. See how math proves the creator?

Veracity by mathematics is solid, BW.

.

In math, division by zero is undefined.

your such a smarty bond, but let me offer another clue - zero in mathematics occurs when mass in unison extends to its furthest trajectory from the point of singularity. without ever changing direction to further propel itself into the pending mass collision to create S/+2 ...

This can't happen. The only way it can happen is there is a creator and the creator creates.

it can only happen if the Almighty believes the metaphysical axioms are to their liking - that leaves you out bond ...

>>BW: your such a smarty bond, but let me offer another clue - zero in mathematics occurs when mass in unison extends to its furthest trajectory from the point of singularity. without ever changing direction to further propel itself into the pending mass collision to create S/+2 ...<<

Before we get to your statement, it is a FACT that humans cannot divide by zero because it is undefined. Notice it did not give us ∞ and that only the creator can. This means we can only have uncountable objects in the material world. A man's got to know his limitations, BW.

Let's look at your statement. What it sounds like you are saying is that we can get to zero when our cosmic expansion continues and then into some kind of mass collision. That does not sound good at all, BW. I'll bite. With what mass is our mass going to collide with, BW, so we become zero?

.

With what mass is our mass going to collide with, BW, so we become zero?

zero is when all matter in unison reaches the furthest point of their trajectory's finite angle derived from the point of expulsion after the moment of singularity ... at which time all matter then propels itself without changing direction back to its origin causing the mass recompaction that eventually causes all matter to convert back to energy and at the same final instance of completion recreate the expulsion that makes BB a cyclical event.

The Boomerang Theory -

when a pitcher in outerspace tosses a curveball, the ball traveling at a finite angle will eventually return to its point of origin without ever changing direction. the motion of a boomerang. cyclical BB.


there is both zero and infinity bond, purity of the transition is all that is required and the prerequisite metaphysical axioms used to create life are inalterable by the providence of the everwatchful Almighty, gatekeeper of the Everlasting.

I think what you're talking about is the velocity which reaches zero at the apex. The equation for this is a = dv/dt. You would have to have velocity when dt = 0 and that would be a good trick as velocity would be zero. One would have to create the velocity that you are referring to from nothing.

Perhaps you mean at singularity, the velocity of an object would be spontaneous. I can visualize that if temperature and density are very high, i.e. uncountable, but I can't visualize that if temperature and density are infinite which atheist science requires. The assumption is the universe expands infinitely which I don't think it does. Creation science claims there is a border to the universe.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Again, if evolution is FACT, then we can all use it.

What a silly thing to say. How can you use fusion? How can you use gravity waves?

Scientists "use" evolution all the time.

while evolutionists favor slow millions of years change.

No. It is generally accepted in the scientific community that evolutionary change happens at all possible speeds.

And for the 100th time, there is no such thing as creation science. Second, what you said about creationists favoring "fast evolution" is absurd.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Evolution is eatablished fact, and one does not require any faith to believe it is the best explanation for all of the observations in biology. You faith types sure do slide seamlessly from trying to distinguish faith from other types of belief to calling everything faith. And back again. It's odd.

No, evolution is NOT an established fact. That is just what the uneducated think because they want to believe they're smarter than they are without taking the trouble to really know anything about the science they hope will free them from morality.

Evolution is a theory. It has to be, since no one has actually been around long enough to have witnessed it. Any scientist - a REAL one, not a shill - can and will tell you that there are still questions that have to be answered before evolution can be more than a theory. For example, where are the missing links? How did life come from non-living material? How can evolution and natural selection produce complex organs and systems?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evolution is eatablished fact, and one does not require any faith to believe it is the best explanation for all of the observations in biology. You faith types sure do slide seamlessly from trying to distinguish faith from other types of belief to calling everything faith. And back again. It's odd.

No, evolution is NOT an established fact. That is just what the uneducated think because they want to believe they're smarter than they are without taking the trouble to really know anything about the science they hope will free them from morality.

Evolution is a theory. It has to be, since no one has actually been around long enough to have witnessed it. Any scientist - a REAL one, not a shill - can and will tell you that there are still questions that have to be answered before evolution can be more than a theory. For example, where are the missing links? How did life come from non-living material? How can evolution and natural selection produce complex organs and systems?

That's all completely wrong. "Scientific theory" is the highest status a scientifoc explanation can achieve. And the theory of evolution is the most well supported theory in the history of science. Nearly every scientist who knows anything about evolutionary theory would call it a fact that evolution is the explanation for the diversity of species we see today. And the ones who dont are anomalous.

You are also way off with your oddball "observational versus historical science" garbage lifted right from young earth creationist propaganda. Scientists dont draw or recognize such a distinction. No scientist would ever demand first hand observance of a phenomena as evvidence for its existence. That truly is utter garbage, and you discredit yourself to peddle it. No scientist would demand that we watch an alpha particle separate from an atomic nucleus in order to acvept as fact that it occurs. And , trust me, scientists accept aplha particle radiation as FACT.

 

[james bond]

Again, if evolution is FACT, then we can all use it.

What a silly thing to say. How can you use fusion? How can you use gravity waves?

Scientists "use" evolution all the time.

while evolutionists favor slow millions of years change.

No. It is generally accepted in the scientific community that evolutionary change happens at all possible speeds.

And for the 100th time, there is no such thing as creation science. Second, what you said about creationists favoring "fast evolution" is absurd.

You misunderstand. It's not silly at all. Not everyone can use evolution as a fact when they don't believe it. We can't say humans came from fish nor humans came from apes. It's just a theory. Not a fact.

Everyone can use gravitational waves, not gravity waves. Gravitational waves support the general theory of relativity.

Then you don't understand evolution while I do. Evolution needed billions of years for it to become valid.

"In 1956 the American geologist Clair Patterson (left) announced that the Earth was 4.5 billion years old. Darwin had finally gotten the luxury of time he had craved."

Radiometric Dating: Clair Patterson

Creation science exists. We have -- Creation Science Organizations and Ministries . This just goes to show that atheists are usually wrong.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's just a theory. Not a fact.

Wrong, it's both a theory and a fact. I promise you that you embarrass yourself every time you say, "just a theory", when speaking about acientific theories. Do you not care that you are embarrassing and discrediting yourself?

There is no such thing as creation science. There is no creation science being published. What a shameless lie.

No you cannot "use" gravity waves, you oddball.

 

[BreezeWood]

since you have "faith" in it ...

no, that is what I said evolution would be if made relative to creationism. without veracity. how creationism can answer questions evolution with veracity could not according to the christian posts.

* without veracity what isn't answerable.

Creationism has veracity in creation science.

singularity is the "moment" between energy and mass. the cyclical instant. the Sabbath - purity in completion.

You had to change your answer because I was right (which makes your first answer wrong).

Yet, you're highlighting "moment" when it should be the moment where temperature and density is INFINITE. This kind of infinite does not happen in our world since we do not divide by zero. In math, division by zero is undefined. For example, if one could divide by zero, then 12 times 0 = 144. This can't happen. The only way it can happen is there is a creator and the creator creates. In this case, it would be 12 objects created to equal 144. See how math proves the creator?

Veracity by mathematics is solid, BW.

.

In math, division by zero is undefined.

your such a smarty bond, but let me offer another clue - zero in mathematics occurs when mass in unison extends to its furthest trajectory from the point of singularity. without ever changing direction to further propel itself into the pending mass collision to create S/+2 ...

This can't happen. The only way it can happen is there is a creator and the creator creates.

it can only happen if the Almighty believes the metaphysical axioms are to their liking - that leaves you out bond ...

>>BW: your such a smarty bond, but let me offer another clue - zero in mathematics occurs when mass in unison extends to its furthest trajectory from the point of singularity. without ever changing direction to further propel itself into the pending mass collision to create S/+2 ...<<

Before we get to your statement, it is a FACT that humans cannot divide by zero because it is undefined. Notice it did not give us ∞ and that only the creator can. This means we can only have uncountable objects in the material world. A man's got to know his limitations, BW.

Let's look at your statement. What it sounds like you are saying is that we can get to zero when our cosmic expansion continues and then into some kind of mass collision. That does not sound good at all, BW. I'll bite. With what mass is our mass going to collide with, BW, so we become zero?

.

With what mass is our mass going to collide with, BW, so we become zero?

zero is when all matter in unison reaches the furthest point of their trajectory's finite angle derived from the point of expulsion after the moment of singularity ... at which time all matter then propels itself without changing direction back to its origin causing the mass recompaction that eventually causes all matter to convert back to energy and at the same final instance of completion recreate the expulsion that makes BB a cyclical event.

The Boomerang Theory -

when a pitcher in outerspace tosses a curveball, the ball traveling at a finite angle will eventually return to its point of origin without ever changing direction. the motion of a boomerang. cyclical BB.


there is both zero and infinity bond, purity of the transition is all that is required and the prerequisite metaphysical axioms used to create life are inalterable by the providence of the everwatchful Almighty, gatekeeper of the Everlasting.

I think what you're talking about is the velocity which reaches zero at the apex. The equation for this is a = dv/dt. You would have to have velocity when dt = 0 and that would be a good trick as velocity would be zero. One would have to create the velocity that you are referring to from nothing.

Perhaps you mean at singularity, the velocity of an object would be spontaneous. I can visualize that if temperature and density are very high, i.e. uncountable, but I can't visualize that if temperature and density are infinite which atheist science requires. The assumption is the universe expands infinitely which I don't think it does. Creation science claims there is a border to the universe.

.

One would have to create the velocity that you are referring to from nothing.

how's that, when all the matter in the universe is recompacted by the previous energy expulsion it then recreates by a new conversion to energy a renewed expulsion at the cyclical instant to recreate the trajectories from the spherical singularity of pure energy that will eventually bring all the recreated mass / matter back again to its origin at the same time for a renewed compaction.

I think what you're talking about is the velocity which reaches zero at the apex

at the apex of the trajectory is when all matter at the same time will cease traveling away from the origin of BB and will begin a mirror of the trajectory back to the origin without ever changing direction.

Perhaps you mean at singularity, the velocity of an object would be spontaneous. I can visualize that if temperature and density are very high, i.e. uncountable, but I can't visualize that if temperature and density are infinite which atheist science requires.

but I can't visualize that if temperature and density are infinite which atheist science requires.

I defer to your knowledge that exceeds mine for the above but I would believe the atheist are correct that both 0 and infinite are factors in the creation of the universe so much so if they are not accomplished the universe would not exist, there would not be the transfer at singularity of one to the other. the metaphysical axioms, purity are also required in its creation. what the Almighty refers to as a Sabbath. a perfect completion.

 

[james bond]

It's just a theory. Not a fact.

Wrong, it's both a theory and a fact. I promise you that you embarrass yourself every time you say, "just a theory", when speaking about acientific theories. Do you not care that you are embarrassing and discrediting yourself?

There is no such thing as creation science. There is no creation science being published. What a shameless lie.

No you cannot "use" gravity waves, you oddball.

I'm not wrong. You're wrong when you have to resort to ad hominem attacks because you're losing an argument. Especially one near and dear to atheists' hearts such as evolution. It just goes to show you got no class like Obama.

Moreover, facts are not theories and can be used by everyone such as, "We can travel into the future by a very fast rocket ship using Einstein's special theory of relativity (demonstrated in youtube below around 4:20). However, one cannot time travel into the past is a theory. Some people think we can travel into the past because they believe in parallel universes when there is absolutely no evidence. However, creation scientists believe God will not allow people to travel into the past as they use the Bible to point out events occurring according to God’s timetable (Genesis 21:1; John 7:8; 1 Timothy 2:6). This runs contrary to the idea of people changing historical events by traveling into the past. Thus, no time travel back into the past and no parallel universes. That's just science fiction.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's just a theory. Not a fact.

Wrong, it's both a theory and a fact. I promise you that you embarrass yourself every time you say, "just a theory", when speaking about acientific theories. Do you not care that you are embarrassing and discrediting yourself?

There is no such thing as creation science. There is no creation science being published. What a shameless lie.

No you cannot "use" gravity waves, you oddball.

I'm not wrong. You're wrong when you have to resort to ad hominem attacks because you're losing an argument. Especially one near and dear to atheists' hearts such as evolution. It just goes to show you got no class like Obama.

Moreover, facts are not theories and can be used by everyone such as, "We can travel into the future by a very fast rocket ship using Einstein's special theory of relativity (demonstrated in youtube below around 4:20). However, one cannot time travel into the past is a theory. Some people think we can travel into the past because they believe in parallel universes when there is absolutely no evidence. However, creation scientists believe God will not allow people to travel into the past as they use the Bible to point out events occurring according to God’s timetable (Genesis 21:1; John 7:8; 1 Timothy 2:6). This runs contrary to the idea of people changing historical events by traveling into the past. Thus, no time travel back into the past and no parallel universes. That's just science fiction.

Yes, evolution is fact. No, there is no such thing as "creation science".

 

[james bond]

Creationism has veracity in creation science.

You had to change your answer because I was right (which makes your first answer wrong).

Yet, you're highlighting "moment" when it should be the moment where temperature and density is INFINITE. This kind of infinite does not happen in our world since we do not divide by zero. In math, division by zero is undefined. For example, if one could divide by zero, then 12 times 0 = 144. This can't happen. The only way it can happen is there is a creator and the creator creates. In this case, it would be 12 objects created to equal 144. See how math proves the creator?

Veracity by mathematics is solid, BW.

.

In math, division by zero is undefined.

your such a smarty bond, but let me offer another clue - zero in mathematics occurs when mass in unison extends to its furthest trajectory from the point of singularity. without ever changing direction to further propel itself into the pending mass collision to create S/+2 ...

This can't happen. The only way it can happen is there is a creator and the creator creates.

it can only happen if the Almighty believes the metaphysical axioms are to their liking - that leaves you out bond ...

>>BW: your such a smarty bond, but let me offer another clue - zero in mathematics occurs when mass in unison extends to its furthest trajectory from the point of singularity. without ever changing direction to further propel itself into the pending mass collision to create S/+2 ...<<

Before we get to your statement, it is a FACT that humans cannot divide by zero because it is undefined. Notice it did not give us ∞ and that only the creator can. This means we can only have uncountable objects in the material world. A man's got to know his limitations, BW.

Let's look at your statement. What it sounds like you are saying is that we can get to zero when our cosmic expansion continues and then into some kind of mass collision. That does not sound good at all, BW. I'll bite. With what mass is our mass going to collide with, BW, so we become zero?

.

With what mass is our mass going to collide with, BW, so we become zero?

zero is when all matter in unison reaches the furthest point of their trajectory's finite angle derived from the point of expulsion after the moment of singularity ... at which time all matter then propels itself without changing direction back to its origin causing the mass recompaction that eventually causes all matter to convert back to energy and at the same final instance of completion recreate the expulsion that makes BB a cyclical event.

The Boomerang Theory -

when a pitcher in outerspace tosses a curveball, the ball traveling at a finite angle will eventually return to its point of origin without ever changing direction. the motion of a boomerang. cyclical BB.


there is both zero and infinity bond, purity of the transition is all that is required and the prerequisite metaphysical axioms used to create life are inalterable by the providence of the everwatchful Almighty, gatekeeper of the Everlasting.

I think what you're talking about is the velocity which reaches zero at the apex. The equation for this is a = dv/dt. You would have to have velocity when dt = 0 and that would be a good trick as velocity would be zero. One would have to create the velocity that you are referring to from nothing.

Perhaps you mean at singularity, the velocity of an object would be spontaneous. I can visualize that if temperature and density are very high, i.e. uncountable, but I can't visualize that if temperature and density are infinite which atheist science requires. The assumption is the universe expands infinitely which I don't think it does. Creation science claims there is a border to the universe.

.

One would have to create the velocity that you are referring to from nothing.

how's that, when all the matter in the universe is recompacted by the previous energy expulsion it then recreates by a new conversion to energy a renewed expulsion at the cyclical instant to recreate the trajectories from the spherical singularity of pure energy that will eventually bring all the recreated mass / matter back again to its origin at the same time for a renewed compaction.

I think what you're talking about is the velocity which reaches zero at the apex

at the apex of the trajectory is when all matter at the same time will cease traveling away from the origin of BB and will begin a mirror of the trajectory back to the origin without ever changing direction.

Perhaps you mean at singularity, the velocity of an object would be spontaneous. I can visualize that if temperature and density are very high, i.e. uncountable, but I can't visualize that if temperature and density are infinite which atheist science requires.

but I can't visualize that if temperature and density are infinite which atheist science requires.

I defer to your knowledge that exceeds mine for the above but I would believe the atheist are correct that both 0 and infinite are factors in the creation of the universe so much so if they are not accomplished the universe would not exist, there would not be the transfer at singularity of one to the other. the metaphysical axioms, purity are also required in its creation. what the Almighty refers to as a Sabbath. a perfect completion.

>>BW: how's that, when all the matter in the universe is recompacted by the previous energy expulsion it then recreates by a new conversion to energy a renewed expulsion at the cyclical instant to recreate the trajectories from the spherical singularity of pure energy that will eventually bring all the recreated mass / matter back again to its origin at the same time for a renewed compaction.<<

Again, you're referring to velocity and not energy with recompaction of the universe. If the universe does not achieve escape velocity, then it will collapse due to the gravitational attraction of all its mass of matter. This is called the Big Crunch. However, BC is just one scenario unless there is another huge mass exerting an opposite attraction. None is known at this time doing this.

Besides, one cannot have infinite expansion due to spherical singularity or any type of singularity. One cannot have infinite temperature and density of singularity. No such infinite objects can exist in the material world. The math does not allow it unless there is a creator.

OTOH, Creation scientists theorize that the universe and earth (same age) formed very rapidly, like one day by the creator, and is still thousands of years old instead of billions. They do not have this problem with escape velocity such as with the BBT.

 

[james bond]

Anyway, the study of religious brains goes to show that the religious have more going on in their frontal lobes than those who do not meditate or pray. It kind of matches what happens here in this forum.

Neurotheology: This Is Your Brain On Religion

 

[james bond]

It's just a theory. Not a fact.

Wrong, it's both a theory and a fact. I promise you that you embarrass yourself every time you say, "just a theory", when speaking about acientific theories. Do you not care that you are embarrassing and discrediting yourself?

There is no such thing as creation science. There is no creation science being published. What a shameless lie.

No you cannot "use" gravity waves, you oddball.

I'm not wrong. You're wrong when you have to resort to ad hominem attacks because you're losing an argument. Especially one near and dear to atheists' hearts such as evolution. It just goes to show you got no class like Obama.

Moreover, facts are not theories and can be used by everyone such as, "We can travel into the future by a very fast rocket ship using Einstein's special theory of relativity (demonstrated in youtube below around 4:20). However, one cannot time travel into the past is a theory. Some people think we can travel into the past because they believe in parallel universes when there is absolutely no evidence. However, creation scientists believe God will not allow people to travel into the past as they use the Bible to point out events occurring according to God’s timetable (Genesis 21:1; John 7:8; 1 Timothy 2:6). This runs contrary to the idea of people changing historical events by traveling into the past. Thus, no time travel back into the past and no parallel universes. That's just science fiction.

Yes, evolution is fact. No, there is no such thing as "creation science".

You are confused. Before, you said it was fact and theory until I debunked it. It's a theory until something better comes along to replace it like creation science. One example is no one is worried about the universe collapsing into itself and everything including us are gone. I suppose you're going to tell me that we have find a way to get to another universe by traveling through wormhole aBCxYZ. That doesn't sound much like a fact to me.