15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[luchitociencia]

I'm not a pantheist, dear. I don't believe the painter is the painting.

So was St. Paul wrong when he said, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made."

A knew a house decorator who had his signature. All the houses he was called to decorate, the window frames of those houses ended painted green color. So, you drive thru the luxury neighborhoods, and typically the houses with green window frames were clients of this professional decorator. You recognize he was there because such a detail.

That is what Paul has said in that phrase. His power, His deity, His invisible nature has been perceived thru the things He has made.

When you receive his word, when you receive his Holy Spirit, you perceive Him thru them. but actually the Holy Spirit is not Him in essence, but is what He sent for you to have. It comes from Him, but it's not Him.

Jesus himself is not the Father in its essence, like your son comes from you but he is not you.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I'm immediately spotting one major hole in your logic: The validity of an experiment doesn't rest on my personal ability to understand and explain it. If I can't explain the mechanism of someone else's scientific research, that doesn't disprove anything other than my own understanding. And we're not talking about -my- theory. We're talking about Einstein's theory, and there have actually been many experiments made suggesting this to be the case.

Hafele–Keating experiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

L. Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock laughed of relativists, and said Einstein folled himself and fooled a generation of scientists with his good for nothing theories full of "thought experiments".

I will tell you this. Atomic clocks are so sensitive, because they work thru internal signals and motion of atoms of Cesium, that you move it from one room to another and its time data has been affected already. Mr. Essen knew it, he was the builder of that clock.

Three Experiments That Show Relativity Is Real

Relativity predicts a lot of phenomena that seem weird, but there are a huge number of experimental tests confirming that it's real. Here are three of the best.

www.forbes.com

Test 1. I will explain you this way. You have your twin brother, and he will take a trip around the earth at 8 km/s, while you will be resting at the beach, having your refreshment, listening soft rock music.

According to the stupidity called relativity, time will "slow" for your brother because his speed.

But it happens that actually you, resting at the beach, and your brother in the space ship, are both traveling at 27km/s around the sun. In simple words, both of you are actually traveling at the same speed of 27km/s because that is the speed which rules over both of you.

So, if any difference is found in time data between your clock and your brother's clock, then definitively is not time dilatation but simply malfunction in your brother's clock.

Your theory has been debunked.

Test 2. There is not suich a thing as gravitational lenses, such is stupidity. The case of the solar eclipse in 1919 is nothing but "atmospheric lens". The Sun's hot atmosphere caused the distortion and the image of a near star will appear to be in a different location. This is a very common optical phenomenon.

Your sh*t theory is debunked again.

Test 3. The results only show how rotation of bodies affect the surroundings. You can't observe any compression of space time, and no similar fantasies.

Your theory debunked one more time.

GP-B

science.nasa.gov

NASA has changed the theory of relativity.

Idiot Einstein never ever mentioned any spinning of bodies as causing gravitational effects. His idea was solely "density" of bodies causing distortion in his imaginary space time.

Your legs have been pulled, because I am more than 20 years already showing relativity as false with its density and gravity. The spinning is not Einstein's idea, it is MY idea.

Go and review all the papers from Einstein, his theory is good for nothing.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi2nc7pq-HqAhWJjp4KHc8hB-kQFjAEegQIChAJ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.outerplaces.com%2Fscience%2Fitem%2F6019-physicists-confirm-that-time-moves-more-slowly-for-objects-in-motion&usg=AOvVaw1b5JZ5vHUcacSP11RyMvfX

Find another source for your propaganda, I don't deal with Google.

Einstein's "Time Dilation" Prediction Verified

Experiments at a particle accelerator have confirmed the "time dilation" effect predicted by Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity

www.scientificamerican.com

The example given about you and your twin brother -right above- deletes completely and forever the stupidity of time dilatation. You will never ever be capable to beat my statements. Not using relativity, that is for sure.

Relativity is a fraud.

You'll notice that the common thread with most of these time experiments is extremely precise time measuring instruments synced up. Some are kept relatively stationary while others are sent into motion. As more and more experiments have been conducted to this end, the results have consistently shown not only that the moving clocks measured a different amount of time passing than those that were stationary, but also always as predicted by the mathematics of relativity theory.

Since nothing is "stationary" in the universe, then your theory is 100% invalid.

Go back to school, demand your money back, because your teachers have taught you sh*t. Come back, and ask me, I will teach you science based on reality.

In terms of proving that it's the existence and flow of "time" that's the "cause", you're simply talking semantics. The point is, things occur, and the rate at which they occur is relative to phenomena including, but not necessarily limited to velocity and gravity. That rate of occurrence is what we call time, and it is a thing whether or not we choose to measure or name it.

Semantics my ass.

You don't provide the explanation of the mechanism of how time dilates, of how time is affected by a moving object, then you have come here to put crappy links and talk pure sh*t.

You have nothing to validate relativity, you are spreading fraud around.

I'm a master, and I can dance the Macarena over all your relativity sh*t. Lol.

Wow, the sheer fucking arrogance of some of these claims is awe inspiring.

If I'm resting on the beach and my twin brother is in an airplane, we're not both moving at the same speed, regardless of the motion of the Earth, the solar system, the galaxy, or the velocity of the universe's expansion. I, by sitting on the beach, am moving at precisely whatever speed the earth is spiraling through space. My brother is moving at that speed ADJUSTED by the speed of the aircraft, which is not stationary in relation to the Earth, as I am. Therefore, our total velocity will be different, even if that difference is only a tiny, tiny fraction of the velocity of the Earth itself.

If we were talking about this experiment with various time keeping instruments happening once or twice and the results coinciding with what we'd expect if relativity were correct, then I'd say that you're probably correct in calling it a chance malfunction. The fact that such experiments have been replicated many times and the specific differences in the clocks that were in motion, when compared to the clocks that weren't, have tended map out over what one would expect if relativity were mathematically sound, suggests that you SIMPLY ASSERTING OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD that this is "definitively" the result of a malfunction is probably not reliable enough counter-evidence to call Einstein's theory of relativity debunked.

Next, and again, you SIMPLY ASSERTING that gravitational lensing isn't a thing , and claiming that it's the sun's "hot atmosphere" creating the optical illusion doesn't debunk shit. I'm not sure where you've gotten the idea that your mere claims and whatever counter-explanations you could dream up count as scientific evidence, but that shit's silly as fuck. You wanna say that you don't believe this shit, that I'm an idiot for finding it even remotely compelling, that's your prerogative, but please do get it through your head that expressing your contradictory opinions isn't the same as disproving scientific theories.

Next up, are you seriously telling me that the NASA article I posted is lying about Einstein's theory to give him credit for something that YOU actually theorized? Holy shit, even by internet bullshit standards, that is one HELL of a claim! I'm honestly starting to wonder if your entire reply is just an elaborate troll. In the first place, you're expecting me to believe that you're a top scientist who's work is right there at the bleeding edge of theoretical physics, yet you've illustrated that you don't quite grasp the concept of relative velocity and you have demonstrated ZERO understanding of replicable results. That's already goofy as fuck, but then telling me that NASA is giving Einstein YOUR credit!? Just. . . wow. I'll bet you stepped out of the shuttle before Armstrong, too, right? Fuckin NASA. It ain't right what they've done to you.

"Since nothing is "stationary" in the universe, then your theory is 100% invalid." This is a good example of your lack of fundamental understanding. Yes, everything in the universe is moving. No, it isn't all moving at the same speed. According to relativity theory, the difference in how time flows at different velocities isn't a binary; there isn't one speed at which time flows in motion and one speed at which it flows when stationary. Rather, the rate of time's progress changes with velocity. Therefore, the fact that nothing is stationary is irrelevant. The differences can, according to all sorts of available literature and recorded experimentation, be observed by observing movement at different velocities.

You're right, though, I don't have an explanation as to the mechanism by which time dilates. I never claimed to be an expert. In fact, when I started this conversation by saying that time SEEMS to exist, I didn't even claim to have a confident belief in relativity theory. From everything I've read, there have been some tweeks and updates, but by and large the experimental evidence thus far has largely confirmed the theory's pillars. I only put up those links to show you that time dilation experiments aren't just some random shit I dreamed up to try and convince you of a random physics theory.

Here's the fun thing, though. I don't need to be an expert in physics to see through you. I don't have to have a PHD in SHIT to know that a guy who claims that, because the Earth is moving, a man sitting on the beach is moving at precisely the same speed as a man in an airplane, ALSO isn't an expert of any sort, let alone a man who's theories are misattributed to Einstein.

A MASTER!? LMFAO! Nah, I'm not gonna go bother my old school teachers, and I'm certainly not going to come to you to learn anything. You, sir, are not only comically stupid for someone so utterly convinced of his own genius, but also cartoonishly full of shit.

 

[ding]

The best we can say about time is that it is a convenient method for demarcating the expansion of the universe.

Problem of time - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

A convenient measure.

And with it you can't demarcate any expansion of the universe because actually you can't perceive it by any means, so such idea is still hypothetical.

hmmmm... interesting. Here is how I perceive it, my dear.

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

I told you I wasn't the droid you were looking for

Psft, you just made all that up. Link or its all fake.

Is your google broken?

 

[ding]

Oh yeah, I almost forgot... Crixus , yoar welcome.

 

[luchitociencia]

Wow, the sheer fucking arrogance of some of these claims is awe inspiring.

It's because I'm a master. Do you want me to be humble when I am a master? Lol. Forget it!

If I'm resting on the beach and my twin brother is in an airplane, we're not both moving at the same speed, regardless of the motion of the Earth, the solar system, the galaxy, or the velocity of the universe's expansion. I, by sitting on the beach, am moving at precisely whatever speed the earth is spiraling through space. My brother is moving at that speed ADJUSTED by the speed of the aircraft, which is not stationary in relation to the Earth, as I am. Therefore, our total velocity will be different, even if that difference is only a tiny, tiny fraction of the velocity of the Earth itself.

Your mind is so narrow.

You say "time dilates because the speed of objects", but having that both are traveling at 29km/s around the sun, no matter how fast your brother travels in the airplane, both of you are traveling at the same speed anyway.

It should be a different scenario if your brother travels at greater speed than 29km/s, and even so, our solar system travels at 250km/s in the galaxy, so whatever is inside our solar system that is their speed. But wait, our galaxy moves at 630km/s. FRom here, if you believe that crap of flowing time, then time flows the same inside the total galaxy, and no matter how fast you travel inside of it, time won't dilate as long as you don't travel faster than 630km/s.

So, this is to demonstrate you that such idea of Einstein is nothing but crap to the square.

If we were talking about this experiment with various time keeping instruments happening once or twice and the results coinciding with what we'd expect if relativity were correct, then I'd say that you're probably correct in calling it a chance malfunction.

Yes, use my Rolex and check its time data after two years in outer space. You will see that the malfunction of my Rolex will be way different than the malfunction of the atomic clock in the satellite.

Use a sand clock in the spaceship and all your crap is over in one dilated second... ha ha ha ha...

I'm a master.

The fact that such experiments have been replicated many times and the specific differences in the clocks that were in motion,

I just poster "variables" using different kind of clocks to check if your crap is true, but you know that the other clocks will definitively give you other results other than the distorted result of the atomic clock in space.

I m a master, I know.

All your test have zero value when you never tried using variables, which are the test of fire to verify the results of the atomic clock data.

when compared to the clocks that weren't, have tended map out over what one would expect if relativity were mathematically sound, suggests that you SIMPLY ASSERTING OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD that this is "definitively" the result of a malfunction is probably not reliable enough counter-evidence to call Einstein's theory of relativity debunked.

Relativity is a debunked theory. Time doesn't exist, by consequence, time can't dilate.

I'm a master.

Next, and again, you SIMPLY ASSERTING that gravitational lensing isn't a thing , and claiming that it's the sun's "hot atmosphere" creating the optical illusion doesn't debunk shit. I'm not sure where you've gotten the idea that your mere claims and whatever counter-explanations you could dream up count as scientific evidence, but that shit's silly as fuck.

I will respond to your silly argument with a graphic of mine, because I'm a master.

You wanna say that you don't believe this shit, that I'm an idiot for finding it even remotely compelling, that's your prerogative, but please do get it through your head that expressing your contradictory opinions isn't the same as disproving scientific theories.

Your scientific theories are crap. You won't be able to discredit a single line, letter, word of my graphic.

Do you know why?

Because I'm a master.

Next up, are you seriously telling me that the NASA article I posted is lying about Einstein's theory to give him credit for something that YOU actually theorized? Holy shit, even by internet bullshit standards, that is one HELL of a claim!

Idiot Einstein believed that gravity was caused by density of bodies, that's all he believed. Read his writings.

Even the stupidity of black holes was invented with that silly idea.

NASA is full of crap as well, when they also believe that they can see the universe as it was it is past... that is also laughable.

But don't worry about it, just follow my advice, go back to your school, demand your money back because your teachers taught you crap instead of physics.

I will teach you science based on reality. With me you finally will learn how the universe works.

Because... I'm a master.

I'm honestly starting to wonder if your entire reply is just an elaborate troll. In the first place, you're expecting me to believe that you're a top scientist who's work is right there at the bleeding edge of theoretical physics, yet you've illustrated that you don't quite grasp the concept of relative velocity and you have demonstrated ZERO understanding of replicable results.

I didn't say that, but you can believe whatever you want.

That's already goofy as fuck, but then telling me that NASA is giving Einstein YOUR credit!? Just. . . wow. I'll bet you stepped out of the shuttle before Armstrong, too, right? Fuckin NASA. It ain't right what they've done to you.

Yes, it is MY credit, Silly Albert never ever mentioned any spinning of bodies related to gravity, he only related spinning to time dilatation. He was a loony and his theories were always good for nothing.

"Since nothing is "stationary" in the universe, then your theory is 100% invalid." This is a good example of your lack of fundamental understanding. Yes, everything in the universe is moving. No, it isn't all moving at the same speed. According to relativity theory, the difference in how time flows at different velocities isn't a binary; there isn't one speed at which time flows in motion and one speed at which it flows when stationary.

So you agree with nothing in the universe is stationary.But later you claim time flows at different velocities.

Ok, now show me how you have detected those velocities of time. Remember that you can't use clocks because clocks are devices calibrated to solely make tic tic tic tic... Clocks can't detect any flowing time and perceive its "flowing".

Houston, a guy here has a problem....

Sheesss, I'm truly a master.

Rather, the rate of time's progress changes with velocity. Therefore, the fact that nothing is stationary is irrelevant. The differences can, according to all sorts of available literature and recorded experimentation, be observed by observing movement at different velocities.

You and your "irrelevant" are going nowhere.

You talk of of available literature. Sure, pure crap theories. Face it, Einstein wasn't a genius but an idiot.

You say "recorded experimentation"m but you never used variables. Your experiments are all invalid if not incomplete.

You say, being observed by observing movement at different velocities. OK, light travels faster than you, so what?

You compete with light going to the Moon. A beam of light is sent to the Moon while you take a Uber spaceship going over there. At the time you have reached the Moon, the light has arrived already, part of it reflected on the surface and gone, another part absorbed. You can't even find where light hit on the Moon. Then, so what?

Reality is that such is all that will happen. Nothing more. Light traveled faster than you and that's all. No dilatation of time, no warping of space, no expansion of the universe, just you arriving way after light to the moon.

All your theories about relativity, and time dilatation are crap.

You better go back to your school, and do it before those fraudulent teachers retire and go away with your money. They have pulled your legs.

You're right, though, I don't have an explanation as to the mechanism by which time dilates. I never claimed to be an expert. In fact, when I started this conversation by saying that time SEEMS to exist, I didn't even claim to have a confident belief in relativity theory.

Look, a theory of science is not about predictions but EXPLANATIONS. Predictions are only the assumption of what could be the result in an experiment.

How it comes that relativity was accepted as a theory of science when Einstein never explained sh*t, such is a question to be answered by the idiots who follow that fantasy.

Lets say, you make your theory of the Sun orbiting around earth, and the mechanism is asked for you to explain how the sun travels from horizon to horizon. You can do like Ptolemy, and use mathematics alone, but such IS NOT an explanation. His calculations are very good, but the theory itself is crap.

You have with relativity the same scenario, pure abstract mathematics but zero explanation, zero facts.

I can guarantee you what I say because I'm a master.

From everything I've read, there have been some tweeks and updates, but by and large the experimental evidence thus far has largely confirmed the theory's pillars. I only put up those links to show you that time dilation experiments aren't just some random shit I dreamed up to try and convince you of a random physics theory.

You did good in discussing this topic with me. Hope you get deeper in those deluded theories but ask questions rather than getting impressed with their computer simulations and attractive pictures, which are just that, entertainment.

Demand the evidence that time really exists and flows. Tell them to show you the instruments used to measure the flowing of time. Remember, nothing else but the flowing of time. You will find out the whole theory is crappy without evidence supporting it.

I can tell because I'm a master.

Here's the fun thing, though. I don't need to be an expert in physics to see through you. I don't have to have a PHD in SHIT to know that a guy who claims that, because the Earth is moving, a man sitting on the beach is moving at precisely the same speed as a man in an airplane, ALSO isn't an expert of any sort, let alone a man who's theories are misattributed to Einstein.

The example given to you was to demonstrate that if time "dilates" then the greater speed is what rules for it, and having the speed of earth as greater than yours and your brother's, then both of you should be experienced the same dilatation of time. The satellites travel in conjunction with earth at 29km/s around the sun, then, any difference between time data in atomic clocks is caused because one of the clocks suffers malfunction.

The atomic clocks are calibrated on ground zero. When exposed to a different environment, their calibration will suffer changes. This is a fact with everything you send to outer space. There are thousands of experiments of all kind performed in the space station, all of them prove and support my statements, all of them show changes without exception. Like mixing liquid metals that can't be mix on earth, or mixing water with cooking oil. You go to that space station and your heart becomes a circumference, and when you return part of your DNA has changed.

You have learned wrong science in the past, and here you are learning good and verifiable science.

A MASTER!? LMFAO! Nah, I'm not gonna go bother my old school teachers, and I'm certainly not going to come to you to learn anything. You, sir, are not only comically stupid for someone so utterly convinced of his own genius, but also cartoonishly full of shit.

A master?

What are you talking about?

Are you saying I said I'm a master?!

Where? When?

I''m just a dude like you who is discussing science at a layman forum level.

Come on, you are confusing me with another guy...

 

[ding]

I'm not a pantheist, dear. I don't believe the painter is the painting.

So was St. Paul wrong when he said, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made."

A knew a house decorator who had his signature. All the houses he was called to decorate, the window frames of those houses ended painted green color. So, you drive thru the luxury neighborhoods, and typically the houses with green window frames were clients of this professional decorator. You recognize he was there because such a detail.

That is what Paul has said in that phrase. His power, His deity, His invisible nature has been perceived thru the things He has made.

When you receive his word, when you receive his Holy Spirit, you perceive Him thru them. but actually the Holy Spirit is not Him in essence, but is what He sent for you to have. It comes from Him, but it's not Him.

Jesus himself is not the Father in its essence, like your son comes from you but he is not you.

I don't need an explanation on the Trinity. The Trinity is not some puzzle to be solved. The Trinity is a relationship to be entered into.

 

[ding]

Do you want me to be humble when I am a master? Lol. Forget it!

Why not? Jesus does.

For those who exalt themselves will be humbled,
and those who humble themselves will be exalted. Matthew 23:12

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. Matthew 5:5

...For he who is least among you all is the one who is great. Luke 9:48

 

[Crixus]

The best we can say about time is that it is a convenient method for demarcating the expansion of the universe.

Problem of time - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

A convenient measure.

And with it you can't demarcate any expansion of the universe because actually you can't perceive it by any means, so such idea is still hypothetical.

hmmmm... interesting. Here is how I perceive it, my dear.

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

I told you I wasn't the droid you were looking for

Psft, you just made all that up. Link or its all fake.

Is your google broken?

No. Its just that I only giggle fun stuff. That and I thought you were the master?

 

[ding]

The best we can say about time is that it is a convenient method for demarcating the expansion of the universe.

Problem of time - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

A convenient measure.

And with it you can't demarcate any expansion of the universe because actually you can't perceive it by any means, so such idea is still hypothetical.

hmmmm... interesting. Here is how I perceive it, my dear.

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

I told you I wasn't the droid you were looking for

Psft, you just made all that up. Link or its all fake.

Is your google broken?

No. Its just that I only giggle fun stuff. That and I thought you were the master?

Where'd you get such a silly idea from. There's nothing special about me.

 

[Marion Morrison]

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

www.scientificamerican.com

[.....]

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."

`

.


`.

How did mammals come to be?

 

[Crixus]

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

www.scientificamerican.com

[.....]

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."

`

.

Mammal mommy's and daddy's.
`.

How did mammals come to be?

 

[ding]

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

www.scientificamerican.com

[.....]

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."

`

.


`.

How did mammals come to be?

 

[Indeependent]

The universe is already over as God is outside time and space.

Show time. I want to see its flowing.

I'll love to see how far your ignorance has made you reach the limits of the absurd.

What does the word B'Ray-Shis mean?
It doesn't mean "In The Beginning".
Look up "B" as a prefix and look up "Ray-Shis".
The Zohar covers this.
Time and Space do not actually exist.

 

[zaangalewa]

And what about if you are your own fairy tale story, who you tells everyone a story about the self made fairy tale "I"? Isn't it much more fascinating what my comrades sang thousands of years ago on their campfires? What had they understood if someone had said to them "... And god said: Let there be electromagnetic waves.

Wrong, not all electromagnetic waves cause illumination as light.

Your ideas about natural science are strange. If you don't know the eyes of the creatures on planet Earth then how do you "see" (=recognize) this?

And god saw the electromagntic waves, that it was good: and God divided the electromagnetic waves from the darkness ..." ... So what do you understand today really about your world, which would not be the same, if not thousands of years someone had written down this words? "And god saw it was good what he had done" is one of the most important keys to understand what's really written there.

Your point has been proved false.

And by the way: "Seven miles boots" do we call today "automobiles". You should perhaps start to think about why you hate spirituality - and you should perhaps also think about, why you are disrespecting fairy tales.

I have missed this part of the seven miles boots. refer me where such comes from.

If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairy tales. If you want them to be more intelligent, read them more fairy tales.
Albert Einstein

Sure, Einstein was a poor deluded guy who thought time is flexible as babbling gum. His fairy tales known as relativity theories are the most fantastic fantasies ever invented by a loony.

Okay - you don't take yourselve serios. It's your right to do so.

 

[zaangalewa]

... Creationism is unfalsifiable. ...

Creationism : the "ism" shows normally always an ideolgy. Ideologies are in general closed systems of thoughts, Falsifyable within this system of thoughts - not falsifyable outside of this system of toughts.

But the Christains religion is not an ideology - while "darwinism" is the same time often nothing else than an extremist racist ideology. On the other side: The real scientific theory of evolution is not an ideology too.

But the discussion in the internet seems only to be a discussion from ideologists with ideologists, who share a common bad "knowledge" about the belief in god and about the Christian religion as well as about the basics of natural science and the methods and essential arguments of natural science in case of biology.

Internal falsifiability is all fine and good,

1. It's not fine and good - it's the criterion for an ideology - a closed system of thoughts.

but not at all what I'm discussing, and not relevant to the discussion of science vs religion.

2. A discussion "science vs religion" alias "philosophy vs spiritualiy" is not a discussion about easily comparable things.

The scientific method is PURELY a method of proving hypotheses false to eliminate possibilities and push closer to affirmative understandings. If a hypothesis cannot be disproven through experiment, you're no longer talking science. That ought to be not only sufficient reason to separate the teaching of science from creationism, it ought to be the beginning and end of the entire f'in discussion.

3. The methods of natural science are a rpduct of the philosophy empirism. Is empirism the same like the creator god, who made more than only thsi what is able to be subsejct of empirism?

I simply wish these "I'm an atheist, debate me!"

4. Hä? ... ah sorry: Eh? ... The belief in atheism is not a very interesting belief. I call atheists normally people, who don't believe to believe.

kids would give it a fuckin' rest.

5. Kids? And the F-word? ... Can it be you have not a big idea about how to educate children? ... And what have children now to do with your ideas about your atheism and your ideas about anti-atheists?

It's like there's people trying to play tennis on a football field, and rather than simply explain to them that they're playing their game in the wrong setting,

6. You try to tell people they play a wrong game, because you don't like their rules?

the football players start scoring touchdowns to show the tennis players how inferior tennis is to football.

7. And? If Tennis players play with a football and have fun ... who cares?

If people would simply remember that science is a method for FINDING, and not a synonym OF truth, and certainly not a label to categorize the beliefs and viewpoints of educated/enlightened people, that would go a long way to clear this nonsense up.

8. Natural science is a method to find what are the [mathematical] laws in the nature and what's right or wrong in this context. If we find a natural law on Earth then this natural law is the same in the Andromeda galaxy and every other place and time of the universe.

Lol!

Spooky laughing in the beginning.

It's weird to see a response broken down line by line like that, which nonetheless rarely addresses the points made in any of the lines it breaks down. Lemme see if I can clear some of this up for ya. I'm unaware of any quick way to break the format of the post like you did, so I've taken the liberty of numbering each line in the "quote", and I'll use corresponding numbers in my reply.

1. When I said all fine and good, I was dismissing it as irrelevant to any point

A. Aha. You think what I say is irrelevant - thatäs why you will not waste time to think about this what I think.

I was making in the discussion to which you were responding. I wasn't arguing with you about the nature or definition of ideology.

B. Or with other words. You are an fanatics, who tries to speak about something, because you think something about me what has nothing to do with my person.

2. Science vs religion is NOT philosophy vs spirituality. Philosophy is not science.

C. What's wrong. Physics is a part of natural philosophy for example.

Science is a method of testing hypotheses through experimentation.

D. Or withother words: The spirituality of physics is mathematics and the god of physics is teh experimaent. But not all sciences are able to make experients. It's for example impossible to make in history experiments. What woudöl be today without Alexander the great? Ignoramus, igorabimus.

Philosophy, like religion, includes the exploration of the unfalsifiable.

E. So what?

Mind you, I'm not trying to downplay the importance of philosophy, or to imply the superiority of science over any of these other concepts. However, philosophy and science are NOT synonymous.

F. What's again wrong. The mother of all sciences is philosophy.

And that first comparison, science vs religion, IS actually an easy comparison to make.

G. No.

One is a method of experimentation, the other is a system of beliefs.

H. What a nonsense. Just a moment ago you said "Philosophy, like religion, includes the exploration of the unfalsifiable." Now you say philosophy needs experiments.

3. No, empiricism is not like the creator god, assuming for the sake of argument that there is, in fact, a creator god. Empiricism is a philosophy, the creator god is a being that created the universe. Quite frankly, this question's answer is so obvious that I'm guessing the meaning got lost somewhere in translation.

I. A philosophy is a way of thoughts. So the empirism of physics is basing on meta-physics.

4. I think we largely agree, here. I think it's foolish for one to confidently declare that they don't believe in God, even if they believe that to be true. We aren't wired up for not believing in something, and it generally just requires the right circumstances to draw that belief out of someone. It's like they used to say after WWII, there's no atheists in a foxhole.

5. When I said kids, I wasn't literally referring to children. I only used the term to emphasize the immaturity of crusading to prove the stupidly obvious truth that some particular religion isn't scientific.

J. Eh?

Anyone claiming that their religion is science doesn't understand their religion, and anyone trying to apply science to religion doesn't understand science. And, I gotta tell you, it's awfully presumptuous to think that you can extrapolate someone's understanding of education, from the mere fact that they used "fuck" and "kids" in the same sentence.

K. I'm sure I'm right. Do you have children? Ask them and their mother what they think about your arts to educate your children.

6. This has nothing to do with whether or not I like the rules of any game. The tennis/football thing was a metaphor about simply acknowledging when someone is playing a different game than you are, rather than simply playing back at them as though the two different games are at all compatible. Scoring touchdowns against someone who is playing tennis is utterly meaningless, even if they're mistakenly trying to play tennis on your football field. Get it?

L. Sure I got it. To play is a serios thing. And everyone has to follow the same rules. Aye, Captain.

7. I'll try and cut you some slack based on English not being your native language,

M. Yeah - I'm privileged.

but good lord man, this was obviously a metaphor. If I apply your question back to the point I was illustrating with my metaphor, you're essentially asking me this: If the people who want to teach creationism in science class have a good time doing so, then what's the problem? The problem is that unfalsifiable ideas aren't science and shouldn't be taught as science, regardless of how much fun it is for the creationists.

N. Sorry - but we don't have a big problem with religious education in our schools here - better to say: we don't like to miss religious education in our schools. And we also don't like to miss natural sciences.

8. I wouldn't be so confident that the laws of nature are uniform throughout the universe. That's something that we're a long way from being able to verify.

O. What a brainwashing bullshit to say so. We never found any exception from this rule.

Wow. For all your spooky laughing, you seem to be having a really hard time understanding what I'm saying. This time letters in stead of numbers.

A. This response only makes sense when you cut the quote off as you have. Obviously, saying that something is irrelevant to the conversation at hand isn't the same as saying that it's irrelevant. Ideology, it's exact definition, and where/if it diverges from religion, are all topics that I consider to be incredibly relevant, just not relevant to the conversation of why religion shouldn't be taught as science. Maybe stick to what I've actually said rather than selectively cutting sentences apart and then disingenuously using manipulated quotes to try and extrapolate my character flaws?

B. It's not about fanaticism, nor does this have anything to do with what I think about you as a person, true or otherwise. The reason I say that the nature/definition of ideology is irrelevant here is because the only point I was making is that creationism isn't science. My argument for this point doesn't require any acknowledgement of the concept of ideology. It only requires acknowledgement of the fact that creationism is unfalsifiable, and therefore not science.

C. Natural philosophy might discuss physics, and the conceptual categorization of physics as we know it today may even have emerged from natural philosophy. Natural philosophy still isn't science, and even where the concepts explored in natural philosophy overlap with those explored in physics, the natural philosophy discussion still isn't a scientific one insofar as the scientific method isn't the basis for the ideas being expressed. It's this simple: Scientific method = science. Not scientific method =/= science.

D. When you say that not all sciences are able to make experiments, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of what science actually is. If a subject cannot make experiments, it isn't science. That simple. History can't be verified or debunked via experimentation because history isn't a science. Maybe one day the physicists invent a time machine and history becomes scientific, but until there's some way to fully verify historical claims, it ain't that.

E. So what? So philosophy is not a science.

F. The mother of Jesus is Mary. Mary is not Jesus. Science emerged from philosophy, but philosophy is not science. How is this hard to understand?

G. Yes.

H. Again, if you would use ENTIRE quotes in stead of chopping them up for effect, I wouldn't have to explain this. What I said was, "And that first comparison, science vs religion, IS actually an easy comparison to make. One is a method of experimentation, the other is a system of beliefs." SCIENCE vs religion. I don't believe that philosophy requires experimentation, which is precisely why I've insisted several times now that philosophy isn't science. Try to keep up.

I. Ah, I see what you're saying, now. I don't know about creator God, but it definitely had a hand in the birthing process.

J. I don't know how to make it much simpler than that. I wasn't literally referring to children. I was just calling them "kids" to emphasize the childishness of it all. Sometimes I refer to myself as a kid for similar reasons.

K. Based on an exchange of 2 posts on a political message board, you're SURE that you've accurately guessed what, if any, preferences I have in methods of education and the relative effectiveness of those methods? LMFAO. I'd love for you to explain the reasoning behind that analysis, Sigmund.

L. Nah, you don't get "it", if "it" refers to the point I was making. "It" was never about the importance of adhering to rules. "It" was about the fruitlessness of expecting people playing a separate game to adhere to the rules of your game. This conversation is starting to make me wonder if I've stumbled onto that very territory, cuz you're clearly perceiving a different conversation to be taking place than the one that I'm having.

M. Zing.

N. That's solid policy. Religious and scientific education are both incredibly important, regardless of what one believes.

O. It's brainwashing bullshit to say that we haven't verified the uniformity of the laws of physics in every corner of the known universe? Lol! I hate to break it to you, but nobody's ever brainwashed someone else just to make them skeptical. Seriously, though, the fact that we haven't disproven this uniformity is NOT verification that it's true. We've never sent a human further away than our own moon, and the furthest travelled probes that we've ever sent out are barely past the edge of the sun's magnetic field and tens of thousands of years from ever approaching the nearest star, let alone another galaxy, let alone the edges of the universe. So yeah, we haven't ever disproven this rule, but in all fairness, we still have just a teensy little bit of universe left to explore and learn about before we can rule out that possibility.

I wasted a long time to give a detailed answer - then I decided to delete this answer. Reason: Whatever I would say to you would change nothing.

 

[ding]

The universe is already over as God is outside time and space.

Show time. I want to see its flowing.

I'll love to see how far your ignorance has made you reach the limits of the absurd.

What does the word B'Ray-Shis mean?
It doesn't mean "In The Beginning".
Look up "B" as a prefix and look up "Ray-Shis".
The Zohar covers this.
Time and Space do not actually exist.

"...THERE is a difference between first and beginning (or principle). The latter exists in the thing of which it is the beginning, or co-exists with it; it need not precede it; e.g., the heart is the beginning of the living being; the element is the beginning of that of which it is the basis. The term "first" is likewise applied to things of this kind; but is also employed in cases where precedence in time alone is to be expressed, and the thing which precedes is not the beginning (or the cause) of the thing that follows. E.g., we say A. was the first inhabitant of this house, after him came B; this does not imply that A is the cause of B inhabiting the house. In Hebrew, teḥillah is used in the sense of "first"; e.g., when God first (teḥillat) spake to Hosea (Hos. 1:1), and the "beginning" is expressed by reshith, derived from rosh, "head," the principal part of the living being as regards position. The Universe has not been created out of an element that preceded it in time, since time itself formed part of the Creation. For this reason Scripture employs the term "bereshit" (in a principle), in which the beth is a preposition denoting "in." The true explanation of the first verse of Genesis is as follows: "In [creating] a principle God created the beings above and the things below." This explanation is in accordance with the theory of the Creation. We find that some of our Sages are reported to have held the opinion that time existed before the Creation. But this report is very doubtful, because the theory that time cannot be imagined with a beginning, has been taught by Aristotle, as I showed you, and is objectionable. Those who have made this assertion have been led to it by a saying of one of our Sages in reference to the terms "one day," "a second day." Taking these terms literally, the author of that saying asked, What determined "the first day," since there was no rotating sphere, and no sun? and continues as follows: Scripture uses the term "one day"; R. Jehudah, son of R. Simon, said: "Hence we learn that the divisions of time have existed previously." R. Abahu said, "Hence we learn that God built worlds and again destroyed them." This latter exposition is still worse than the former. Consider the difficulty which these two Rabbis found in the statement that time existed before the creation of the sun. We shall undoubtedly soon remove this difficulty, unless these two Rabbis intended to infer from the Scriptural text that the divisions of time must have existed before the Creation, and thus adopted the theory of the Eternity of the Universe. But every religious man rejects this. The above saying is, in my opinion, certainly of the same character as that of R. Eliezer, "Whence were the heavens created," etc., (chap. xxvi.). In short, in these questions, do not take notice of the utterances of any person. I told you that the foundation of our faith is the belief that God created the Universe from nothing; that time did not exist previously, but was created: for it depends on the motion of the sphere, and the sphere has been created. You must know that the particle et in the phrase et ha-shamayim ve-et ha-areẓ ("the heavens and the earth") signifies "together with"; our Sages have explained the word in the same sense in many instances. Accordingly they assume that God created with the heavens everything that the heavens contain, and with the earth everything the earth includes. They further say that the simultaneous Creation of the heavens and the earth is implied in the words, "I call unto them, they stand up together" (Ps. xlviii.). Consequently, all things were created together, but were separated from each other successively. Our Sages illustrated this by the following simile: We sow various seeds at the same time; some spring forth after one day, some after two, and some after three days, although all have been sown at the same time. According to this interpretation, which is undoubtedly correct, the difficulty is removed, which led R. Jehudah, son of R. Simon, to utter the above saying, and consisted in the doubt as to the thing by which the first day, the second, and the third were determined. In Bereshit Rabba, our Sages, speaking of the light created on the first day according to the Scriptural account, say as follows: these lights [of the luminaries mentioned in the Creation of the fourth day] are the same that were created on the first day, but were only fixed in their places on the fourth day. The meaning [of the first verse] has thus been clearly stated..."

Maimonides Guide for the Perplexed, Part II, Chapter 30

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

www.scientificamerican.com

[.....]

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."

`

.


`.

I don’t get it, are you denying the universe was created? Even quantum physicists believe in a creation theory, the Big Bang Theory. Although they have to twist the rules of science and make up some fairy tales with no scientific backing to make the theory work, like “inflation” and “dark matter”.

No, he is specifically talking about the school of creationism that denies evolution. Young earth dolts.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Anyone who has studied even the simplest form of life, which is far from simple, and believes in evolution is either an idiot or lying to themselves

Haha...in other words, all the scientists who have actually studied it. No, your reading of idiot creationist blogs does not qualify as study.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You know Hebrew?
If not, this discussion is over.

Good. You don't belong in this thread. Take your silly voodoo to the religion section.

 

[Indeependent]

You know Hebrew?
If not, this discussion is over.

Good. You don't belong in this thread. Take your silly voodoo to the religion section.

Oh, look! It's the Internet Scientist!
Please specify your numerous Science PhDs.