Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

[ding]

You know, Taz, if you are going to worship science, you should take some time to actually learn some science, dummy.

Creation science is an oxymoron, jackass.

Dude, I'm not talking about creation science, dummy. I still can't get you to accept the universe was created even though everyone else believes it.

 

[ding]

Taz: I can't see the Big Bang.

NASA: No shit dumb ass. There wasn't light until the first galaxies formed.

 

[Taz]

We can't observe the facts directly yet.

Why would you ever expect to see it, dummy?

"...The microwave COBE and WMAP satellites saw the heat signature left by the Big Bang about 380,000 years after it occurred. But at that point there were no stars and galaxies. In fact the universe was a pretty dark place..."

First Light & Reionization - Webb/NASA.

There are other things than light that we can observe, you ******* moron.

Yeah... like the CMB, dummy.

But prey tell what other things are you expecting to see at the moment of the Big Bang and what are you expecting that to tell you about how it was created?

We'll have to wait to see how wrong you are.

You know, Taz, if you are going to worship science, you should take some time to actually learn some science, dummy.

Creation science is an oxymoron, jackass.

Dude, I'm not talking about creation science, dummy. I still can't get you to accept the universe was created even though everyone else believes it.

Except you can't link to scientists who say that. Why not?

 

[woodwork201]

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

Our first allegiance is to our countries.

Wow. That's sad for you.

My list of allegiances is short, as it should be, but my country is at the very bottom of the list. At the top are my God, myself, my family, and then my country. I love and support my country as long as, and as much as, my country does the same for me and my rights. I don't need a country for anything other than what it gives to me. There's no natural or inherent right for anyone to rule over or govern me; our government rules at the will of the people and it is they who need to show allegiance to us, not the other way around.

 

[ding]

Taz: There are other things we can see.

NASA: No shit, dumb ass. You've been told about the CMB and how it is proof the universe was created about a dozen times.

 

[Taz]

Taz: I can't see the Big Bang.

NASA: No shit dumb ass. There wasn't light until the first galaxies formed.

So now you speak for NASA?

 

[ding]

Taz: No one can link to scientists who say that the universe was created.

NASA: Is your google broken?

 

[Ringtone]

Except you can't link to scientists who say that. Why not?

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

 

[Taz]

Except you can't link to scientists who say that. Why not?

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

Wtf is this, that Vilenkin guy was exposed as a faker to your other sock, dingbat.

 

[ding]

Except you can't link to scientists who say that. Why not?

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

Wtf is this, that Vilenkin guy was exposed as a faker to your other sock, dingbat.

You accusing others of being socks is pretty rich.... MUDDA

 

[Taz]

Except you can't link to scientists who say that. Why not?

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

Wtf is this, that Vilenkin guy was exposed as a faker to your other sock, dingbat.

You accusing others of being socks is pretty rich.... MUDDA

So you don't deny it. Good for you, sock number 1.

 

[Taz]

Taz: No one can link to scientists who say that the universe was created.

NASA: Is your google broken?

Your contention, so it's up to you to back up what you say, Mr Fartsmoke.

 

[ding]

Except you can't link to scientists who say that. Why not?

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

Wtf is this, that Vilenkin guy was exposed as a faker to your other sock, dingbat.

You accusing others of being socks is pretty rich.... MUDDA

So you don't deny it. Good for you, sock number 1.

Deny what, dummy?

 

[ding]

Taz: No one can link to scientists who say that the universe was created.

NASA: Is your google broken?

Your contention, so it's up to you to back up what you say, Mr Fartsmoke.

If CERN's statement isn't proof enough for you, I don't know what is, dummy.

Besides, I like it when you argue that the universe did not begin. It makes you look stupid and proves you believe if the universe did have a beginning then God must have been the cause. Keep on denying, bro. Keep on denying.

 

[Taz]

Taz: No one can link to scientists who say that the universe was created.

NASA: Is your google broken?

Your contention, so it's up to you to back up what you say, Mr Fartsmoke.

If CERN's statement isn't proof enough for you, I don't know what is, dummy.

Besides, I like it when you argue that the universe did not begin. It makes you look stupid and proves you believe if the universe did have a beginning then God must have been the cause. Keep on denying, bro. Keep on denying.

The universe likely started at some point, but until we can seethe BB, we won't know for sure that it's not another expansion after a Big Crunch, maybe a super massive black hole sucks up everything in the universe and blows up... You just have no imagination and are desperate for it all to have been poofed into being by your invisible magician.

 

[ding]

Taz: No one can link to scientists who say that the universe was created.

NASA: Is your google broken?

Your contention, so it's up to you to back up what you say, Mr Fartsmoke.

If CERN's statement isn't proof enough for you, I don't know what is, dummy.

Besides, I like it when you argue that the universe did not begin. It makes you look stupid and proves you believe if the universe did have a beginning then God must have been the cause. Keep on denying, bro. Keep on denying.

The universe likely started at some point, but until we can seethe BB, we won't know for sure that it's not another expansion after a Big Crunch, maybe a super massive black hole sucks up everything in the universe and blows up... You just have no imagination and are desperate for it all to have been poofed into being by your invisible magician.

You aren't getting it. It's not possible for the universe to exist forever bouncing between big bangs and big crunches. That would defy the SLOT and would not explain the CMB. The CMB was created from matter / anti matter collisions which would not happen in a big crunch. The cyclical model has been discarded.

 

[Taz]

Taz: No one can link to scientists who say that the universe was created.

NASA: Is your google broken?

Your contention, so it's up to you to back up what you say, Mr Fartsmoke.

If CERN's statement isn't proof enough for you, I don't know what is, dummy.

Besides, I like it when you argue that the universe did not begin. It makes you look stupid and proves you believe if the universe did have a beginning then God must have been the cause. Keep on denying, bro. Keep on denying.

The universe likely started at some point, but until we can seethe BB, we won't know for sure that it's not another expansion after a Big Crunch, maybe a super massive black hole sucks up everything in the universe and blows up... You just have no imagination and are desperate for it all to have been poofed into being by your invisible magician.

You aren't getting it. It's not possible for the universe to exist forever bouncing between big bangs and big crunches. That would defy the SLOT and would not explain the CMB. The CMB was created from matter / anti matter collisions which would not happen in a big crunch. The cyclical model has been discarded.

It's been discarded by you, so who cares? Until we can see what happened, all the possibilities are open. Unlike your mind, which is closed to discovery. That's what religion does to you, makes you stuck on stupid concepts that aren't based on reality and science.

 

[ding]

Taz: No one can link to scientists who say that the universe was created.

NASA: Is your google broken?

Your contention, so it's up to you to back up what you say, Mr Fartsmoke.

If CERN's statement isn't proof enough for you, I don't know what is, dummy.

Besides, I like it when you argue that the universe did not begin. It makes you look stupid and proves you believe if the universe did have a beginning then God must have been the cause. Keep on denying, bro. Keep on denying.

The universe likely started at some point, but until we can seethe BB, we won't know for sure that it's not another expansion after a Big Crunch, maybe a super massive black hole sucks up everything in the universe and blows up... You just have no imagination and are desperate for it all to have been poofed into being by your invisible magician.

You aren't getting it. It's not possible for the universe to exist forever bouncing between big bangs and big crunches. That would defy the SLOT and would not explain the CMB. The CMB was created from matter / anti matter collisions which would not happen in a big crunch. The cyclical model has been discarded.

It's been discarded by you, so who cares? Until we can see what happened, all the possibilities are open. Unlike your mind, which is closed to discovery. That's what religion does to you, makes you stuck on stupid concepts that aren't based on reality and science.

Why does the CMB exist, Taz? How did it come about? What process created it, Taz? And how would a cyclical universe create the CMB?

 

[Taz]

Taz: No one can link to scientists who say that the universe was created.

NASA: Is your google broken?

Your contention, so it's up to you to back up what you say, Mr Fartsmoke.

If CERN's statement isn't proof enough for you, I don't know what is, dummy.

Besides, I like it when you argue that the universe did not begin. It makes you look stupid and proves you believe if the universe did have a beginning then God must have been the cause. Keep on denying, bro. Keep on denying.

The universe likely started at some point, but until we can seethe BB, we won't know for sure that it's not another expansion after a Big Crunch, maybe a super massive black hole sucks up everything in the universe and blows up... You just have no imagination and are desperate for it all to have been poofed into being by your invisible magician.

You aren't getting it. It's not possible for the universe to exist forever bouncing between big bangs and big crunches. That would defy the SLOT and would not explain the CMB. The CMB was created from matter / anti matter collisions which would not happen in a big crunch. The cyclical model has been discarded.

It's been discarded by you, so who cares? Until we can see what happened, all the possibilities are open. Unlike your mind, which is closed to discovery. That's what religion does to you, makes you stuck on stupid concepts that aren't based on reality and science.

Why does the CMB exist, Taz? How did it come about? What process created it, Taz? And how would a cyclical universe create the CMB?

No, your invisible friend didn't poof everything into existence. No proof for that.

 

[ding]

Taz: No one can link to scientists who say that the universe was created.

NASA: Is your google broken?

Your contention, so it's up to you to back up what you say, Mr Fartsmoke.

If CERN's statement isn't proof enough for you, I don't know what is, dummy.

Besides, I like it when you argue that the universe did not begin. It makes you look stupid and proves you believe if the universe did have a beginning then God must have been the cause. Keep on denying, bro. Keep on denying.

The universe likely started at some point, but until we can seethe BB, we won't know for sure that it's not another expansion after a Big Crunch, maybe a super massive black hole sucks up everything in the universe and blows up... You just have no imagination and are desperate for it all to have been poofed into being by your invisible magician.

You aren't getting it. It's not possible for the universe to exist forever bouncing between big bangs and big crunches. That would defy the SLOT and would not explain the CMB. The CMB was created from matter / anti matter collisions which would not happen in a big crunch. The cyclical model has been discarded.

It's been discarded by you, so who cares? Until we can see what happened, all the possibilities are open. Unlike your mind, which is closed to discovery. That's what religion does to you, makes you stuck on stupid concepts that aren't based on reality and science.

Why does the CMB exist, Taz? How did it come about? What process created it, Taz? And how would a cyclical universe create the CMB?

No, your invisible friend didn't poof everything into existence. No proof for that.

Taz, why are you skipping steps?

Why does the CMB exist, Taz? How did it come about? What process created it, Taz? And how would a cyclical universe create the CMB?

I've explained why the CMB exists, Taz.

Here's a link which explains it too.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe