The Multiverse????

[Liminal]

There is a whole range of science, mostly physics, that I lack the mathmatical capacity to understand. That doesn't mean it isn't science.

Imagine what an exciting time it must be to be in that field right now.

.

"Imagine" is the operative term.

Imagine is the only thing you can do, because you obviously don't know any science.

1. Prove you're not a lying gutter snipe by providing any ......ANY.....examples of my being incorrect, about science, in the thread.


2. Wipe that drool off your chin.
It's disgusting.

If only you were capable of something more than cut and paste, someone might think you have thoughts of your own.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is a whole range of science, mostly physics, that I lack the mathmatical capacity to understand. That doesn't mean it isn't science.

Imagine what an exciting time it must be to be in that field right now.

.

"Imagine" is the operative term.

Imagine is the only thing you can do, because you obviously don't know any science.

1. Prove you're not a lying gutter snipe by providing any ......ANY.....examples of my being incorrect, about science, in the thread.


2. Wipe that drool off your chin.
It's disgusting.

If only you were capable of something more than cut and paste, someone might think you have thoughts of your own.

Every single thing I post is a direct result of my thoughts.

The only criticism you can come up with is the manner of presentation, cut and paste?

So....every single thing I posted is correct, huh?


Now....just to prove you aren't the imbecile that I believe you are, elucidate what, if any, problems you have with that manner of presentation.


Go.

 

[Coyote]

So...still haven't managed to disprove the Multiverse?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So...still haven't managed to disprove the Multiverse?

Au contraire....and, as a bonus, proved that you are a moron.

 

[Coyote]

So...still haven't managed to disprove the Multiverse?

Au contraire....and, as a bonus, proved that you are a moron.

Thus far the only thing you've proved is you're incredible ability to obfuscate, duck and weave

 

[PoliticalChic]

So...still haven't managed to disprove the Multiverse?

Au contraire....and, as a bonus, proved that you are a moron.

Thus far the only thing you've proved is you're incredible ability to obfuscate, duck and weave

Isn't it dangerous to use one's entire vocabulary in a single post?

 

[Liminal]

Imagine what an exciting time it must be to be in that field right now.

.

"Imagine" is the operative term.

Imagine is the only thing you can do, because you obviously don't know any science.

1. Prove you're not a lying gutter snipe by providing any ......ANY.....examples of my being incorrect, about science, in the thread.


2. Wipe that drool off your chin.
It's disgusting.

If only you were capable of something more than cut and paste, someone might think you have thoughts of your own.

Every single thing I post is a direct result of my thoughts.

The only criticism you can come up with is the manner of presentation, cut and paste?

So....every single thing I posted is correct, huh?


Now....just to prove you aren't the imbecile that I believe you are, elucidate what, if any, problems you have with that manner of presentation.


Go.

Prove I'm not an imbecile? That figures. You'd like me to prove a negative premise, sort of like how you imagine you've proved there's no multiverse.

 

[Coyote]

Is she still at it?

 

[Coyote]

So...still haven't managed to disprove the Multiverse?

Au contraire....and, as a bonus, proved that you are a moron.

Thus far the only thing you've proved is you're incredible ability to obfuscate, duck and weave

Isn't it dangerous to use one's entire vocabulary in a single post?

You're still alive aren't you?

 

[Moonglow]

Sometimes i wonder if it's a bot...

 

[Coyote]

Sometimes i wonder if it's a bot...

If you poke it, will it explode?

 

[Moonglow]

Sometimes i wonder if it's a bot...

If you poke it, will it explode?

It's always on a conundrum cycle...

 

[Coyote]

Sometimes i wonder if it's a bot...

If you poke it, will it explode?

It's always on a conundrum cycle...

Kind of like permanent press?

 

[Moonglow]

Sometimes i wonder if it's a bot...

If you poke it, will it explode?

It's always on a conundrum cycle...

Kind of like permanent press?

It's suppose to be wash and wear but it's not............

 

[Coyote]

Sometimes i wonder if it's a bot...

If you poke it, will it explode?

It's always on a conundrum cycle...

Kind of like permanent press?

It's suppose to be wash and wear but it's not............

Shrunk did it?

 

[Steven_R]

Prologue;
Since the Enlightenment, the attempt has been made to replace religion with science, and the view that mankind can explain, and, ultimately replace, God and religion. In actuality,the faith and belief that was once invested in religion is now, in the same way and to the same degree, in what we call 'science.'

Proceeds from a false assumption. The job of science isn't to disprove God, but rather to figure out how the universe functions. It's not the job of science to tell anyone they are following the wrong God, to prove God, that people are abusing kids by teaching them religion, or anything of the sort. If God is killed in the process because science discovers something that contradicts someone's holy book or doctrine, that's not science's fault. It's got nothing to do with Marxism, Socialism, Atheism, or any other -ism beyond Methodological Naturalism. That some scientists are Marxists, Socialists, Atheists, or some other -ist isn't a fault of science or the scientific findings, but rather it's just a fault in human beings.

Also, there is a difference between experimental science and theoretical science. The scientific method we all learned in 7th Grade is great, but isn't quite so cut and dried when actual cutting edge science and scientists are involved.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Imagine" is the operative term.

Imagine is the only thing you can do, because you obviously don't know any science.

1. Prove you're not a lying gutter snipe by providing any ......ANY.....examples of my being incorrect, about science, in the thread.


2. Wipe that drool off your chin.
It's disgusting.

If only you were capable of something more than cut and paste, someone might think you have thoughts of your own.

Every single thing I post is a direct result of my thoughts.

The only criticism you can come up with is the manner of presentation, cut and paste?

So....every single thing I posted is correct, huh?


Now....just to prove you aren't the imbecile that I believe you are, elucidate what, if any, problems you have with that manner of presentation.


Go.

Prove I'm not an imbecile? That figures. You'd like me to prove a negative premise, sort of like how you imagine you've proved there's no multiverse.

You must have missed this, you imbecile.

Every single thing I post is a direct result of my thoughts.

The only criticism you can come up with is the manner of presentation, cut and paste?

So....every single thing I posted is correct, huh?


Now....just to prove you aren't the imbecile that I believe you are, elucidate what, if any, problems you have with that manner of presentation.


Go.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Prologue;
Since the Enlightenment, the attempt has been made to replace religion with science, and the view that mankind can explain, and, ultimately replace, God and religion. In actuality,the faith and belief that was once invested in religion is now, in the same way and to the same degree, in what we call 'science.'

Proceeds from a false assumption. The job of science isn't to disprove God, but rather to figure out how the universe functions. It's not the job of science to tell anyone they are following the wrong God, to prove God, that people are abusing kids by teaching them religion, or anything of the sort. If God is killed in the process because science discovers something that contradicts someone's holy book or doctrine, that's not science's fault. It's got nothing to do with Marxism, Socialism, Atheism, or any other -ism beyond Methodological Naturalism. That some scientists are Marxists, Socialists, Atheists, or some other -ist isn't a fault of science or the scientific findings, but rather it's just a fault in human beings.

Also, there is a difference between experimental science and theoretical science. The scientific method we all learned in 7th Grade is great, but isn't quite so cut and dried when actual cutting edge science and scientists are involved.

Please provide where I said it was "The job of science isn't to disprove God."


What I proved.....PROVED.....is that faux scientists value the same faith that religious folk have in God, for the multiverse.


And all of you God-haters went wild!

 

[Liminal]

Prologue;
Since the Enlightenment, the attempt has been made to replace religion with science, and the view that mankind can explain, and, ultimately replace, God and religion. In actuality,the faith and belief that was once invested in religion is now, in the same way and to the same degree, in what we call 'science.'

Proceeds from a false assumption. The job of science isn't to disprove God, but rather to figure out how the universe functions. It's not the job of science to tell anyone they are following the wrong God, to prove God, that people are abusing kids by teaching them religion, or anything of the sort. If God is killed in the process because science discovers something that contradicts someone's holy book or doctrine, that's not science's fault. It's got nothing to do with Marxism, Socialism, Atheism, or any other -ism beyond Methodological Naturalism. That some scientists are Marxists, Socialists, Atheists, or some other -ist isn't a fault of science or the scientific findings, but rather it's just a fault in human beings.

Also, there is a difference between experimental science and theoretical science. The scientific method we all learned in 7th Grade is great, but isn't quite so cut and dried when actual cutting edge science and scientists are involved.

Please provide where I said it was "The job of science isn't to disprove God."


What I proved.....PROVED.....is that faux scientists value the same faith that religious folk have in God, for the multiverse.


And all of you God-haters went wild!

God, another subject you know nothing about.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Prologue;
Since the Enlightenment, the attempt has been made to replace religion with science, and the view that mankind can explain, and, ultimately replace, God and religion. In actuality,the faith and belief that was once invested in religion is now, in the same way and to the same degree, in what we call 'science.'

Proceeds from a false assumption. The job of science isn't to disprove God, but rather to figure out how the universe functions. It's not the job of science to tell anyone they are following the wrong God, to prove God, that people are abusing kids by teaching them religion, or anything of the sort. If God is killed in the process because science discovers something that contradicts someone's holy book or doctrine, that's not science's fault. It's got nothing to do with Marxism, Socialism, Atheism, or any other -ism beyond Methodological Naturalism. That some scientists are Marxists, Socialists, Atheists, or some other -ist isn't a fault of science or the scientific findings, but rather it's just a fault in human beings.

Also, there is a difference between experimental science and theoretical science. The scientific method we all learned in 7th Grade is great, but isn't quite so cut and dried when actual cutting edge science and scientists are involved.

Please provide where I said it was "The job of science isn't to disprove God."


What I proved.....PROVED.....is that faux scientists value the same faith that religious folk have in God, for the multiverse.


And all of you God-haters went wild!

God, another subject you know nothing about.

Hmmm....let's see....you made a comment, and now you're running from it....


Wanna try again?

The only criticism you can come up with is the manner of presentation, cut and paste?

So....every single thing I posted is correct, huh?


Now....just to prove you aren't the imbecile that I believe you are, elucidate what, if any, problems you have with that manner of presentation.


Of course, you could simply change your avi to "The Imbecile"