04 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzAgain. Please provide the evidence for your assertion... For a fundamentalist Darwiniac you're not even doing very well at evading the question: you've still not given evidence for your first assertion. Just when I think you've reached rock bottom, you manifest a shovel. Happy digging.
IDIOT!!! Fallen into trap number 1. The laws of thermodynamics only apply within the universe. 😞
Even if your assertions were true (which I doubt), you still have the law of the conservation of matter to crack your noggin on.
04 Nov 06
Originally posted by KellyJayTouché.
Do not ask for the true believers to state their beliefs, just ask for the
evidence. Something from nothing, I'd like to see that, can I get an
example? I mean if we can get a universe from nothing, doesn't
seem like it would be a big deal for a small example of something
from nothing unless this is just plain and simple a matter of faith.
Kelly
04 Nov 06
Originally posted by HalitoseAgain, applies only within the universe, not to the inception of the universe. All your questions imply causality, but at the inception of the universe causality need not apply. It's all there. We;ve covered this many times before.
Even if your assertions were true (which I doubt), you still have the law of the conservation of matter to crack your noggin on.
04 Nov 06
Originally posted by HalitoseHalitose: What precisely is your question? What assertion is it that
Again. Please provide the evidence for your assertion... For a fundamentalist Darwiniac you're not even doing very well at evading the question: you've still not given evidence for your first assertion. Just when I think you've reached rock bottom, you manifest a shovel. Happy digging.
Even if your assertions were true (which I doubt), you still have the law of the conservation of matter to crack your noggin on.
you need evidence for? What would constitute evidence, anyway?
Nemesio
04 Nov 06
Originally posted by NemesioWhat precisely is your question?
Halitose: What precisely is your question? What assertion is it that
you need evidence for? What would constitute evidence, anyway?
Nemesio
It's at the bottom of pg 9: Give ten examples please (possibly with their peer reviewed postulations of how this clear violation of the thermodynamic and matter-conservation laws occurred).
What assertion is it that you need evidence for?
Scott: There are millions of scientists alive who will tell you that in the case of the BB [big bang] it is only logical to get something from nothing.
What would constitute evidence, anyway?
It's right there in my question.
04 Nov 06
Originally posted by HalitoseBut your question doesn't make sense. Perhaps you'd like me to provide you with ten peer reviewed publications showing 2+2=4 as well? Your question is time dependant - time didn't exist until AFTER the big bang. There is only one logical conclusion.
[b]What precisely is your question?
It's at the bottom of pg 9: Give ten examples please (possibly with their peer reviewed postulations of how this clear violation of the thermodynamic and matter-conservation laws occurred).
What assertion is it that you need evidence for?
Scott: There are millions of scientists alive who will tell you ...[text shortened]... nothing.
What would constitute evidence, anyway?
It's right there in my question.[/b]
04 Nov 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzAgain, applies only within the universe,
Again, applies only within the universe, not to the inception of the universe. All your questions imply causality, but at the inception of the universe causality need not apply. It's all there. We;ve covered this many times before.
Prove it. Methinks your hilarious assertion is currently not testable, therefore not falsifiable, and therefore unscientific.
...but at the inception of the universe causality need not apply.
Tell me more... your "just so" stories are getting very intriguing. Let me hand you a shovel: how was causality caused? How do you move from a universal conception that has no causality to one that has? I'm still waiting for your "millions" of scientists to speak up.
We;ve covered this many times before.
And I've given up discussing it many times before as you keep fabricating more and more ludicrous claims and never seem to step up when asked to clarify on the tenability of the physics involved.
04 Nov 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzSomething from nothing... it's as simple as that. Where's the science?
But your question doesn't make sense. Perhaps you'd like me to provide you with ten peer reviewed publications showing 2+2=4 as well? Your question is time dependant - time didn't exist until AFTER the big bang. There is only one logical conclusion.
04 Nov 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzThere is only one logical conclusion.
But your question doesn't make sense. Perhaps you'd like me to provide you with ten peer reviewed publications showing 2+2=4 as well? Your question is time dependant - time didn't exist until AFTER the big bang. There is only one logical conclusion.
That something came from nothing? Are you listening to yourself? You call this science? Logic?
04 Nov 06
Originally posted by HalitoseI will indulge this only one more post, if you want to continue thereafter start a new thread.
[b]There is only one logical conclusion.
That something came from nothing? Are you listening to yourself? You call this science? Logic?[/b]
Where did God come from then Hal? You can't use the "He's always existed" line, that's using the same argument as I am, which you think is a false argument (it isn't though, provided that He exists outwith the universe (which is impossible, by definition)). You need some force to create God. I don't need such an argument on my side, however, because of the argument that I am able to use, backed up by theoretical physics, as it is.