What do evolutionists say brought about the 1st energy or matter.

[Fabbs]

Whether or not you believe thing the first "thing" in existence was energy or matter, how do you Evos claim it came to be in the 1st place?

Mouse-o-rama you and i believe in creation, albeit in a different method, but is there a most popular way the Evos have stated to you they believe was the 1st existence?

Since to them, there is no creator......

[ChumpDumper]

So who created your creator?

[Fabbs]

No no no Chumpie this is gonna get nipped in the bud and i should have put it in the OP.

The purpose of this thread is to see what Evos believe came 1st.
I don't want to discuss/debate/change the mind of nor have endless go arounds about Creation vs Evolution on this thread.
I'm happy to answer elsewhere.

[ChumpDumper]

No no no Chumpie this is gonna get nipped in the bud and i should have put it in the OP.

The purpose of this thread is to see what Evos believe came 1st.
I don't want to discuss/debate/change the mind of nor have endless go arounds about Creation vs Evolution on this thread.
I'm happy to answer elsewhere.Well, you're making the same mistake the others made by conflating the big bang theory and evolution.

Which one do you actually want to talk about?

[Fabbs]

Which one do you actually want to talk about?
Either one.
If ST Poster does not think a creator started it all, then who/what do they believe did?
It's not a challenge, I'd rather be informed by themselve(s) what they believe caused the 1st.

[ChumpDumper]

Either one.
If ST Poster does not think a creator started it all, then who/what do they believe did?
It's not a challenge, I'd rather be informed by themselve(s) what they believe caused the 1st.I don't know what happened before the big bang.

I don't have to.

Science doesn't require everything to be sussed out right now the way religion and it's bastard child intelligent design seem to.

[Fabbs]

I don't know
Okay cool.
That answer is perfectly fine with me.

[ChumpDumper]

Okay cool.
That answer is perfectly fine with me.You didn't know that before?

[Fabbs]

You didn't know that before?
No. I did not know what you believed as to the 1st thing in existence and on most, if not all Evo vs Creation threads i stop reading when it turns into a pissing match.

[ChumpDumper]

No. I did not know what you believed as to the 1st thing in existence and on most, if not all Evo vs Creation threads i stop reading when it turns into a pissing match.Just in general. You don't have to rely on ST to find out what proponents of the big bang theory to believe. That's as far as the consensus goes because that's all the evidence has shown to this point.

Science!

[Blake]

Whether or not you believe thing the first "thing" in existence was energy or matter, how do you Evos claim it came to be in the 1st place?

Mouse-o-rama you and i believe in creation, albeit in a different method, but is there a most popular way the Evos have stated to you they believe was the 1st existence?

Since to them, there is no creator......

Guess you're not aware that the Catholic church is down with det evolution these days.

[Fabbs]

Guess you're not aware that the Catholic church is down with det evolution these days.
I'm sorry, what is your belief on what came 1st?

[boutons_deux]

Guess you're not aware that the Catholic church is down with det evolution these days.

... but they're still wrong that God/Christ HATES gays, just as wrong as they were about geocentrism.

and CC's evolution still requires God to step in somewhere to infuse a soul.

[Blake]

I'm sorry, what is your belief on what came 1st?

I don't know. Since nobody knows either, then I really don't care much more than passing interest in things like string and multiverse theories.

I was just pointing out that your conclusion about all evolutionists is flat wrong.

[Blake]

... but they're still wrong that God/Christ HATES gays, just as wrong as they were about geocentrism.

and CC's evolution still requires God to step in somewhere to infuse a soul.

god may not change but the cc does

[Fabbs]

I don't know.
Thank you.

[Blake]

Thank you.

No prob. I hope you get a good grade. :tu

[xmas1997]

I don't think evos know, some say God, some say prime mover, some attribute it to the Big Bang, others say it was always there in a different form than what it is now.

I suspect it is all a product of "imagination" and that none of this is real, and eventually we will each wake up to see it was all just a dream.

[Fabbs]

... but they're still wrong that God/Christ HATES gays, just as wrong as they were about geocentrism.

and CC's evolution still requires God to step in somewhere to infuse a soul.
and your belief on how the 1st energy or matter came into existence is?

[The Reckoning]

1st energy doesn't matter

[Blake]

and your belief on how the 1st energy or matter came into existence is?

I'm good with "it's always been around in some form or another"

What's your belief on how a creator came into existence?

[mouse]

I don't know what happened before the big bang.

Did you misplace your Science book again...

Let me try and refresh refresh your memory ....
13.7 billion years ago there was a huge explosion...


I don't have to.

You only demand it from others.


Science doesn't require everything to be sussed out right now...

WTF? Is this now half time for Team Darwin? Did the refs leave the playing field? You Darwin lovers pull out the "Science" card every chance you get you go on and on about how nothing can go against "Science" and now that "Science" has its foot in it's mouth you bail?




the way religion and it's bastard child intelligent design seem to.


man the pain and hate you must suffer daily.....I know your hurting that DNA is a mutherfucker to Debunk.

[pgardn]

Evolutionists say nothing about this smartass.
Physisists say who cares, all we can study is what events occurred when there were events.

But an idiot would not get sticking to pontificating upon phenomena that actually took place.
No an idiot just makes shit up to fill uncomfortable voids.

[mouse]

I'm good with "it's always been around in some form or another"

Sure you are lets just skip over that part of Science and move on to the earth is here now lets talk about old dried monkey bones and fake fossils of Flying dinosaurs.


You Evolutionists crack me up when faced with serious questions your bullshit textbooks have no answers for, so since your fucked lets not answer questions lets ask them.



What's your belief on how a creator came into existence?

You see billions of years ago there was these warm pools of liquid....

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

Did you misplace your Science book again...

Let me try and refresh refresh your memory ....
13.7 billion years ago there was a huge explosion...We're talking about before that.




You only demand it from others.You claim to know.



WTF? Is this half time the refs have left the playing field? You Darwin lovers pull out the "Science" car every chance you get you go on and on about how

nothing can go against "Science" and now that "Science" has its foot in it's mouth you bail?Nope. I'm explaining how science is. I can't expect you to understand. You're high.



man the pain and hate you must suffer daily.....I know your hurting that DNA is a mutherfucker to Debunk.What's to debunk? Science figured out DNA. Religion didn't.

[TDMVPDPOY]

So who created your creator?

so who created god?

[ChumpDumper]

so who created god?That's my question.

[RD2191]

Thank you.
:lol

[tlongII]

What does the Big Bang have to do with evolution anyway? :lmao

[mouse]

What's to debunk? Science figured out DNA. Religion didn't.

The Discovery of DNA only proved there was Intelligent design something religion already believed in.

You would think all the so called Science professors that post here at the Club that support Evolution and post tons of links on how man "Evolved" from an ape and how they have all these fossils to prove it would not have to ask questions on how and why the fossils got there.

[mouse]

What does the Big Bang have to do with evolution anyway? :lmao

Talk about being high.

I will say one thing this topic has all the Darwin supporters nervous and has them asking more questions than answering them

[tlongII]

Huh?

[mouse]

Huh?

You said....


Originally Posted by tlongII
What does the Big Bang have to do with evolution anyway? :lmao

That is a reason to say Huh? If I ever saw it.

News flash....Darwin,Science and Evolutionist support the Big Bang it has everything to do with your bullshit fossils of flying Dinosaurs and faceless sperm cells you want us to look at.

[ChumpDumper]

The Discovery of DNA only proved there was Intelligent design something religion already believed in.Nope.


You would think all the so called Science professors that post here at the Club that support Evolution and post tons of links on how man "Evolved" from an ape and how they have all these fossils to prove it would not have to ask questions on how and why the fossils got there.Uh, things die and get covered up.

That's pretty simple.

[spurraider21]

The Discovery of DNA only proved there was Intelligent design
so the discovery of DNA proved intelligent design, but you don't subscribe to intelligent design?

[tlongII]

You said....



That is a reason to say Huh? If I ever saw it.

News flash....Darwin,Science and Evolutionist support the Big Bang it has everything to do with your bullshit fossils of flying Dinosaurs and faceless sperm cells you want us to look at.

You gotta link saying Darwin supported the Big Bang?

[mouse]

You gotta link saying Darwin supported the Big Bang?

http://guardianlv.com/2013/09/incredible-evolutionary-big-bang-supports-darwins-theory/#lOMpe4EVsS8GKc8H.99

Darwin Quote


because of the notorious imperfection of the ancient fossil record, no-one has been able to accurately measure rates of evolution during this critical interval, often called evolution’s Big Bang.”

[mouse]

so the discovery of DNA proved intelligent design, but you don't subscribe to intelligent design?

I thought we already went through this in the other topic. If your going to get high and post in my topics at least go to the next gtg and hook a brutha up.

or else apologize about your past behavior and maybe I will explain it all again.


Back on topic....



What do evolutionists say brought about the 1st energy or matter.



They don't.

[tlongII]

http://guardianlv.com/2013/09/incredible-evolutionary-big-bang-supports-darwins-theory/#lOMpe4EVsS8GKc8H.99

Darwin Quote

The "Big Bang" Darwin talked about was an evolutionary big bang. He believed in the sudden appearance of multiple life forms at one time. Then evolution took over from there. This is not the same thing as the cosmological "big bang". For what it's worth, I believe he was wrong about an evolutionary big bang.

[boutons_deux]

there was/is no "first", just "is-ness", infinite time, infinite space.

[mouse]

The "Big Bang" Darwin talked about was an evolutionary big bang. He believed in the sudden appearance of multiple life forms at one time. Then evolution took over from there. This is not the same thing as the cosmological "big bang". For what it's worth, I believe he was wrong about an evolutionary big bang.

Ok bro your right Darwin doesn't support the "cosmic" BigBang he supports a Creator?

[spurraider21]

Ok bro your right Darwin doesn't support the "cosmic" BigBang he supports a Creator?
the big bang theory was after darwin's time

[Cry Havoc]

Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are right and God isn't 'a magician with a magic wand'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

The Pope nuking this thread. :lmao

[mouse]

the big bang theory was after darwin's time

So Darwin supported creation?

[spurraider21]

So Darwin supported creation?
considering his theory of natural selection, it rules out biblical creation. i'm not certain if he was a theist or not

[mouse]

Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are right and God isn't 'a magician with a magic wand'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

The Pope nuking this thread. :lmao

Only if "the Pope" is anyone of real substance in my view. For me and others hes just some appointed leader of a huge cult that has to wear a funny hat while defending his pedo employees.


It's like saying Obama declares evolution and Big Bang theory are wrong and God is a magician with a magic wand'

Just another person with a personal opinion.

I would have more interest and respect if you had said 'Slomo declares evolution and Big Bang theory are right and God isn't 'a magician with a magic wand'

At least that kind info can really effect us all since he can lock or delete any topic he chooses.

[mouse]

considering his theory of natural selection, it rules out biblical creation. i'm not certain if he was a theist or not


Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver, and later recollected that at the time he was convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause and deserved to be called a theist.

[Blake]

So Darwin was a theistic evolutionist.

[mouse]

So Darwin was a theistic evolutionist.

Well that could be true considering I used to make the huge mistake (and sometimes still do) of treating an Atheist like a Supporter of Evolution and an Evolutionist like they didn't support a creator.

I found out why many were so frustrated with me in the early years of debating these topics. I found out there are people who Love God go to church but support Evolution many of them claim God created all life and it Evolved.

which is true "micro" Evolution does exists certain species have evolved into many varieties of that species. wolves,dogs, coyotes etc..

I know it's awkward at times to talk to these people since they are half right depending on which side you support.

the other side of that pancake I have met people who are Atheists that don't support Evolution they feel there was a designer / creator of some sort it just wasn't God or anyone in the Bible.

That was right around the time I discovered AD I finally was able to not have to worry about which side was right and having to choose one to support.

It really doesn't matter if you Support Evolution and your ancestors were two apes fucking or if you support Creation and the bible.

the bottom line you don't get life from warm pools of liquid from a planet that resulted from a huge explosion of matter 13 billion years ago by chance.

unless your mind is very limited and your just another casualty of a school text book.

[spurraider21]

Abiogenesis is a different theory than evolution

[RandomGuy]

http://guardianlv.com/2013/09/incredible-evolutionary-big-bang-supports-darwins-theory/#lOMpe4EVsS8GKc8H.99

Darwin Quote

because of the notorious imperfection of the ancient fossil record, no-one has been able to accurately measure rates of evolution during this critical interval, often called evolution’s Big Bang.”




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Etymology
English astronomer Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term "Big Bang" during a 1949 BBC radio broadcast.


Charles Robert Darwin, FRS (/ˈdɑrwɪn/;[1] 12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882

Tell me again how Darwin said that?

:lmao

[mouse]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Etymology
English astronomer Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term "Big Bang" during a 1949 BBC radio broadcast.

It shows how desperate you Evolutionist are to find any crack in a quote to maybe save face in a topic your getting your ass's severely handed to yourselves to high five each other when you spot any small detail or misquote.

An educated person can see the point made was obvious Darwin's stance on Creation and how live came about.

If you need to cling this one misquote to have an excuse to dodge the hard questions then by all means go for it I'm sure many with an average IQ can figure out what's being said here.

It amounts to saying Tesla supported wireless back in the 1800s


In 1891, Nikola Tesla gave a lecture for the members of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers in New York City, where he made a striking demonstration. In each hand he held a gas discharge tube, an early version of the modern fluorescent bulb. The tubes were not connected to any wires, but nonetheless they glowed brightly during his demonstration. Tesla explained to the awestruck attendees that the electricity was being transmitted through the air by the pair of metal sheets which sandwiched the stage. He went on to speculate how one might increase the scale of this effect to transmit wireless power and information over a broad area, perhaps even the entire Earth. As was often the case, Tesla's audience was engrossed but bewildered.


The term wireless aka WiFi commercially used at least as early as August 1999 was coined by a brand-consulting firm called Interbrand Corporation.

Does it really matter when or who coined a certain word?

It does to someone who is losing a debate in your case its one of the few reasons to celebrate as you dance around your single wide trailer chanting "I got mouse" I got mouse" well celebrate all you want when your done the hard questions in this topic will still be waiting for you and from the looks of your desperate replies they will continue to go unanswered.

And your poor attempt to publicly ridicule people is why I avoid debating you all together.



Tell me again how Darwin said that?



The history of the Big Bang theory began with the Big Bang's development from observations and theoretical considerations. Much of the theoretical work in cosmology now involves extensions and refinements to the basic Big Bang model.The description of a universe that expanded and contracted in a cyclic manner was first published in 1791 by Erasmus Darwin.

[spurraider21]

That is the Big Bang as a cycle of expansions and contractions. Different than the Big Bang you are so adamantly against

[mouse]

That is the Big Bang as a cycle of expansions and contractions. Different than the Big Bang you are so adamantly against

It's Big Bang it's before the dates RandomLie posted and it has Darwin.


Stop trying to split hairs so you can keep stalling on answering the original topic trust me one RandomGuy in any topic is enough we don't need another.

[spurraider21]

It's Big Bang it's before the dates RandomLie posted and it has Darwin.


Stop trying to split hairs so you can keep stalling on answering the original topic trust me one RandomGuy in any topic is enough we don't need another.
That's Erasmus darwin, not Charles, and it's a different concept than the Big Bang we know of today

[xmas1997]

Link posted above ^^^ by Cry Havoc in post #43.

The theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not “a magician with a magic wand”, Pope Francis has declared.

Speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope made comments which experts said put an end to the “pseudo theories” of creationism and intelligent design that some argue were encouraged by his predecessor, Benedict XVI.

Francis explained that both scientific theories were not incompatible with the existence of a creator – arguing instead that they “require it”.

“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said.

He added: “He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfilment.

[The Reckoning]

the pope exorcising this thread of dumbasses

[Blake]

That's Erasmus darwin, not Charles

:lol

[Fabbs]

the pope exorcising this thread of dumbasses
Your sucking the Head Pedos cock exorcises shit.
That dumbass has zero credibility.

[Koolaid_Man]

So who created your creator?

God exists in timeless eternity How does God acting before time began get around the problem of God's creation? There are two possible interpretations of these verses. One is that God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence.http://127.0.0.1:3357/bug.cgi

God exists in multiple dimensions of time The second interpretation is that God exists in more than one dimension of time. Things that exist in one dimension of time are restricted to time's arrow and are confined to cause and effect. However, two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimensions of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point. Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.
Why can't the universe be eternal? The idea that God can be eternal leads us to the idea that maybe the universe is eternal, and, therefore, God doesn't need to exist at all. Actually, this was the prevalent belief of atheists before the observational data of the 20th century strongly refuted the idea that the universe was eternal. This fact presented a big dilemma for atheists, since a non-eternal universe implied that it must have been caused. Maybe Genesis 1:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis%201.1) was correct! Not to be dismayed by the facts, atheists have invented some metaphysical "science" that attempts to explain away the existence of God. Hence, most atheistic cosmologists believe that we see only the visible part of a much larger "multiverse" that randomly spews out universes with different physical parameters.2 (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/who_created_god.html#n02) Since there is no evidence supporting this idea (nor can there be, according to the laws of the universe), it is really just a substitute "god" for atheists. And, since this "god" is non-intelligent by definition, it requires a complex hypothesis, which would be ruled out if we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon. Purposeful intelligent design of the universe makes much more sense, especially based upon what we know about the design of the universe (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/cosmoconstant.html).http://127.0.0.1:3357/bug.cgi

What does science say about time? When Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time, the results showed that time has a beginning - at the moment of creation (i.e., the Big Bang).3 (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/who_created_god.html#n03) In fact, if you examine university websites, you will find that many professors make such a claim - that the universe had a beginning and that this beginning marked the beginning of time (see The Universe is Not Eternal, But Had A Beginning (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html)). Such assertions support the Bible's claim that time began at the creation of the universe.
Conclusion http://www.godandscience.org/images/up1.gif (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/who_created_god.html#top) God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time (such that there is no beginning of God's plane of time). Hence God is eternal, having never been created. Although it is possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation, observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis, since the universe began to exist a finite ~13.8 billion years ago. The only possible escape for the atheist is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally (hence it is metaphysical in nature, and not scientific).

[The Reckoning]

Your sucking the Head Pedos cock exorcises shit.
That dumbass has zero credibility.


other than being responsible for the spiritual well being of a billion people. you should be just as concerned with what he says as catholics are, tbh. for your own well being.

[Blake]

Your sucking the Head Pedos cock exorcises shit.
That dumbass has zero credibility.

Why are you struggling with evolution being compatible with creation?

Are you a six day Bible literalist?

[Fabbs]

Why are you struggling with evolution being compatible with creation?

Are you a six day Bible literalist?
1. Time constraints. Can explain later. But i do not believe in God created X mico org and it evolved.

2. Not a 6 day bible literalist. Relative. "Back in my day." "In the day of the Spurs Champs era". "Back in the horse and buggy days".

"Day can be a term". I do not believe they were 6 literal 24 hour days.

[Blake]

"Day can be a term". I do not believe they were 6 literal 24 hour days.

Well yeah. That's what Christians/Jews that understand evolution believe too.

[ChumpDumper]

God exists in timeless eternity How does God acting before time began get around the problem of God's creation? There are two possible interpretations of these verses. One is that God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence.http://127.0.0.1:3357/bug.cgi

God exists in multiple dimensions of time The second interpretation is that God exists in more than one dimension of time. Things that exist in one dimension of time are restricted to time's arrow and are confined to cause and effect. However, two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimensions of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point. Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.
Why can't the universe be eternal? The idea that God can be eternal leads us to the idea that maybe the universe is eternal, and, therefore, God doesn't need to exist at all. Actually, this was the prevalent belief of atheists before the observational data of the 20th century strongly refuted the idea that the universe was eternal. This fact presented a big dilemma for atheists, since a non-eternal universe implied that it must have been caused. Maybe Genesis 1:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis%201.1) was correct! Not to be dismayed by the facts, atheists have invented some metaphysical "science" that attempts to explain away the existence of God. Hence, most atheistic cosmologists believe that we see only the visible part of a much larger "multiverse" that randomly spews out universes with different physical parameters.2 (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/who_created_god.html#n02) Since there is no evidence supporting this idea (nor can there be, according to the laws of the universe), it is really just a substitute "god" for atheists. And, since this "god" is non-intelligent by definition, it requires a complex hypothesis, which would be ruled out if we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon. Purposeful intelligent design of the universe makes much more sense, especially based upon what we know about the design of the universe (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/cosmoconstant.html).http://127.0.0.1:3357/bug.cgi

What does science say about time? When Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time, the results showed that time has a beginning - at the moment of creation (i.e., the Big Bang).3 (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/who_created_god.html#n03) In fact, if you examine university websites, you will find that many professors make such a claim - that the universe had a beginning and that this beginning marked the beginning of time (see The Universe is Not Eternal, But Had A Beginning (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html)). Such assertions support the Bible's claim that time began at the creation of the universe.
Conclusion http://www.godandscience.org/images/up1.gif (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/who_created_god.html#top) God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time (such that there is no beginning of God's plane of time). Hence God is eternal, having never been created. Although it is possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation, observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis, since the universe began to exist a finite ~13.8 billion years ago. The only possible escape for the atheist is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally (hence it is metaphysical in nature, and not scientific).Actually, there is a theory about what was around before the big bang -- so your cut and paste is inaccurate.

Big bang theory can fit into a timeline of infinity just as easily as magic Jesus.

[Agloco]

http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html

[Koolaid_Man]

Actually, there is a theory about what was around before the big bang -- so your cut and paste is inaccurate.

Big bang theory can fit into a timeline of infinity just as easily as magic Jesus.


Really? LOL is that the best you can come up with to my Copy Pasta. LOL I see you big dawg...on the run.

[Agloco]

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v7/111

[ChumpDumper]

Really? LOL is that the best you can come up with to my Copy Pasta. LOL I see you big dawg...on the run.What more is needed?

[mouse]

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v7/111

Figures the Google certified scientist can only post a link.

[boutons_deux]

Have any of you religionists/IDers/creationist read anything about quantum theory, mechanics?

EVERY attack, experiment to disprove quantum theory has failed, which, like biological evolution, makes is an extremely credible "theory", both for its explanatory and predictive powers, certainly versus the fantasies of naive Bible humpers, IDers, creationists.

This is a pretty good book as "popularizer" of quantum theory and its history, but the title is misleading since it really doesn't address consciousness.

Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Enigma-Physics-Encounters-Consciousness-ebook/dp/B005H5O1DU/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1420216125&sr=8-2&keywords=quantum+consciousness

[Agloco]

Figures the Google certified scientist can only post a link.

i find it highly unlikely that you're prepared to engage me or anyone else on this subject in any meaningful or productive fashion.

But by all means, prove me wrong.

[lefty]

Don't underestimate the Maiar

[mouse]

[SIZE=3][FONT=arial]quantum theory, mechanics?

EVERY attack, experiment to disprove quantum theory has failed, which, like biological evolution, makes is an extremely credible "theory", both for its explanatory and predictive powers, certainly versus the fantasies of naive Bible humpers, IDers, creationists.

This is a pretty good book as "popularizer" of quantum theory and its history, but the title is misleading since it really doesn't address consciousness.



Does your book have proof man Evolved from a snail?

[boutons_deux]

Does your book have proof man Evolved from a snail?

no, a book on quantum mechanics doesn't address biology. It does talk about Schrodinger's cat, the dead one, the live one, superposed, which aren't there until you observe them. LOL

[spurraider21]

Does your book have proof man Evolved from a snail?
why would it?

[Fabbs]

What do evolutionists say brought about the 1st energy or matter.



They don't.
That's the conclusion.
We're about three months into this and i haven't seen a response otherwise.

[boutons_deux]

why would biological evolutionists comment on astrophysical cosmology?

[Fabbs]

why would biological evolutionists comment on astrophysical cosmology?


I will say one thing this topic has all the Darwin supporters nervous and has them asking more questions than answering them

[Blake]

Lol nervous

[Big Empty]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/webkit-fake-url://6a969c1b-e00f-4282-8c66-aa2f7e65462d/imagejpeg