What is Tim Duncan's religion?

[Brazil]

is this thread becoming the new fake landing on the moon thread ?

[tmtcsc]

is this thread becoming the new fake landing on the moon thread ?

What is this moon you speak of ?

[Amarelooms]

Great question. It would certainly seem unfair for them not to receive salvation considering they didn't even have a chance to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior before they died. Perhaps they will be judged by another set of criteria, such as their actions and the contents of their character.

Lol what a dummy you are....only reason you believe in your friend Jesus is cause you were born into it moron. If you were born in Iraq you'd be Muslim. Like I said before....no doubt Jesus hates your mentality and people like you.

God Bless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

[DMC]

They are. Matter and energy that exists in another universe (if they exist there) would not be subject to the laws within this universe.

This is called "amazing familiarity". Basically you are pretending to know something you cannot possibly know. A second universe could be under the same laws as this one, but the concept of a second universe itself is pointless, never mind the double standard for the laws of physics which you seem to deploy or ignore at your leisure.

I asked you to provide an alternative option when I said there is only one. You didn't though you say there are options. Seems like a pretty good argument if you don't have a response.

If the universe isn't timeless, and if it cannot self create (forget "self created", that's absurd), then you have to accept there's another option other than "creator" as the "creator" answer puts you back to timeless, as the creator must either be self created or timeless, yet there's no evidence to suggest either.

First though:

1. Define "universe", what comprises it?

2. Define "creator"

3. Define "time"

A creator doesn't necessarily mean the universe isn't timeless since perhaps time itself did not exist prior to the first event. Any talk of "before that God did this..." is more amazing familiarity as you have no way of knowing this and it's just a convenient way around the point that time itself is not infinite.

So, the other option is that you don't have all the variables. You just have this rudimentary concept of time as linear and infinite, and an inkling of an expanding universe that you think was created because you fallaciously put time before the 1st event and your ego (speaking of infinity) won't allow you to back away from that.

That's not true. My present may not be your present. People on a plane experience time at a slower rate than people standing still. This is especially true when we increase speeds for objects. I'm sorry you aren't as knowledgable about time as I am.

Now you are appealing to false authority (yourself).

You might be surprised at just how much I do know about the quantum world.

You might say I stick with the facts.

No, I would instead say your use of logical fallacies is factual and you've stuck with that. It's in keeping with the best traditions of biblical scholars.

I already have, but you are too unintelligent to understand. The universe cannot have an infinite past - it's a simple truth, provable (and proven), which you have not been able to counter. You don't accept it, but you have only your own emotional attachment to blame. There is no means by which the universe can be self-generated, yet you'll believe it because it makes what you want to be true... be true. It's faith-based.

The term "infinite" itself is misunderstood by science plebes such as yourself. You again draw this imaginary line through space until you just stop imaging it but you stipulate that it continues "forever" without knowing what that means. Then you dress that up with some fancy hack website jargon and some "way too many lonely nights" epiphanies and you lay it out there like it's ready for peer review.

What science does is called research and prove those who practice it to be wrong most of the time. Learning is the process of gradually discovering your ignorance. That's where you would be if theology didn't clog your way. There are some exceptions to the "wrong most of the time" ideas, and those are what you are trying to use as your crutch. Problem is you cannot have infinite time ( again, your concept of infinite is straight line that goes on forever in both directions, no regard to dimension or events or relativity, that the temporal mind can traverse as if it's a railway to observe reality in a remote viewer fashion) unless you also have infinite events. Time only exists between events. In order to have infinite events, you must have a universe that's always existed in which those events take place.

You are basically using the same concept except you are pushing it back to the numinous god of the gaps. Say you aren't, it's a lie. You are. You're hybridizing science to theology and that's been the downfall of many theologians and apologists much more capable than you.

Now me, on the other hand, I'm okay with the idea there's no god. I'm okay with the idea that we're chance. I'm also okay with the opposite. But I know this universe was created by something - intelligent or not - and I've shown why that's necessary.

You know nothing of the sort. You are saying you have "knowledge of" but you cannot explain what it is you have knowledge of. Instead, you offer some nebulous creator hypothesis disguised as science that cannot make it past the 1st premise.

Again, not true. Objects moving at faster speeds will experience time at a slower rate. And that's only the start. I'm sorry you don't understand time as well as you need for this conversation.

Where is the reference? If you are moving away from the Earth at light speed and I am moving away from the Earth at light speed, and we are on parallel paths, are our time's synchronized? What if you are at a vector compared to me? Now you are not only moving away from the Earth, but you are moving away from me as well.

You sorely fail to grasp special relativity.

The even distribution of red shift throughout the universe in relation to the center (location of the bb) shows us that the initil burst followed an evenly distributed expansion. I say 99% because it could have occurred by tiny little elves sprinking dust to curate it. Mathematically, we can never prove a negative, thus 99%.

You just offered a negative (never prove). Do you really want to go that route?

I can prove a universal negative. No square circles exist anywhere in the universe. Why? Because it's a contradiction in terms. We know what circles are, since we've defined them, and we know what squares are, since we've also defined those. We can therefore say with absolute certainly that none exist.

You likely haven't been everywhere in the universe to know the red shift has an even distribution. You are accepting that in faith because you read it somewhere. I doubt you actually grasp the concept of the red shift to begin with. Stop reading hack science websites and go back to a real school.

My ass probably has more cognitive ability than some posters here. I wouldn't want to insult my gut flora by lowering them under some people on these forums ;-)

Your ass should have the ability to accept just about anything as far as you keep your head up it.

[gospursgojas]

Is this thread a sticky?

[Blue-Lightning]

This is called "amazing familiarity". Basically you are pretending to know something you cannot possibly know. A second universe could be under the same laws as this one, but the concept of a second universe itself is pointless, never mind the double standard for the laws of physics which you seem to deploy or ignore at your leisure.

What it's called is quoting out of context. Yes, if you take that one statement, it would seem to be "amazing familiarity", but that's only because I was answering a direct statement, not discussing what another universe might be like. When you look for my actual thoughts on the topic instead of trying to play "gotcha," you find that I am definitely not utilizing "amazing familiarity." For example, I said:

Everything that is within our universe is subject to the laws we observe in this same universe. We don't know what exists outside of our universe, or how it works. The rules outside of the universe might be similar to our rules, they might not be, but they wouldn't be subject to the same rules.

If the universe isn't timeless, and if it cannot self create (forget "self created", that's absurd), then you have to accept there's another option other than "creator" as the "creator" answer puts you back to timeless, as the creator must either be self created or timeless, yet there's no evidence to suggest either.

Wow, talk about needless assumptions. Why must the creator be timeless? Why must the creator be self-created? I don't see that either of those are necessary, nor have I ever said they are. So since you've asserted this idea, why do you think a creator must be these things? What else must a creator be?

1. Define "universe", what comprises it?

The totality of all space, matter, energy, and phenomenon we observe in the cosmos.

2. Define "creator"

The concept, iden y, phenomenon, or other form of outside sorce which generated the known universe into being.

3. Define "time"

The linear, yet unconstant, flow of cause and effect, moving from past to present to future, which is theorized to be connected with space and matter, but which is also not yet understood completely in its cause(s).

A creator doesn't necessarily mean the universe isn't timeless since perhaps time itself did not exist prior to the first event. Any talk of "before that God did this..." is more amazing familiarity as you have no way of knowing this and it's just a convenient way around the point that time itself is not infinite.

If time itself did not exist prior to the first event, then the first event can't take place (an action requires time in order for movement to occur). Thus, without time, time can't even come into existence, as coming into existence requires time.

Also, you are bringing the idea that "God" created the universe into the conversation, not me. I have never made that assertion. Is this your belief? If it is not, why are you bringing in the idea, and which "God" exactly is it that you are wanting to discredit?

So, the other option is that you don't have all the variables. You just have this rudimentary concept of time as linear and infinite, and an inkling of an expanding universe that you think was created because you fallaciously put time before the 1st event and your ego (speaking of infinity) won't allow you to back away from that.

I have changed my beliefs many times as I have acquired new and more accurate knowledge. If you could verify your beliefs, I would quicklky adopt them. However, so far you aren't even at my level, and that makes it unlikely you will do so. As an example, you're still trying to beat the "God argument," when that's not even the argument I'm making. When you can't even identify the argument based on my statements, it leads me to believe you're not at the intellectual level needed.

You'd probably do well against high school / college creationists. I'm not sure that's saying much though, and I'm not convinced you'd do well against the intellectual minority in those groups.

Buy, hey, maybe you'll step it up and impress me. =) I'm pulling for ya'

Now you are appealing to false authority (yourself).

You might be surprised at just how much I do know about the quantum world.

Everybody has access to nearly all human knowledge now using the internet. Therefore knowing about the quantum world isn't all that impressive... so do most people if they take the time to look it up. It's being able to creatively and conceptually work with those ideas in ways that realistically work tha show a depth of knowledge.

No, I would instead say your use of logical fallacies is factual and you've stuck with that. It's in keeping with the best traditions of biblical scholars.

Can you show a logical fallacy I've used?

You do know I'm not a biblical scholar, right? Well... at least it's not a profession of mine. You'd probably make yourself much wiser if you looked up some of my comments to All_Heart about the bible - it'll save some egg on your face later.

The term "infinite" itself is misunderstood by science plebes such as yourself. You again draw this imaginary line through space until you just stop imaging it but you stipulate that it continues "forever" without knowing what that means. Then you dress that up with some fancy hack website jargon and some "way too many lonely nights" epiphanies and you lay it out there like it's ready for peer review.

First, you try to insult, but let's have some fun with it. Since I am a lowly "science plebe", can you give us your credentials / profession that give you some level of knoweldge in the fields of physics, quantum physics, or cosmology? Can you provide a twitter account or some other form of internet reference?

Here's the actual definition of "infinite":

Mathematics
5(a). Not finite

Of course, finite means measurable / numerable. Thus, "infinite" means it is not measurable / numerable. It is beyond numeration.

When I say that time cannot be infinite in the past, I say so because that would mean there would be more moments in time than can be measured. That's impossible because there's no number we can't express through exponentials, and there's no possible the universe could transverse an inexpressable number of moments (infinite) to reach the present moment.

What specifically is wrong with that statement? And no labels, please. You tend to label without providing reasons - so without labeling the paragraph, can you articulate the pros and cons of it (i.e. evaluate / critique).

What science does is called research and prove those who practice it to be wrong most of the time. Learning is the process of gradually discovering your ignorance. That's where you would be if theology didn't clog your way. There are some exceptions to the "wrong most of the time" ideas, and those are what you are trying to use as your crutch. Problem is you cannot have infinite time ( again, your concept of infinite is straight line that goes on forever in both directions, no regard to dimension or events or relativity, that the temporal mind can traverse as if it's a railway to observe reality in a remote viewer fashion) unless you also have infinite events. Time only exists between events. In order to have infinite events, you must have a universe that's always existed in which those events take place.

Can I take a moment to laugh at you? I mean, seriously, I'm going to laugh at you, and here's why:

You say theology is clouding my mind. Yet there is not one single time when I have brought theology into this discussion, nor do I have ANY desire to. If you can copy and paste one single time I have discussed theology in this thread, please do so and I'll stop laughing. Otherwise, you're really showing yourself not able to hold your own in this discussion.

Also, let me show you another reason, that I know you're a pretender. Others may not know it, but it's pretty obvious to someone who studies qubits for fun.

Evidence you are a pretender
You say time only exists between events, but that is stupid. Here's why: Electrons are in perpetual motion around atomic nuclei (unless the little guys escaped, and then they're still in perpetual motion). They never stop. And they kinda make up all matter in the universe... so that all matter is always in perpetual motion, unless you get into the black hole stuff, and we can only theorize what happens to electrons in that situation. So there are no real "events" with empty "time" in between... the entire universe is driving by subatomic particles in constant motion.

You're a pretender, chief. But the anonymity of the internet seems to foster that for a while, doesn't it? =)

You are basically using the same concept except you are pushing it back to the numinous god of the gaps. Say you aren't, it's a lie. You are. You're hybridizing science to theology and that's been the downfall of many theologians and apologists much more capable than you.

Quote one time I have said a god created the universe or used theology. Otherwise you're an idiot who can't even figure out what he's arguing against.

This is called "crash and burn". Learn from it.

Where is the reference? If you are moving away from the Earth at light speed and I am moving away from the Earth at light speed, and we are on parallel paths, are our time's synchronized? What if you are at a vector compared to me? Now you are not only moving away from the Earth, but you are moving away from me as well.

You sorely fail to grasp special relativity.

The reference given in my example would be the world clock. Because I was using an example that can be tested, you just utterly fail:

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp

I agree with you about the simultaneity, but I just find it funny when you try to correct me (especially when we've tested it and it's proven).

You just offered a negative (never prove). Do you really want to go that route?

I do when I reach mathematical improbability.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory

I can prove a universal negative. No square circles exist anywhere in the universe. Why? Because it's a contradiction in terms. We know what circles are, since we've defined them, and we know what squares are, since we've also defined those. We can therefore say with absolute certainly that none exist.

You didn't prove a negative, you cited a contradiction. No square circles exist because they're contradictory terms. 1+1 never equals 3 because 2 is always the identifier for the result. Prove the universe doesn't sit on the back of a flannel ostrich and I'll be impressed.

You likely haven't been everywhere in the universe to know the red shift has an even distribution. You are accepting that in faith because you read it somewhere. I doubt you actually grasp the concept of the red shift to begin with. Stop reading hack science websites and go back to a real school.

The accelerating universe is the observation that the universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate. In formal terms, this means that the cosmic scale factor has a positive second derivative,[1] so that the velocity at which a distant galaxy is receding from us should be continually increasing with time[2]. The first suggestion for accelerating universe from observed data happened in 1992, by Paál et. al.[3] In 1998, observations of type Ia supernovae also suggested that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating[4][5] since around redshift of z~0.5 -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe

We see this universally, not just in comparison to one galaxy or another, one star to the other, etc. It's a universal constant. We observe it through telescopic observation, not by galactic travel.

Your ass should have the ability to accept just about anything as far as you keep your head up it.

It hurts to be so wrong on so many things, doesn't it?

You'll find that the more we get into this discussion, the harder it's going to be for you to pretend. Hang in there... it's entertaining me =)

BL

[Blake]

You still have yet to prove a creator.

You just don't know it.

[Blue-Lightning]

You still have yet to prove a creator.

You just don't know it.

Your level of description, explanation, and discourse are reflective of your prior contributions.

BL

[Blake]

Your level of description, explanation, and discourse are reflective of your prior contributions.

BL

You were exposed as a fraud many thread pages ago.

Of course, if what you say is true and a creator is accepted scientific fact, then it should be no effort at all for you to source a text book or a peer reviewed work and redeem yourself.

[DMC]

What it's called is quoting out of context. Yes, if you take that one statement, it would seem to be "amazing familiarity", but that's only because I was answering a direct statement, not discussing what another universe might be like. When you look for my actual thoughts on the topic instead of trying to play "gotcha," you find that I am definitely not utilizing "amazing familiarity." For example, I said:

Everything that is within our universe is subject to the laws we observe in this same universe. We don't know what exists outside of our universe, or how it works. The rules outside of the universe might be similar to our rules, they might not be, but they wouldn't be subject to the same rules.

Here you go again making statements that you don't know to be true. You don't know that everything within our universe is subject to the "laws". You have a very loose, personal defintion for "laws" to begin with. There are the laws of physics and then there are the tendencies of nature. That kind of approach seems a bit overconfident. Why make matter-of-fact statements in these instances? I see no need and it's certainly not a scientific approach.

Wow, talk about needless assumptions. Why must the creator be timeless? Why must the creator be self-created? I don't see that either of those are necessary, nor have I ever said they are. So since you've asserted this idea, why do you think a creator must be these things? What else must a creator be?

If the universe must be either one or the other, then so must the creator. Changing the name of the object doesn't give it a different standard. Basically, you are saying all that exists must have existed always, self created or had a creator. I am saying "a creator must have always existed, self created or had a creator". What's the difference? If a creator exists, it's part of the "all that exists" in your first argument. The universe is all that exists.

The totality of all space, matter, energy, and phenomenon we observe in the cosmos.

So then if we could observe a creator, the creator is then part of the universe, ergo must meet the criteria you stipulated for the universe itself.

The concept, iden y, phenomenon, or other form of outside sorce which generated the known universe into being.

Outside of what? What exists outside of "the totality of space, matter, energy and phenomenon we observe in the cosmos"?

The linear, yet unconstant, flow of cause and effect, moving from past to present to future, which is theorized to be connected with space and matter, but which is also not yet understood completely in its cause(s).

Flow of cause and effect?

Does this not work for you?

the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.

www.dictionary.com

This is important, I will reference your definitions later on.

If time itself did not exist prior to the first event, then the first event can't take place (an action requires time in order for movement to occur). Thus, without time, time can't even come into existence, as coming into existence requires time.

More amazing familiarity. How can you know that "coming into existence" requires time?

Illustrate how time can exist without events.

This is also important, as it illustrated how you have contradicted yourself. You say time is not infinite yet time could not exist without time already having existed. More on this later.

Also, you are bringing the idea that "God" created the universe into the conversation, not me. I have never made that assertion. Is this your belief? If it is not, why are you bringing in the idea, and which "God" exactly is it that you are wanting to discredit?

Here you are playing the name game again. This "creator without a name" is analogous to anything you wish to assert as the creator. Were it simply a force, then we could, for all intents and purposes, stick with “the universe self-created”.

I have changed my beliefs many times as I have acquired new and more accurate knowledge. If you could verify your beliefs, I would quicklky adopt them. However, so far you aren't even at my level, and that makes it unlikely you will do so. As an example, you're still trying to beat the "God argument," when that's not even the argument I'm making. When you can't even identify the argument based on my statements, it leads me to believe you're not at the intellectual level needed.

I don’t seek out beliefs to adopt. I simply look at the information available and accept it for that. You seem driven to blurt out an answer before you’ve heard the question. Why must you feel you know the answer since you obviously don’t have the information you need to even know the question?

You'd probably do well against high school / college creationists. I'm not sure that's saying much though, and I'm not convinced you'd do well against the intellectual minority in those groups.

Every creationist I’ve ever seen enter into a formal debate with an atheist gets a mudhole stomped in them. They don’t admit it, they word wrangle and flounder and use every logical fallacy in the book to cast doubt and win the audience (normally theists as well). Had any theists actually won a formal debate against a savvy atheist, I would know. If you know of one, please share it.

Buy, hey, maybe you'll step it up and impress me. =) I'm pulling for ya'

More typical theist chest thumping. Next you are going to pray for me.

Everybody has access to nearly all human knowledge now using the internet. Therefore knowing about the quantum world isn't all that impressive... so do most people if they take the time to look it up. It's being able to creatively and conceptually work with those ideas in ways that realistically work tha show a depth of knowledge.

Nearly all human knowledge?
The first thing they teach you in a real school is that you should not use the internet for research.

Can you show a logical fallacy I've used?

I’ve showed several.

Amazing familiarity
Ad hominem
Appeal to false authority
Non sequitur
The list goes on.

You do know I'm not a biblical scholar, right? Well... at least it's not a profession of mine. You'd probably make yourself much wiser if you looked up some of my comments to All_Heart about the bible - it'll save some egg on your face later.

You are not a scientist, especially with the way you throw around matter-of-fact statements so loosely. More likely you are a 1st or 2nd year student. That type takes a class and thinks no one else knows the information being presented.

First, you try to insult, but let's have some fun with it. Since I am a lowly "science plebe", can you give us your credentials / profession that give you some level of knoweldge in the fields of physics, quantum physics, or cosmology? Can you provide a twitter account or some other form of internet reference?

Advanced engineering degree in particle physics, 20 years working with particle accelerators, tandetrons, linacs, quan ative mass spectrometry, ultra high vacuum physics, lasers and optics expert among other things. My job is as a consultant to universities and state run facilities across the US.

You?

Also, I don't do social networking. Professional networking is different, but you're in no position to demand my credentials and you will just have to accept the charity I have offered. The last thing you are getting from me is some notoriety that you debated with such and such.

Here's the actual definition of "infinite":

Mathematics
5(a). Not finite

Of course, finite means measurable / numerable. Thus, "infinite" means it is not measurable / numerable. It is beyond numeration.

So is love infinite?

When I say that time cannot be infinite in the past, I say so because that would mean there would be more moments in time than can be measured. That's impossible because there's no number we can't express through exponentials, and there's no possible the universe could transverse an inexpressable number of moments (infinite) to reach the present moment.
What specifically is wrong with that statement? And no labels, please. You tend to label without providing reasons - so without labeling the paragraph, can you articulate the pros and cons of it (i.e. evaluate / critique).

If time cannot be infinite, then it had a beginning. If time had a beginning, how did that occur? You said earlier that the 1st event couldn’t have occurred without time, so how did time begin? Wouldn’t the beginning of time be an event? How did that happen without time as, once again you said, even time cannot begin without time.
You’ve painted yourself into an epistemological corner here.
You are confusing the measurement (time) with the measured (interval between events).

Can I take a moment to laugh at you? I mean, seriously, I'm going to laugh at you, and here's why:

You say theology is clouding my mind. Yet there is not one single time when I have brought theology into this discussion, nor do I have ANY desire to. If you can copy and paste one single time I have discussed theology in this thread, please do so and I'll stop laughing. Otherwise, you're really showing yourself not able to hold your own in this discussion.

Laugh at Varros. He’s the one who distinguished theology as having 3 branches, one of those being philosophical rational discourse of the gods and of cosmology. Though a creator need not be labeled a god, for all intents and purposes it certainly would qualify.
You don’t have to mention theology for your argument to be pinned as a theological one. You are proposing a creator. That’s a theological argument. In fact, your reasons, as misguided and short sighted as they are, are cookie cutter theist arguments. I am eagerly awaiting Pascal’s wager.

Also, let me show you another reason, that I know you're a pretender. Others may not know it, but it's pretty obvious to someone who studies qubits for fun.

Evidence you are a pretender
You say time only exists between events, but that is stupid. Here's why: Electrons are in perpetual motion around atomic nuclei (unless the little guys escaped, and then they're still in perpetual motion). They never stop. And they kinda make up all matter in the universe... so that all matter is always in perpetual motion, unless you get into the black hole stuff, and we can only theorize what happens to electrons in that situation. So there are no real "events" with empty "time" in between... the entire universe is driving by subatomic particles in constant motion.

You: “this is a fact, unless you get into the area I am not familiar with, then all bets are off so don’t go there”

electron perpetual motion

Anyone who considers an electron to be a particle and not in a wave-like state is not someone I want to discuss QED with.

You have a layman’s + Google understanding of it to begin with. I see no profit in debating your misconceptions on the matter (pun).

Go do some homework and get back to me when you no longer see an atom as this:



The planetary model is long outdated unless you are in gradeschool.

Imagine the electron as a "diffuse en y that occupies the entire orbital".

If you did that, you wouldn't propose such elementarily stupid strawmen.

You're a pretender, chief. But the anonymity of the internet seems to foster that for a while, doesn't it? =)

As long as my employer doesn’t find out, I’m golden.

Quote one time I have said a god created the universe or used theology. Otherwise you're an idiot who can't even figure out what he's arguing against.

See above. You cannot sneak out the back door on this.

This is called "crash and burn". Learn from it.

It's not the first time I've seen a theist cloaked in dollar store science attempt to get over. Your subsequent crash was predicted.

The reference given in my example would be the world clock. Because I was using an example that can be tested, you just utterly fail:

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp

You still not understanding relativity

I agree with you about the simultaneity, but I just find it funny when you try to correct me (especially when we've tested it and it's proven).

Right. I’ve read enough of your blithering stupidity to conclude you are a hack.

I do when I reach mathematical improbability.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory

While you are out scouring the interwebs for your learnings, check out General Relativity and how it points towards an infinite universe (thus no beginning required). You can even link to it and claim that was your stance all along.

You didn't prove a negative, you cited a contradiction. No square circles exist because they're contradictory terms. 1+1 never equals 3 because 2 is always the identifier for the result. Prove the universe doesn't sit on the back of a flannel ostrich and I'll be impressed.

The logical contradiction proved the negative I proposed. That which cannot exist cannot exist anywhere.
That’s the same as saying “that which cannot exist doesn’t exist anywhere” which is a universal negative.

The accelerating universe is the observation that the universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate. In formal terms, this means that the cosmic scale factor has a positive second derivative,[1] so that the velocity at which a distant galaxy is receding from us should be continually increasing with time[2]. The first suggestion for accelerating universe from observed data happened in 1992, by Paál et. al.[3] In 1998, observations of type Ia supernovae also suggested that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating[4][5] since around redshift of z~0.5 -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe
We see this universally, not just in comparison to one galaxy or another, one star to the other, etc. It's a universal constant. We observe it through telescopic observation, not by galactic travel.

Wiki-links strikes again!

It hurts to be so wrong on so many things, doesn't it?

No. I’ve spent a good portion of my life being wrong about this or that. I don’t have much of an ego in when it comes to science. Theists are normally hurt when they are challenged however. As I said, learning is the gradual unveiling of your ignorance. You're going through that now, maybe later you will realize it.

You'll find that the more we get into this discussion, the harder it's going to be for you to pretend. Hang in there... it's entertaining me =)

I’m hanging in. Jousting your strawmen isn't hard. What would be difficult is if you actually had a point. I would be forced to re-examine 30 years of education though I welcome that.

Oh, and your name is up there on the left of the screen and on every quote of you. Since you get most of your material from Google or Wiki, you should sign “WP or G” or just don’t sign at all, it’s the calling card of the ignorant and y. This isn’t a peer reviewed site tbh.

I still say you're a troll. Get bored?

[Blue-Lightning]

Here you go again making statements that you don't know to be true. You don't know that everything within our universe is subject to the "laws". You have a very loose, personal defintion for "laws" to begin with. There are the laws of physics and then there are the tendencies of nature. That kind of approach seems a bit overconfident. Why make matter-of-fact statements in these instances? I see no need and it's certainly not a scientific approach.

The last time you argued with me about "laws," I gave you the exact definition of the term in scientific context. It was exactly the way I had been using the term.

The universe operates in an ordered, patterned, logical system of phenomenon. Things which were once explained through magic, the supernatural, or randomness are now explained through mathematics. This will continue unabated.

If the universe must be either one or the other, then so must the creator. Changing the name of the object doesn't give it a different standard. Basically, you are saying all that exists must have existed always, self created or had a creator. I am saying "a creator must have always existed, self created or had a creator". What's the difference? If a creator exists, it's part of the "all that exists" in your first argument. The universe is all that exists.

The universe is all that exists in the cosmos. That is an important part of what I said, which you conveniently ignored. That which caused our universe is outside of our universe by virtue of having existed prior to generate it in the first place. Our universe has time, matter, energy, etc. None of those is guaranteed to exist outside of this, and certainly not in the same way. Thus, it is not guaranteed that the creator of the universe is timeless, though it is possible.

So then if we could observe a creator, the creator is then part of the universe, ergo must meet the criteria you stipulated for the universe itself.

You need to learn what the word cosmos means, or stop ignoring it in sentences... one or the other.

Outside of what? What exists outside of "the totality of space, matter, energy and phenomenon we observe in the cosmos"?

We don't know, though string theory and other multiverse theories propose there are good reasons to believe things do.

Flow of cause and effect?

Does this not work for you?

the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.

In English, the word "time" can refer to many things, some specific, and some used in casual language. So, no, your definition is terrible considering it is the general definition of time, and considering there was the definition of time in the field of physics (what we've been discussing) farther down on dictionary.com. It is this:

2) Physics: See space-time
A quan y measuring duration, usually with reference to a periodic process such as the rotation of the earth or the vibration of electromagnetic radiation emitted from certain atoms. In classical mechanics, time is absolute in the sense that the time of an event is independent of the observer. According to the theory of relativity it depends on the observer's frame of reference. Time is considered as a fourth coordinate required, along with three spatial coordinates, to specify an event.

In the future, if you're going to "teach" me about definitions, please at least find the right one.

More amazing familiarity. How can you know that "coming into existence" requires time?

Illustrate how time can exist without events.

This is also important, as it illustrated how you have contradicted yourself. You say time is not infinite yet time could not exist without time already having existed. More on this later.

Time would exist without events if electrons were in rotation. No "events" would have to occur in that situation, yet time would still exist allowing for the movement of sub-atomic particles. Because quantum mechanics do not function in a way that we could call their positioning "events," you could have time without events occurring, though cause and effect would be active.

Here you are playing the name game again. This "creator without a name" is analogous to anything you wish to assert as the creator. Were it simply a force, then we could, for all intents and purposes, stick with “the universe self-created”.

No. A "force" (whatever the that is - apparently we're now in Star Wars la la land) outside of the universe would not be a part of the universe, thus the universe was created by something else, thus the thing that created it is the creator.

I don’t seek out beliefs to adopt. I simply look at the information available and accept it for that. You seem driven to blurt out an answer before you’ve heard the question. Why must you feel you know the answer since you obviously don’t have the information you need to even know the question?

I'm sure this passes as deep somewhere. I'm just not sure where.

Every creationist I’ve ever seen enter into a formal debate with an atheist gets a mudhole stomped in them. They don’t admit it, they word wrangle and flounder and use every logical fallacy in the book to cast doubt and win the audience (normally theists as well). Had any theists actually won a formal debate against a savvy atheist, I would know. If you know of one, please share it.

Young Earth creationists are usually annihilated (unless they go the Omphalos route, but then they can still be dismissed when biblical contradictions show up), the Old Earth ones usually fair better, and atheists are easily defeated by anybody who understands what I've been posting. Agnostics and theists usually do pretty well if they know their stuff.

More typical theist chest thumping. Next you are going to pray for me.

And who should I pray to?

Nearly all human knowledge?
The first thing they teach you in a real school is that you should not use the internet for research.

A kid in Africa with the internet today has access to more knowledge today than the president of the United States had fifteen years ago. Dispute it so I can show the stats and mock you a bit.

Also, studies have shown Wikipedia is more accurate than Encyclopedia Britannica. Get with the times.

I’ve showed several.

Amazing familiarity
Ad hominem
Appeal to false authority
Non sequitur
The list goes on.

Claiming I've used it, and showing I've used it are two different things, numbnuts.

Damn... ad hominem.

You are not a scientist, especially with the way you throw around matter-of-fact statements so loosely. More likely you are a 1st or 2nd year student. That type takes a class and thinks no one else knows the information being presented.

Says the guy who can't even use the right definition on dictionary.com.

Huff puff, huff puff...

Advanced engineering degree in particle physics, 20 years working with particle accelerators, tandetrons, linacs, quan ative mass spectrometry, ultra high vacuum physics, lasers and optics expert among other things. My job is as a consultant to universities and state run facilities across the US.

Nice to meet you, I'm Barrack Obama.

Or at least I was until I linked to my actual information. But, I don't blame you for not wanting to expose who you are.

You?

I already gave my Twitter account. Feel free to check it out.

Also, I don't do social networking. Professional networking is different, but you're in no position to demand my credentials and you will just have to accept the charity I have offered. The last thing you are getting from me is some notoriety that you debated with such and such.

Linkedin will work.

So is love infinite?

Did you seriously ask me this question in a physics discussion?????

Define love and where it's coming from and I'll tell you if it's infinite or not.

If time cannot be infinite, then it had a beginning. If time had a beginning, how did that occur? You said earlier that the 1st event couldn’t have occurred without time, so how did time begin? Wouldn’t the beginning of time be an event? How did that happen without time as, once again you said, even time cannot begin without time.
You’ve painted yourself into an epistemological corner here.
You are confusing the measurement (time) with the measured (interval between events).

There are several ways to explain it, though I really am not interested in speculative theory that can't be proven (shocking to you, I know). So, I'll give a brief idea and then move forward from that.

What if our universe was generated from a separate universe, so that our universe was created under the phenomenon of another en y, then operated under similar phenomon, but now self-contained once it was separated?

It's far-fetched, it can't be proven, but again, you're asking me how the universe came into being, and the only thing I can really say is that it was created. I can imagine how, but I'm no longer in science when I take it into that place.

Laugh at Varros. He’s the one who distinguished theology as having 3 branches, one of those being philosophical rational discourse of the gods and of cosmology. Though a creator need not be labeled a god, for all intents and purposes it certainly would qualify.

I doubt an older, non-sentient universe which generated this one would be considered a "god" by anybody.

You don’t have to mention theology for your argument to be pinned as a theological one. You are proposing a creator. That’s a theological argument. In fact, your reasons, as misguided and short sighted as they are, are cookie cutter theist arguments. I am eagerly awaiting Pascal’s wager.

You're cute when you assume the creator must be a god or a sentient being.

:laughing: electron perpetual motion

This is going to be fun.

Anyone who considers an electron to be a particle and not in a wave-like state is not someone I want to discuss QED with.

Although De Broglie showed electrons react as a wave in certain situations, it is a basic tennant of physics that electrons are elementary, sub-atomic particles. If I contradicted that statement in any place, feel free to copy and paste where I did so. It should be easy to find. Otherwise, quit pretending.

Imagine the electron as a "diffuse en y that occupies the entire orbital".

If you did that, you wouldn't propose such elementarily stupid strawmen.

My statement that electrons are in perpetual motion is true, you have not disproven it, you did not attempt to, and the fact that they are in perpetual motion shows your explanation of time as "space between events" is ridiculous.

What -hole community colleges to do you advise exactly?

^ Ad hominem, but moderately funny and not replacing the actual argument.

:laughing: You still not understanding relativity

You do realize your question was how we can measure the difference in times, and I did show how we do that when there is an absolute reference point, right?

Do you typically just laugh instead of accurately analyzing information? That might explain you advising the IHOP waitress on particles and calling it a job ;-)

Right. I’ve read enough of your blithering stupidity to conclude you are a hack.

If this is the best you can do against a hack, you're really in the wrong profession ;-)

While you are out scouring the interwebs for your learnings, check out General Relativity and how it points towards an infinite universe (thus no beginning required). You can even link to it and claim that was your stance all along.

I'll comment on this in a completely different post. I was going to let you figure it out on your own since I thought you were intelligent enough to do so. You're not, so I'm going to have to embarrass you. See the next post.

The logical contradiction proved the negative I proposed. That which cannot exist cannot exist anywhere.
That’s the same as saying “that which cannot exist doesn’t exist anywhere” which is a universal negative.

False. Proving a contradictory concept is not proving a negative. As I said, prove the universe doesn't sit on the back of a flannel ostrich and I'll be impressed. Telling me there is no bluish orange doesn't tell me a new color is non-existent.

Wiki-links strikes again!

Still partying like it's 1999?

No. I’ve spent a good portion of my life being wrong about this or that. I don’t have much of an ego in when it comes to science. Theists are normally hurt when they are challenged however. As I said, learning is the gradual unveiling of your ignorance. You're going through that now, maybe later you will realize it.

Well, let me see if I can help you understand how you're doing.

- You tried to correct me about the definition of "laws of physics." I then posted the actual definition, and it turns out you were wrong and I was right.

- You tried to correct me about time. You used the wrong definition, and I had to correct you again.

- You tried to correct me about electrons. Once again, I'm right, I have at least a hundred scholarly references to back me up if needed, and I'll correct you.

- I'm about to show you how we know the universe does not have an infinite past (as you say) in a way that should embarass you.

- In a physics / cosmology discussion, you asked me if "love" is infinite. Maybe the wiccans were impressed...

- You showed you didn't know the universal expansion is equally distributed. I had to show you, and you just attacked Wikipedia instead of actually being able to evaluate the position.

- You have repeatedly shown you don't understand the definition of "universe," which indicates you really aren't versed in any reputable multiverse theories.

- You assumed my positions come from the bible, despite the fact I don't see the bible as authoritative.

Amazing for a guy who posts credentials that should have him on the Science Channel.

I’m hanging in. Jousting your strawmen isn't hard. What would be difficult is if you actually had a point. I would be forced to re-examine 30 years of education though I welcome that.

Can you copy and paste the strawmen?

Oh, and your name is up there on the left of the screen and on every quote of you. Since you get most of your material from Google or Wiki, you should sign “WP or G” or just don’t sign at all, it’s the calling card of the ignorant and y. This isn’t a peer reviewed site tbh.

I haven't had to study up on anything yet in this discussion... which is sad actually, considering I have had to do that in the past. This discussion hasn't pushed me though. Having said that, I do ocassionally reference what I say so that there is some level of authority in what I say. I'm sorry that you are against accessing human knowledge through Google or Wikipedia... I'm sure you'd do fine in an Amish community.

BL



[quote]

[Blake]

atheists are easily defeated by anybody who understands what I've been posting.

Rofl

[all_heart]

Lol what a dummy you are....only reason you believe in your friend Jesus is cause you were born into it moron. If you were born in Iraq you'd be Muslim. Like I said before....no doubt Jesus hates your mentality and people like you.

God Bless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

If you were born with any decency and common sense you wouldn't be such a vulgar prick, but you probably get off to that. You must be so miserable in your life to be this way, I actually feel sorry for you. George Carlin is a funny guy, but it's still ONE mans' opinion - big deal. Are you so easily influenced by entertainers and the media? - Pathetic. What do you believe? You capitalize "God". Why?

BTW, yea I probably would be Muslim if I was born in the ME.. so what? Thank God I wasn't. If you were born in France, guess what language you would speak? Your point?

[Blue-Lightning]

While you are out scouring the interwebs for your learnings, check out General Relativity and how it points towards an infinite universe (thus no beginning required). You can even link to it and claim that was your stance all along.

I felt this was deserving of it's own post.

DMC, the physicist consultant to various universities, says the universe is more likely infinite in that it has no beginning. Yet the truth is we've known it has a beginning for a very long time. We know that it likely is 13.5 gigayears old, and we know that time ceases to exist if the universe is condensed to the size of the "pre-bang". So we are very sure the universe has a beginning.

In fact, we've known this for a very long time. Let's say that time is infinite in the past, and the universe is infinitely old. In that case, all the light from all the stars would have had time to reach us. Thus, the night sky would be lit up brighter than the sun, and we would all be burned into oblivion. It's called Olber's paradox, and we've known about it for at least the past hundred years. It is considered the absolute disproof of both an infinite and eternal universe.

Knowing this, I've been debating the entire time holding it back, hoping others would catch on without me having to say "it's already been a given fact for the past hundred years and here's why". However, it doesn't appear our correspondents have been smart enough to figure it out on their own.

Let go of emotional attachments to your own beliefs. Search for what is true, accept what isn't, and have fun while you're doing it.

BL

By the way, someone is going to say that because the universe isn't static, and is expanding, Olber's paradox doesn't prove anything. They'd be right if the universe was expanding at the speed of light, but it isn't, and thus light would eventually catch up to every object in the universe from every star if it were infinitely old. They will actually, probably argue that the universe is eternally expanding and contracting, but we'll see... either way, I'm just waiting for them to screw up again ;-)

[Blue-Lightning]

If you were born with any decency and common sense you wouldn't be such a vulgar prick, but you probably get off to that. You must be so miserable in your life to be this way, I actually feel sorry for you. George Carlin is a funny guy, but it's still ONE mans' opinion - big deal. Are you so easily influenced by entertainers and the media? - Pathetic. What do you believe? You capitalize "God". Why?

BTW, yea I probably would be Muslim if I was born in the ME.. so what? Thank God I wasn't. If you were born in France, guess what language you would speak? Your point?

I've taken up for you at times, but this is really terrible stuff. You're basically saying you believe something because you believed it as a child. That's pathetic.

BL

[underdawg]

I've taken up for you at times, but this is really terrible stuff. You're basically saying you believe something because you believed it as a child. That's pathetic.

BL

Not a good argument in my opinion - there are Christians in Muslim countries and they often are persecuted or killed for their beliefs (see Nigeria).

The fastest growing country for Christian converts is China right now, so I don't believe this argument is very strong.

-wasn't going to post again, but I changed my mind.

[DMC]

I felt this was deserving of it's own post.

DMC, the physicist consultant to various universities, says the universe is more likely infinite in that it has no beginning. Yet the truth is we've known it has a beginning for a very long time. We know that it likely is 13.5 gigayears old, and we know that time ceases to exist if the universe is condensed to the size of the "pre-bang". So we are very sure the universe has a beginning.

In fact, we've known this for a very long time. Let's say that time is infinite in the past, and the universe is infinitely old. In that case, all the light from all the stars would have had time to reach us. Thus, the night sky would be lit up brighter than the sun, and we would all be burned into oblivion. It's called Olber's paradox, and we've known about it for at least the past hundred years. It is considered the absolute disproof of both an infinite and eternal universe.

Knowing this, I've been debating the entire time holding it back, hoping others would catch on without me having to say "it's already been a given fact for the past hundred years and here's why". However, it doesn't appear our correspondents have been smart enough to figure it out on their own.

Let go of emotional attachments to your own beliefs. Search for what is true, accept what isn't, and have fun while you're doing it.

BL

By the way, someone is going to say that because the universe isn't static, and is expanding, Olber's paradox doesn't prove anything. They'd be right if the universe was expanding at the speed of light, but it isn't, and thus light would eventually catch up to every object in the universe from every star if it were infinitely old. They will actually, probably argue that the universe is eternally expanding and contracting, but we'll see... either way, I'm just waiting for them to screw up again ;-)

[all_heart]

I've taken up for you at times, but this is really terrible stuff. You're basically saying you believe something because you believed it as a child. That's pathetic.

BL

o!?! Not at all, I was taught about God/Jesus as a child and still learn and read about Jesus as an adult and firmly believe Jesus is the Truth.

Why must everything be spelled out on here... THINK!!

[all_heart]

Not a good argument in my opinion - there are Christians in Muslim countries and they often are persecuted or killed for their beliefs (see Nigeria).

The fastest growing country for Christian converts is China right now, so I don't believe this argument is very strong.

Anybody care to guess why this is the case?

[DMC]

I felt this was deserving of it's own post.

DMC, the physicist consultant to various universities, says the universe is more likely infinite in that it has no beginning. Yet the truth is we've known it has a beginning for a very long time. We know that it likely is 13.5 gigayears old, and we know that time ceases to exist if the universe is condensed to the size of the "pre-bang". So we are very sure the universe has a beginning.

In fact, we've known this for a very long time. Let's say that time is infinite in the past, and the universe is infinitely old. In that case, all the light from all the stars would have had time to reach us. Thus, the night sky would be lit up brighter than the sun, and we would all be burned into oblivion. It's called Olber's paradox, and we've known about it for at least the past hundred years. It is considered the absolute disproof of both an infinite and eternal universe.

Knowing this, I've been debating the entire time holding it back, hoping others would catch on without me having to say "it's already been a given fact for the past hundred years and here's why". However, it doesn't appear our correspondents have been smart enough to figure it out on their own.

Let go of emotional attachments to your own beliefs. Search for what is true, accept what isn't, and have fun while you're doing it.

BL

By the way, someone is going to say that because the universe isn't static, and is expanding, Olber's paradox doesn't prove anything. They'd be right if the universe was expanding at the speed of light, but it isn't, and thus light would eventually catch up to every object in the universe from every star if it were infinitely old. They will actually, probably argue that the universe is eternally expanding and contracting, but we'll see... either way, I'm just waiting for them to screw up again ;-)

Since I realize I'm dealing with a troll here, this will be my last post on the subject, but check it out:

The strawmen:

I did not call myself a physicist.
I did not say I support the infinite universe aspect, just mentioned that GR does.

In the long winded response to my previous post, BL used almost every fallacy in the book, from "studies have shown" which is anonymous authority, to strawmen like those above to shifting the burden of proof like "prove electrons don't have perpetual motion".

I must admit I was mistaken though when I called BL a science plebe earlier, and BL took offense to it. BL is no science plebe. Plebes in science have a basic understanding of the laws of thermodynamics and don't make the mistake of equivocation between "tendencies" and "laws". They also understand that "cosmos" is the universe, so for a cosmos to exist, a universe exists. They understand that things that can affect the universe are considered part of the nature of that system. They don't allow special pleading to only allow that to get across the gap of understanding.

Ken Ham, on the other hand...

BL the clown is either a troll or a theist trying to get someone agree that there must be a creator, but the only fish he's snared is a starry eyed theist who needs no evidence in order to believe.

[ElNono]

Elsa slapped back to the kitchen

[DMC]

"Sometimes using the handle "Blue Lightning" when online (a holdover from a time when he worked for 2K Sports in San Rafael California), Frazier has a plethora of pastimes. He enjoys basketball, the San Antonio Spurs, snowboarding, voice over work, and theology/philosophy, among many other things. Frazier currently resides in Cleveland, Tennessee, teaches in northwest Georgia, and directs development of the Lifescape franchise."

He teaches language arts at North Murray High School. Makes sense he's intimidated by physics.

He writes sci-fi novels but he has a degree in biblical studies. It's a perfect storm of misunderstood science sprinkled with some creationism to appease the pocketbook. Nothing like a wannabe physicist who's stuck teaching language arts.

[Blue-Lightning]

Not a good argument in my opinion - there are Christians in Muslim countries and they often are persecuted or killed for their beliefs (see Nigeria).

The fastest growing country for Christian converts is China right now, so I don't believe this argument is very strong.

-wasn't going to post again, but I changed my mind.

That's a point against what All_Heart. It basically goes with what I think is a much better concept - looking at as many beliefs as you can, educating yourself, and believing based on knowledge rather than tradition.

o!?! Not at all, I was taught about God/Jesus as a child and still learn and read about Jesus as an adult and firmly believe Jesus is the Truth.

Why must everything be spelled out on here... THINK!!

You said you'd be a Muslim if you had been raised a Muslim. You're a Christian because you were raised a Christian. It's very unimpressive.

I did not call myself a physicist.
I did not say I support the infinite universe aspect, just mentioned that GR does.

We both know that you posted that GR does in order to present it as a viable option (it isn't). Now you're backing off.

Does General Relativity allow the universe to be infinitely old, or is that already known to be false? If it is false, why did you throw a false concept out there, knowing it was false?

In the long winded response to my previous post, BL used almost every fallacy in the book, from "studies have shown" which is anonymous authority, to strawmen like those above to shifting the burden of proof like "prove electrons don't have perpetual motion".

You only provide one example of why you feel I played the game unfairly, so feel free to quote the others if they exist. As for electrons:

Now the example you do give is ridiculous, because anybody who has studied atoms at the college level knows that electrons are in perpetual motion. Therefore, I didn't think I had to prove something widely known - I thought you would need to disprove it if that was your position.

But... since I have to show proof of something well-known...

The electrons in orbit around the nuclei of atoms are in effect little perpetual motion machines, at least in one construe of what those words mean, because they are perpetually in motion. -- http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=154

And since you've shown you don't like the internet for research, check out "Perpetual Motion; Electrons and Atoms in Crystlas" by Alec T Stewart (1965).

How many times can my trollish self be right and you be ridiculously wrong?

I must admit I was mistaken though when I called BL a science plebe earlier, and BL took offense to it. BL is no science plebe. Plebes in science have a basic understanding of the laws of thermodynamics and don't make the mistake of equivocation between "tendencies" and "laws". They also understand that "cosmos" is the universe, so for a cosmos to exist, a universe exists. They understand that things that can affect the universe are considered part of the nature of that system. They don't allow special pleading to only allow that to get across the gap of understanding.

I think that after some point of you being shown incorrect over, and over, and over, and over... you have to stop thinking your superior. So, please, this time, save me the time and just educate yourself:

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

Ken Ham, on the other hand...

... is severely incorrect on a vast number of items, warping scientific observations to fit biblical views he holds. I would say he was dishonest, if I didn't believe he has such faith that he probably believes the fabrications he produces.

BL the clown is either a troll or a theist trying to get someone agree that there must be a creator, but the only fish he's snared is a starry eyed theist who needs no evidence in order to believe.

In the post you ignored, I listed all the things you've been demonstrably wrong about, and they were pretty blatant. Can you show one thing I've been wrong about? One thing? I've defended everything you've shown. You haven't.

Here's the list in case you missed it:

- You tried to correct me about the definition of "laws of physics." I then posted the actual definition, and it turns out you were wrong and I was right.

- You tried to correct me about time. You used the wrong definition, and I had to correct you again.

- You tried to correct me about electrons. Once again, I'm right, I have at least a hundred scholarly references to back me up if needed, and I'll correct you.

- I'm about to show you how we know the universe does not have an infinite past (as you say) in a way that should embarass you.

- In a physics / cosmology discussion, you asked me if "love" is infinite. Maybe the wiccans were impressed...

- You showed you didn't know the universal expansion is equally distributed. I had to show you, and you just attacked Wikipedia instead of actually being able to evaluate the position.

- You have repeatedly shown you don't understand the definition of "universe," which indicates you really aren't versed in any reputable multiverse theories.

- You assumed my positions come from the bible, despite the fact I don't see the bible as authoritative.

BL

[Blue-Lightning]

He teaches language arts at North Murray High School. Makes sense he's intimidated by physics.

He writes sci-fi novels but he has a degree in biblical studies. It's a perfect storm of misunderstood science sprinkled with some creationism to appease the pocketbook. Nothing like a wannabe physicist who's stuck teaching language arts.

You're dense, but let me see if I can get through to you.

I don't believe in creationism.

How's that?

Oh, and I'm also an app developer, and worked for four years as a 3D animator. It's fun to teach foreign language =) I started to tell you my connections with quantum computing, but then concluded better since that would be putting information on the web that shouldn't be made public. No need to give away information for an online pissing match ;-)

BL

[Blake]

I don't believe in creationism.

How's that?

No, you just believe the universe has a creator.

the difference is huge!