Albert Einstein: Up Close and Personal!

[Derideo_Te]

"Matter and energy have always existed per the laws of physics."


Oh, no....another moron makes an appearance.


What did they do, empty the asylums for the weekend???

Another epic failure for PoliticalSpice because she cannot refute the laws of physics and neither can she substantiate her ludicrous allegation.

OK, OK.....let's entertain this moron for a moment.


There is no such law of physics.


The Big Bang is considered as the beginning. Before same, there was "nothing"....."nothing" in the exact and specific meaning of the term: not anything... not a thing.

Quarks form a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, protons miraculously match exactly the opposite charge of electrons, the forces of nature- gravity, electromagnetism, the weak and strong nuclear forces inside the nucleus, the 'dark energy' of space- all with just the right strength to maintain the universe....all by chance?

Imagine having the willingness to believe all of that, ....but sneering a those who believe that an all powerful Creator brought same into existence.

Parameters such as the movement of electrons around nuclei, possible because the electrical charge of the electron is equal in magnitude, but opposite in sign, to the proton. No equal charge, no universe.

Another inexplicable fact: electrons are elementary particles, meaning it has no internal structure. But protons are each made of three quarks, two 'up' and a 'down,' which add up to exactly +1. Here's how: each 'up' quark has an exact charge of 2/3, and the 'down' quark, - 1/3.

BTW, the neutral neutron has two 'down' quarks, and one 'up.' A charge of zero.
Another mystery....quarks based on 'threes' when things most often in nature things pair up, like socks.

Now, leptons.....never mind.



Now, are you embarrassed because of how little you know....or are you too stupid to be embarrassed?

Which is it?

Newsflash for PoliticalSpice! The Singularity existed before the Big Bang. The Singularity is not "nothing".

HowStuffWorks "What existed before the big bang?"

So yet another epic failure can be notched up on PoliticalSpice's record of failures to substantiate her erroneous allegations.

 

[Hollie]

More irrefutable proof ... the Universe CANNOT cause itself. Matter cannot create itself. The elements cannot create themselves:

William Lane Craig? You're kidding, right?

That's what someone says when they can't prove him wrong.

Thats what someone says when William Lane Craig opines on, well, anything.

 

[DriftingSand]

William Lane Craig? You're kidding, right?

That's what someone says when they can't prove him wrong.

Thats what someone says when William Lane Craig opines on, well, anything.

You're slipping. Still no solid proof to the contrary. Character assassination isn't evidence.

 

[Hollie]

That's what someone says when they can't prove him wrong.

Thats what someone says when William Lane Craig opines on, well, anything.

You're slipping. Still no solid proof to the contrary. Character assassination isn't evidence.

You're silly.

What contrary proof are you looking for?

 

[DriftingSand]

Thats what someone says when William Lane Craig opines on, well, anything.

You're slipping. Still no solid proof to the contrary. Character assassination isn't evidence.

You're silly.

What contrary proof are you looking for?

Anything that will prove the man wrong. Three strikes and you're out.

 

[Hollie]

You're slipping. Still no solid proof to the contrary. Character assassination isn't evidence.

You're silly.

What contrary proof are you looking for?

Anything that will prove the man wrong. Three strikes and you're out.

Are you really that stupid?

I have proved him wrong. Prove I haven't.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another epic failure for PoliticalSpice because she cannot refute the laws of physics and neither can she substantiate her ludicrous allegation.

OK, OK.....let's entertain this moron for a moment.


There is no such law of physics.


The Big Bang is considered as the beginning. Before same, there was "nothing"....."nothing" in the exact and specific meaning of the term: not anything... not a thing.

Quarks form a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, protons miraculously match exactly the opposite charge of electrons, the forces of nature- gravity, electromagnetism, the weak and strong nuclear forces inside the nucleus, the 'dark energy' of space- all with just the right strength to maintain the universe....all by chance?

Imagine having the willingness to believe all of that, ....but sneering a those who believe that an all powerful Creator brought same into existence.

Parameters such as the movement of electrons around nuclei, possible because the electrical charge of the electron is equal in magnitude, but opposite in sign, to the proton. No equal charge, no universe.

Another inexplicable fact: electrons are elementary particles, meaning it has no internal structure. But protons are each made of three quarks, two 'up' and a 'down,' which add up to exactly +1. Here's how: each 'up' quark has an exact charge of 2/3, and the 'down' quark, - 1/3.

BTW, the neutral neutron has two 'down' quarks, and one 'up.' A charge of zero.
Another mystery....quarks based on 'threes' when things most often in nature things pair up, like socks.

Now, leptons.....never mind.



Now, are you embarrassed because of how little you know....or are you too stupid to be embarrassed?

Which is it?

Newsflash for PoliticalSpice! The Singularity existed before the Big Bang. The Singularity is not "nothing".

HowStuffWorks "What existed before the big bang?"

So yet another epic failure can be notched up on PoliticalSpice's record of failures to substantiate her erroneous allegations.

You are clueless.

Do you know what 'singularity' means?????


It's an 'escapy' word used in place of 'we just don't know.'


"the quality of being strange or odd"
Singularity - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


It should be your name, dope.

 

[DriftingSand]

You're silly.

What contrary proof are you looking for?

Anything that will prove the man wrong. Three strikes and you're out.

Are you really that stupid?

I have proved him wrong. Prove I haven't.

I have proven you wrong so many time your head is spinning (of course it was already spinning). Prove that I haven't proven you wrong.

 

[Hollie]

Anything that will prove the man wrong. Three strikes and you're out.

Are you really that stupid?

I have proved him wrong. Prove I haven't.

I have proven you wrong so many time your head is spinning (of course it was already spinning). Prove that I haven't proven you wrong.

Do you now see just how pointless your nonsensical argument is?

 

[Derideo_Te]

OK, OK.....let's entertain this moron for a moment.


There is no such law of physics.


The Big Bang is considered as the beginning. Before same, there was "nothing"....."nothing" in the exact and specific meaning of the term: not anything... not a thing.

Quarks form a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, protons miraculously match exactly the opposite charge of electrons, the forces of nature- gravity, electromagnetism, the weak and strong nuclear forces inside the nucleus, the 'dark energy' of space- all with just the right strength to maintain the universe....all by chance?

Imagine having the willingness to believe all of that, ....but sneering a those who believe that an all powerful Creator brought same into existence.

Parameters such as the movement of electrons around nuclei, possible because the electrical charge of the electron is equal in magnitude, but opposite in sign, to the proton. No equal charge, no universe.

Another inexplicable fact: electrons are elementary particles, meaning it has no internal structure. But protons are each made of three quarks, two 'up' and a 'down,' which add up to exactly +1. Here's how: each 'up' quark has an exact charge of 2/3, and the 'down' quark, - 1/3.

BTW, the neutral neutron has two 'down' quarks, and one 'up.' A charge of zero.
Another mystery....quarks based on 'threes' when things most often in nature things pair up, like socks.

Now, leptons.....never mind.



Now, are you embarrassed because of how little you know....or are you too stupid to be embarrassed?

Which is it?

Newsflash for PoliticalSpice! The Singularity existed before the Big Bang. The Singularity is not "nothing".

HowStuffWorks "What existed before the big bang?"

So yet another epic failure can be notched up on PoliticalSpice's record of failures to substantiate her erroneous allegations.

You are clueless.

Do you know what 'singularity' means?????


It's an 'escapy' word used in place of 'we just don't know.'


"the quality of being strange or odd"
Singularity - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


It should be your name, dope.

at PoliticalSpice squirming like a 3 year old needing to pee!

Your ignorance of Physics is on display when you turn to a dictionary instead of a Physics textbook for the definition of a Singularity.

Here is a short primer for your edification but I seriously doubt that you will comprehend any of it.

general relativity - What is the definition of a timelike and spacelike singularity? - Physics Stack Exchange

Irrespective of whether or not you do the existence of the Singularity which was comprised of the all of the matter and energy in the Universe means that PoliticalSpice was wrong when she alleged that there was "nothing" prior to the Big Bang. Furthermore she is failing, as usual, to support her erroneous allegation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Newsflash for PoliticalSpice! The Singularity existed before the Big Bang. The Singularity is not "nothing".

HowStuffWorks "What existed before the big bang?"

So yet another epic failure can be notched up on PoliticalSpice's record of failures to substantiate her erroneous allegations.

You are clueless.

Do you know what 'singularity' means?????


It's an 'escapy' word used in place of 'we just don't know.'


"the quality of being strange or odd"
Singularity - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


It should be your name, dope.

at PoliticalSpice squirming like a 3 year old needing to pee!

Your ignorance of Physics is on display when you turn to a dictionary instead of a Physics textbook for the definition of a Singularity.

Here is a short primer for your edification but I seriously doubt that you will comprehend any of it.

general relativity - What is the definition of a timelike and spacelike singularity? - Physics Stack Exchange

Irrespective of whether or not you do the existence of the Singularity which was comprised of the all of the matter and energy in the Universe means that PoliticalSpice was wrong when she alleged that there was "nothing" prior to the Big Bang. Furthermore she is failing, as usual, to support her erroneous allegation.

Dope.

You are one of those idiots impressed by big words they don't understand.

A singularity is exactly what I said it is.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You are clueless.

Do you know what 'singularity' means?????


It's an 'escapy' word used in place of 'we just don't know.'


"the quality of being strange or odd"
Singularity - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


It should be your name, dope.

at PoliticalSpice squirming like a 3 year old needing to pee!

Your ignorance of Physics is on display when you turn to a dictionary instead of a Physics textbook for the definition of a Singularity.

Here is a short primer for your edification but I seriously doubt that you will comprehend any of it.

general relativity - What is the definition of a timelike and spacelike singularity? - Physics Stack Exchange

Irrespective of whether or not you do the existence of the Singularity which was comprised of the all of the matter and energy in the Universe means that PoliticalSpice was wrong when she alleged that there was "nothing" prior to the Big Bang. Furthermore she is failing, as usual, to support her erroneous allegation.

Dope.

You are one of those idiots impressed by big words they don't understand.

A singularity is exactly what I said it is.

Gotta when PoliticalSpice does her Humpty Dumpty impersonation!

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

 

[DriftingSand]

Are you really that stupid?

I have proved him wrong. Prove I haven't.

I have proven you wrong so many time your head is spinning (of course it was already spinning). Prove that I haven't proven you wrong.

Do you now see just how pointless your nonsensical argument is?

I didn't think you could back yourself up.

 

[Hollie]

I have proven you wrong so many time your head is spinning (of course it was already spinning). Prove that I haven't proven you wrong.

Do you now see just how pointless your nonsensical argument is?

I didn't think you could back yourself up.

You presented no argument requiring me to do so.

As you are the one claiming something is true, ie: creator gawds, demons, talking snakes, etc., at least via a YouTube video, it falls to you to provide proof of your claim. The standard of "prove it isn't" is not a standard at all. A claim is just an assertion until it is proven. A "fact" has to be substantiated.

So lets see your facts substantiating your gawds and the creators of your gawds and their creator gawds, etc.

Let's see the facts demonstrating genesis and talking snakes.

Yeah, I'm fully expecting you will fail to support a single item noted above but here's your chance to demonstrate you're not just another religious clone. Present your facts.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Don't blame me... I was born awesome.

Here I am. What are your other two wishes?



Enough chit-chat.

Back to destroying your ego:

I asked you a question related to the post you wrote.
Is this your position as well?

"Matter and energy have always existed per the laws of physics."

I have stated my position to you twice. If you can't keep up with the conversation, just congratulate yourself and move along.

Running away and hiding?

In your case....a fine idea.

brucestillbeaten

Not going to babysit if you aren't going to read the posts that have already been provided.
You are the class clown.
All mouth, but no substance.

 

[DriftingSand]

Do you now see just how pointless your nonsensical argument is?

I didn't think you could back yourself up.

You presented no argument requiring me to do so.

As you are the one claiming something is true, ie: creator gawds, demons, talking snakes, etc., at least via a YouTube video, it falls to you to provide proof of your claim. The standard of "prove it isn't" is not a standard at all. A claim is just an assertion until it is proven. A "fact" has to be substantiated.

So lets see your facts substantiating your gawds and the creators of your gawds and their creator gawds, etc.

Let's see the facts demonstrating genesis and talking snakes.

Yeah, I'm fully expecting you will fail to support a single item noted above but here's your chance to demonstrate you're not just another religious clone. Present your facts.

My grandma wrote a letter to me about 45 years ago. She told me what was happening in her life. I believed her because I no reason to doubt her. However, I wasn't there so I wasn't an eyewitness to her claims. You, too have received letters from members of your family telling you what's going on in their lives. You believe them because they have never lied to you but you weren't there so you believe them on faith.

God wrote a letter (via His chosen vessels) and He's never lied to you or me before so we have no reason to believe He's lying now.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I didn't think you could back yourself up.

You presented no argument requiring me to do so.

As you are the one claiming something is true, ie: creator gawds, demons, talking snakes, etc., at least via a YouTube video, it falls to you to provide proof of your claim. The standard of "prove it isn't" is not a standard at all. A claim is just an assertion until it is proven. A "fact" has to be substantiated.

So lets see your facts substantiating your gawds and the creators of your gawds and their creator gawds, etc.

Let's see the facts demonstrating genesis and talking snakes.

Yeah, I'm fully expecting you will fail to support a single item noted above but here's your chance to demonstrate you're not just another religious clone. Present your facts.

My grandma wrote a letter to me about 45 years ago. She told me what was happening in her life. I believed her because I no reason to doubt her. However, I wasn't there so I wasn't an eyewitness to her claims. You, too have received letters from members of your family telling you what's going on in their lives. You believe them because they have never lied to you but you weren't there so you believe them on faith.

God wrote a letter (via His chosen vessels) and He's never lied to you or me before so we have no reason to believe He's lying now.

False equivalence!

Your grandma actually existed but there is zero evidence that your God does.

 

[Hollie]

I didn't think you could back yourself up.

You presented no argument requiring me to do so.

As you are the one claiming something is true, ie: creator gawds, demons, talking snakes, etc., at least via a YouTube video, it falls to you to provide proof of your claim. The standard of "prove it isn't" is not a standard at all. A claim is just an assertion until it is proven. A "fact" has to be substantiated.

So lets see your facts substantiating your gawds and the creators of your gawds and their creator gawds, etc.

Let's see the facts demonstrating genesis and talking snakes.

Yeah, I'm fully expecting you will fail to support a single item noted above but here's your chance to demonstrate you're not just another religious clone. Present your facts.

My grandma wrote a letter to me about 45 years ago. She told me what was happening in her life. I believed her because I no reason to doubt her. However, I wasn't there so I wasn't an eyewitness to her claims. You, too have received letters from members of your family telling you what's going on in their lives. You believe them because they have never lied to you but you weren't there so you believe them on faith.

God wrote a letter (via His chosen vessels) and He's never lied to you or me before so we have no reason to believe He's lying now.

Sorry. Your gods never wrote any letters. You're free to write your own personal version of Christianity (many Christians do), but don't pretend that your version is anything but Christianity lite

 

[GISMYS]

You presented no argument requiring me to do so.

As you are the one claiming something is true, ie: creator gawds, demons, talking snakes, etc., at least via a YouTube video, it falls to you to provide proof of your claim. The standard of "prove it isn't" is not a standard at all. A claim is just an assertion until it is proven. A "fact" has to be substantiated.

So lets see your facts substantiating your gawds and the creators of your gawds and their creator gawds, etc.

Let's see the facts demonstrating genesis and talking snakes.

Yeah, I'm fully expecting you will fail to support a single item noted above but here's your chance to demonstrate you're not just another religious clone. Present your facts.

My grandma wrote a letter to me about 45 years ago. She told me what was happening in her life. I believed her because I no reason to doubt her. However, I wasn't there so I wasn't an eyewitness to her claims. You, too have received letters from members of your family telling you what's going on in their lives. You believe them because they have never lied to you but you weren't there so you believe them on faith.

God wrote a letter (via His chosen vessels) and He's never lied to you or me before so we have no reason to believe He's lying now.

Sorry. Your gods never wrote any letters. You're free to write your own personal version of Christianity (many Christians do), but don't pretend that your version is anything but Christianity lite

WHAT PROOF do you have for your wild opinions?? SEEK TO KNOW GOD ALMIGHTY AND LIVE!!! WHY DIE IN SIN??

 

[Hollie]

My grandma wrote a letter to me about 45 years ago. She told me what was happening in her life. I believed her because I no reason to doubt her. However, I wasn't there so I wasn't an eyewitness to her claims. You, too have received letters from members of your family telling you what's going on in their lives. You believe them because they have never lied to you but you weren't there so you believe them on faith.

God wrote a letter (via His chosen vessels) and He's never lied to you or me before so we have no reason to believe He's lying now.

Sorry. Your gods never wrote any letters. You're free to write your own personal version of Christianity (many Christians do), but don't pretend that your version is anything but Christianity lite

WHAT PROOF do you have for your wild opinions?? SEEK TO KNOW GOD ALMIGHTY AND LIVE!!! WHY DIE IN SIN??

You need to believe that everything I write comes from the almighty, all powerful.

Believe and it shall be true.



AND YOU??????