Hawking says physics proves there is no time for "Gawd".

[Liability]

They say: "Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed."

Yet -- it's here.

So, folks like me ask: "Where did it come from?"

Their 'Answer': The Big Bang.

So folks like me ponder and then ask: "Oh. Well the stuff that was in the Big Bang that came spewing out so prolifically when it went Bang. Where did THAT stuff come from?"

They say: "It was always there BECAUSE it can't be created or destroyed."

Folks like me ponder and then ask: "Uh huh. But for 'it' to have 'always existed' aren't you saying that something can exist before it exists? For example, if there was a period in the Universe (in the nano instant of the Bang in the Big Bang) where there was no life, then life did not always exist. It got created. What created life? The stuff that came prior to life. Ok. But what created that? The precursors to that stuff. Ok. But what created THAT stuff? It was always there! But if it was always there then why wasn't life always there? Why do some things require creation but some things don't?"

The cosmological constant in the Einstein field equations allow for creation of matter/energy.

Cool. So the claim that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed is not always true.

A lot follows from that.

 

[bobcollum]

KG, have you or anyone else ever referred to the Bible as theoretical? Would you be willing to admit it?

If not I've taken more steps towards intellectual honesty in this discussion.

 

[bobcollum]

And by all means, let me have that link where I claim to be a "master debater", or you're just a liar.

Bumparooski.

 

[koshergrl]

Anyone else ever?

How would I know if anyone had ever referred to the Bible as theoretical?

And what steps, exactly, have you taken..and more than whom? Speak English, for the love of God. I don't know how you nitwits expect people to take you seriously when you can't even communicate at a 4th grade level. Use your big person words, and sentences. Complete your thoughts. I've no doubt you believe you can read minds, but I assure you, I cannot. And in the case of your mind, I certainly wouldn't want to.

 

[bobcollum]

Anyone else ever?

How would I know if anyone had ever referred to the Bible as theoretical?

And what steps, exactly, have you taken..and more than whom? Speak English, for the love of God. I don't know how you nitwits expect people to take you seriously when you can't even communicate at a 4th grade level. Use your big person words, and sentences. Complete your thoughts. I've no doubt you believe you can read minds, but I assure you, I cannot. And in the case of your mind, I certainly wouldn't want to.

Anyone that you've ever heard speak or type, don't lose focus, answer the question.

 

[koshergrl]

Deflection of what, the bottom portion of your post that was irrelevant?

I'd say bringing up another thread about homosexual marriage, and linking it, is the epitome of deflection. The purpose is to change the subject, and divert attention away. Hence, deflect.

I figured since we both had our sides out there the actual evidence should be available if anyone wanted it, like I said in the post.

If you don't want your reckless attempts at debating thrown in your face than I'd suggest that you stop making them.

That thread wasn't even about gay-marriage either, so good on ya.

Delusions of master debating ability.

 

[percysunshine]

A theory is called a theory for a specific reason. There is no observational data which could support it.

This isn't rocket science. If you don't know, you don't know.

 

[bobcollum]

I'd say bringing up another thread about homosexual marriage, and linking it, is the epitome of deflection. The purpose is to change the subject, and divert attention away. Hence, deflect.

I figured since we both had our sides out there the actual evidence should be available if anyone wanted it, like I said in the post.

If you don't want your reckless attempts at debating thrown in your face than I'd suggest that you stop making them.

That thread wasn't even about gay-marriage either, so good on ya.

Delusions of master debating ability.

Oh, this was where you made up the comment attributed to me?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You have to try and remember that when I speak of things it could be completely theoretical, since science doesn't claim to have all the answers in the way religion does.

You seem to excel at telling people why they're wrong, but you're not so good at explaining why you're right.

You missed my explanation of left handed amino acids are found in living organisms and all cells ?

The thing that miller and urey showed was that right handed amino acids were formed as well as left handed amino acids. Left handed amino acids connect and produce proteins.

One problem,if right handed amino acids connected with left handed amino acids which is easy to do that organism would not survive. That cell would not survive. So tell me how what the chances were for only left handed amino acids coming together to form the first cell ?

Oh but it get's better, now explain how every cell only contains left handed amino acids ?

Talk about miracles.

So to you the next logical step is to conclude it was the hand of a deity? What's your point? If there's a chance for something, then there's a chance.

Logical answer please for an undirected process lacking intelligence creatiung a cell. There goes your abiogenesis theory.

Just say it you believe in miracles.

 

[bobcollum]

You missed my explanation of left handed amino acids are found in living organisms and all cells ?

The thing that miller and urey showed was that right handed amino acids were formed as well as left handed amino acids. Left handed amino acids connect and produce proteins.

One problem,if right handed amino acids connected with left handed amino acids which is easy to do that organism would not survive. That cell would not survive. So tell me how what the chances were for only left handed amino acids coming together to form the first cell ?

Oh but it get's better, now explain how every cell only contains left handed amino acids ?

Talk about miracles.

So to you the next logical step is to conclude it was the hand of a deity? What's your point? If there's a chance for something, then there's a chance.

Logical answer please for an undirected process lacking intelligence.

Just say it you believe in miracles.

If it's theoretical, I don't believe in it, it's a theory. Here's to hoping you get one of these attempts at explaining that to you.

 

[Liability]

I just saw a thing about save the cosmological constant --

because dark matters.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You have to try and remember that when I speak of things it could be completely theoretical, since science doesn't claim to have all the answers in the way religion does.

You seem to excel at telling people why they're wrong, but you're not so good at explaining why you're right.

You missed my explanation of left handed amino acids are found in living organisms and all cells ?

The thing that miller and urey showed was that right handed amino acids were formed as well as left handed amino acids. Left handed amino acids connect and produce proteins.

One problem,if right handed amino acids connected with left handed amino acids which is easy to do that organism would not survive. That cell would not survive. So tell me how what the chances were for only left handed amino acids coming together to form the first cell ?

Oh but it get's better, now explain how every cell only contains left handed amino acids ?

Talk about miracles.

So to you the next logical step is to conclude it was the hand of a deity? What's your point? If there's a chance for something, then there's a chance.

How bout some numbers.

You have 20 different amino acids in the right order in 100 trillion cells in the human body alone.

Now think of every living organism on this planet cells containing only left handed amino acids.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The energy DENSITY goes down - the TOTAL ENERGY (energy density X volume) does NOT.

You lost me here. Does the volume of the universe increase after the heat death of the universe? Never heard that one before.

Yes. The Universe continues to "expand" after heat death. But it wouldn't really matter. There would only be one thing left - temperature - which would be decreasing in time towards zero, but equal in value throughout the whole universe. So "space" wouldn't really matter, because every point in space would have identical properties to every single other.

Actually, since temperature requires heat, and heat requires movement, there really wouldn't be temperature. That is the major flaw with the heat death theory, it is a paradox. Doesn't make it impossible, but it does make it impossible to defend it using English.

 

[bobcollum]

Theoretical physics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rigour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[hortysir]

1/1000 second per day shorter for 5 billion years? That means 5 billion years ago, a day was nearly 2 billions seconds shorter than it is today (how many seconds in a day, now?). Actually, it would be a lot more than 2 billion seconds shorter because the mechanism that slows the earth would have slowed the earth exponentially more going into the past. So, about a million years ago, to launch a rocket into space wouldn't take any fuel at all.

To an Athiest who believes that there was nothing and then nothing happened to nothing, resulting in the universe, the above math shouldn't be a problem. Stupid Atheists.

You can't use that math, because

The rotation of the Earth has never been constant

You're full of shit. I said the Earth's rotation isn't constant, and that works against you, not for you. Besides, when you said the rotation isn't constant, all you meant was that it's slowing. You have no answer to what I've pointed out, other than bullshit.

Atheists are people who decided to trade intelligence for arrogance.

Need one of my Valium?

I was using your statement against Ed's that said it was slowing.

IOW I wasn;t arguing.

 

[edthecynic]

They say: "Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed."

Yet -- it's here.

So, folks like me ask: "Where did it come from?"

Their 'Answer': The Big Bang?

So folks like me ponder and then ask: "Oh. Well the stuff that was in the Big Bang that came spewing out so prolifically when it went Bang. Where did THAT stuff come from?"

They say: "It was always there BECAUSE it can't be created or destroyed."

Folks like me ponder and then ask: "Uh huh. But for 'it' to have 'always existed' aren't you saying that something can exist before it exists? For example, if there was a period in the Universe (in the nano instant of the Bang in the Big Bang) where there was no life, then life did not always exist. It got created. What created life? The stuff that came prior to life. Ok. But what created that? The precursors to that stuff. Ok. But what created THAT stuff? It was always there! But if it was always there then why wasn't life always there? Why do some things require creation but some things don't?"

correct me if I'm wrong but the BBTdoes not state anything about something coming from nothing.
what it does say is that all matter in the universe was compacted in an infinitesimally small space....

Ok.

It was compacted to a really tiny "point." But it was still there.

And, that still begs the question: Where did it come from?

To say "it was ALWAYS" there also begs the question since it doesn't answer how it could "always be there."

What CAN exist prior to itself without being created?

How does THAT work?

The fact that energy cannot be created does NOT beg the question "where did it come from." Since it can't be created it always existed. There is no "before it existed." There is no "prior to itself" because there is no "prior."

What you have confused is energy and time. You have them flip-flopped.

You see energy as having a beginning and an end, it doesn't!
You see time as eternal, it isn't!
Time has a beginning and an end, it is not eternal, in fact, time is not even constant, a change in motion will cause time to speed up or slow down. There was never a time before energy. Energy already existed before time began and energy will continue to exist in the same total quantity after time ends.

The fact that energy can't be created and therefore always existed is not a theory, it is a proven Law, the FLoT. It was proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule and therefore cannot be pontificated away as you have been doing. To claim energy must be created you need to prove it with a repeatable experiment!

 

[edthecynic]

You can't use that math, because

You're full of shit. I said the Earth's rotation isn't constant, and that works against you, not for you. Besides, when you said the rotation isn't constant, all you meant was that it's slowing. You have no answer to what I've pointed out, other than bullshit.

Atheists are people who decided to trade intelligence for arrogance.

Need one of my Valium?

I was using your statement against Ed's that said it was slowing.

IOW I wasn;t arguing.

Actually I said PRESENTLY the rotation is slowing, but that does not mean it was always slowing. The rotation was quite likely speeding up as the early Earth was forming before the moon was captured and began slowing it down.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're full of shit. I said the Earth's rotation isn't constant, and that works against you, not for you. Besides, when you said the rotation isn't constant, all you meant was that it's slowing. You have no answer to what I've pointed out, other than bullshit.

Atheists are people who decided to trade intelligence for arrogance.

Need one of my Valium?

I was using your statement against Ed's that said it was slowing.

IOW I wasn;t arguing.

Actually I said PRESENTLY the rotation is slowing, but that does not mean it was always slowing. The rotation was quite likely speeding up as the early Earth was forming before the moon was captured and began slowing it down.

There you go pretending you understand science again. It is quite likely that it was always slowing down because there would have to be an outside force acting on it to speed it up. You should read the new paper Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, by a guy called Isaac Newton.

 

[edthecynic]

Need one of my Valium?

I was using your statement against Ed's that said it was slowing.

IOW I wasn;t arguing.

Actually I said PRESENTLY the rotation is slowing, but that does not mean it was always slowing. The rotation was quite likely speeding up as the early Earth was forming before the moon was captured and began slowing it down.

There you go pretending you understand science again. It is quite likely that it was always slowing down because there would have to be an outside force acting on it to speed it up. You should read the new paper Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, by a guy called Isaac Newton.

It is always the case that the most ignorant know-it-alls are the most condescending!

Our solar system formed when a huge cloud of gas and dust started to collapse under its own gravity. As the cloud collapsed, it started to spin. Some of the material within this cosmic vortex formed into planets. That is why most of the planets, their moons and the Jupiter and Saturn rings rotate in the same direction , as do the asteroids in the asteroid belt. Even the gas of the Sun rotates in this counter clockwise direction due to angular momentum left over from the initial collapse of the nebula that led to the formation of the Sun and her planets. As the planets formed they kept this spinning motion. Just like when skaters pull in their arms and spin faster, as the material gathered in more closely to form a planet the material spun faster.

Maybe YOU should do a little reading first before you spout your pompous condescension!

 

[Liability]

Actually I said PRESENTLY the rotation is slowing, but that does not mean it was always slowing. The rotation was quite likely speeding up as the early Earth was forming before the moon was captured and began slowing it down.

There you go pretending you understand science again. It is quite likely that it was always slowing down because there would have to be an outside force acting on it to speed it up. You should read the new paper Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, by a guy called Isaac Newton.

It is always the case that the most ignorant know-it-alls are the most condescending!

Our solar system formed when a huge cloud of gas and dust started to collapse under its own gravity. As the cloud collapsed, it started to spin. Some of the material within this cosmic vortex formed into planets. That is why most of the planets, their moons and the Jupiter and Saturn rings rotate in the same direction , as do the asteroids in the asteroid belt. Even the gas of the Sun rotates in this counter clockwise direction due to angular momentum left over from the initial collapse of the nebula that led to the formation of the Sun and her planets. As the planets formed they kept this spinning motion. Just like when skaters pull in their arms and spin faster, as the material gathered in more closely to form a planet the material spun faster.

Maybe YOU should do a little reading first before you spout your pompous condescension!

Once the planet formed -- which was the premise before you just tried to alter it -- what outside force acted upon it to speed up that rotation, Copernicus?