How Much of a Theist or Atheist are You?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Anyway, the study of religious brains goes to show that the religious have more going on in their frontal lobes than those who do not meditate or pray

Excuse you, allow me to correct your statement, here. Those are not all "religious brains", as not all who meditate are religious. Nice try.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's just a theory. Not a fact.

Wrong, it's both a theory and a fact. I promise you that you embarrass yourself every time you say, "just a theory", when speaking about acientific theories. Do you not care that you are embarrassing and discrediting yourself?

There is no such thing as creation science. There is no creation science being published. What a shameless lie.

No you cannot "use" gravity waves, you oddball.

I'm not wrong. You're wrong when you have to resort to ad hominem attacks because you're losing an argument. Especially one near and dear to atheists' hearts such as evolution. It just goes to show you got no class like Obama.

Moreover, facts are not theories and can be used by everyone such as, "We can travel into the future by a very fast rocket ship using Einstein's special theory of relativity (demonstrated in youtube below around 4:20). However, one cannot time travel into the past is a theory. Some people think we can travel into the past because they believe in parallel universes when there is absolutely no evidence. However, creation scientists believe God will not allow people to travel into the past as they use the Bible to point out events occurring according to God’s timetable (Genesis 21:1; John 7:8; 1 Timothy 2:6). This runs contrary to the idea of people changing historical events by traveling into the past. Thus, no time travel back into the past and no parallel universes. That's just science fiction.

Yes, evolution is fact. No, there is no such thing as "creation science".

You are confused. Before, you said it was fact and theory until I debunked it. It's a theory until something better comes along to replace it like creation science. One example is no one is worried about the universe collapsing into itself and everything including us are gone. I suppose you're going to tell me that we have find a way to get to another universe by traveling through wormhole aBCxYZ. That doesn't sound much like a fact to me.

Evolution is both fact and scientific theory. You debunked nothing, nor has any "creation scientist" produced any science, ever. That is why evolution is still accepted as fact, and why the frauds calling themselves "creation scientists" reside in the blogosphere (and not academia or in scientific journals).

You seem to think that, if you squeeze your eyes real tight and repeat yourself over amd over and over, the silly bullshit you are peddling will become true. Sorry my man..open your eyes...evolution is still fact, and the creationists are still holding an empty bag.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
your such a smarty bond, but let me offer another clue - zero in mathematics occurs when mass in unison extends to its furthest trajectory from the point of singularity. without ever changing direction to further propel itself into the pending mass collision to create S/+2 ...


it can only happen if the Almighty believes the metaphysical axioms are to their liking - that leaves you out bond ...

>>BW: your such a smarty bond, but let me offer another clue - zero in mathematics occurs when mass in unison extends to its furthest trajectory from the point of singularity. without ever changing direction to further propel itself into the pending mass collision to create S/+2 ...<<

Before we get to your statement, it is a FACT that humans cannot divide by zero because it is undefined. Notice it did not give us ∞ and that only the creator can. This means we can only have uncountable objects in the material world. A man's got to know his limitations, BW.

Let's look at your statement. What it sounds like you are saying is that we can get to zero when our cosmic expansion continues and then into some kind of mass collision. That does not sound good at all, BW. I'll bite. With what mass is our mass going to collide with, BW, so we become zero?

.

With what mass is our mass going to collide with, BW, so we become zero?

zero is when all matter in unison reaches the furthest point of their trajectory's finite angle derived from the point of expulsion after the moment of singularity ... at which time all matter then propels itself without changing direction back to its origin causing the mass recompaction that eventually causes all matter to convert back to energy and at the same final instance of completion recreate the expulsion that makes BB a cyclical event.

The Boomerang Theory -

when a pitcher in outerspace tosses a curveball, the ball traveling at a finite angle will eventually return to its point of origin without ever changing direction. the motion of a boomerang. cyclical BB.


there is both zero and infinity bond, purity of the transition is all that is required and the prerequisite metaphysical axioms used to create life are inalterable by the providence of the everwatchful Almighty, gatekeeper of the Everlasting.

I think what you're talking about is the velocity which reaches zero at the apex. The equation for this is a = dv/dt. You would have to have velocity when dt = 0 and that would be a good trick as velocity would be zero. One would have to create the velocity that you are referring to from nothing.

Perhaps you mean at singularity, the velocity of an object would be spontaneous. I can visualize that if temperature and density are very high, i.e. uncountable, but I can't visualize that if temperature and density are infinite which atheist science requires. The assumption is the universe expands infinitely which I don't think it does. Creation science claims there is a border to the universe.

.

One would have to create the velocity that you are referring to from nothing.

how's that, when all the matter in the universe is recompacted by the previous energy expulsion it then recreates by a new conversion to energy a renewed expulsion at the cyclical instant to recreate the trajectories from the spherical singularity of pure energy that will eventually bring all the recreated mass / matter back again to its origin at the same time for a renewed compaction.

I think what you're talking about is the velocity which reaches zero at the apex

at the apex of the trajectory is when all matter at the same time will cease traveling away from the origin of BB and will begin a mirror of the trajectory back to the origin without ever changing direction.

Perhaps you mean at singularity, the velocity of an object would be spontaneous. I can visualize that if temperature and density are very high, i.e. uncountable, but I can't visualize that if temperature and density are infinite which atheist science requires.

but I can't visualize that if temperature and density are infinite which atheist science requires.

I defer to your knowledge that exceeds mine for the above but I would believe the atheist are correct that both 0 and infinite are factors in the creation of the universe so much so if they are not accomplished the universe would not exist, there would not be the transfer at singularity of one to the other. the metaphysical axioms, purity are also required in its creation. what the Almighty refers to as a Sabbath. a perfect completion.

>>BW: how's that, when all the matter in the universe is recompacted by the previous energy expulsion it then recreates by a new conversion to energy a renewed expulsion at the cyclical instant to recreate the trajectories from the spherical singularity of pure energy that will eventually bring all the recreated mass / matter back again to its origin at the same time for a renewed compaction.<<

Again, you're referring to velocity and not energy with recompaction of the universe. If the universe does not achieve escape velocity, then it will collapse due to the gravitational attraction of all its mass of matter. This is called the Big Crunch. However, BC is just one scenario unless there is another huge mass exerting an opposite attraction. None is known at this time doing this.

Besides, one cannot have infinite expansion due to spherical singularity or any type of singularity. One cannot have infinite temperature and density of singularity. No such infinite objects can exist in the material world. The math does not allow it unless there is a creator.

OTOH, Creation scientists theorize that the universe and earth (same age) formed very rapidly, like one day by the creator, and is still thousands of years old instead of billions. They do not have this problem with escape velocity such as with the BBT.

.

Again, you're referring to velocity and not energy with recompaction of the universe.

the transfer of matter to energy is a proven fact bond, it represents a transition from one state to another where the metaphysical axioms are in compliance.

the above is representative of an existing environment, in space the expulsion is universal in all directions and from the sphere of singularity the resultant mass is expelled at a finite angle that eventually will return all its components back to their origin at the same time without ever changing directions.


unless you suffer from a mental disorder the boomerang theory is not something remotely difficult to understand, or rather not a mental disorder but an adherence to a forgery based 4th century mentality is the cause of your continued misrepresentation of the facts is the reason for sane people world wide to be leery of anyone pertaining to the desert religions.

 

[james bond]

It's just a theory. Not a fact.

Wrong, it's both a theory and a fact. I promise you that you embarrass yourself every time you say, "just a theory", when speaking about acientific theories. Do you not care that you are embarrassing and discrediting yourself?

There is no such thing as creation science. There is no creation science being published. What a shameless lie.

No you cannot "use" gravity waves, you oddball.

I'm not wrong. You're wrong when you have to resort to ad hominem attacks because you're losing an argument. Especially one near and dear to atheists' hearts such as evolution. It just goes to show you got no class like Obama.

Moreover, facts are not theories and can be used by everyone such as, "We can travel into the future by a very fast rocket ship using Einstein's special theory of relativity (demonstrated in youtube below around 4:20). However, one cannot time travel into the past is a theory. Some people think we can travel into the past because they believe in parallel universes when there is absolutely no evidence. However, creation scientists believe God will not allow people to travel into the past as they use the Bible to point out events occurring according to God’s timetable (Genesis 21:1; John 7:8; 1 Timothy 2:6). This runs contrary to the idea of people changing historical events by traveling into the past. Thus, no time travel back into the past and no parallel universes. That's just science fiction.

Yes, evolution is fact. No, there is no such thing as "creation science".

You are confused. Before, you said it was fact and theory until I debunked it. It's a theory until something better comes along to replace it like creation science. One example is no one is worried about the universe collapsing into itself and everything including us are gone. I suppose you're going to tell me that we have find a way to get to another universe by traveling through wormhole aBCxYZ. That doesn't sound much like a fact to me.

Evolution is both fact and scientific theory. You debunked nothing, nor has any "creation scientist" produced any science, ever. That is why evolution is still accepted as fact, and why the frauds calling themselves "creation scientists" reside in the blogosphere (and not academia or in scientific journals).

You seem to think that, if you squeeze your eyes real tight and repeat yourself over amd over and over, the silly bullshit you are peddling will become true. Sorry my man..open your eyes...evolution is still fact, and the creationists are still holding an empty bag.

What I've shown is atheists and atheist scientists are usually wrong. Admit you were wrong or else you are lying. We know creation science exists because they're the ones who invented modern science. Sir Francis Bacon was a Christian who is credited as being the father of the scientific method. The Christian church ruled science, but today the tables have been turned and atheist scientists with funding from large corporations and government have come into power. This started in the 1850s with atheist Charles Lyell who eventually became Charles Darwin's mentor.

10 Major Accomplishments of Sir Francis Bacon | Learnodo Newtonic

Famous Scientists That Believe In God

Moreover, it is clear that you do not understand what science is because you use the word "fact." While facts are important, there is very little in terms of facts that come out of science, i.e. the scientific method is not to discover facts. (Here is a link on scientific facts and what I mean -- 118 Facts about Science ←FACTSlides→. Notice one of the "facts" state scientists concluded the chicken came first. Just as God created.) Neither do they prove things. Proof is in mathematics. Science produces theories. Thus, admit you were wrong and lied about evolution.

 

[james bond]

>>BW: your such a smarty bond, but let me offer another clue - zero in mathematics occurs when mass in unison extends to its furthest trajectory from the point of singularity. without ever changing direction to further propel itself into the pending mass collision to create S/+2 ...<<

Before we get to your statement, it is a FACT that humans cannot divide by zero because it is undefined. Notice it did not give us ∞ and that only the creator can. This means we can only have uncountable objects in the material world. A man's got to know his limitations, BW.

Let's look at your statement. What it sounds like you are saying is that we can get to zero when our cosmic expansion continues and then into some kind of mass collision. That does not sound good at all, BW. I'll bite. With what mass is our mass going to collide with, BW, so we become zero?

.

With what mass is our mass going to collide with, BW, so we become zero?

zero is when all matter in unison reaches the furthest point of their trajectory's finite angle derived from the point of expulsion after the moment of singularity ... at which time all matter then propels itself without changing direction back to its origin causing the mass recompaction that eventually causes all matter to convert back to energy and at the same final instance of completion recreate the expulsion that makes BB a cyclical event.

The Boomerang Theory -

when a pitcher in outerspace tosses a curveball, the ball traveling at a finite angle will eventually return to its point of origin without ever changing direction. the motion of a boomerang. cyclical BB.


there is both zero and infinity bond, purity of the transition is all that is required and the prerequisite metaphysical axioms used to create life are inalterable by the providence of the everwatchful Almighty, gatekeeper of the Everlasting.

I think what you're talking about is the velocity which reaches zero at the apex. The equation for this is a = dv/dt. You would have to have velocity when dt = 0 and that would be a good trick as velocity would be zero. One would have to create the velocity that you are referring to from nothing.

Perhaps you mean at singularity, the velocity of an object would be spontaneous. I can visualize that if temperature and density are very high, i.e. uncountable, but I can't visualize that if temperature and density are infinite which atheist science requires. The assumption is the universe expands infinitely which I don't think it does. Creation science claims there is a border to the universe.

.

One would have to create the velocity that you are referring to from nothing.

how's that, when all the matter in the universe is recompacted by the previous energy expulsion it then recreates by a new conversion to energy a renewed expulsion at the cyclical instant to recreate the trajectories from the spherical singularity of pure energy that will eventually bring all the recreated mass / matter back again to its origin at the same time for a renewed compaction.

I think what you're talking about is the velocity which reaches zero at the apex

at the apex of the trajectory is when all matter at the same time will cease traveling away from the origin of BB and will begin a mirror of the trajectory back to the origin without ever changing direction.

Perhaps you mean at singularity, the velocity of an object would be spontaneous. I can visualize that if temperature and density are very high, i.e. uncountable, but I can't visualize that if temperature and density are infinite which atheist science requires.

but I can't visualize that if temperature and density are infinite which atheist science requires.

I defer to your knowledge that exceeds mine for the above but I would believe the atheist are correct that both 0 and infinite are factors in the creation of the universe so much so if they are not accomplished the universe would not exist, there would not be the transfer at singularity of one to the other. the metaphysical axioms, purity are also required in its creation. what the Almighty refers to as a Sabbath. a perfect completion.

>>BW: how's that, when all the matter in the universe is recompacted by the previous energy expulsion it then recreates by a new conversion to energy a renewed expulsion at the cyclical instant to recreate the trajectories from the spherical singularity of pure energy that will eventually bring all the recreated mass / matter back again to its origin at the same time for a renewed compaction.<<

Again, you're referring to velocity and not energy with recompaction of the universe. If the universe does not achieve escape velocity, then it will collapse due to the gravitational attraction of all its mass of matter. This is called the Big Crunch. However, BC is just one scenario unless there is another huge mass exerting an opposite attraction. None is known at this time doing this.

Besides, one cannot have infinite expansion due to spherical singularity or any type of singularity. One cannot have infinite temperature and density of singularity. No such infinite objects can exist in the material world. The math does not allow it unless there is a creator.

OTOH, Creation scientists theorize that the universe and earth (same age) formed very rapidly, like one day by the creator, and is still thousands of years old instead of billions. They do not have this problem with escape velocity such as with the BBT.

.

Again, you're referring to velocity and not energy with recompaction of the universe.

the transfer of matter to energy is a proven fact bond, it represents a transition from one state to another where the metaphysical axioms are in compliance.

the above is representative of an existing environment, in space the expulsion is universal in all directions and from the sphere of singularity the resultant mass is expelled at a finite angle that eventually will return all its components back to their origin at the same time without ever changing directions.


unless you suffer from a mental disorder the boomerang theory is not something remotely difficult to understand, or rather not a mental disorder but an adherence to a forgery based 4th century mentality is the cause of your continued misrepresentation of the facts is the reason for sane people world wide to be leery of anyone pertaining to the desert religions.

You just switched topics from the BBT to transfer of matter into energy and threw in a picture of an atom bomb. What has any of it have to do with singularity? First, the BBT isn't an explosion like a bomb, but an expansion. I don't even think Hawking claims there was a loud bang.

Here's something to ponder. The universe has been found to be flat. The earth and planets are still spherical, but the universe is thin on one side, so it's shape is essentially flat. If one reads the Bible, the universe is described as that of a scroll and can be folded up and that God stretches the universe like a curtain. Thus, science has backed up what the Bible has said just like it backed up God stretching the universe like a curtain.

Flat universe
The universe is flat - official – Physics World

Expanding universe
Hubble Finds Universe Expanding Faster Than Expected

Space is like an invisible fabric
The Fabric of the Cosmos — NOVA | PBS

This means that new, exciting things lie in our future as we ponder what the 4th dimension holds in store. If the universe is like a scroll, then there exists another dimension over it. Whether this consists of space and time, we do not know yet. Creation scientists knew this before all of these discoveries, but hadn't found all the evidence until a few years ago. I'm not saying they should get the credit though. The credit should go to scientist(s) who did the work.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What I've shown is atheists and atheist scientists are usually wrong.

You have shown no such thing, what an absurd, steaming pile of bullshit.

Furthermore, whether you believe in moronic zombie kings and invisible sky wizards, or if you are smart and do not believe in those childish things has NO bearing on science whatsoever. That is the point of science. Science is not like your goofy cult, where funny clothes and elaborate buildings determine the credibility of your conmen shamans.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
zero is when all matter in unison reaches the furthest point of their trajectory's finite angle derived from the point of expulsion after the moment of singularity ... at which time all matter then propels itself without changing direction back to its origin causing the mass recompaction that eventually causes all matter to convert back to energy and at the same final instance of completion recreate the expulsion that makes BB a cyclical event.

The Boomerang Theory -

when a pitcher in outerspace tosses a curveball, the ball traveling at a finite angle will eventually return to its point of origin without ever changing direction. the motion of a boomerang. cyclical BB.


there is both zero and infinity bond, purity of the transition is all that is required and the prerequisite metaphysical axioms used to create life are inalterable by the providence of the everwatchful Almighty, gatekeeper of the Everlasting.

I think what you're talking about is the velocity which reaches zero at the apex. The equation for this is a = dv/dt. You would have to have velocity when dt = 0 and that would be a good trick as velocity would be zero. One would have to create the velocity that you are referring to from nothing.

Perhaps you mean at singularity, the velocity of an object would be spontaneous. I can visualize that if temperature and density are very high, i.e. uncountable, but I can't visualize that if temperature and density are infinite which atheist science requires. The assumption is the universe expands infinitely which I don't think it does. Creation science claims there is a border to the universe.

.

One would have to create the velocity that you are referring to from nothing.

how's that, when all the matter in the universe is recompacted by the previous energy expulsion it then recreates by a new conversion to energy a renewed expulsion at the cyclical instant to recreate the trajectories from the spherical singularity of pure energy that will eventually bring all the recreated mass / matter back again to its origin at the same time for a renewed compaction.

I think what you're talking about is the velocity which reaches zero at the apex

at the apex of the trajectory is when all matter at the same time will cease traveling away from the origin of BB and will begin a mirror of the trajectory back to the origin without ever changing direction.

Perhaps you mean at singularity, the velocity of an object would be spontaneous. I can visualize that if temperature and density are very high, i.e. uncountable, but I can't visualize that if temperature and density are infinite which atheist science requires.

but I can't visualize that if temperature and density are infinite which atheist science requires.

I defer to your knowledge that exceeds mine for the above but I would believe the atheist are correct that both 0 and infinite are factors in the creation of the universe so much so if they are not accomplished the universe would not exist, there would not be the transfer at singularity of one to the other. the metaphysical axioms, purity are also required in its creation. what the Almighty refers to as a Sabbath. a perfect completion.

>>BW: how's that, when all the matter in the universe is recompacted by the previous energy expulsion it then recreates by a new conversion to energy a renewed expulsion at the cyclical instant to recreate the trajectories from the spherical singularity of pure energy that will eventually bring all the recreated mass / matter back again to its origin at the same time for a renewed compaction.<<

Again, you're referring to velocity and not energy with recompaction of the universe. If the universe does not achieve escape velocity, then it will collapse due to the gravitational attraction of all its mass of matter. This is called the Big Crunch. However, BC is just one scenario unless there is another huge mass exerting an opposite attraction. None is known at this time doing this.

Besides, one cannot have infinite expansion due to spherical singularity or any type of singularity. One cannot have infinite temperature and density of singularity. No such infinite objects can exist in the material world. The math does not allow it unless there is a creator.

OTOH, Creation scientists theorize that the universe and earth (same age) formed very rapidly, like one day by the creator, and is still thousands of years old instead of billions. They do not have this problem with escape velocity such as with the BBT.

.

Again, you're referring to velocity and not energy with recompaction of the universe.

the transfer of matter to energy is a proven fact bond, it represents a transition from one state to another where the metaphysical axioms are in compliance.

the above is representative of an existing environment, in space the expulsion is universal in all directions and from the sphere of singularity the resultant mass is expelled at a finite angle that eventually will return all its components back to their origin at the same time without ever changing directions.


unless you suffer from a mental disorder the boomerang theory is not something remotely difficult to understand, or rather not a mental disorder but an adherence to a forgery based 4th century mentality is the cause of your continued misrepresentation of the facts is the reason for sane people world wide to be leery of anyone pertaining to the desert religions.

You just switched topics from the BBT to transfer of matter into energy and threw in a picture of an atom bomb. What has any of it have to do with singularity? First, the BBT isn't an explosion like a bomb, but an expansion. I don't even think Hawking claims there was a loud bang.

Here's something to ponder. The universe has been found to be flat. The earth and planets are still spherical, but the universe is thin on one side, so it's shape is essentially flat. If one reads the Bible, the universe is described as that of a scroll and can be folded up and that God stretches the universe like a curtain. Thus, science has backed up what the Bible has said just like it backed up God stretching the universe like a curtain.

Flat universe
The universe is flat - official – Physics World

Expanding universe
Hubble Finds Universe Expanding Faster Than Expected

Space is like an invisible fabric
The Fabric of the Cosmos — NOVA | PBS

This means that new, exciting things lie in our future as we ponder what the 4th dimension holds in store. If the universe is like a scroll, then there exists another dimension over it. Whether this consists of space and time, we do not know yet. Creation scientists knew this before all of these discoveries, but hadn't found all the evidence until a few years ago. I'm not saying they should get the credit though. The credit should go to scientist(s) who did the work.

.

You just switched topics from the BBT to transfer of matter into energy and threw in a picture of an atom bomb. What has any of it have to do with singularity?

to transfer of matter into energy ...


the explanation for how the BB is a cyclical event, from one singularity to the next.

 

[james bond]

I think what you're talking about is the velocity which reaches zero at the apex. The equation for this is a = dv/dt. You would have to have velocity when dt = 0 and that would be a good trick as velocity would be zero. One would have to create the velocity that you are referring to from nothing.

Perhaps you mean at singularity, the velocity of an object would be spontaneous. I can visualize that if temperature and density are very high, i.e. uncountable, but I can't visualize that if temperature and density are infinite which atheist science requires. The assumption is the universe expands infinitely which I don't think it does. Creation science claims there is a border to the universe.

.

One would have to create the velocity that you are referring to from nothing.

how's that, when all the matter in the universe is recompacted by the previous energy expulsion it then recreates by a new conversion to energy a renewed expulsion at the cyclical instant to recreate the trajectories from the spherical singularity of pure energy that will eventually bring all the recreated mass / matter back again to its origin at the same time for a renewed compaction.

I think what you're talking about is the velocity which reaches zero at the apex

at the apex of the trajectory is when all matter at the same time will cease traveling away from the origin of BB and will begin a mirror of the trajectory back to the origin without ever changing direction.

Perhaps you mean at singularity, the velocity of an object would be spontaneous. I can visualize that if temperature and density are very high, i.e. uncountable, but I can't visualize that if temperature and density are infinite which atheist science requires.

but I can't visualize that if temperature and density are infinite which atheist science requires.

I defer to your knowledge that exceeds mine for the above but I would believe the atheist are correct that both 0 and infinite are factors in the creation of the universe so much so if they are not accomplished the universe would not exist, there would not be the transfer at singularity of one to the other. the metaphysical axioms, purity are also required in its creation. what the Almighty refers to as a Sabbath. a perfect completion.

>>BW: how's that, when all the matter in the universe is recompacted by the previous energy expulsion it then recreates by a new conversion to energy a renewed expulsion at the cyclical instant to recreate the trajectories from the spherical singularity of pure energy that will eventually bring all the recreated mass / matter back again to its origin at the same time for a renewed compaction.<<

Again, you're referring to velocity and not energy with recompaction of the universe. If the universe does not achieve escape velocity, then it will collapse due to the gravitational attraction of all its mass of matter. This is called the Big Crunch. However, BC is just one scenario unless there is another huge mass exerting an opposite attraction. None is known at this time doing this.

Besides, one cannot have infinite expansion due to spherical singularity or any type of singularity. One cannot have infinite temperature and density of singularity. No such infinite objects can exist in the material world. The math does not allow it unless there is a creator.

OTOH, Creation scientists theorize that the universe and earth (same age) formed very rapidly, like one day by the creator, and is still thousands of years old instead of billions. They do not have this problem with escape velocity such as with the BBT.

.

Again, you're referring to velocity and not energy with recompaction of the universe.

the transfer of matter to energy is a proven fact bond, it represents a transition from one state to another where the metaphysical axioms are in compliance.

the above is representative of an existing environment, in space the expulsion is universal in all directions and from the sphere of singularity the resultant mass is expelled at a finite angle that eventually will return all its components back to their origin at the same time without ever changing directions.


unless you suffer from a mental disorder the boomerang theory is not something remotely difficult to understand, or rather not a mental disorder but an adherence to a forgery based 4th century mentality is the cause of your continued misrepresentation of the facts is the reason for sane people world wide to be leery of anyone pertaining to the desert religions.

You just switched topics from the BBT to transfer of matter into energy and threw in a picture of an atom bomb. What has any of it have to do with singularity? First, the BBT isn't an explosion like a bomb, but an expansion. I don't even think Hawking claims there was a loud bang.

Here's something to ponder. The universe has been found to be flat. The earth and planets are still spherical, but the universe is thin on one side, so it's shape is essentially flat. If one reads the Bible, the universe is described as that of a scroll and can be folded up and that God stretches the universe like a curtain. Thus, science has backed up what the Bible has said just like it backed up God stretching the universe like a curtain.

Flat universe
The universe is flat - official – Physics World

Expanding universe
Hubble Finds Universe Expanding Faster Than Expected

Space is like an invisible fabric
The Fabric of the Cosmos — NOVA | PBS

This means that new, exciting things lie in our future as we ponder what the 4th dimension holds in store. If the universe is like a scroll, then there exists another dimension over it. Whether this consists of space and time, we do not know yet. Creation scientists knew this before all of these discoveries, but hadn't found all the evidence until a few years ago. I'm not saying they should get the credit though. The credit should go to scientist(s) who did the work.

.

You just switched topics from the BBT to transfer of matter into energy and threw in a picture of an atom bomb. What has any of it have to do with singularity?

to transfer of matter into energy ...


the explanation for how the BB is a cyclical event, from one singularity to the next.

Stuff like that doesn't happen BreezeWood . Where is the evidence that any of it happened? How can invisible particles exist as matter when there was no materialism? How can singularity exist without materialism?

With Genesis, I got God as my witness, the Bible, infinite temperature and density (division by zero) and ontological arguments. God probably exists.in another dimension which we haven't found yet.

Graviton in flat universe escaping into 4th dimension

 

[james bond]

What I've shown is atheists and atheist scientists are usually wrong.

You have shown no such thing, what an absurd, steaming pile of bullshit.

Furthermore, whether you believe in moronic zombie kings and invisible sky wizards, or if you are smart and do not believe in those childish things has NO bearing on science whatsoever. That is the point of science. Science is not like your goofy cult, where funny clothes and elaborate buildings determine the credibility of your conmen shamans.

Fort Fun Indiana , you don't understand creation science, and atheist science isn't the only way to find truth and knowledge. English history backs up Sir Francis Bacon's accomplishments and tells us he was Anglican and he believed there was a mind behind the universe.

And I've given you the fact that the adult chicken came first which backs up what the Bible says. God created adult animals such as the chicken (hen and rooster) first in order to have the first fertilized egg. How does your atheist science explain how Lucy's (australopithecus afarensis) ancestors evolved? There is no Mr. Lucy. Your atheist science has not explained how asexual animals became sexual.

What creation science, facts, reasoning and historical truths has done is show evidence for God. That all of this has some kind of intelligence and design behind it (that's an observation and not a theory like ID).

And your last paragraph is so wrong. If you're smart, then you would have faith in God. Besides, you listen to fake scientists like Bill Nye.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
how's that, when all the matter in the universe is recompacted by the previous energy expulsion it then recreates by a new conversion to energy a renewed expulsion at the cyclical instant to recreate the trajectories from the spherical singularity of pure energy that will eventually bring all the recreated mass / matter back again to its origin at the same time for a renewed compaction.


at the apex of the trajectory is when all matter at the same time will cease traveling away from the origin of BB and will begin a mirror of the trajectory back to the origin without ever changing direction.


but I can't visualize that if temperature and density are infinite which atheist science requires.

I defer to your knowledge that exceeds mine for the above but I would believe the atheist are correct that both 0 and infinite are factors in the creation of the universe so much so if they are not accomplished the universe would not exist, there would not be the transfer at singularity of one to the other. the metaphysical axioms, purity are also required in its creation. what the Almighty refers to as a Sabbath. a perfect completion.

>>BW: how's that, when all the matter in the universe is recompacted by the previous energy expulsion it then recreates by a new conversion to energy a renewed expulsion at the cyclical instant to recreate the trajectories from the spherical singularity of pure energy that will eventually bring all the recreated mass / matter back again to its origin at the same time for a renewed compaction.<<

Again, you're referring to velocity and not energy with recompaction of the universe. If the universe does not achieve escape velocity, then it will collapse due to the gravitational attraction of all its mass of matter. This is called the Big Crunch. However, BC is just one scenario unless there is another huge mass exerting an opposite attraction. None is known at this time doing this.

Besides, one cannot have infinite expansion due to spherical singularity or any type of singularity. One cannot have infinite temperature and density of singularity. No such infinite objects can exist in the material world. The math does not allow it unless there is a creator.

OTOH, Creation scientists theorize that the universe and earth (same age) formed very rapidly, like one day by the creator, and is still thousands of years old instead of billions. They do not have this problem with escape velocity such as with the BBT.

.

Again, you're referring to velocity and not energy with recompaction of the universe.

the transfer of matter to energy is a proven fact bond, it represents a transition from one state to another where the metaphysical axioms are in compliance.

the above is representative of an existing environment, in space the expulsion is universal in all directions and from the sphere of singularity the resultant mass is expelled at a finite angle that eventually will return all its components back to their origin at the same time without ever changing directions.


unless you suffer from a mental disorder the boomerang theory is not something remotely difficult to understand, or rather not a mental disorder but an adherence to a forgery based 4th century mentality is the cause of your continued misrepresentation of the facts is the reason for sane people world wide to be leery of anyone pertaining to the desert religions.

You just switched topics from the BBT to transfer of matter into energy and threw in a picture of an atom bomb. What has any of it have to do with singularity? First, the BBT isn't an explosion like a bomb, but an expansion. I don't even think Hawking claims there was a loud bang.

Here's something to ponder. The universe has been found to be flat. The earth and planets are still spherical, but the universe is thin on one side, so it's shape is essentially flat. If one reads the Bible, the universe is described as that of a scroll and can be folded up and that God stretches the universe like a curtain. Thus, science has backed up what the Bible has said just like it backed up God stretching the universe like a curtain.

Flat universe
The universe is flat - official – Physics World

Expanding universe
Hubble Finds Universe Expanding Faster Than Expected

Space is like an invisible fabric
The Fabric of the Cosmos — NOVA | PBS

This means that new, exciting things lie in our future as we ponder what the 4th dimension holds in store. If the universe is like a scroll, then there exists another dimension over it. Whether this consists of space and time, we do not know yet. Creation scientists knew this before all of these discoveries, but hadn't found all the evidence until a few years ago. I'm not saying they should get the credit though. The credit should go to scientist(s) who did the work.

.

You just switched topics from the BBT to transfer of matter into energy and threw in a picture of an atom bomb. What has any of it have to do with singularity?

to transfer of matter into energy ...


the explanation for how the BB is a cyclical event, from one singularity to the next.

Stuff like that doesn't happen BreezeWood . Where is the evidence that any of it happened? How can invisible particles exist as matter when there was no materialism? How can singularity exist without materialism?

With Genesis, I got God as my witness, the Bible, infinite temperature and density (division by zero) and ontological arguments. God probably exists.in another dimension which we haven't found yet.

Graviton in flat universe escaping into 4th dimension

.

God probably exists.in another dimension which we haven't found yet.

are you serious, good luck with that - I'm in no hast myself, just reaching the Everlasting is good enough not seeing the Almighty would be no obstacle to its fulfillment.

Where is the evidence that any of it happened? How can invisible particles exist as matter when there was no materialism? How can singularity exist without materialism?

the evidence manifests itself when there is a conclusion, a purity referred to as a Sabbath when completed.

 

[james bond]

God probably exists.in another dimension which we haven't found yet.

are you serious, good luck with that - I'm in no hast myself, just reaching the Everlasting is good enough not seeing the Almighty would be no obstacle to its fulfillment.

CERN has tested to find the graviton and is continuing to do so. What has been done to discover multiverses and wormholes?

Extra dimensions, gravitons, and tiny black holes | CERN

the evidence manifests itself when there is a conclusion, a purity referred to as a Sabbath when completed.

In other words, you got nothing. Next.

 

[BreezeWood]

Where is the evidence that any of it happened? How can invisible particles exist as matter when there was no materialism? How can singularity exist without materialism?

the evidence manifests itself when there is a conclusion, a purity referred to as a Sabbath when completed.

In other words, you got nothing. Next. googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1502213804818-0'); });

Where is the evidence that any of it happened ... In other words, you got nothing.

that is your issue christian, not mine. the universe exists and is conclusive from evidence, no such completion exits for the desert religions any more so than manufactured fairytales or presentations by fabricated bibles.

 

[james bond]

Where is the evidence that any of it happened? How can invisible particles exist as matter when there was no materialism? How can singularity exist without materialism?

the evidence manifests itself when there is a conclusion, a purity referred to as a Sabbath when completed.

In other words, you got nothing. Next. googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1502213804818-0'); });

Where is the evidence that any of it happened ... In other words, you got nothing.

that is your issue christian, not mine. the universe exists and is conclusive from evidence, no such completion exits for the desert religions any more so than manufactured fairytales or presentations by fabricated bibles.

This is atheist science I am referring to which you have no understanding of either. What I've been following is Professor Turok's explanation of the "cause" for the universe. However, I can't readily explain his ten dimensions, so am sticking with gravitons and the 4th dimension.

 

[expat_panama]

...agnostic. It's the thinking person's position.

Lack of knowing something might not be the best indicator of thought.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

...agnostic. It's the thinking person's position.

Lack of knowing something might not be the best indicator of thought.

But admitting it IS. Saying you know god exists? Lie.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

This is atheist science I am referring to which you have no understanding of either.

your ignorance is compelling, associating science with religion or should we refer it to as a sinners obsession.

 

[expat_panama]

...agnostic. It's the thinking person's position.

Lack of knowing something might not be the best indicator of thought.

But admitting it IS. Saying you know god exists? Lie.

Not sure I got your input right but it sounds like we're considering whether saying "don't know" is evidence of thinking.

Heck, I'll agree that it often is. For example some say they believe the globe's warming because they've heard it from other real smart people (like that % of scientists others peg at 97 maybe). Others say they don't know if the globe's warming because they'd rather not just take someone's word for it and they'd rather see hard physical evidence of that actual heat that's supposed to be there.

So we agree, sometimes saying we don't know requires more thought than mere blind faith. What I said was "not knowing" might not be the best indicator of thinking.

 

[james bond]

...agnostic. It's the thinking person's position.

Lack of knowing something might not be the best indicator of thought.

I didn't mean judgment, but observation. What I said to BreezeWood was that he should know his own side's thinking, at least some of it. For example, singularity isn't a easy concept to grasp if you haven't heard of it and do not have a science background. That's probably why its proponents said a universe came from nothing. Even the late Stephen Hawking, who I think best explained the Big Bang Theory, explained that he could not understand why there is something rather than nothing. He said, "I want to know why the universe exists, why there is something greater than nothing." It's common sense, but quantum mechanics goes beyond common sense.

Read more at: Stephen Hawking Quotes

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's common sense,

It is not "common sense", what a ridiculous thing to say. When religious people use this term, it's always a safe bet that "common sense" = "anything in agreement with the religiois person's religiois beliefs".

 

[james bond]

...agnostic. It's the thinking person's position.

Lack of knowing something might not be the best indicator of thought.

But admitting it IS. Saying you know god exists? Lie.

Not sure I got your input right but it sounds like we're considering whether saying "don't know" is evidence of thinking.

Heck, I'll agree that it often is. For example some say they believe the globe's warming because they've heard it from other real smart people (like that % of scientists others peg at 97 maybe). Others say they don't know if the globe's warming because they'd rather not just take someone's word for it and they'd rather see hard physical evidence of that actual heat that's supposed to be there.

So we agree, sometimes saying we don't know requires more thought than mere blind faith. What I said was "not knowing" might not be the best indicator of thinking.

You're talking about two different things which didn't have anything to do what I said to BreezeWood. I don't know is a choice. Just like do nothing is a choice. Each choice or path has their own consequences such as it becoming part of your worldview and thinking.

The other concept you mention is blind faith which I understand is a recent invention. I think that is reserved for humans for another human. To the contrary, faith in God, by its very definition, refers to a logical, robust, unwavering confidence in the truth.