If you are HONEST, you are AGNOSTIC

[Frannie]

Do you believe that billions of lines of code could create themselves? or would an intelligence be needed

It’s not impossible. But even if it was it still occurred according to the laws of nature which existed before space and time. So God is still the source or matrix.

You know you don't know that.

But I do. Matter and energy obey the laws of nature. Matter and energy were created according to the laws of nature. Ergo the laws of nature came first.

No, you'd have to show that scientifically. Because you say so isn't it.

I just did. Matter and energy obey the laws of nature. They can’t be created without them.

But nature does not exist without matter.

Think kid you are reducing yourself to babbling

 

[ding]

Do you believe that billions of lines of code could create themselves? or would an intelligence be needed

It’s not impossible. But even if it was it still occurred according to the laws of nature which existed before space and time. So God is still the source or matrix.

You know you don't know that.

But I do. Matter and energy obey the laws of nature. Matter and energy were created according to the laws of nature. Ergo the laws of nature came first.

No, you'd have to show that scientifically. Because you say so isn't it.

There you go again arguing with the schizzo

You misspelled winner.

 

[BreezeWood]

The interesting thing with this experiment is that it is observed multiple times and verified, then shelved because it invalidates darwinism.

It does not invalidate Darwinism. That is a shameless, stupid lie. The presence of epigenetic mechanisms would not render natural selection invalid or nonexistent.

Haha, what a stupid attempt. And, trust me son, you arent walking anyone through anything except getting Fs on high school science quizzes.

Actually darwinism claims that the only source of change is random mutations over time. Epigenics erases that concept entirely

Your claim to what "Darwinism" claims is completely false.

Sometimes evolution does makes things more complex (bacteria to annelid worm, for example). But sometimes it makes things less complex (free living organisms to degenerate parasites, for thousands of examples). Most of the time it does neither. The only direction evolution always moves is towards more fit. And since the definition of fitness is dependent on and changes with the environment, it is a constantly moving target.


So tell us, why is it that sharks, for one example, have not gotten "more complex"?

Ever hear the term "fitness for survival"?

You tell us, why are there monkeys if they were replaced by humans

.

You tell us, why are there monkeys if they were replaced by humans

they were not replaced, evolution occurs fist over time as a metaphysical phenomena and is employed as a single instance when complete from parent to offspring where the offspring as a new example can self replicate.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, you'd have to show that scientifically. Because you say so isn't it.

Well, he can't, since he is ass backwards wrong. Part and parcel of big bang theory is the idea that, far enough into the past, our laws of physics broke down and did not exist. Yet, a region of space containing energy did exist.

Everything which exists today or exists in the future exist because the laws of nature allow it.

Okay! Of course, observing that which exists is how we determine the "laws" of nature. So your tautology is circular and useless.

 

[ding]

It’s not impossible. But even if it was it still occurred according to the laws of nature which existed before space and time. So God is still the source or matrix.

You know you don't know that.

But I do. Matter and energy obey the laws of nature. Matter and energy were created according to the laws of nature. Ergo the laws of nature came first.

No, you'd have to show that scientifically. Because you say so isn't it.

I just did. Matter and energy obey the laws of nature. They can’t be created without them.

But nature does not exist without matter.

Think kid you are reducing yourself to babbling

Science says otherwise.

 

[Frannie]

No, you'd have to show that scientifically. Because you say so isn't it.

Well, he can't, since he is ass backwards wrong. Part and parcel of big bang theory is the idea that, far enough into the past, our laws of physics broke down and did not exist. Yet, a region of space containing energy did exist.

Everything which exists today or exists in the future exist because the laws of nature allow it.

But the laws of nature can not exist without matter to shape those laws

 

[Taz]

Do you believe that billions of lines of code could create themselves? or would an intelligence be needed

It’s not impossible. But even if it was it still occurred according to the laws of nature which existed before space and time. So God is still the source or matrix.

You know you don't know that.

But I do. Matter and energy obey the laws of nature. Matter and energy were created according to the laws of nature. Ergo the laws of nature came first.

No, you'd have to show that scientifically. Because you say so isn't it.

I just did. Matter and energy obey the laws of nature. They can’t be created without them.

Prove it scientifically.

 

[Frannie]

The interesting thing with this experiment is that it is observed multiple times and verified, then shelved because it invalidates darwinism.

It does not invalidate Darwinism. That is a shameless, stupid lie. The presence of epigenetic mechanisms would not render natural selection invalid or nonexistent.

Haha, what a stupid attempt. And, trust me son, you arent walking anyone through anything except getting Fs on high school science quizzes.

Actually darwinism claims that the only source of change is random mutations over time. Epigenics erases that concept entirely

Your claim to what "Darwinism" claims is completely false.

Sometimes evolution does makes things more complex (bacteria to annelid worm, for example). But sometimes it makes things less complex (free living organisms to degenerate parasites, for thousands of examples). Most of the time it does neither. The only direction evolution always moves is towards more fit. And since the definition of fitness is dependent on and changes with the environment, it is a constantly moving target.


So tell us, why is it that sharks, for one example, have not gotten "more complex"?

Ever hear the term "fitness for survival"?

You tell us, why are there monkeys if they were replaced by humans

.

You tell us, why are there monkeys if they were replaced by humans

they were not replaced, evolution occurs fist over time as a metaphysical phenomena and is employed as a single instance when complete from parent to offspring where the offspring as a new example can self replicate.

Theory not fact.

 

[Taz]

Nope. Because the aliens only chose a couple of species of apes to endow with better genes. Homo Sapiens are the only surviving ones.

Haha...sure, pal. And how did the aliens come to be? Other aliens? How did those aliens come to be?

Because we don't know then it automatically defaults to an invisible mute superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen? How so?

 

[Taz]

No, you'd have to show that scientifically. Because you say so isn't it.

Well, he can't, since he is ass backwards wrong. Part and parcel of big bang theory is the idea that, far enough into the past, our laws of physics broke down and did not exist. Yet, a region of space containing energy did exist.

Everything which exists today or exists in the future exist because the laws of nature allow it.

Because you say so?

 

[Frannie]

You know you don't know that.

But I do. Matter and energy obey the laws of nature. Matter and energy were created according to the laws of nature. Ergo the laws of nature came first.

No, you'd have to show that scientifically. Because you say so isn't it.

I just did. Matter and energy obey the laws of nature. They can’t be created without them.

But nature does not exist without matter.

Think kid you are reducing yourself to babbling

Science says otherwise.

How and where does science describe nature without matter?

Well wait

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Because we don't know then it automatically defaults to an invisible mute superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen?

Uh...what? I'm not doing that. You are confused. And you ignored my question.

 

[BreezeWood]

It's also not logical that the big bang created everything from nothing in a flash because conservation of mass excludes the pure creation of anything.

You mean, conservation of energy. That was a very silly, elementary error you just made.

Moron alert.

Mass is never created nor destroyed, it merely changes form or converts to energy or reverses such effect



Are you in 6th grade or what because I knew more than you in the 3rd grade

.

Mass is never created nor destroyed, it merely changes form or converts to energy or reverses such effect

so BB is a cyclical event where singularity is the moment from pure energy transforming back to mass ...

Not possible. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. There is no such thing as perpetual energy. The 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes it.

.

Not possible. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. There is no such thing as perpetual energy. The 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes it.

the trajectory of the expelled matter returns to the point of singularity without changing direction causing the impetuous for compaction back to energy. a cyclical event

the Boomerang Theory.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How and where does science describe nature without matter?

In the early history of the universe, shortly after the big bang, before the decoupling event that produced matter.

Google is your friend, Fran.

 

[Frannie]

It's also not logical that the big bang created everything from nothing in a flash because conservation of mass excludes the pure creation of anything.

You mean, conservation of energy. That was a very silly, elementary error you just made.

Moron alert.

Mass is never created nor destroyed, it merely changes form or converts to energy or reverses such effect



Are you in 6th grade or what because I knew more than you in the 3rd grade

.

Mass is never created nor destroyed, it merely changes form or converts to energy or reverses such effect

so BB is a cyclical event where singularity is the moment from pure energy transforming back to mass ...

Not possible. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. There is no such thing as perpetual energy. The 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes it.

.

Not possible. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. There is no such thing as perpetual energy. The 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes it.

the trajectory of the expelled matter returns to the point of singularity without changing direction causing the impetuous for compaction back to energy. a cyclical event

the Boomerang Theory.

That is not what is observed in a speeding up in acceleration expanding universe......

 

[ding]

Darwinism claims that humans are evolved great apes. So why are there apes then?

Because evolution occurs within populations. Two populations of a species are isolated, and evolution produces different results on them. This is 7th grade material,my man.

Nope. Because the aliens only chose a couple of species of apes to endow with better genes. Homo Sapiens are the only surviving ones.

What created the aliens?

 

[Frannie]

How and where does science describe nature without matter?

In the early history of the universe, shortly after the big bang, before the decoupling event that produced matter.

Google is your friend, Fran.

You would need an entirely new physics in order for matter to be created.

Again in this universe matter is never created nor destroyed

 

[ding]

It does not invalidate Darwinism. That is a shameless, stupid lie. The presence of epigenetic mechanisms would not render natural selection invalid or nonexistent.

Haha, what a stupid attempt. And, trust me son, you arent walking anyone through anything except getting Fs on high school science quizzes.

Actually darwinism claims that the only source of change is random mutations over time. Epigenics erases that concept entirely

Your claim to what "Darwinism" claims is completely false.

Sometimes evolution does makes things more complex (bacteria to annelid worm, for example). But sometimes it makes things less complex (free living organisms to degenerate parasites, for thousands of examples). Most of the time it does neither. The only direction evolution always moves is towards more fit. And since the definition of fitness is dependent on and changes with the environment, it is a constantly moving target.


So tell us, why is it that sharks, for one example, have not gotten "more complex"?

Ever hear the term "fitness for survival"?

You tell us, why are there monkeys if they were replaced by humans

.

You tell us, why are there monkeys if they were replaced by humans

they were not replaced, evolution occurs fist over time as a metaphysical phenomena and is employed as a single instance when complete from parent to offspring where the offspring as a new example can self replicate.

Theory not fact.

It’s not even a good theory. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes it unless energy keeps being added to the system.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You would need an entirely new physics in order for matter to be created.

False. Our physics doesn't break down until further into the past. That's how we know this early period before the decoupling existed.

Matter is constantly created and destroyed. Conservation of energy holds.

 

[ding]

How and where does science describe nature without matter?

In the early history of the universe, shortly after the big bang, before the decoupling event that produced matter.

Google is your friend, Fran.

You would need an entirely new physics in order for matter to be created.

Again in this universe matter is never created nor destroyed

Wrong. It’s called inflation theory and it is the leading cosmological model. It explains everything we observe and it does not violate the conservation of energy.