Origin of life elsewhere and close together
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Crackpot conspiracy theory believed by millions violates laws of physics
Next: THE WORTHLESSNESS OF GOLD DUE TO TO HUGE SUBSEA DEPOSITS OF THAT COMMODITY. One only deposit is estimated to overshot the 40 millions tons
From: BURT on 14 Jun 2010 14:02 On Jun 14, 12:32�am, Burkhard <b.scha...(a)ed.ac.uk> wrote: > On 14 June, 00:30, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 2:44 am, Burkhard <b.scha...(a)ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > On 13 June, 03:05, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 12, 6:45 pm, Michael Young <youngms...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 12, 8:50 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I am sorry but that won't work. You never offered an answer to where > > > > > > the order in the universe before man comes from? > > > > > > You just say that you did when you didn't. > > > > > > No I didn't. I said other people did, and they did. You already asked > > > > > this question, and this question was already answered. I know because > > > > > I read it, and you should know because you wrote it. I don't know if > > > > > it was in this thread but where it is doesn't really matter; what does > > > > > matter is that you're asking an answered question twice, which means > > > > > to me that you ignored all the answers given the first time. No matter > > > > > what anyone says, you're going to reject it if it's not in line with > > > > > you think. It's just driving a car off a cliff. > > > > > > So no, I'm not going to answer the question, not because I actually > > > > > lack an answer, but because it won't get us anywhere. > > > > > > > If you say it was the Big Bang itself then I ask you how can a lump of > > > > > > matter create anything? How does that lump do it? > > > > > > Phrasing a question about the Big Bang in the form of "how does a lump > > > > > of matter create stuff" shows, to me, that you think it's totally > > > > > stupid, and any explanation given will likely be dismissed by you as > > > > > stupid. I'm speculating here, so I could be wrong. But when you ask a > > > > > question in a manner that tries making the subject sound ridiculous, > > > > > it kills any motive for me to answer it because I feel like I'd be > > > > > throwing out an explanation to no avail, and it would just be a waste > > > > > of time. > > > > > > Essentially what I'm saying here is you're really just looking for a > > > > > fight. If you *really* cared about how the Big Bang works, you could > > > > > easily look it up, as it's an extremely common topic. But, you're > > > > > BURT, and you want to entertain yourself, or so I believe. > > > > > Just show where order comes from? > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > It is a way of observing the world and understanding it that has > > > evolutionary advantages and is hence hard-wired in our brain. Order is > > > in the eye of the beholder.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Yes we observe order in the world. But where did the universe's order > > come from? > > So according to you the Big Bang is only in the eye of the beholder? > > Nope. The Big Bang is not particularly orderly. > > > What if you don't believe in the Big Bang? Does that mean it never > > happened? > > Nope, that would be the source fallacy. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Prove that the Big Bang isn't order. You don't understand the Big Bang yet. I have resfined the Big Bang and it is simplest oreder The big bang is neutron being created in original space. The neutron decayed and the protons and electrons formed hydrogen atoms. Then hydrogen radiated first light. This is the Big Bang. MItch Raemsch
From: Michael Young on 14 Jun 2010 15:39
On Jun 14, 2:02�pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Why are half the crazy people on here not only crazy but have a terrible hold on the English language? |