my point exactly.
What point?, the only point you made is that your logic sucks
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
my point exactly.
so the universe has a beginning. did it come out of nothing?
Isn't is amazing that this statement generated so much hostility. What has become of our civilized world?
I am proposing a theory based on statistics for proving the likelihood of intelligent design. It is not religiosity, it is mathematical.
what is nothing?
I did propose a theory. Again, here it is from post #198.Well, you never *actually* proposed a theory. You made some very vague statements that were completely non-specific and rather useless to anyone who knows anything about the subject.
You claimed it to be mathematical, but presented no mathematics. You claimed it to be based on statistics, but presented no stats. And you presented nothing that makes ID any more likely than before.
Then you got offended because people reasonably expected you do actually do what you said you were going to do.
I did propose a theory. Again, here it is from post #198.
At some particular point, probable when elements began to form, the universe as we know it began to take shape, maybe 380,000 years after the BB. Anyway, there must be some way of isolating key variables, or subatomic particles, for a model of predictability based on interacting events. Would the interactive model for that particular time predict chaotic outcomes, or It would predict a trend toward an intelligent design for the universe? Theoretically, it is possible to isolate key variables for a usable matrix allowing for predictable outcomes. I think the main task is to first identify key variables (virtual particles, matter and anti-matter), at specific points on a time line.
I never said the theory was complete. I said "propose," and then you and others jumped on it without knowing anything about it. I did post the "proposed theory." Apparently, there are those here who like to argue. You did it again. You said I claimed to be mathematical. What does that mean? If you can add and subtract, are you mathematical? There is a lot of stupidity here.
Why didn't you read what I just posted. You know nothing of what you say. I did it correctly, I began the process of theory development as prescribed by the "scientific method." I am really tired of spending so much time with a lot of dumb comments. I am not now, nor have I been required to present the formal theory. This is not a scientific class, it is a religious forum. I am not required to fulfill your expectations, especially when you know little about the subject. None of you can even understand the "proposed" theory I posted.Sorry, but that isn't proposing a theory. That is making a few generic statements that show no insight or even a way to proceed. You seem to think this is ground-breaking, but it isn't even really worth the time it takes to read it. I gave a very specific critique a few posts back that you completely ignored.
Now, to *actually* propose a theory, what you need to do is *at least* make some specific claims and give enough details that it makes it look lie you have given the issue more thought than a 6th grader. You haven't yet done that.
Why didn't you read what I just posted. You know nothing of what you say. I did it correctly, I began the process of theory development as prescribed by the "scientific method." I am really tired of spending so much time with a lot of dumb comments. I am not now, nor have I been required to present the formal theory. This is not a scientific class, it is a religious forum. I am not required to fulfill your expectations, especially when you know little about the subject. None of you can even understand the "proposed" theory I posted.
Isn't is amazing that this statement generated so much hostility. What has become of our civilized world?
I am proposing a theory based on statistics for proving the likelihood of intelligent design. It is not religiosity, it is mathematical.
I did propose a theory. Again, here it is from post #198.
At some particular point, probable when elements began to form, the universe as we know it began to take shape, maybe 380,000 years after the BB. Anyway, there must be some way of isolating key variables, or subatomic particles, for a model of predictability based on interacting events. Would the interactive model for that particular time predict chaotic outcomes, or It would predict a trend toward an intelligent design for the universe? Theoretically, it is possible to isolate key variables for a usable matrix allowing for predictable outcomes. I think the main task is to first identify key variables (virtual particles, matter and anti-matter), at specific points on a time line.
I never said the theory was complete. I said "propose," and then you and others jumped on it without knowing anything about it. I did post the "proposed theory." Apparently, there are those here who like to argue. You did it again. You said I claimed to be mathematical. What does that mean? If you can add and subtract, are you mathematical? There is a lot of stupidity here.
If you knew anything about science theories, you would understand the process. A theory is proposed, it is developed and tested. Finally, the hypotheses or accepted or rejected. It is called the scientific method. Do some research.
Why didn't you read what I just posted. You know nothing of what you say. I did it correctly, I began the process of theory development as prescribed by the "scientific method." I am really tired of spending so much time with a lot of dumb comments. I am not now, nor have I been required to present the formal theory. This is not a scientific class, it is a religious forum. I am not required to fulfill your expectations, especially when you know little about the subject. None of you can even understand the "proposed" theory I posted.
Really? You call that a "theory?" Sorry, it does not cut it even at the level of an untested hypothesis.I did propose a theory. Again, here it is from post #198.
At some particular point, probable when elements began to form, the universe as we know it began to take shape, maybe 380,000 years after the BB. Anyway, there must be some way of isolating key variables, or subatomic particles, for a model of predictability based on interacting events. Would the interactive model for that particular time predict chaotic outcomes, or It would predict a trend toward an intelligent design for the universe? Theoretically, it is possible to isolate key variables for a usable matrix allowing for predictable outcomes. I think the main task is to first identify key variables (virtual particles, matter and anti-matter), at specific points on a time line.
I never said the theory was complete. I said "propose," and then you and others jumped on it without knowing anything about it. I did post the "proposed theory." Apparently, there are those here who like to argue. You did it again. You said I claimed to be mathematical. What does that mean? If you can add and subtract, are you mathematical? There is a lot of stupidity here.
No no, no! You have it all wrong. Theories are not proposed, hypotheses are.If you knew anything about science theories, you would understand the process. A theory is proposed, it is developed and tested. Finally, the hypotheses or accepted or rejected. It is called the scientific method. Do some research.
can that nothing give birth to anything?A lack of everything, including matter, energy, space, and time.
can that nothing give birth to anything?
hey Poly,
Interesting use of `nothing`......
how can entities that don't exist, be unstable !
Those entities don't exist, in nothingness.
Thank the assorted idols that created this mess !
I did propose a theory. Again, here it is from post #198.
At some particular point, probable when elements began to form, the universe as we know it began to take shape, maybe 380,000 years after the BB. Anyway, there must be some way of isolating key variables, or subatomic particles, for a model of predictability based on interacting events. Would the interactive model for that particular time predict chaotic outcomes, or It would predict a trend toward an intelligent design for the universe? Theoretically, it is possible to isolate key variables for a usable matrix allowing for predictable outcomes. I think the main task is to first identify key variables (virtual particles, matter and anti-matter), at specific points on a time line.
I did it correctly, I began the process of theory development as prescribed by the "scientific method."