GooseBaba:


Lol @ ultimate Uncaused Cause...the ultimate nothing

Actually he is engaging a child. I'm guessing he knows by now.

You put a forward claim to challenge a theory. And you see yourself as an adult...

vooks:


No it is not. He is the Ultimate Uncaused Cause. That is more sensible to your claims of matter causing itself.
Boson or God particle is nothing but a minister of more doubt than answers. It is nothing to brag about my broda.
What you should avoid when engaging adults is Google and copy+paste antics

Let's think.
1. Boson was first hypothesized in 1964 to basically explain why other elementary particles have mass
2. It has remained elusive supposedly because it has a VERY high mass and it takes a lot of energy to create one
3. To create one, particles are accelerated to high speeds in opposite direction and made to collide hopefully a Boson may form
4. Bosons have high decay rate so what is actually observed is not the Bosons but the product of their decay

#3 and #4 are remarkable feats of human thinking. This is real science; experimental, can be repeated and observed. Quite different from the religion of evolution which is essentially a Forensic guesswork of history. Totally untestable.

Assume Boson exists and are observed. None of these tells you WHY and HOW they came into existence initially.

Thousands of years ago, some wise men figured that the universe does not exist due to chance; it is too orderly and exhibits design so much that it can't be due to random processes. Thus, 'In the beginning God....'

Sarassin:


A lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. Again I would say do try and be civil, it appears to be a difficult thing for you.
Where exactly have I stated that matter created itself ?



You seem to have a never-ending source of clichéd answers. It is not an assumption that Boson exists. Read my previous post properly it should be apparent to you that my thrust with respect to the Boson was in regards to experimentation with its building blocks and their relationship to gravity in order to quantify how Matter forms, it is on-going. I have made no mention of a God Particle, it is meaningless in this context.

The fact that it is the product of the decay of the Boson that is observed is neither here nor there, the absolute majority of known chemical elements were observed and discovered by the products of their decay or various other signatures, what exactly is your point ?

You forgot to add that your claim that God is the uncaused cause is neither verifiable nor quantifiable. You really are starting out from a losing position and bluster does not help. Were you to successfully invalidate the Big Bang theory (which you haven’t done) it does not by default validate the biblical accounts as absolute statements of fact. Every religion has its creation story, non more valid than the other, all lacking empirical evidence and amounting to little more than a howl at the moon.



Well, thousands of years ago your wise men decreed that the earth was flat. How did that work out for you?

vooks:
[size=1pt][/size]

Intelligent design is the most sensible thing a primate can believe in. That is the point.

Chiding theism is ignorance incarnate

Sarassin:


The most sensible thing to a thief is to steal. As you can see, your sensibilities are rather subjective.
Like many religious revenants, you have nothing to offer besides a windbag and foul language. Have a nice life.

vooks:


No it is not. He is the Ultimate Uncaused Cause. That is more sensible to your claims of matter causing itself.
Boson or God particle is nothing but a minister of more doubt than answers. It is nothing to brag about my broda.
What you should avoid when engaging adults is Google and copy+paste antics

Let's think.
1. Boson was first hypothesized in 1964 to basically explain why other elementary particles have mass
2. It has remained elusive supposedly because it has a VERY high mass and it takes a lot of energy to create one
3. To create one, particles are accelerated to high speeds in opposite direction and made to collide hopefully a Boson may form
4. Bosons have high decay rate so what is actually observed is not the Bosons but the product of their decay

#3 and #4 are remarkable feats of human thinking. This is real science; experimental, can be repeated and observed. Quite different from the religion of evolution which is essentially a Forensic guesswork of history. Totally untestable.

Assume Boson exists and are observed. None of these tells you WHY and HOW they came into existence initially.


Thousands of years ago, some wise men figured that the universe does not exist due to chance; it is too orderly and exhibits design so much that it can't be due to random processes. Thus, 'In the beginning God....'

Thousands of years later, the FOOL be like, ' there is no God...'

And God be like, 'OK. How did you get here?'

The FOOL be like, ' we evolved over billions of years'

God be like, 'evolved from what?'

FOOL be like, 'dirt! Duh'

God be like, ' who made dirt?'

FOOL be like, 'Boson'

God be like, 'who made Boson?'

FOOL be like ' '

1feness:


An electromagnetic force who happens to be a "he" and not a "she".....how logical lol.

Planets were formed and not created. Creation is impossible when it comes to natural occurrence that happened billions of years ago. An Asteroid can hit our planet and split it into several parts and there we go,another planet arrives! And if it supports life,it supports life.

Humans should stop giving obvious responsibilities to god. The church is not intelligent/knowledgeable enough to teach spirituality

moffymichael:


In the Scientific community, we have those that are plagued with ignorance and those that are not. Those plagued with ignorance are those that are constantly rejecting the concept of God. Even, the great scientist of the past belive in God so well that they attributed their breakthroughs to God. For example, when the first astronauts landed on the surface of the moon, one of them (Aldrin),, on a telephone conversation said "everyone should began to thank GOD in their own way" because they believe so well their successfull landing on the moon is not by their strength.

1feness:


To make your point worth a reply next time,you will need to explain how a god helped the astronauts land on the moon. Lets no forget there were many failed tries before they finally landed on the moon successfully.

Besides the concept of the word "god" came from religion,not science. And so far religion hasn't invented anything useful to humans.

moffymichael:


Now, let me enlighten my anti-God scientists with just some simple clarifications.

Science is only bound to the physical planes. All the billions of galaxies, planets, stars etc are all within this plane, of which there are still other planes that does exist that is why scientist will never believe any explanation from another realm, cos its only limited to its own Physical realm.

Now lets assume "GOD" to be an "Unknown factor" (which is logically true to scientists). In the scientific explanation of the theory of evolution, there is always an unknown factor. The "unknown factor" in this context are phenomeons or occurrences that cant be explained by science. For example, the big bang theory holds that the universe evolved from an extremely dense and hot state called the planck epoch, but could not explain the evolution of the planck epoch, that means its an "unknown factor". The unknown factor here represents God which is at infinity and unknown, He has no beginning and has no end.

The formation of the planets, stars and galaxies are just mere obedience of God's commandment. He created the physical plane with just a mere spoken word.

I believe I have made some points to you.

moffymichael:


Now, let me enlighten my anti-God scientists with just some simple clarifications.

Science is only bound to the physical planes. All the billions of galaxies, planets, stars etc are all within this plane, of which there are still other planes that does exist that is why scientist will never believe any explanation from another realm, cos its only limited to its own Physical realm.

Now lets assume "GOD" to be an "Unknown factor" (which is logically true to scientists). In the scientific explanation of the theory of evolution, there is always an unknown factor. The "unknown factor" in this context are phenomeons or occurrences that cant be explained by science. For example, the big bang theory holds that the universe evolved from an extremely dense and hot state called the planck epoch, but could not explain the evolution of the planck epoch, that means its an "unknown factor". The unknown factor here represents God which is at infinity and unknown, He has no beginning and has no end.

The formation of the planets, stars and galaxies are just mere obedience of God's commandment. He created the physical plane with just a mere spoken word.

I believe I have made some points to you.

1feness:

Besides the concept of the word "god" came from religion,not science. And so far religion hasn't invented anything useful to humans.

vooks:


Ignoramus,
What have you so fat invented that is useful to humans? Does that make you worthless?

Christianity is not science of enquiry so not discovering anything is moot. But you should follow modern scientific feats and realize they followed Christianity. Christianity did provide a solid framework for development of science

1feness:

Anything unknown is non-existent until it is known.

As far as we know today,it is impossible for the planet,moon,stars to have a creator. Until further notice,your points are not valid.

Thanks

1feness:


You need to stop being abusive if you want people to take you serious enough to give you a reply.

Judas2013:
hmmm

1feness:


You know what? You just shot yourself on the foot. I asked for evidence,instead you are assuming . You need to tell me how the astronauts landed on the moon with the help of a god.

Science is not bound to the physical,the bible gods were physical and I can give lots of examples and proof they were very much physical

Anything unknown is non-existent until it is known. A Doctor cannot assume a patient have AIDS without running a blood test. I would advice you to stop assuming the unknown since you do not have any shred of knowledge about it.

As far as we know today,it is impossible for the planet,moon,stars to have a creator. Until further notice,your points are not valid.

Thanks

moffymichael:


I believe Mathematics is the foundation of Physics. In Mathematics, When given a word problem, you assume an unknown parameter to be an alphabet so that the problem could be solved. With that seatled, i advise you to re-read my previous post and re-think on it.

1feness:


Talking of Mathematics,I wonder if you do remember how ancient wild men got to know about mathematics. Can you recollect?

As much as I wouldn't want to say too much. I hope you are aware that the bible gods were physical beings? They actually were phyical and not spirits. That's where you got your idea of god from. But actually they were like you and I.

Science is an ancient knowledge that went underground due to religion.

moffymichael:

The gods you were describing above are based on Greek mythology. Those gods are NOT the true god. They are based on myths.

The TRUE GOD is the GOD of the BIBLE. John 4;24 says "God is a SPIRIT and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth".
Let me tell you brother, God is not a man, He is invisible, unsearchable, undescribable. He was not created neither was He created nor born. He has been existing even before the beginning began. He made all things, both visible and invisible.

Sarassin:


The most sensible thing to a thief is to steal. As you can see, your sensibilities are rather subjective.
Like many religious revenants, you have nothing to offer besides a windbag and foul language. Have a nice life.

plaetton:


Lol@ windbag of hot air and foul language.

I thought I was the only one who has taken notice.

That dude is as vacuous as they come.
He is consistently unable to articulate an original idea or argument.
Just meaningless cliche's and ad hominems.

moffymichael:

The gods you were describing above are based on Greek mythology. Those gods are NOT the true god. They are based on myths.

The TRUE GOD is the GOD of the BIBLE. John 4;24 says "God is a SPIRIT and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth".
Let me tell you brother, God is not a man, He is invisible, unsearchable, undescribable. He was not created neither was He created nor born. He has been existing even before the beginning began. He made all things, both visible and invisible.

johnydon22:


Even though i was almost blown off my seat by the stack naivete your questions betrayed i won't mind answering them because i believe no question is dumb, can be bluntly naive but not dumb.

But after this i will like to beg you to pay more minds to scientific materials other than always going over religious books..



This is the first naive question.. There are thousands of planets out there orbitting the habitable zone of their host stars just like the earth.

according to our own Earth Similarity index there are thousands of them that are like earth out there the closest we know for now being kepler 438b..

88% earth's similarity according to earth's scale and with time the certainty of finding even more planets more conducive for life is undeniable..

so please earth is not the only planet that can support life or is even likely to be the only, there are countless numbers of planets in the observable universe.. the only problem is that man lacks the technology it takes to travel such distances.

Nearest star system to ours Alpha centauri A is 4light years away.. I hope you know what 1 light year is..



Lol.. planets can form simultaneously or one after the other.. . Newest observations of planetary formations has 3 proto-planets in formation process..




The much i know most planets in the solar system have relative age suggesting the formation process were simultaneous or close enough.. 4.5± billion in scientific rendering..



Lmao this is the most funny, even though am not a Big bang theorist .. i see the need to answer this to clear the naive impression.

Big Bang according to scientific postulations brought about subatomic and atomic particles which are fundamentals of matter.

so yes our solar system is a young system compared to the age of the universe and i thought it should be an elementary knowledge that Solar systems, galaxies, planets, nebulas, blackholes... are all products of matter ..

so yes scientifically Big bang brought out the solar system not the other way round



hahahahaha am sorry for laughing at this bro but i cant help it.. anyway am sure i have answered you above..

i suggest you pick up basic science materials, you can start from the science section.... Cus this?... Don't really know what to say..



I think you think Big bang means the formation of a solar system.. (this is why i am insisting you start picking up simple science text books)

According to the scientific postulations Big Bang brought about expansion of space/time and ultimately atomic and subatomic particles.


Space/time ..Matter (this includes Galaxies, stars, nebula, planets, asteroids ...etc)





#sighs should i repeat myself over planetary formations



To be honest bro these questions i expect only from primary school students not adults..

one do not really need to believe scientific postulations in order to study, it is understandable that you place your beliefs first but i think you should have studied these things at least for knowing sake because i am awed at these questions.

but like i said, no question is dumb only naive or misplaced..

1feness:


You are talking about yourself then. We are eternal beings in a physical form.

This is pure freemasonry.

sukkot:
[b]see, thats the problem. you mistake allegory for literal. being na-ked is not ' without clothes '. leaving them nak-ed without protection because the LORD was at peace with them.

sukkot:
[b]there is a reward for those who choose right, and tribulation for those who dont. [u] keep in mind we are reincarnated beings[\u]

sukkot:
[b]
..why do meteor showers ( about 500 of them or so ) appear clockwork at different constellation annually ? who programmed it that way ? like the geminid meteor showers come on at 7 december to 17 december, the leonids at 6 november to 30 november etc etc. these are clockwork every-year. who programmed these meteor showers to be clockwork ?

plaetton:


The answers are quite simple.
You should try to do more reading, sire.

Every object in space is pulled in assumes a circular orbit around much bigger objects like planets and stars.
It's gravity.

Therefore, all objects in space, moons, moonlets, star dust, space debris, comets and meteors all have circular orbits around massive celestial bodies.

Some objects like comets have circular or elliptical orbits that take them far beyond our solar system and back every several hundred years.

Therefore, the frequency of comets or meteors depends on their orbital periods( which can be mathematically calculated using a simple formula) .

Do, my friend, when you see the Geminid meteor showers between 7th and 17th as you pointed out, it only means that the orbital swing of those high velocity space rocks brings them to our celestial neighborhood around the second week every December Month.

So, yes, you can say they are programmed, but only by the simple laws of PHYSICS, not by the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any intelligent being out there.

In fact, if I were to hurl your fat cheeks into space at a certain day and at a certain angle, you would quickly establish your own orbit around the earth and appear every Christmas Eve as Santa Claus, black Santa Claus.

very funny lolzzz . but ermmm you believe in that gravity nonsense ? that bullcrap has been proven to be all false.

click on that link and pick whatever video you like. even neil de grasse tyson says that gravity nonsense is a hoax