 |
Duration: 09:07 minutes
Upload Time: 2007-04-25 19:04:31
User: powerstone2
:::: Favorites
:::: Top Videos of Day
|
Description:
This video shows why science follows naturalism in order to further our understanding of science. You'll see that intelligent design is both unscientific and purely impossible.
|
Comments |
newexperiment ::: Favorites
your vods are cool, your choice in music sucks.
07-09-25 21:53:43
__________________________________________________ |
XGralgrathor ::: Favorites
One would - according to one theory - perhaps be more accurate to say that time *did not* begin. Hawking stated some years ago (I think it was in his 'no boundary' boundary proposal) that there in fact was not singular time t=0 at which the universe came into being. In stead, one could see the beginning of the universe as the spot where a line touches a circle: t->0, but not t=0.
07-09-23 15:35:39
__________________________________________________ |
philip1201 ::: Favorites
Beaver ghost? lol!
07-09-03 14:48:11
__________________________________________________ |
JohnDeBunkTest ::: Favorites
The only reason Creationists are now blathering on about physics and origins is that this scientific study is as yet incomplete. We have several theoretical possibilities and need more accurate data to understand our universe origin. Soon however, the creationists will be as stumped in Physics as they are in biology.
07-08-29 04:34:49
__________________________________________________ |
seanboy360 ::: Favorites
"Time began at a fixed point." Does that mean that whatever made the universe and time was unmade/uncaused or are there an infinite regress of causes? To my understanding, if something BEGINS to exist it had to have been made by something.
07-08-28 16:16:12
__________________________________________________ |
JohnDeBunkTest ::: Favorites
Apparently you think an origin that does not explain the origin is ok. It isn't. If God is the origin of the universe, then what origin does God have?
The three leading theories in Physics show mathematically that time began at a fixed point about 13 billion years ago. The precise origin parameters vary in each theory, and we need more information to discriminate between them. Each accepted theory remains compatible with all observations, and as deity fails this test, it is rejected.
07-08-21 22:44:58
__________________________________________________ |
Mekelsior ::: Favorites
JohnDeBunkTest: It appears you do not understand the question, or refuse to answer it, that is your choise. Claiming that a diety does not explain the origin is false, science is the one that fail to explain it as of now. Anyway, again, I have not asked about a diety, I have asked, wether or not there was something in the beginning or if there was nothing. Gee is that so hard to answer? :)
07-08-21 03:18:41
__________________________________________________ |
JohnDeBunkTest ::: Favorites
Mekelsior the origin of things does not require a deity, and deity fails to explain origin unless you can explain the origin of the deity.
Once again, I see no value in giving physics lessons to anyone who is not sufficiently interested to do their homework.
07-08-20 09:01:57
__________________________________________________ |
Mekelsior ::: Favorites
John: If you can give me an example of where Nothing has Created something, Id be thrilled. If you cannot then perhaps you should refrain from using bad examples? And in all seriousness, you have not debunked or mentioned anything that would even answer my question. And again, I am after the logic behind your reasoning. If that is indeed what you are using, and not simply accepting the massmedias perspective?
07-08-20 07:13:28
__________________________________________________ |
Mekelsior ::: Favorites
John: If you belive that I try to prove a deity that does not exist by using physics, then you are indeed mistaken. Now that you say that a deity does not exist, then perhaps you should prove it, or perhaps choose different words? Since you cannot know neither. All I try to do, is make you answer a rather simple question, but obviously that is beyond your understanding? In any event, perhaps you should read some physics or basic calculus? Instead of avoiding the question at hand.
07-08-20 07:10:05
__________________________________________________ |
