Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9072 total)
606 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, kjsimons, nwr, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (6 members, 600 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,121 Year: 4,233/6,534 Month: 447/900 Week: 153/150 Day: 7/16 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Earn £££s...
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 7 of 11 (633446)
09-14-2011 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Panda
09-02-2011 11:00 AM


Photos, or it did not happen.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Panda, posted 09-02-2011 11:00 AM Panda has seen this message

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 8 of 11 (634132)
09-19-2011 2:34 PM


Test

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by AZPaul3, posted 09-19-2011 8:36 PM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 10 of 11 (634233)
09-20-2011 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by AZPaul3
09-19-2011 8:36 PM


Re: Result

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by AZPaul3, posted 09-19-2011 8:36 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022