Summations Only

As you keep saying: you have no-one - not one friend.
You are alone with your madness.

Well there you go: welcome to being a creationist. You've now said it yourself that pure nothingness is the source of the universe.

It just requires a timeline outside of our universe's timeline. That's it. Problem solved.

So you still do not understand what clause the word "usually" is qualifying in the definition of "creationism"?It's the clause that it begins.It appears that your problems with the English language prevent not only you from writing it yourself, but also from understanding it when you read it.

Hi Oni!I think you're putting a ridiculously strict definition on the meaning of learning, and looking at things in black and white. How much of an understanding? A 100% thorough one? A 101 class level? 408? This seems to imply some magical threshold of familiarity with a subject, below which you can learn nothing from an article, and beyond which you do. Let's say you read an article that introduces 3 facts or concepts that are new to you. You understand very well what 2 of them are about, but 1 is quite over your head. Have you learned nothing? What if you "get" just 1 out of 10? Still nothing?I think that the potential for learning from an article is a matter of degrees. It depends very much on the relative knowledge of the reader, the level of technical detail in the article, the way in which its ideas are presented, and the number of ideas that are new to the reader. It seems silly to suppose that for any given article and reader, you can stamp the experience with "learned it" or "learned nothing".Now, I get what you're saying in the context of all the bull coming from Alfred here, but I disagree with your use of absolutes to describe the process of learning. It sounds like ivory tower talk to me.

To be fair, that isn't what Alf meant. He didn't mean nothing as in no matter or energy; He was saying that there is no need to claim existence had a source or cause, that it has always existed in one form or another.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

How do you mean a timeline outside our universe? I am afraid you mix time-lines with clothes-lines. Time-lines are lines on the universal map of motion. Clothes-lines you can indeed put outside and to hang your laundry to dry on them.
You re-ify time together with the quacks in authority who indoctrinated you to do so. Time is just human abstraction of motion, not a thing. There is no inside and outside time. Time is a relative measure of distance. Also the universe is not a virus like the quacks would love you believe. It does not multiply or take plural. To do so the Universe needs a special place. And the only special place with the right conditions for such is the head of a moron.

You are eager the feline joins your crypto-creo club, Vatican? You need to employ more sophistry to cajole the moggy into entering your institution. Do you have bigbangist rituals there? Do Pandita and Inadequate dance around the statue of the Holy Black Hole? Anyway, send the cat your crypto-creo card just in case.

Are you familiar with the term, "troll?"If not, you should be as your posts resemble nothing more than trolling.

The only problem with English language or any other tongue is its abuse by the crypto-creos like crtetin Krauss and the rest of clanking Nobel lorries and fizzy sissies.
You need to be schooled in rigour of definitions first, Inadequate.
Try this:
http://www.redshift.vif.com/...lFiles/V10NO1PDF/V10N1GAE.pdf

First off, there's no reason to be fair to Alf. He is a liar and a cheater and relies on unfairness for his arguments to work, which I will exemplify. And just like that, the Big Bang Theory has the Universe existing at all points in time. It too does not posit a source or cause for the Universe. But, Alf chastizes the "Bigbangists" for claiming that nothing is the source of the Universe. However, in order for that argument to hold up, he must be positing that something is the source of the Universe. It turns out that he also does not propose that something is the source of the Universe so therefore he must be agreeing with the "Bigbangist" that there wasn't anything that is the source, i.e. that nothing is the source.His argument relies on conflating "not-something" with "nothing". And then he tries to ridicule the opposition by saying that nothing couldn't cause something. But that's not what the Big Bang theory suggests.He's not interested in advancing or providing any knowledge, he's simply content with just trying to discredit and eliminate what we do know. For those reasons, he is not entitled to any kind of "fairness" whatsoever. And me pointing out the inconsistancy of his argument, regardless of it falling on his intentionally deaf ears, is all I can hope to do for the other people who are reading this thread.

Sorry, Vatican, your sophist tricks fool nobody. It is correct that the priests of bigbunkism claim that the existence existed at every point of what the quacks call the existing time. You forget they also claim that time itself is a finite thing that has a relative age or duration. So the quacks' claim is the Universe existed only all the time Time and Space existed and not any longer. Which is not always according to the quackery as the precise value of the alleged relative length is given. Namely, 13.7 billion years.

Well, you're right. Instead, it elucidates those who are smart enough to comprehend it. Wow, you're too stupid to avoid conjugating the verb 'to exist' more than three times in one sentence? Sure, but unfortunately for you, your sophistry in lying about what the Big Bang theory postulates has absolutley no effect on scientific progress that is being made in this field of study. You'll forever be constrained to the unconsidered arena of retardeness that has no influence on the actual advancement of real science. You'll forever be qualmed into the status of stupid morons.

The point of this thread is for posters to post science to which the OP can respond with his particular brand of abuse without being suspended. That abuse is the entire point of the thread. The standard for who makes a point here is whatever Alfred says constitutes making a point. If Alfred wants to base his critique on whether some word that describes a person, place, or thing, is or isn't a noun, well so be it. If the standard for review is to misrepresent whatever science is posted, well so be that too. If the standard for review is full of inconsistencies, well if that's what Alfred wants, that's the way it is.Further, the holes in Alfred's own preferred scenarios really aren't on topic, which is whether under Alfred's standards, conventional cosmology is less worthy of Alfred's respect than creationism. This thread is the ghetto in which Mr. Maddenstein is allowed to post his tangentially scientific ideas on EvC. Real science can now be discussed, without at least one source of distraction, in the science fora. This thread is for other stuff entirely.Of course, most of you all knew all of that already.