Summations Only

I propose in this thread that I am the one and only non-creationist in this forum. That is simple. I cannot conceive a single atom to be created out of nothing or being turned into nothing. An atom that exists could only be relatively absent in a relative location or it may change its form, split or fuse with other atoms if it is present there. Creation is absolutely impossible in any way, shape or form. Nothing is new but all is only newly reconfigured in ways that are rather old is the only rational position possible in my view.The others on this site I divide into two groups. The majority of cryptic creationists who are firmly in denial. And the minority of open creationists ridiculed and bullied by the majority of those firmly in denial about their creationism.I might have overlooked someone who is also an open non-creationist here, and if such is the case, then the cat owes them an apology. They are welcome to come out.
Open creationists get some respect from the feline for being open. Also being in minority gets some sympathy by default. Besides since bigbangism is a far greater violation of reason than open creationism,- after all, open creationists propose an object they call God, however inconceivable, while bigbangists do not suggest anything but pure nothing as the ultimate source of not just one but all the atoms in existence, the open creationists have some advantage on logical grounds. While the cryptic ones deserve ridicule only for being in such an absurd denial.
Denial is impossible and here is the testimony from the horse's mouth:
Mr. Hawking is the idiot idol of the cryptic lot and this is his position in his own words all here are invited to justify or deny: "Since there is such a law as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself out of nothing."Enough said.Since that is free for all now, anybody is free to demonstrate they are not creationists cryptic or otherwise or defend their creationism before the Cheshire who will analyse and evaluate all the claims staked to such a position.
Thank you.

Thread copied here from the The one and only non-creationist in this forum. thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

If anyone here is cryptic then you must be at the top of the list.If I were to respond to you in kind then I would say something like, 'The Cheshire cat plays the muse well in wonderland but does not have enough substance to make it past the door and back to reality. Imagined to exist, the little pussy is forever disappearing.'Equating the knowledge held by a theoretical physicist with the 'knowledge held' by a religious creationist is absurd. Hawking's conclusions are not at all like the Pope's.Separating your position from the rest of the forum is appropriate but I think that you have the labels wrong.While some of your questions and points seem valid to me, there is no conspiracy and you are not a cat.

What do you suggest is the ultimate source of the atoms?

All your posts here boil down to insults based on arguments from incredulity.In contrast, Hawking can show us his work.Please show us yours.

Oh Great! Now he's going to be leaving dead mice on the doorstep.

Improvement.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

I am with you on that one. I fully agree that the Big Bang was caused by something, be it the collision of M-branes or some other theory yet to be constructed.

So "non-creationist" means you have a particular conceptual deficiency? Like "colourblind" means you have a particular vision deficiency?Okay, you might very well be the only one here with that specific deficiency.Edited by ringo, : Fixed garbled logic.

You're missing out a whole category of cat. The Manx.Those of us that know that there is no tale.(Yes I know)

Imagine the quandry a pet store owner was in when one of his kittens suffered an unfortunate accident, and lost its tail.What could he do?He couldn't wholesale the poor creature, nor could he retail it!

You both deserve to be pun-ished.

"Pure nothing" cannot be a source, as a source is something. The Big Bang is the rapid expansion of something not yet understood into something else.

Sure thing. I do not hold this view. So I am not a creationist.The fact that I disagree with you does not make me a creationist, because that isn't what "creationist" means. And it is unnecessary to try to hijack it for this purpose, since there is already a word for people who disagree with you.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.