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.

Yes, indeed. The cat plans to leave some of you cryptocreos mousy attempts at an argument well chewed and dead on the doorstep, Tanya.
Unless, of course, you squeal for protection to your beloved authority before the killing started.

Sorry, Macca. Your still sound all twisted and garbled. In the original you asked the cat to share your credulity as to the possibility of an atom being created out of nothing. You though provided no reason the moggy should become as credulous a cryptocreo as you are.Now you suggest the Cheshire's vision is impaired as he cannot see the colour of the creation event you believe in together with Mr. Hawking and prevaricating cretin Krauss. The cat can indeed neither visualise nor conceptualise such a possibility alleged by these luminaries of popphyz.He takes it you claim to see the colour of the purported event. Can you tell the public how exactly do you conceptualise the creation of something from nothing?
What is it exactly do you see in your mind's eye?

Blue, have you really studied big-bangism? Are you aware of the articles of your cryptocreo faith?
Something expanding into something else is not what that religion claims is happening, if you don't know that. What you claim is something unknown expanding into an equally mysterious pre-existing volume. Your religion, on the other hand, states that it is space itself that is expanding. Nothing pre-exists the process so it is expanding into nothing is your teaching you ignorantly defend.
Try this. It explores the fallacies your religion is based on:
http://www.redshift.vif.com/...lFiles/V10NO1PDF/V10N1ANT.pdf

You disappoint the cat, Dogma. He's been holding you for the least brainwashed among the cryptocreo crowd here. And now you come out with this.Do you reckon the Popes' education is inferior to that of the popphyz Pope Hawking? They know good Latin, his mouth crunches inferior maths. Try Nicholas of Cusa if you want to hear someone speaking that language with proper accent.
Granted he can write a bit of English about turtles and holes. That is, mostly about nothing. Brief history of history.
Face it, that is no reason to take his pronouncements more seriously than that of the pontiff. And face it, the Pope endorses Hawking and Hawking endorses, the Pope. They keep each other in their respective jobs, so need one another. Hawking leaves pre-bang mystery to the Pope, the Pope leaves Hawking alone to spew the post-bang nonsense. Division of labour among the popes.

Taq, those m or peabrain propositions are all crypto-dtching of the big bunk nonsense. For to collide is a verb describing an event resulting from a motion of well-existing objects relative to each other. That contradicts the idea of the space-time creating bang as all motion implies space to be well there already and could be well measured in time. The branes must travel some distances before colliding, you know. That excludes any creations, expansion of the universe as a whole, etc.
Turns the bunk into a non-event. That the mpeabrains themselves are purely imaginary and impossible entities is another matter.

That is an irrational expectation on your part, Vatican. You are asking what is the source of all existence. To be a source is impossible without existing first. The universe is trapped onto itself irrevocably. That is the only possible conclusion.

Oni, it is you who needs some schooling not the cat. Articles of faith is an expression. It means the sets of beliefs in a faith. Nothing to do with newspaper or magazine articles. Tenets would be a synonym.
Otherwise your advice is stupid. Both the cat and the author of the essay in the link studied bigbangism in fine mathemagical detail so are able to translate its absurdities into plain English.
Which is what you should do too, instead of ignorantly crapping at the mouth.
Hit the books, Oni.

You evade fleshing out you conception of creation of a single atom from pure nothing, Macca. Tell the audience how it's done. What is the physical mechanism apart from your second-hand crypto-creo faith?

Hiding in denial behind the dictionary, Inadequate cryptocreo? Impossible, you silly mouse. The cat has come to drag you out of your hiding hole.
The dictionary says usually not always. Which is more and which is less usual is an opinion anyway. Open to debate. The point is your cryptocreo faith is based on the same principles. Genesis is ascribing an age to time and so are you. You reckon the difference in magnitudes of the duration given by Genesis and that given by you counts for anything? 6000 is different in principle from 13.7 billion you think? Who are you fooling, Inadequate?

What are you insinuating here? Are you insinuating that only seminary students are capable of understanding and analysing the claims made in the scriptures and the commentaries to them? Are you hinting Latin is a must? Are you fluent in the mathemagical scripts yourself? Do you get the finer mathemagical points of Kerr or of no-hair theorem?
Listen, Constantin Antonopoulos is an expert analyser of bigbangist mathemagical nonsense. Almost as good as Bill Gaede. If you propose their awareness of the tenets of the bigbangist scriptures is somehow lacking and some finer details known to you are missing, you need to specify which are the details that are missing from their minds and are present in yours.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

I am sorry, Blue, but what is exactly that singularity you are claiming to be something and in what way it is different from pure nothing? In the quackademic descriptions this is a putative entity of zero dimensions and size. An entity of zero size occupies no volume and it does not take any time to occupy no volume. Does not exist if translated in plain English. The quacks add infinite density, temperature, curvature and mass to the putative characteristics of the alleged primordial monster.
Unfortunately, the morons fail to demonstrate anything other than their total ignorance of elementary physics and arithmetic. Their chutzpah is so great that they are blaming their idiocy on the laws of physics allegedly breaking at the point of their inane fantasies. The cretins fool nobody but the masses of gullible apes needed to be persuaded of the nonsense in order to finance their grants and tenures.Any mass is a finite measurement being a relation to all other objects in existence. A purported singularity may possess no mass being singular and unrelated to anything else by definition. Temperature is the density of objects in chaotic motion. Any motion requires room to occur and other objects in respect to which the objects could possibly move. Therefore the singularity may measure no temperature or density or exhibit any other properties it takes an object to exist. Singularity may not exist other than on a piece of a quackalogical paper. Sorry, Blue, to inform you about that. It is exactly that pure nothing that does not exist.

You miss the point, Inadequate. Usual here may have a historical significance only. It was usual before the advent of the modern quackademic consensus-nonsensus cosmogony. After the quackademics absorbed and adopted the ex nihilo creationism of Genesis into their big bunk cosmogony the meaning of usual somewhat changed. After the founder of the quackery teaching- Lemaitre- globally Genesis type of creationism is much less usual than its bigbangist variation. That is the situation in the modern world now. Face it, blaming it on my alleged madness, stupidity or trollage cannot change anything. You are being vocal in defending the creationist quackery, are firmly in denial about it so are listed as a crypto-creo by the feline.

So far it is me who is not returning most of your calls here. You seem to be stalking here. Going around disliking my every post, hey? Posting nothing yourself but insinuations? What's that all about? Got any arguments to defend your crypto-creo bigbangist faith? Come on, don't be shy. Out with them or get off the pot, Pandita.

Constructing a legend, Pandita? So far you ain't abandoning me with your sneaky loaded questions tactics.
That's how your grant-fed peer-review if we pat each other's backs, we can quack like drakes and ducks quasi religion operates. You are illustrating it nicely. Denigrate the debunker by all means, evade the issue completely, continue slurping at the trough as if nothing happened is the recipe. Soon your time will be up with this, kiddo.