A big-bang theory gets a big boost: Evidence that vast cosmos was created in split second

[spookyturtle 9,465]

As I've said a million times, the burden of proof should be on the person that believes something exists. Its not on people who don't to prove it doesn't. Those who believe should have to prove existence since its their claim to begin with. Oh course no one has to do anything really as we're all free to think what we want.

So there is a pot of gold at the rainbow's end after all. How can I be so sure? Well, because nobody has ever proven that it isn't there. Following the God argument made here, since nobody has proven that there is no pot of gold at the rainbow's end, it must positively be there. The faithful should go and pick it up seeing how absent any proof that there is no pot of gold they must be 100% positive that it is indeed there. And yet, none are going. Odd, ain't it?

It proves that God, unicorns, elves and Santa Claus exist in the same realm.

God hating, liberal, anti Walmart, commie, rumpswab anti gun nuts.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

God hating, liberal, anti Walmart, commie, rumpswab anti gun nuts.

You rang?

[GandD 5,966]

God hating, liberal, anti Walmart, commie, rumpswab anti gun nuts.

[JohnR! 5,495]

God hating, liberal, anti Walmart, commie, rumpswab anti gun nuts.

That would be Dr.God hating, liberal, anti Walmart, commie, rumpswab anti gun nuts.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

It took six days for God to configure and push the big bang button. He rested on the seventh day.

Edited March 21, 2014 by ExExpat

[Operator 1,927]

Please provide a link to that rule. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Schrödinger's_cat

In some ways I think this applies:

Relational interpretation[edit]

The relational interpretation makes no fundamental distinction between the human experimenter, the cat, or the apparatus, or between animate and inanimate systems; all are quantum systems governed by the same rules of wavefunction evolution, and all may be considered "observers". But the relational interpretation allows that different observers can give different accounts of the same series of events, depending on the information they have about the system. ^{The cat can be considered an observer of the apparatus; meanwhile, the experimenter can be considered another observer of the system in the box (the cat plus the apparatus). Before the box is opened, the cat, by nature of it being alive or dead, has information about the state of the apparatus (the atom has either decayed or not decayed); but the experimenter does not have information about the state of the box contents. In this way, the two observers simultaneously have different accounts of the situation: To the cat, the wavefunction of the apparatus has appeared to "collapse"; to the experimenter, the contents of the box appear to be in superposition. Not until the box is opened, and both observers have the same information about what happened, do both system states appear to "collapse" into the same definite result, a cat that is either alive or dead.}

Edited March 21, 2014 by Operator

[B_J 2,752]

How so? Yes there are devout fundamentalist believers, and then there are the majority out there that believe in God the modern way, by either actually knowing very little about the Bible and Biblical claims, or when they are more knowledgeable simply deploy the 'it isn't literal' dodge.

You stated:

I understand the old dodge that the Bible is not to be taken literally, but it has to be understood that is really a modern way to stay a believer despite the many glaring problems with the book,

The question of whether the Bible and, more specifically the Old Testament, is literal or allegorical has been around for many years. It is in no way a modern way to dodge anything. The practice of allegorical writing is nothing new. It did exist in early times and it is certainly possible that some, most, or all of the Bible is allegorical. Try to be more open minded and a little less condescending.

[GandD 5,966]

Please provide a link to that rule. Thanks.

Please provide link to God. Thanks.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Please provide link to God. Thanks.

That link can only be provided by the individual.

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

Where can I purchase some of that?

Heard about it...never read it ..never seen it. I suppose that might have to get on the calendar...?

Why, at Milliways, of Course !

Okay...I need to catch up ..huh.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Some quality debating in here.

...

And I posted this in the wrong thread.

Nevermind.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Penny Lane

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

So there is a pot of gold at the rainbow's end after all. How can I be so sure? Well, because nobody has ever proven that it isn't there. Following the God argument made here, since nobody has proven that there is no pot of gold at the rainbow's end, it must positively be there. The faithful should go and pick it up seeing how absent any proof that there is no pot of gold they must be 100% positive that it is indeed there. And yet, none are going. Odd, ain't it?

Suicide is verboten.

[Operator 1,927]

Some quality debating in here.

...

And I posted this in the wrong thread.

Nevermind.

Penny you seem very dis-heartened today and you are really bringing me down.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Suicide is verboten.

Suicide? I'm not talking about suicide. It's about the literal pot of gold which has in this thread been proven to be at the rainbow's end.

[GandD 5,966]

That link can only be provided by the individual.

Rats