Re: Exaggeration reigns supreme!

On Dec 24, 1:30 pm, Primary AL <aavery6...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 23, 11:53 pm, coaster <coaster...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Dec 23, 9:58 pm, Primary AL <aavery6...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Exaggeration reigns supreme! The Christian/Taliban demand it! God
demands it! We want religion printed as science! Show me these
articles. What bull excrement.

It's not the humble scientist that stinks up the scientific landscape.
It is the young angry Atheist (or older retarded version) ripping away
from a shame based environment fueled and sustained by resentment and
hatred of the past.

He is an editorialist with a degree in Biology (or GED supplemented
with good ganja) masquerading as an authority, leaning on Developed
Evolutionary Theory, overstepping his bounds with ignorant non
scientific statements about the size and age of the universe, flavored
with factual smugness regarding absolute non need for universal
intelligent design bias* of any kind, to the embarrassment of most
scientists in and out of the study. The emotional purpose here is to
prop up and bring credibility to a hopeful, gleeful, all freeing,
final, reducible outcome of oneness!! The final answer!!--Freedom
from wonderment! (presumptuousness we once thought was reserved for
Pentecostals.)

*Facilitating a terminally stupid random universe with no intrinsic,
no inherent, capacity for anything constructive....(except for
gravitational power properties and adaptive symetrical atomic
structure and immutable all conforming light properties, resulting in
mass characteristics and capacities well developed within of (the big
bang.)

It's really big children and theres no God. -And it's a billion rears
old, no two billion, no 6 billion, no 10 billion no 14
billion .......no.....idea.

your writing style is psychotic.

Your consciousness is narcoleptic. What you consider normal in the
face of ultimate reality perspective may be woefully inadequate. (and
appears so already)

No, your writing style *is psychotic.


Are you suggesting the estimated age of the universe was pulled out of
some militant atheist's ass for the sake of smiting religion?

You said that, not I. I think it is what you honestly believe
though.....i.e. Just because a number estimation was generated with an
arduous amount of work doesn't make the number correct, and regarding
infinite space (logical progression assumption; What's before the big
bang? What facilitated its manifestation? What was before that? What's
outside the universe? What's out side that? -4 year old questions) the
work one does on a macro level in this arena may always be futile and
of ZERO net net humane benefit.

Actually, these answers come not only from much hard thinking but also
from much hard data. It is telling that you don't mention evidence.

Sometimes the correct answer to a question is "I don't know". Saying
otherwise when you don't have the data doesn't actually mean you know.
It simply means that you will never know if your wild guess is
anywhere close to the mark.


A attempt to ascertain a value, in certain amount, of what something
observed in infinity past is, (which hasn't existed for 14 billion
years) is like square dancing backwards in a squirrel cage on a
government funded slippery slope with Hans Christian Anderson dress in
the finest attire, providing the outfits, and, mud. Understand? Ya
follow?

No. And what's sad is, neither do you. What are these images supposed
to convey? Are they tortured analogies of some kind?


Math implodes as we get nearer to the beginning of time.

One plus one does not equal two?

Why? Because
the math no longer exists when fodder for measurements run out. Why?
Because No mass, no light, no speed, and no space = No energy (nothing
to measure)x(nothing to measure) squared or cubed or whatever.

There was energy immediately. Who thinks there wasn't? A millionth of
a second after the BB, there was space, mass, light, speed.


Zero, when multiplied by its quotient is a difficult environment for
anything to become more or less than zero. Every *** playing this
game knows it, yet their Grant Promoters continue to provide
hoodwinking services for them, thusly once removing the "good guy"
from the loop of deceptive aggressive practices. Inversely, it's like
comfortably eating a hamburger while proclaiming the abhorrence of
personally being involved in the slaughter of a cow. There will be no
protest here on the part of the consumer of the goods. Understand?
Understand?

Hmm. You seem to be saying that since you don't understand math,
science is full of people who aren't smart enough to explain it to
you. Is that what you're getting at?

If I'm wrong, then I'm afraid that I don't understand you at all. I
wasn't, for instance, aware that zero had a quotient, or that
multiplying zero by anything creates an environment of any kind. Nor
do I see the antecedent for your "this game".

Kermit

.