Summations Only

However, the problem with you is that you're too dumb to either use the English language or understand it.For this reason, I would suggest that you're rather wasting your time on a discussion board, which is by its nature verbal. Your handicap makes meaningful participation beyond your grasp.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Sorry, Inadequate. Handicap is entirely yours. Nothing to do with me. You and your crypto-creo buddies here got re-defined by the cat according to strict criteria of science. Namely, the claim of conceptualising of a single atom or the collection of all atoms in existence being created out of nothing or the rejection of such a concept.That is just calling a spade a spade and you and your buddies here are now fretting and fuming about my lack of equivocations. Just face the music, Doc. No denial is possible. The quote from Hawking sums his, yours and you whole lot's ideological foundations nicely up. The cat is out for the kill and there is nowhere to run and hide for you crypto-creo mice.Evidence is plenty in front of the judge. Remember the title of the cretin Krauss's book? Universe from nothing if your memory needs a nudge. What was the concept of the open creationist Lemaitre? Primordial atom from nothing, I remind you again.

Sorry, Nuke, neither your mousy squeals for help nor the claims to be an innocent victim of the cat's abuse ain't fooling the judge and jury any.The problem with this board and similar places is identified and that the topic of the thread. Not what you squeal it is.
If the debate here is between Behe and Dawkins, the situation is that those two have a problem with each other. The problem with them both is though that neither of them has any problem with Hawking cited in the OP. That is a grave problem for biology identified. Deal with it, Nuke.

Thank you, Inadequate and Pandita for your heart-felt and misplaced concern about the moggy's health.
The Cheshire is feeling very good playing with you crypto-creo mice. He is right in his frolicking element, thank you again.

Exist had to be stressed three times since you keep insinuating the verb describes what the nothing does. Nothing does nothing, Vatican.
You've got a grave problem with definitions.
Try this:
03DefinitionOtherwise what is exactly the contribution of bigbangism to progress and science that you are hinting at? The cat is aware of none. Enlighten the moggy if you can.

Serge, come on - you're not supposed to admit it ! Schoolboy error !

Now I see that you mice can play as the cat is away from the big bunk and cosmogony section. Without any rational challenge from the cat you can now exchange tall tales about the Universe being the size of a tennis ball. Fantasize away, mice!!
You are claiming there that bigbangism counts eighty years of contributions to the human understanding under its belt?
I tell you what. The cat is from Russia and when he was a kitten the bigbangism accidentally did not square well with the prevailing dogma. It did not hurt neither any science nor any technology. The practical astronomy faired very well.
The leading astronomer was Ambartsumian whose idea were very similar to those of Arp denigrated by the pigs like yourselves. Amburtsumian himself had sat in a course of lectures by the Cheshire's granddad who would not have any time for any tennis ball nonsense being a practical astronomer and so on.As to the dark energy and butter and its contributions to the human understanding of the Universe, you lot should try this:
Report On The Current Status of The Standard Cosmological Model | PDF | Redshift | Apparent Magnitude

To admit what? The cat ain't got nothing to hide.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!{abe}
In the expectation that you fail to understand: I am laughing AT you, not with you.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Pandita, the paucity of you lot's arguments is conspicuous and is well noted by the feline. Vatican is the only one who is at least trying to say anything coherent in you lot's defence. It's not his fault nothing but sophistry is coming out. Bill Gaede is out for the kill too. He certainly may be the last to laugh.
In the meantime, go contribute your two cents on what was the pressure when the whole of existence was the size of a tennis ball.

Wrong again. The Big Bang Theory never has nothingness existing and doesn't rely on nothingness for anything. Its not even mentioned. You are the one who relies on it for your own brand of creationism, as you've admitted: Message 47We don't debate by link. If there's anything there worth anything, then describe it here in your own words.

Why would we want to discuss anything with you, when you have clearly left reality behind.
Your grasp of English is far greater than your grasp of physics but, unfortunately, your grasp of English is poor and your grasp of reality has slipped completely.That link you provided is an embarrassment.
But the fact you think it is credible proves that you are beyond help.We are simply here responding to your trolling in whatever way we feel like.
You will keep spouting your nonsense and we will continue to treat it with the contempt it deserves.But, on the plus side, you can pretend that we are replacements for all the friends that you drove away.
We will give you the attention that you sorely need!!
Unfortunately, we don't give a shit about you.

I was wondering the same thing, which makes your 9 posts in this thread rather curious.

Reading is your friend...