Summations Only

Not so. We have the fossils. We win:

Tangle, you are entangled again..When you write..Prof Hawking reckons the universe was inevitable because of the law of gravity. Leaving the obvious question hanging.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I'm not sure we're capable of understanding it, or even why we should be.(end of your inevitable quote)Prof Hawkings is a pure theorists and hardly to be honored except by evolutionists and dreamers, for as you notice, Hawking uses the semantic word twisting of ineveitable.Inevitable suggest time, the direction of time, so that inevitably something should happen....if gicen enough shakes of the dice etc etc or enough luck and chance. Inevitable is word play, its demented evolution once again.For if that logic of time is upheld by evolutionists and confirmed by Hawkings it means laws have evolved, and were not created at one time.This is the logic of evolution a slow change in time that inevitably happens.Therefore evolutionists are again confused...and their explanations even by their professors of their religion get mixed up and word twist time.Some evolutionists here say that laws just existed, and were just observed, but now Hawkings states that these laws were inevitable..... as if they inevitably needed to exist to bring all things together.Creationism wins again, evolution by profs make no sense again.Come on evolutionists get your council of churches together and all of you speak the same thing, or at least close to one another.Did laws evolve like Hawkings suggests inevitably' or did they just exist by creation by design.Jesus the Creator and Great Scientists wins again, evolutionists lose again.

Could you do us all a favour and learn how to use quotes?
[qs] to open
[/qs] to closeWell I am for sure, and so, I imagine, is everybody else. We don't know this stuff and very few people are capable of making any sense of it. But we also don't make shit up just because we don't understand it.And by-the-way, Hawking is not an "evolutionist".Edited by Admin, : Change ps to qs.

And while you are at it Davidjay, also learn how to use the spelling/grammar checks that are built into your browser. It's difficult enough to wade through his nonsensical blather; the least he could do is at least make his posts resemble something that a 3rd grader could produce.Edited by Admin, : Change ps to qs.

You ask too much. Correct spelling and grammar will never improve his nonsensical blather. You are talking about a bloke who is completely daft and who can barely read, let alone talk.He started a thread about the "Laws of the Universe" but he cannot list any of them, let alone tell us what they say and what that means.

Do we have to explain even basic scientific nomenclature to you?
Theories don't grow up to be laws. Laws and Theories are totally different things. Since I know you will not bother to do the basic research to understand the difference I will spoon feed you the information. But I am quite certain you will not bother to read and understand the information.Coyote and I had a short thread on the definitions you seem to be unwilling to learn.
Logical fallacy poster

quote:

---

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.
A simple analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.
A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.
An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.
A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

---

Plenty of data and a link there.
Maybe you might even try to learn something.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Do laws evolve evolutionists ? Yes or No, and explain !Your previous answers all, seem to say, NO they were just HERE from the BEGINNING. Because as the vast majority of you state, evolution only deals with living things after they were alive.....Hence evolutionists when outside of the field of biology have no aplications for their luck and chance theory thathey deem a LAW.So come on evolutionists prove or at least one of you explain how laws evolved. One of you come up with the guts to say, laws have evolved. Be courageous and step out of the shadows and help out your struggling congregation, and state, laws evolved.Because what you are stating HEREIN evolutionists is that laws did not evolve and were CREATED harmonious from the BEGINNING, exactly the same a s Creationists believe.But you say it is by luck and chance, but we say its by design of the DESIGNER.A lawgiver can give laws, is a rational logical statment, but laws being created by chance all at once is irrational, illogical and unscientific.Creation wins, evolution loses again

As I suspected you decided not to take the chance to educate yourself on the subject. Your response has nothing to do with my post, all it is is word salad and preaching. When you actually want to discuss the subject let me know.

Im Here, and the subject is, did laws evolve. Please answer and explain your theory.I have, now you get educated and take any position you choose or that was taught you in worldly forced indocrination. Not a problem......PST..evolutionists are so afraid of answering questions concerning their faith, and suggest people should just study their faith, even though in this case, they say their biological evolution has nothing to say about what already existed in the BEGINNING.These evolutionists are strange... but they are very good at complaining about others who do not accept their faith.

What do you mean by that question? What would evolution of a law look like?A law is a summary of what we observe, so as we make new observations the summary of those observations may be amended. Would you call that evolution?

This is silly.. How could one have faith observing natural phenomenon? That would be like saying I have faith in rain.But, if you insist on calling evolutionist a religion does this mean I could be tax exempt? If so.. Praise the lard!Edited by Porosity, : No reason given.

You evolutionists get a job because you are part of the worldly system, as you eliminate the competition by force and intimidation.You are hired by corporations for profit sake and for nationalistic sake, as universities are not there to teach truths but to provide workers for corporations, and money for themelves.So give unto Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar, so go pay your taxes to your god and the image of the coins you receive.SEE and study Revelation 13 Economics thread.BACK to the TOPICPST>>why cant evolutionists stick to the topic ? I know, they dont know the answer or answers or have any idea about the topic.Creation **** again

So you admit that you're just preaching.GTFO with that crap.

You're the one who isn't answering his posts.

Yes, I am a science type and not ;iterary type, I prefered going into nature, and the great outdoors, or playing golf, basketball, or baseball rather than reading and being a GEEK.Yup I am a pecker, as I hated having to pay someone to type upf my essays and thesises etc. etc.... and boy can I peck, just ask the girls.Selah, FULL STOP...... after this climaxAnd as any true biologist knows, the FIRST LAW of Biology of the Creator, was be fruitful and multiply... this I learned even though it came naturally, and I reproduced or carried on his commandment to multiply. I learned to add and then multiply, with help from my helpmate, ..... co-creators like us all, from the original DESIGN.Thats the LAW of the Universe, but it takes a mature audience to discuss, and so lets not discuss it HERE.I win again, and have answered you and added to the discussion.Evolutionists dont know the REPRODUCTION LAWS let alone the laws of the UNIVERSE. They know no design, and see nothing but luck and chance, which is why they are blind.Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.