On 11-11-18 05:15 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
On 18 Nov 2011 at 05:40, Robert Cummings<robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
without a proof it's just farts in the wind :) No more valid than a
theory of creation or the big ass spaghetti thingy majingy dude. Folded
The "theory" of creation is not a theory. It's a hypothesis, as is "scientific creationism".
From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:
Hypothesis - Synonyms: theory, proposition, supposition, thesis
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis
Thus before the big bang
is perfectly valid whether we could perceive it or not.
Not really. It's as meaningless as asking what's north of the North Pole.
No, this is a false analogy. Again from Merriam-Webster:
north pole: the northernmost point of the earth
As such, by definition there can be no further north than the north
pole. No such equivalent exists for the big bang event. Beginning of the
universe? YES. Beginning of time? NO!
Given the discussion, I think the following is in order: BAZINGA * 2
Thank you, I won't be here all day!
Cheers,
Rob.
--
E-Mail Disclaimer: Information contained in this message and any
attached documents is considered confidential and legally protected.
This message is intended solely for the addressee(s). Disclosure,
copying, and distribution are prohibited unless authorized.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
