Heavenru? got vids for you to check

DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »

I watched the first video and honestly I couldn't stop laughing. I have no clue what this guy is talking about. I thought I was going to hear something about the big bang, but this guy is off the charts. "Energy from the Absolutim has a mind to create because it has knowledge?" If this ain't junk science, I don't know what is. Did you even watch these videos, because i never even heard you speak like this.

Whatever I guess I will speak in your worldly physic's terms. Maybe this will make things a little more clear since im not making any sense apparently......

Aside from all the bs back and forth between everybody Ima put it like this......(? is finna be long. did a lot of E-research)



E-Scientific Experiment:
I will prove something cannot come from nothing...

Observation: Even the smallest particles and atoms have an origin.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sldBwpvGFg&feat...


Hypothesis: The tiny energies which took place at the beginning of the universe where created by ? ....

Predictions: This will lead up to a point in theory in which man cannot explain the origin of something that helped create the energy which created the universe.

Experiments: cbs5.com/national/atom.smasher.cern.2.82...

Read up on the big bang theory, It clearly states about an idea of universe expanding from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at a finite point in time in the past to this day. The way the explosion of the big bang theory happened can be compared to that Atom Smasher they are trying to run.



The Atom Smasher starts off with protons with a positive charge, which is accelerated through the vacuums of it. It is similar to what happened in the first stage of the big bang. This is the part you were referring to as the "small particles". The stage before that is theorized to be a tiny cloud of energy which has attached itself to some theorized plain that is similar to a virtual grid space *coughs* video game ? i was saying *coughs*




The older Christians believe the universe was 1600 years old but science proved them wrong. In the late 1920s Edwin Hubble made a series of observations, which shows all the galaxies are constantly moving away. This proved the galaxies are not static which serves as a crucial clue in how the universe was created. Just think of a balloon when you blow it up and that is pretty much how it is. This made some wonder what happened to trigger this event, which lead to the theory of how the universe started off very small. Gamow theorized the early universe might have started off very hot and dense, thus making it explode sort of like an atomic bomb. As it cooled off it created the basic elements known to man to date (hydrogen, helieum, etc.) and this theory is called THE BIG BANG THEORY





Now the problem with this theory is the microwave radiation should still exist all around us. It was not detected at this point of time. Hawkings took to this theory and in 1963 looked into a theory of how the universe might has bounced around. He proved this theory wrong and again took into consideration of the big bang, the observational evidence resulting in it being a complete accident. In the U.S., two scientists were testing a radio receiver when they picked up an unknown noise. gamow and his colleges predicted a noise twenty years earlier than that, which proves this microwave noise to be true.





These pretty much back up support the big bang theory but the fundamental question of how the universe started was still not answered. What started the big bang you ask? It still left many questions unanswered.




Alan guth suggested the universe expanded at a faster and faster rate, which is known as what TULU? A stange type of matter created COSMIC INFLATION.........In guth’s theory the creation of the universe. Ordinary matter attracts other matter by the force of gravity, which explains why ? falls to earth. The matter they are referring to reacts differently. It repels itself. If the early universe reacted like this, then everything would be pushing against everything else which supports the big bang theory.





The inflation theory still raised a problem. That would be matter would be distributed evenly through space, which is nothing like what the universe actually does.





Hawking proposed that the inflating universe contained little thermal infatuation which would be blown up as the universe expanded.....in 1982 he proposed that might provide the missing piece in how the universe was created....still a theory......and he was not sure he was right. In 2001 a satellite was launch to prove the thermal ripples to be produced which actually produced images of what it looked like 13 billion years ago. Don’t believe me? Look the picture up yourself. The radiation in that picture still exists right now. The type, size, and pattern corresponds to the theory.... but still it has not answered where the thermal infatuation came from...what came before? Hawking claims it was spontaneously created out of absolutely nothing. Now this proves my theory correct. Uh oh, am I starting to sound right?





They claim one way to picture the origin of the universe like bubbles in steam in boiling water. Most of those bubbles collapse while others expand. But still fails to explain the obvious...






In conclusion I come to find that even the most proven theories still fail to answer certain questions, which is where faith comes into play. Obviously something cannot come from nothing.....as bubbles in a boiling ? comes from heat which comes from the stove which comes from the gas lit towards the burner and etc......

DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »

A couple of points about that response.
1st. What that response was saying had nothing to do with what the videos you posted were saying.
2nd. Who are these "older Christians that believe the universe was 1600 years old?"
3rd. the universe was framed by the word of ? , so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.