Greetings

[colpat]

Is it possible to have an invention without an inventor?

[hertz vanrental]

colpat wrote

I thought, "I've never heard of a christard referring to himself as a christard, that's a first for me." was a binary choice.
The statement, "A proton and an anti-proton, individually, are NOTHING. They are SOMETHING." is correct in the sense that Something is an educated guess based on questionable research, a figment of the imagination.

So if I were to ask whether you are a cunt or a wanker, (a binary choice) which one would you select?

Proton exists. Anti-protons exist. However, neither are germane to the issue of something being created out of nothing. What they do when the collide is also NOT germane to the issue of something being created out of nothing.

Now you stupid tit. Have you read the Fermi Lab paper which describes the experiments showing that something can be created out of nothing? If not, fuckin' read it.

If you have read it, explain how this violates any physical law at all, let alone the first and second laws of Thermodynamics.

If you can't explain, then shut the fuck up and stop pretending that you understand because it becomes more obvious, the more you post, that you haven't clue 1 about anything.

[hertz vanrental]

colpat wrote

Is it possible to have an invention without an inventor?

In what way is this relevant to the question: how does the creation of something from nothing violate any physical law?

Or, are you going to continue to evade this question even though you stated this in an earlier post?

[colpat]

I do understand the etymology of christard and atheist, and in the context of this conversation, I chose christard.
I am more of a wanker.
Yes, I have read and understood the Fermin Lab papers.
The question, have I read the Fermin Lab paper is like, asking Smellyoldgit if he has read and understands the Raving Atheists Forum rules.

[colpat]

cowpat responds. What is the real, natural explanation of imagination?

[Smellyoldgit]

colpat wrote

The "fact" has never been a fact, and it is only a theory. The notion of particle pairs is highly doubtful. The First Law of Thermodynamics still stands.

When someone says 'only a theory', it demonstrates they understand as much about science as my left testicle knows about baking.

[hertz vanrental]

colpat wrote

I do understand the etymology of christard and atheist, and in the context of this conversation, I chose christard.
I am more of a wanker.
Yes, I have read and understood the Fermin Lab papers.
The question, have I read the Fermin Lab paper is like, asking Smellyoldgit if he has read and understands the Raving Atheists Forum rules.

Yet again, the fuck wank evades the question.

SOG was indeed correct. Cowshit, you are full of donkey wank.

No fuck off.

[colpat]

Would you agree, the project officer who invented the weapon system QRC-49 used in defeating Russia during the Suez Canal Crisis to understands science?

[hertz vanrental]

colpat wrote

Would you agree, the project officer who invented the weapon system QRC-49 used in defeating Russia during the Suez Canal Crisis to understands science?

Justify your statement that the spontaneous creation of a matter/anti-matter particle violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics you former fat twat and/or fuck off.

[colpat]

A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describe some aspect of the world. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements.
If evidence of a single violation happens, the Law is no longer a law.
Either spontaneous creation of a matter/anti-matter particle pair violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics and are no longer laws or the theory of matter/anti-matter is false.
Which is correct?

[hertz vanrental]

colpat wrote

A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describe some aspect of the world. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements.
If evidence of a single violation happens, the Law is no longer a law.
Either spontaneous creation of a matter/anti-matter particle pair violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics and are no longer laws or the theory of matter/anti-matter is false.
Which is correct?

Desist from this bollocks, ex-fat boy.

I repeat, justify your statement that the spontaneous creation of a matter/anti-matter particle pair violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics or fuck off.

No. Fuck off anyways.

[colpat]

I respect your desire to end this dialogue and will sign out. Our discussion is similar to the Bill Nye and Ken Hamm debate. Both are contemporaries of mine. Bill Nye was a Boeing engineer when I lead the team weaponizing the QRC-49. Ken Hamm was a close friend of Henry Morris, founder of ICR. Henry and I debated several of the world-renown atheists.
Shalom

[Smellyoldgit]

colpat wrote

Ken Hamm was a close friend of Henry Morris, founder of ICR. Henry and I debated several of the world-renown atheists.
Shalom

That would look so spectacularly impressive on your CVs - not so for the non-believers in bullshit.

[hertz vanrental]

colpat wrote

I respect your desire to end this dialogue and will sign out. Our discussion is similar to the Bill Nye and Ken Hamm debate. Both are contemporaries of mine. Bill Nye was a Boeing engineer when I lead the team weaponizing the QRC-49. Ken Hamm was a close friend of Henry Morris, founder of ICR. Henry and I debated several of the world-renown atheists.
Shalom

In order to believe in lard ass and his zombie son, jebus, christards must lie to themselves because the idea that two characters, such as they, actually exist, is too fuckin' ridiculous for words. The issue is that christards are just too fuckin' stupid to realise that they are lying to themselves.

cowpat is an example of just how stupid and deluded the typical christard really is.

The really sad thing is that cowpat, the poor fucker, actually believes in the wank that he's written.

Tien!

[Smellyoldgit]

colpat wrote

...... Henry Morris, founder of ICR. Henry and I debated several of the world-renown atheists.

Jesus Fuck - we're blessed with the dumbest of the dumb!

Wiki wrote

Henry Madison Morris (October 6, 1918 – February 25, 2006) was an American young Earth creationist, Christian apologist, and engineer. He was one of the founders of the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research. He is considered by many to be "the father of modern creation science."[2] He is widely known for coauthoring The Genesis Flood with John C. Whitcomb in 1961.

Do excuse me while I go vomit ....