rc> Thus before the big bang is perfectly
rc> valid whether we could perceive it or not.
ts> Not really. It's as meaningless as asking
ts> what's north of the North Pole.
That's an interesting point. If you stand at the North Pole where all
lines of reference converge, there is still Galactic Nort
On 18 Nov 2011 at 05:40, Robert Cummings 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".
> Thus b
2 matches
Mail list logo
