here
https://www.nairaland.com/1207187/what-facts-energy-say-god

below is the "mathematical nature" of energy. if you understand it, of course, which is why it is better we continue to speak in plain language

ooman: here
https://www.nairaland.com/1207187/what-facts-energy-say-god

below is the "mathematical nature" of energy. if you understand it, of course, which is why it is better we continue to speak in plain language

And how exactly does the above equation explain evolution?

Mr_Anony2:
And how exactly does the above equation explain evolution?

did you read the link i posted? from the link i said:

ooman: planck's theory and einstein's equations proves that energy is a radiation which cannot be terminated. their theory implies that energy radiates from no source and therefore destroys the concept of a creator.

Energy does not and cannot have consciousness, all those who claim energy has consciousness are in a state of great delusion.

a completely isolated universe, like ours, cannot be observed, the concept of a detached observer(God) of classical physics is a myth. - Keith Gibbs, Particle Physicist.

ooman:

did you read the link i posted? from the link i said:

My friend you are just rambling upon a tangent that is irrelevant to what we are discussing here.

Let me remind you of what you said:

ooman:
however, i feel compelled to answer. Evolution is based on maths and observation - FACT

ooman:
oh pls, there are no guesses in evolution. that was why i said evolution was based on MATH AND OBSERVATION. that which we were not present to witness has been confirmed by MATHS, that which we witness is called deductive observation!!!

All I have asked you to do is to back up your claims by providing this mathematics formula and showing exactly how it is used to describe and predict evolution?

Remember that according to you, there is no guess work in evolution. SHOW ME THE MATHS!

Mr_Anony2:
My friend you are just rambling upon a tangent that is irrelevant to what we are discussing here.

Let me remind you of what you said:




All I have asked you to do is to back up your claims by providing this mathematics formula and showing exactly how it is used to describe and predict evolution.

YOUR REPLY SHOWED YOUR FAILURE TO INTERPRET THE FORMULAS I POSTED. THIS IS WHY I SAID WE SHOULDNT GO TOO MUCH INTO MATHEMATICS. Maths proved that energy had no source, disproving a source for an eternal energy.

Energy is eternal and everything came from it, hope you will understand that simple logic

here it is again

ooman: planck's theory and einstein's equations proves that energy is a radiation which cannot be terminated. their theory implies that energy radiates from no source and therefore destroys the concept of a creator.

Energy does not and cannot have consciousness, all those who claim energy has consciousness are in a state of great delusion.

a completely isolated universe, like ours, cannot be observed, the concept of a detached observer(God) of classical physics is a myth. - Keith Gibbs, Particle Physicist.

ooman:

YOUR REPLY SHOWED YOUR FAILURE TO INTERPRET THE FORMULAS I POSTED. THIS IS WHY I SAID WE SHOULDNT GO TOO MUCH INTO MATHEMATICS. Maths proved that energy had no source, disproving a source for an eternal energy.

Energy is eternal and everything came from it, hope you will understand that simple logic

here it is again

Lol, I am still not seeing how "energy is eternal" explains evolution.

Also I am very interested in that your math formula, I will really love you to explain the formula to me in detail so that I can use it and work evolution too.

Mr_Anony2:
Lol, I am still not seeing how "energy is eternal" explains evolution.

Also I am very interested in that your math formula, I will really love you to explain the formula to me in detail so that I can use it and work evolution too.

Ok, the ultimate fact about evolution is that THERE IS NO GOD BEHIND IT. And since everything has a cause and AT LEAST, SOMETHING MUST BE ETERNAL. the formula proved energy, instead of God as eternal and the first cause.

The formula is based on quantum physics, you want want me to precis quantum physics for you here? Pls, that will be cumbersome. google quantum physics pls!!!

ooman:

Ok, the ultimate fact about evolution is that THERE IS NO GOD BEHIND IT. And since everything has a cause and AT LEAST, SOMETHING MUST BE ETERNAL. the formula proved energy, instead of God as eternal and the first cause.

The formula is based on quantum physics, you want want me to precis quantum physics for you here? Pls, that will be cumbersome. google quantum physics pls!!!

Good, so it is settled that you claim that evolution is based on maths and observation is really rubbish. Anyway, it was funny watching you throw in a big formula that you didn't understand yourself with the hope that I would get bamboozled and therefore back down.

Now we come to the meat of your argument which really is that "there is no God behind it". You have proposed energy as an alternative. However, energy does not stand in causal relationship to anything and therefore cannot be a first cause.

Ooman, can you please stop responding to anony, davidylan and co. so that this thread do not get derailed. We are learning much from you.

kmcutez: Ooman, can you please stop responding to anony, davidylan and co. so that this thread do not get derailed. We are learning much from you.

...and what exactly have you been learning my dear young lady?

ooman: here
https://www.nairaland.com/1207187/what-facts-energy-say-god

below is the "mathematical nature" of energy. if you understand it, of course, which is why it is better we continue to speak in plain language

You are a bad student of mathematics, what you have just done there is rubbish you copied and pasted. First you define what those alphabets means then their functions and concepts. And where were they derived from?

This bad maths and how do those formular relates to evolution.

Mr_Anony2:
Good, so it is settled that you claim that evolution is based on maths and observation is really rubbish. Anyway, it was funny watching you throw in a big formula that you didn't understand yourself with the hope that I would get bamboozled and therefore back down.

Now we come to the meat of your argument which really is that "there is no God behind it". You have proposed energy as an alternative. However, energy does not stand in causal relationship to anything and therefore cannot be a first cause.

I laugh at your lack of understanding, myopic as you are, you think evolution is quite what exactly? Do you not know that ancient greek philosophers used simple maths in disproving the bible. Math has been used since times past to calculate sedimentation rates, calculus, sets and other algorithm has always been the back bone of evolution. I understand this is quite new to you, so you need time to catchup.

I understand that you really lack experience of cosmology. Have you studied Mars before? Its so chaotic in it and new events occurs always. Change is the ultimate cause. Energy is eternal, remains in its simplest state, as preferred even by matter, until there is a difference in composition.
Just as supernova caused by change, that is explosion of a star caused by accumulation of larger element causes the evolution of new stars and planets and asteroids etc, so does change in composition of energy around a point- called cosmic egg caused an explosion, an expansion called the universe, the debris of this explosion was the raw material from which solar systems formed. No god needed.

ooman:

did you read the link i posted? from the link i said:

wait does it have something to do with plancks constant? isnt that physics

ooman:

I laugh at your lack of understanding, myopic as you are, you think evolution is quite what exactly? Do you not know that ancient greek philosophers used simple maths in disproving the bible. Math has been used since times past to calculate sedimentation rates, calculus, sets and other algorithm has always been the back bone of evolution. I understand this is quite new to you, so you need time to catchup.

I understand that you really lack experience of cosmology. Have you studied Mars before? Its so chaotic in it and new events occurs always. Change is the ultimate cause. Energy is eternal, remains in its simplest state, as preferred even by matter, until there is a difference in composition.
Just as supernova caused by change, that is explosion of a star caused by accumulation of larger element causes the evolution of new stars and planets and asteroids etc, so does change in composition of energy around a point- called cosmic egg caused an explosion, an expansion called the universe, the debris of this explosion was the raw material from which solar systems formed. No god needed.

Lol, at this point it is now painfully obvious that you are terribly ignorant of what you set out to talk about.

brainpulse:

You are a bad student of mathemetics, what you have just done there is rubbish you copied and pasted. First you define what those alphabets means then their functions and concepts. And where were they derived from?

This bad maths and how do those formular relates to evolution.

What are you exactly angry at, that the formula proved the source of energy or that you dont understand the equation, hence, you asking me to spoon feed you.
If you lack knowledge about the constants used to derive energy, that is your problem. Read beginners quantum physics, you should catch up in some years.

Mr_Anony2:
Lol, at this point it is now painfully obvious that you are terribly ignorant of what you set out to talk about.

Oh, it is quite obvious that you lack the sagacity to understand quantum physics. It is understandable though. Not all who uses computer can cope with anything quantum.

PAGAN 9JA:


wait does it have something to do with plancks constant? isnt that physics

Yea, its quantum physics.

ooman:

What are you exactly angry at, that the formula proved the source of energy or that you dont understand the equation, hence, you asking me to spoon feed you.
If you lack knowledge about the constants used to derive energy, that is your problem. Read beginners quantum physics, you should catch up in some years.

You make me laugh at your ignorance, you created a topic to prove something beyond reasonable doubt and you dont understand and can't explain it neither. In maths If you cant explain it then dont prove it because it becomes rubbish.

ooman:

Oh, it is quite obvious that you lack the sagacity to understand quantum physics. It is understandable though. Not all who uses computer can cope with anything quantum.

Lololol.......everyone has the ability to call another person ignorant. Unfortunately, that ability does not bestow the name-caller with knowledge.

brainpulse:

You make me laugh at your ignorance, you created a topic to prove something beyond reasonable doubt and you dont understand and can't explain it neither. In maths If you cant explain it then dont prove it because it becomes rubbish.

Who is ignorant here? Me who posted an equation or you who dont understand it? Read a little quantum physics. That would do for beginners.

ooman:

Who is ignorant here? Me who posted an equation or you who dont understand? Read a little quantum physics. That would do for beginners.

Merely posting an equation does not prove that you understand it. Explaining it does.

You have failed to explain it. . . .and no, calling other people ignorant does not count as an explanation.

Mr_Anony2:
Lololol.......everyone has the ability to call another person ignorant. Unfortunately, that ability does not bestow the name-caller with knowledge.

Perhaps you should tell that to brainpulse and yourself first.

ooman:

Who is ignorant here? Me who posted an equation or you who dont understand? Read a little quantum physics. That would do for beginners.

You wrote something is proven beyond resaonable doubt and you cant explain it OMG.

Have you being to a project defence at all? Do you assume that your lecturers knows it or you prove to them that you understand, know and believe in your presentations BEYOND RESAONABLE DOUBT?

Certainly this man should not be taken serious. Out of here

ooman:

Perhaps you should tell that to brainpulse and yourself first.

I think it applies more to you in this case.

Mr_Anony2:
Merely posting an equation does not prove that you understand it. Explaining it does.

You have failed to explain it. . . .and no, calling other people ignorant does not count as an explanation.

If you lack the education to understand that equation, you will not understand its meaning too. Its not rocket science, its hard science.

brainpulse:
You wrote something id=s proven beyond resaonable doubt and you cant explain it OMG.

Have you being to a project defence at all? Do you assume that your lecturers knows it or you prove to them that you understand, know and believe in your presentations BEYOND RESAONABLE DOUBT?

Nah, he told his lecturers to go and look it up because he was not going to spoon-feed them. The guy is such a genius. Lololol

ooman:

If you lack the education to understand that equation, you will not understand its meaning too. Its not rocket science, its hard science.

yawn...

Mr_Anony2:
I think it applies more to you in this case.

Then you are fibbing, brainpulse used the word first and you also implied it first.

Mr_Anony2:
yawn...

brainpulse:
You wrote something is proven beyond resaonable doubt and you cant explain it OMG.

Have you being to a project defence at all? Do you assume that your lecturers knows it or you prove to them that you understand, know and believe in your presentations BEYOND RESAONABLE DOUBT?

Certainly this man should not be taken serious. Out of here

Actually, lecturers would not ask such dumb question as this. They do not lack numeracy like you do.

ooman:

Actually, lecturers would not ask such dumb question as this. They do not lack numeracy like you do.

At this point, I don't know whether to laugh at you or to cry for you. SMH