Comments by "thewaytruthandlife" (@thewaytruthandlife) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

  1. yes I am a scinetist... but indeed you are correct ...I am not a linguist, nor a language purist....... I type so many things here that I stop correcting all my typo errors... you have to deal wth that....next to the fact that english is NOT my natiral language... I am Dutch.....
    1
  2. seemingly you understand me so why bother over these few typo´s hee ???? we are here for the science part not the poetry...
    1
  3. and whether you believe me to be a scienctist is NOT my problem... I am... its my bread and butter... and if you don believe that ... listen ... what gives ??? who cares... I know what I am...... you dont.....
    1
  4. I graduated in chemistry... I Hold a university degree in chemistry.. and I dont care whether you believe that or not... .... not my problem...
    1
  5. whaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahhahah, man man man you wouldnt recognize truth even if t was sitting at the tip of your nose....staring you straight in the eyes. fact is I DID.. I am a chemist.... whether you like it or not.. that is the truth.....its my daily bread and butter..... pal..... Here you can watch me working on a lab......I was at the laboratory where I was working and via quora I received and answered a question about droplet sizes... well since I was at the laboratory (where we researched new medicinal creames-micro emulsions) I desided to answer this question in a practical way, since I had available a accurate balans... and answering this question, turned out to be quite interesting.... and on that lab I made 3 seperate vids about this question.... here just one of them: www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP8JNFcQwW0 so again... you are proven to be a liar with respect to who I am and what my profession and thus knowledge is.... I am a chemist.... like it or not !!!! that is not my problem....
    1
  6. ooh yes it has.. my chemstry teaches me that life coming about from NON living elements chemicals by spontaneous random processes is scientifically impossible. I'll tell you why: 1 the chemistry is against it.... since it requires no water present since water breaked down many biologcal molecules. if one wants to fabricate a proteine based on nothing more that random chance it would take longer that the SECULAR (1) estimated age of the universe. to get a functional but very small proteine/enzyme of lets say 100 amino acids. it would require billlions of bnillions times the secular age of the universe. EVEN if all atoms in the universe would participate to make it and EVEN if chemical reaction speeds would be insanely increased to unscientific and u realistic speeds.... in short: impossible. to give you a smal insight: it requires 10^-7 to 10 ^-10 seconds for a chemical reaction to take place. lets say on average 10^-9 sec now 100 amino acids long chain with 21 different amino acids and they all have to be in the right order to be functional. 10 in the right order by random chance would require: 10* 10^-9 sec * ((1/21)^10) = 46,33 hours to all make the possible combinations which are 1,7*10^13 posibilityies 20 amino acids would require: 20*10^-9 sec * ((1/21)^20 = 1,76 *10^11 YEARS.... which is al ready longer than the secular estimated universe..... you see there are about 2,8*10^26 possibile cmbinations of aminoacids most of them unfunctional bust since randomness rules all have to be made and tried well 50 would require: about 2 *10^51 years to be formed and tested on funcytionality so EVEN if you turn the reaction rates up a notch lets say 10^-20 seconds per reaction instead of 10^-9 S. you still requires MORE time than the secular estimated age of the universe.... I could go on and on but it boils down to this: IMPOSSIBLE !! same goes for many types of biochemicals.... but enzymes/proteines are one of the most important since THEY are the molecular machenery of any living organism......
    1
  7. a) again you ASSUME that God has a beginning or an end.. well He does NOT. You assume that God had to come from somewhere....well He didnt. God has always been there in to all eternities; do I understand that ?? No but that is what He tells about Himself. There was no beginning and there is no end to God/Jesus... He is in all eternities.... but in the same perspective one could argue... where did the energy from this universe come from IF one believes in a big bang story ??? well according to some that energy has always been around and will always be there as well... (that is what secular scientists say) so why is what seculars say acceptable (that the energy of this universe has always been there) ?? And why is it unaccpetable to say that God has always been there ?????? b) it was Urey/Miller makes things for you folks ONLY harder; let me explain. Urey/ miller produced only 8 of the 21 amino acids BUT in L and D form so a racemic mixture. (L&D are like a right and left hand but then of molecules) later experiments of U/M indeed produced even 23 different amino acids all in D and L form (racemic mixture FACT is ALL living beings have ONLY the L form of the amino acids in their system/construction... So NOW you have increased you problems by at least a factor of 2 so meaning the time required also at least 2 times longer. NEXT to the fact that there are 2 more amino acids so instead of 1/21 chance in picking the right amino acid you have 1/(2*23) = 1/46 chance to pick the correct amino acid.... so Urey Miller creates a larger problem than you initially had.....they make it worse for you folks..... get it ????
    1
  8. well since energy cannot be created or destroyed it must be, it can only be redistributed in other forms....thats why things move....
    1
  9. I will put my reply again.... well same goes for you people too accepting that the energy that builds up this universe is eternal without factually knowing it.... with God its the same thing......that is why it is called BELIEVE !!!!! We believe that God heaven and hell are eternal..... ( and we have observable testable evidence of that as well) difference between secular scientists is THEY claim that they have facts while they dont have observable facts, they also BELIEVE it so basically they hold up a religion since there are no facts supporting this....... and we say that we BELIEVE this because God tells us so in His words.... In both cases the statements are religious of nature....difference is .. we as God believing peolpe are honest about our BELIEVES..... secular science is so arrogant to do NOT convey it to he world as a believe/religion but as proven facts... which its NOT... they dont have proof of it.... even stronger... there are observable facts that counter the very statements of secular science ... but they are being whipped under the carpet if that suits them better. a) Who says this universe is eternal, coming in and out of existance just to start over again of expand for ever ???? only secular science. well the bible tells us that this universe is going to be destroyed in about 1000-1500 yrs from now, never to return again. the bible tells us clearly the universe began only 6000 yrs (earth days - due to Einsten) ago and will last only about 7000 yrs in total after that its over.... b) well look at what you accepted without understanding.... consiousness, love, hatred, beginning of life, death, how we got here, where we all come from, peole accept many things without understanding it..... so what ??? I cannot explain Gods eternal being.... but I know He is. I have accepted that as a truth.... babies and little children accept kind of all things as theyt are with out understanding it. so doing that is totaly human in nature.... you dont have to understand in order to accept it... so it IS acceptable..... with respect to God: we come to BELIEVE.... we do NOT always come to ..UNDERSTAND......that is irrelevant.. all of humanity understands (according to prof Robbert Dijkgraaf) only 4% of the universe.... well I think that this is a gross over estimation but OK lets assume he is right. that menas that 7,5 BILLION people understand about 4% of all that happens in the universe.... that means that YOU as an individual knows/understands about 1/1000.000 of al there is to know/understand...e that means that even YOU does NOT understand 99,999996% of all there is to understand/know... yet you accept it non the less.... so you contradict yourself in your own reasoning... you do NOT understand 99,9999996% of all there is to know .. yet you accept it...... Well nothing can not come from nothing..... sorry that is just a silly religious statement... no one of who claims this "theory" was there around to observe this idea..... and again one can call it "theory" or "assumption" or "hypothesis".. but it is all different words for the very same thing ........ religious believe statements.... in other words of..... religion.... you have to BELIEVE it ....... that does NOT make it true...... reality needs confirmation.... and the bible is confirmationable..... it is historic and accurate in what it says and prophesizes. of course organic molecules can come around.....but that is kind of as far as it goes..... emerging LIFE from them is yet another level .... and that is a level TOO high..... EVEN with the help of human intellect, scientists have NOT been able to create LIFE from basic chemicals..... NO ONE but God, has made life from non living materials... let alone that randomness can do the trick... and if you look at the ingenious ways of how life works........ man...... that HAD to be created by a super intelligent being.. it is realy amazing......how living organisms function here watch it: www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_tYrnv_o6A&t=1s and you are saying it your self....."maybe this" ... "maybe that" ... theorectially here" .... "hypothisis there" in other words....secular science religion.....there is no proof... its only religion...... and these organic moecules ONLY get around there after carefull designed experiments..... well that is engineering....... not random chance...... and engineering requires INTELLIGENCE...( a feedback system to controle and regulate) random chance (as is claimed to be the cause of life itself) does NOT have intelligence..... (no feedback and no regulation)
    1
  10. well you show me the update....if you think you know better......
    1
  11. Well just an other believe/religious statement as all secular sciences are... so what is the value of it ??? Did you know they have proof for pink elephants on the dark side of the universe .....just around the corner where the intergalactic diamond toilet flushes for eternity....... secular scientists... they invent theories by the dozens without any proof at all... I can do exactly the very same thing..... the ONLY explanation that the energy can be from nothing is because God created it out of nothing.. genesis 1:1. in the beginning God created heaven and earth.... that is the only explanation to me that makes sense.... what Krauss says is a secular scienc approach ... and again not all theories of seculars I take seriously... like for example multiverses...... come on man... what a crap.... and that from serious scientists ????????? is that where our tax goes to these days ????? seculars can invent many idea's just to raise funds in stead of raising reality..... i hear krauss say maybe maybe maybe in lots of interviews with him about this subject.... so even he does not know for sure.... than what is his science good for to begin with......
    1
  12. listen: secular science does NOT want God in their equations at for hand. that is their mindset always. unless a secular scientist is converted to christianity he/she will never allow God to be part of his/her theories. I dont have to read his book to know his mindset if it is nothing more than a hypothesis.... then..... what value does it have..it doesnt prove anything it is just scribling some idea's some fantasies in a book of how it MIGHT be ....I pettie the trees that went waste due to that and many other silly idea's.... well I tell you how it also might be..... this uni verse is the result of a fart of the african boboegoetse-fly that ate to many beans on one day afternoon... that is my hypothesis..... prove me wrong..... that is what scientists always do, coming up with an falling out of the sky idea claiming t is proven science ..... and gullible people like you swallow it like sweet potatoe pie because he is a reknown scientist....... well hip hip hurree... congrats. so what ???????? here watch this: youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q&t=323s 80 % of peer reviewed science is WRONG.... 80% !!!!!!!! You see people like yourself think that secular science is the holy grail to truth and knowledge... but its not..... 80% is wrong... so how on earth can mr krauss tell us that he is right about what he proclaims..... you may be inmpressed... I am absolutely NOT impressed by Krauss. yes science has produced may great things, yes science brings forth many inventive things, but there is a heavy down side: only 5-10% of what is being investigated is seriousl business. Roughly estimated 90-95% is wasted efford and wasted idea's.... and based on fantasies..... but people like you follow that as it is the absolute truth.... man, please wake up...... I have been thinking like a real scientist..... that is why I a believe in God... the world and the universe ONLY makes sense in the light of the Bible and Gods actions.... The logic in this universe proves the actions of a highly intelligent CREATOR... some One who INVENTED this entire universe.....that is the only thing that makes logical sense..... so YOU start thinking as a true scientist and draw everuy conclusion that LOGIC brings you and than you will find out hat yes indeed it had to be MADE/CREATED/ invented, logically put togeher... there is factually no other option... God is real and His creatoin testifies of that....
    1
  13. well if you stop discussing... it was noice discussing with you.... you are one of the few who I really liked talking to in a polite manner... I appreciate that really... May God bless you one day with real insight in this....
    1
  14. 7:50 same goes for abiogenesis/evolution... they have worked on this silly idea for decades and tell us it's promissing, it's promissing ... but so far the havent delivered anything seriously substantial.... so it should be tossed overboard according to you as unscientific....its a waste of money and time....same goes therefor for sending space ships for looking for extraterestrials or building larger and larger observational stations just to look for aliens... why well there has close to NOTHING been achieve in abiogenesis/evolution. and they have this silly idea for about 200 yrs by now... and so far nothing it did deliver. Absolutely NOTHING ZILCH ZERO....
    1
  15. science without gobbledygook ??? peolpe who believe in gobbledygook how can they ever represent science without gobbledygook ??? Thing is many secular scientists (without even knowing or realizing or acknowledging it) do themselves believe in gobbledygook and even try to fight fervently what THEY consider gobbledygook. For example the gobbledygook of the abiogenesis/evolution. no one on earth has ever proven it to be correct science yet many secular "scientists do vfactually BELIEVE (thus religiously) in these fictious processes. Unfortuantely you are one of them. People like yourself prefer to believe in the unproven idea of abiogenesis & evolution of where we came from. There is zero proof for it. so these idea's are gobbledygook. there is how ever proof that contradicts abiogenesis / evolution (rapid sedimentation producing earthlayers, Mary Schweitzers 2005 soft dinosaur bloodcell tissue findings, the still present C14 in these tissues, the extreme resemblance of living fossils with respect to their fossilized counterparts, the finding of Noahs ark and so on and so on. What did sir Conan Doyle said via his creation of Sherlock holmes; exclude all impossible answers and the remaining answer that stays afloat how ever improbable must be the correct answer..... science should take that serious, but they refuse to this very day to do so.
    1
  16. agreed
    1
  17. I get a little the impression that the idea of decoherence is a bit superficial solution to reality. Although I must be honest not being a super expert in this....(yet).
    1
  18. 18:20 Penrose was wrong; human consiousness is seated in our soul/spirit which is an unmaterialistic part of an individual. I know its is NOT recognized by secular people but it should be. Since without it we are missing out of understanding things in our lives.
    1
  19. And healed them; read the bible: and HE STILL heals the lame find these titles on youtube: " Janneke Vlot genezen door de kracht van God " was 18 years in a wheelchair even the slightest breath or wind was painfull. " Man steps out of wheelchair after 10 years and gets baptized! " This simon was an atheist who received a healing from God when he visited some friends of him on a christian conference in holland...
    1
  20. And you people call yourself scientists ???? life emerging spontaneous is NOT part of proven science, not even here on earth..... let alone finding it on other planets..... this is pseudoscience and are nothing more then purely religious activities... you may believe it ... but you lack ALL kinds of proof.... well as the bible tells us about your type of people: professing themselves to be wise they became fools......Romans 1 verse 22....
    1
  21. "If you think you understand quantum mechanics than you dont understand it" that has worn off over time... sorry richard
    1
  22. makes sense... dont waste public money while gaining hardly anything new.
    1
  23. Why would secular science WAST, REALY WASTE billions and buillions of euro's dollars yens roebles etc etc in "finding"things that we on earth can never replicate to have happend ? Science is NOT able to reproduce living organisms from bare elements here on earth. nt even in the utmost optimal conditions in laboratory situations so what use is it to find life elsewhere in the uiverse..... You see LIFE has been created by God. and God did that ONLY on earth.... one may NOT believe that but then one shoud reproduce the MAKING of living cells (exactly as we know them and from them letting them evolve into higher organisms lets say a worm (exactly as we know them) BEFORE investigating if life is possible elswhere in the universe...... It is NOT proven that life can spontaneously emerge; it cannot even be MADE artificially let alone emerge spontaneously. so its a waste of big amounts of money ??? for NOTHING !!!!! Lets take care of the lives HERE on earth and fight poverty, lets fight deforestation, environmental issues with that money instead of doing something completely useless.
    1
  24. Nice video, except for the comment about removing God from the equation. Which (if God realy exists as He does) is simply impossible. Which leads to the conslusion that true nothingness does not exist, not even to the ninth level. And therefore could never have produced anything. So the idea of nothing creating everything is debunked by it self. Thats leaves no other option than indeed God must have done it. whether people like that option or not. Even our thoughts of nothingness is something.
    1
  25. I know there is a faster then light speed travel for individuals: but unfortunately for that it is in the spiritual realm after you die, since it is on the other side of life....but then and only then only the thought of going somewhere is making you go there instantatiously independant of the distance... Many people have been reporting, independantly from one another, this kind of phenomenon in Near Death Experiences. so yes it is real but not in our physical life time only after we have lossened ourselves from our physical shell/body.
    1
  26. @Kirrily - remember the future yes it is. if not, then please release all criminals that have been put in jail based on testimonies of people who happend to see things that these criminals did. I think that many criminals would still be on the loose IF you would be correct. Next to that the NDE experiences is not bound to any era in time. Over all the centuries NDE reports have been writted down/documented....- Which make it even harder evidence. On top of that some sciencepeople have researched this NDE phenomenon, independantly on separate individuals and they all cam to similar conclusions. wordl wide... so it is evidence that NDE's are real. whether you like it or not. science is abut observations, not opinions... and if more people over time, especially elavborate amounts of time find/have the same/similar observations then one better pay attention to it.... you may MISS out on something that may other wise hard to get a grip on. rememeber what Sir Arthur by means of his creation sherlock holmes said, it is in the line of: "any sollution that remains after eliminating all the logical impossibilities must be the truth no matter how improbable it may seem".... well NDE's are such a case; indeed it seems improbable yet it is an observation that has been done by many people over all the ages.... therefor true....and THATS how correct science works lady... even if you dont like the results.
    1
  27. @Kirrily - remember the future emotional OK then explain me these next really happend events: first) a man is being carried in into a hospital after a heart stroke. He passes away, which has been measured/monitored and later is revived again. during him being dead a nurse took out his articifical teeth. and she puts them on a shelf of some kind of closet. The man is revived and later ex-hospitalized. afetr being home for some time he gets back to the hospital and askes if nurse such and so is present. yes she is and he wants to see her. then she in quires what he wants and he says to return him his artificial teeth. he says: well you are the one who took them out of my mouth and putted them on this and that closet... she is extremely highly amazed and said: you cannot know that sir... you were DEAD that is what we checked. He said well I saw you doing it and described in extreme and correct details what happend. in other words a) this has nothing to do with emotions... just a lost item. b) people after they die are getting out of their bodies and experience is extreme high awareness what happens in their surroundings second) a young child dies due to some event and is later revived. after this event the parents and the child is visiting the doctor who was in charge during this event. during that session the child tells all who is present that she met with her older sister and described her in all details that she met with hear in a place which we know or would describe as heaven. the parents run out of the doctors room in total shock and come back later after they calmed down. they tel the doctor that they never told their daughter about this girl who was indeed exactly as the girl described and een told her name and drees collore and eyes color. the paraents had decided to tell her only after they considered her old enough about a previously born daughther who died when she was young.. and after this they gained this child/girl... these are real life stories, not made up and therefor proof of that after one dies your sould or spirit goes on in some kind of spirtual environment. many man many of these stories have been testifying about a life after we pass away and several of them have NOTHING to do with emotions and are simply practical things like the lost teeth story.... so you are wrong... in this case DEAD wrong....
    1
  28. @Kirrily - remember the future well then you are reasoning delusional. simply because of the fact that these stories/testimonies have been factually verified and found to be correct... they are NOT just stories...they are factuall part of history.... and thus factuall verifiable... there are multiple independant witnesses... proving you wrong ... AGAIN... it is up to you to believe in reality or in lies... so far you have been believing in lies... since multiple of these stories have been correctly documented... independantly and all with similar elements to them... start studying them before drawng false conclusions....as you do now.
    1
  29. @Kirrily - remember the future scientifically logically you are correct BUT thats how science workd is you put humans in the equation. Humans are stubborn enough to reject even correct observations & conclusions. That happend over all of the ages. People simply refussed to recognized the truth because it went against their preferences. You see also scientists are just human beings and you yourself are an excellent portraying example of that with respect to this issue. I could name you several more examples of where people were wrong in their conclusions while the observations & conclusion are simply correct.
    1
  30. @Kirrily - remember the future well then release all prisoners..... since no one can trust testimonies... and then scip science as well since science is based on human observations even if it is via instruments.... scip science since interpretations are 100% human based... and indeed you are largely correct humans do make large errors... including in science and scientifc conclusions.... so nothing can be trusted that humans do. including your own findings/conclusions and perceptions/thinking proces..... which must mean we are finished talking since both our input is human based thus untrustworthy... so why talk ?
    1
  31. @Kirrily - remember the future unfortunately it is not.... science is full of crap as well.... it turns out that 80% of peer reviewed published papers is FALSE......80% watch this: watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q&t=367s (put in youtube)
    1
  32. @Kirrily - remember the future it is not my conclusion but from science itself the source is a well known science reporter science populizer.... Derrek Muller from veritasium.... not just a random guy.....and the results are based upon the known phenomenon of p-hacking....so your "real" world is crumbling down realy fast.... dig it....
    1
  33. @Kirrily - remember the future well you stay gullible in what ever "science "presents to you in your "reality", and I indeed stay in what I think is reality.... and lets find out who is closer to the truth.....only the future can tell....bye
    1
  34. @Kirrily - remember the future ok you rely on science let me ask you: where did we came from ? where did life come from ? and what is the proof of that ?
    1
  35. @Kirrily - remember the future well since there is no evidence for evolution nor for abiogenesis, nor for a big bang... these idea's are nothing more than religious drivel.... and false assumptions. You ASSUME you BELIEVE that they have happend... snce there is NO evidence to support either one of them... You wanted scientific evidence well than present me CORRECT scientific evidence for both abiogenesis and evolution ? And if you admit to NOT KNOW !!! which is good in itself Then stop teaching it !!! as if you DO KNOW !!! and stop presenting it as proven science FACTS !!! since they are NOT !!! Why God ??? well It is scientifically more reliable to say that abiogenesis/evolution has NOT taken place... yet we are here factually... so we must have been deliberatly Created by a super high intelligence. We can Call Him GOD yes indeed that is far more likely. God as He says Himself has no origin... He has always been around. AND !!!.... this same type of question remains IF YOU CHOOSE to believe in a big bang ??? where did that energy came from ??? You see same type of question.... so WHY is your "science" based religion more valid than mine GOD based religion ????
    1
  36. @Kirrily - remember the future name what you think is evidence....I can show you it is not..... and no I do NOT deny CORRECT science.... I deny false pseudo science.....and big bang / abiogenesis/evolution is false science. universe expanding yes correct....does that imply a big bang ? no cmb yes we can see that, does that imply bigbang ? no.... urey miller ? does that prove abiogenesis ? no... it speaks against abiogenesis.... and so on etc.....
    1
  37. @Kirrily - remember the future I challenge you: a) make me a living cell (exactly as we know them !) from the bare elements CHNOPS etc .... b) let these cells evolve to a higher organism, lets say a worm (exactly as we know them) 1) first or paralell in the lab under optimal conditions 2) second or paralell in real life circumstances succes....
    1
  38. @Kirrily - remember the future conformation bias ??? sorry to informyou but that argument goes for athesiste and other type of unbelievers... I dont reject evidence... I reject false interpreteations of evidence. And all of big bang, abiogenesis evoltion are false/wrong interpretations of correct observations. And these interpretations have been based on conformation biased ways of thinking. As I used to do aswell when I was an atheist before 2004. You see I hapepn to be a scienctist. and the cojnformation bias is NOT on the bible based religious side but on the unbelievers/atheistic side. All found observations perfectly what the Bibles tells us... there is no contradition with the bible... and the more and more has been scietifically correct observed the more it is perfectly in line with what the bible tells us... on ANY level or science field. ONLY the secular interpretations are in conflict with the biblical interpretations over the same observations. - But you are simpy too conformation biased and too close minded to want to know the truth about it... well that is your choice not mine...
    1
  39. @Kirrily - remember the future you see the science facts that I gave you are against life emerging by what is known as abiogenesis. You dont want discuss with me because tou cannot win the argument ??? well science is NOT on YOUR side anyhow it is on the side of God. It would als o be weird, God creating a universe and the universe would bring forth scinece facts that go against God the creatore of the universe ... THAT would be awkward.... no lady. science will ALWAY prove God is real.... Thing is YOU DONT WANT God to be real.... so your atheistic religion MUST deny God of the bible.... BUT the science facts prove different... the science fatcs are always on Gods side... never on the atheistic side of the view point... whether you like it or not.... and this protein example is just 1 of many....just dig it...
    1
  40. @Kirrily - remember the future no you are not going to argue with me, since you know that science facts & interretations prove you wrong thats why you run with your tail between your legs.
    1
  41. @Kirrily - remember the future OOh no they know more than I do, BUT THEY are pre-occupied (confirmation bias) with the wrong idea's and wrong religious convictions (just as you are) , namely that God is no option. so they are limited in insights. And No the bible is NOT flawed in its original setup nor in its best translations (KJV - statenvertaling etc) Gods words have been proven to be correct.. That you lack knowledge of that is only yourself to blame.... the fact that you assume the bible tells us that the earth is flat is a perfect example of your ignorance... the bible never said that. on the contrairy.... meaning you have listend to lies that gave you the worng idea's of the bible and God and thus your eternal destiny. yes the Bible is divine since God gave His words to us via a bunch of people that He instructed, waht to write/tell. and yes there is s super natural realm where we ALL (including yourself) go to eventually. but there are 2 dsections in that realm, heaven and hell... question is where do you go to.... God wants you to go to heaven, satan wants you to go to hell to torture you. both are eternal both are unescapable. thats why I started about NDE's to prove that you have a wrong perspective on our lives.... and who and what we are. After you die you go either way: heaven or hell .. there is no other option.... But here on earh YOU have to make the decisive choice where you go to. My logic is as much as I can foillowing the Logic of God.. and Gods logic is supernatural and focussed on total LOVE.... the logic of people is materialistic, which I understand since I am a human, BUT that is NOT the logic that is going to last in the end. in about 1000-1500 yrs the logic of the universe stops to exist (higgs boson instability) and the universe will explode in a big bang.... EXACTLY as apostle Paul about 2000 yrs ago predicted (see 2 Peter 3 verses 10-14. and Peter Higgs found in his unstable Higgs field. It is NOT for Nothing that the Higgs particle received the name GODS particle... since it wil destroy the entire universe"on the Day of th Lord" well that is in about 1000 to 1500 yrs from now. where, according to apostle Peter the elements will melt and disintegrate in a big noise.... coincidenc you think ??? NO WAY God knows exactly what is going to happen in the future... Peter the fisherman fortold this event in his and our future Peter Higgs found it scientifically to be correct.... you see the bible is further ahead AND scientifically correct MORE than you know/think.
    1
  42. @Kirrily - remember the future on top of the Higgs boson unstability the bible fortells many more things for OUR future... a) a close to all destructive war b) nucleair explosions all over the earth (zacharia 14) c) a new ocean/sea close to Jerusalem d) people living in slavery to satan (reveation 13) e) a personly bound paying system (revelation 13) f) a stock market crash world wide g) we will see something happening to the Sun, moon and stars h) Israel being at les 10 times bigger as it is now i) the temple of God restored in Jerusalem j) well we see Israel in wars all the rtime with the countries around (zacharia 12, 13, 14) k) 1/3 of the people die off l) 1/3 of the animals die off etc etc How did the people know these details ???? well God told them so the bible is NOT just simply a book... it is Gods LIVING words... what HE says becomes reality... and THUS Gods word is ALIVE and NOT just a book filled with characters.... as most peolpe think... Now 1 or max 5 of these prophesies being true MAY be a coincident.. but 10's and 10's of these at least 2000 yrs old prophesies coming true is far far far beyond statistical coincident and MUST been known at forhand. That you have troubles to accep that is you problem... but correct science defeats secular reasonings/science. so if you still want to leave with your tail between your leggs that is your choice but at least I have told you the truth. NOT listening to what I just said is your choice but in rejecting God there are serious consequences.... you see GOD is YOUR life source.... saying NO to yourlife source is saying yes to your source of death.... thats why I keep persisting... since I know part of the consequences IF you keep rejecting God (your life source).
    1
  43. @Kirrily - remember the future OOh I forgot m) Damascus wll be destroyed in 1 day n) River nile will run dry (it is already getting that way) o) The jews will ALL get to Israel most probably by being hunted towards Israel. p) mount of olives will split in 2 on the day that Yeshua/Jesus will return and sets His feet upon the mount of olives (there is already a faultline laying there that runs from Ethiopia to Turkey and it is trembling) so many prophesies that are about to become true... not listening is missing out on many things.... as you have already missed out on many things.... its only for your best interest Kirrily....
    1
  44. @Kirrily - remember the future OOh and some more: q) corona as part of the consequences of disobedience towards God (deutronomy 28/leviticus 26) in short more sicknesses wil follow starvations/famins due to failed crops, wild animals will take over more and more to kill people, slavery and dictatorship other forces will enter and take over countries stuff like that. since God just is pulling back His blessing hands from formerly christian nations (EU, USA). so buckle up Ask yourself (from your point of view) IF God would realy exist .. would He go disobedience towards Him go unnoticed ???? well NO He wouldnt.... now you understand corona a bit better... God just pulled back His blessing hands more and more... so that teh devil shows up where God allows him to go and cause destruction that is what deutrpnomy 28/leviticus 26 is all about.
    1
  45. Sorry the AVERAGE cannot- can never- be zero, because of quantization... there is no such thing as 100% randomness, there is always a part of a smallest measure at these levels, due to quantization. Therefor it cannot be zero but a small offset value from zero. A smallest measure ontop of this averaging happens over time. So over time there is always some small non zero measure. This makes the idea of decoherence non valid, if I am correct. And over time therefor it is wobbling but never zero. Just as quantum foam; the zero point energy level its never zero. On average zero level over "longer"periods of time yes, but not measured in time. Averaging is over a longer period of time... but on very tiny time scales its non zero and in time that is what counts. Energy cannot disappear but has to reappear some where else in time sequence. Energy wise this makes also sence since IF if would be zero then the whole quantum system over time would disappear and thats is not what we see. It may be bouncing around in a macroscopic system as phonon's but dissappearing, no that makes hardly any sense. Now agreed the close to zero average lifts up the more macroscopic behaviour to be visible BUT does not entirely away with the quantum behaviour but largely. It puts it under the carpet so to say for latter times to re-appear, IF a system is broken lose to individual particles. But it was never 100% gone... on average. Just as the effects of the quantum foam are never 100% gone. The quantum foam leaves us stuck with the small but non the less presence of the Casimir effect... so same thing with the idea of decoherence.... it may be under the carpet but NOT 100% pushed aside. Quantum technically that would be impossible at least in my opinion. And my statement is also verified of course by means of the smaller and smaller getting deBroglie wavelength the bigger a particle is. Which must mean that decoherence as it is being taugh now is not entirely correct. the deBrogly wavelength proves my point.... if I am correct.
    1
  46. The correct first question would be: DID a big bang occur at all ? the answere can only be: NO it didnt... the assumption of the existance of a past big bang is a purely speculative and thus a religious statement. Exactly as is: "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (which I believe). So the question where did the big bang happend has NO physical meaning....only religiously... you can BELIEVE that a big bang occured but there is no evidence that it realy occured.... therefor this video is pure talking about fantasies & religious speculations.
    1
  47. 1:33 ooh how about the matter anti-matter issue that doesnt exist al together all of a sudden... ????? sorry Sabine... Secular science NEEDS God to prevent that kind of problems.... EVEN if big bang would be true....
    1
  48. What a nonsense. Within short Yeshua-Jesus will return for 1000 yrs and then the whole universe will be explode apart by the unstabe Higgs field by the GOD particle on the Day of the LORD.
    1
  49. 2:30 mixing science with religion a bad idea ??? well 2 parts of the truth canb NEVER contradict each other so if a simulation idea gets confirmed it cannot cntradict the science and visa versa... whether you like the idea of a super natural higher intelligence OR not .. It has nothing to do with like ability it has all to do with factuality. if the computer suimulation idea is close to real then there is no scientific argument to de ny it. and yes there is something that looks like it. we call it Christianity. Indeed we are body soul and spirit once our bodie dies our spirit/soul keep existing. and yes indeed god created it so. you may not like the idea but again it has nothing to do with likability.... facts are facts. and these facts are already 6000 yrs old...science finally catches up.... its about time....
    1
  50. If other universes would exist then some of them would have the same paameters as ours in which there is a lot of energy and therfore gravity and since the deviations can be theoretically infinite there must be infinite of such universes. and therefor attract each other... even in such a way that they would collapse in on each other to form a black hole so heavy that it will infinitly long exist and therefor. but we do NOT observe that so therefor multiverse are NOT part of reality. other wise we would have been collapsed into the many slightly different universe as ourse and this gravitationaly collapsed therefor muktiverses is NONSENSE its a religion... a believe not pasrt of correct science.... it is JUST a way for people to have an excuse to say: God didnt do it.... because our universe does exist because God uniquely created it only 1 universe. with uniqua parameters that make it possible for us to be alive. perfectly balanced in all its parameters to make life possible. there is no other explanation. God did it.
    1