@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 3 months agoEvidencemander.xyzimagemessage-square84fedilinkarrow-up1405arrow-down126
arrow-up1379arrow-down1imageEvidencemander.xyz@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 3 months agomessage-square84fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish4•3 months agoIt doesn’t as the laws of physics as we currently know them break down at the scale and pressures involved in the very early universe.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish-2•edit-23 months agoAlright but until you can create or destroy energy/matter then you have no evidence to back your claims or dispute mine.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish-2•3 months agoBut that doesn’t make your claim provable
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish-1•3 months agoA claim doesn’t need evidence to the contrary to be disputed, so no thats not what you said
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish2•3 months agoI said it wasn’t proof, but that it was evidence. You can dispute a claim that has evidence but if you don’t have any evidence yourself you’re going to look like an idiot who ignores the most likely truth and instead clings to their faith.
It doesn’t as the laws of physics as we currently know them break down at the scale and pressures involved in the very early universe.
Alright but until you can create or destroy energy/matter then you have no evidence to back your claims or dispute mine.
But that doesn’t make your claim provable
I literally said that.
A claim doesn’t need evidence to the contrary to be disputed, so no thats not what you said
I said it wasn’t proof, but that it was evidence. You can dispute a claim that has evidence but if you don’t have any evidence yourself you’re going to look like an idiot who ignores the most likely truth and instead clings to their faith.