@_Four_Horsemen @RichardDawkins You skipped the best part: where matter FIRST pops into existence out of nothing. That is REALLY thrilling!
-
-
Replying to @darinlatham
@darinlatham@RichardDawkins It is, isn't it. How matter & anti matter add up to 0. A number the church tried to ban! Science is thrilling3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @_Four_Horsemen
@_Four_Horsemen@RichardDawkins Yes! I have $5 in my right pocket, but I owe $5 to my friend, so I have no dollars in my right pocket!1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @darinlatham
@darinlatham@RichardDawkins Your lack of scientific understanding isn't an argument against it.3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @_Four_Horsemen
@darinlatham@RichardDawkins I think* you are trying to argue with common sense. Physics doesn't care about your common sense.1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @_Four_Horsemen
@_Four_Horsemen@RichardDawkins Speaking non-sense (labelling something as "nothing") and calling it "physics" is an odd approach.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @darinlatham
@darinlatham@_Four_Horsemen@RichardDawkins They didn't; only YOU have been using the term "nothing".1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aspexit
@emlynaddison
@_Four_Horsemen@RichardDawkins You might want to read the title of the book Dawkins recommended I read Emlyn.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @darinlatham
@darinlatham@_Four_Horsemen@RichardDawkins The term "nothing" used there does not in any way define the complete absence of "stuff".1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aspexit
@emlynaddison
@_Four_Horsemen@RichardDawkins. That's the problem!!!! He defines "something" (the quantum vacuum) as "nothing"!!!4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@darinlatham @_Four_Horsemen @RichardDawkins Also followed by "to distinguish it from the philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized ‘nothing’"
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.