Strange

Of course there is time in relativity. It is based on the concepts space-time. There is no outer edge in Big Bang models. I guess you have to be this profoundly ignorant to believe your aether-religion.

The problem with making that a requirement is that it is impossible to know without a common language. And even then you can't be sure.

Exactly. And we shouldn't expect to see the same thing happen today. As soon as there were an environment rich in the right organic chemicals it would become a food source for one or more organisms.

Even if the flaws you claim were correct (and I see no reason to think they are) then ... what? Nothing? We give up looking? Why the negative and nihilistic approach to science?

So do I. But you have nothing to offer beyond "I don't think it is possible that life arose".

It depends on the definition of language you are using. I think that if you are using it to distinguish some higher level of thought, for example, then it has to be more than an set of finite symbols with fixed meaning. Human languages are, as far as we know, in this respect. And that seems to be related to the concept of consciousness (whatever that is).

There is a good (but short) discussion of this on another forum (https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?164841-Negative-masses) The key point is that is is negative effective mass, not really negative mass. Effective mass is shown by a number of things, including for example "holes" in semiconductors (where an electron is missing and so you get a virtual positive charge carrier).

I don't. But congratulations on being open-minded enough to change your opinion when faced with evidence.

The OP's position seems to be closer to plumbing a tap to a water supply and then claiming to be clairvoyant when water "magically" appears from the tap.

we all know that. But creationists are incapable of understanding subtleties like that.

You are pontificating and speculating about your understanding of god, so you are breaking your own rule here. Also, anyone is entitled to express their opinion about your (or any other) god. What about people who believe in a different god? Does your rule apply to them. So you you don't think that man invented the ancient Greek gods? I think man invented your god. I don't accept that. So by your logic there is no possibility of the existence of god. Well done! Agreed. Lets just forget the whole god thing and stop arguing about it. Science has nothing to say about god, by definition (it doesn't deal in the supernatural). The existence and nature of your god.

I don't think he cares. He is convinced that abiogenesis is impossible. He has no alternative explanation. Therefore we don't exist.

The findings of modern psychology are based on evidence. He claimed that what you say is contradicted by that evidence. This is not an argument from authority.

Most theories fit together in a sort of self-supporting structure. For example, when we get the occasionally person claiming that "relativity is wrong" they don't realise that they don't just have to account for a few counterintuitive things like length contraction or time dilation, but they have to replace our current understanding of electromagnetism, the whole of quantum field theory, and much more. On the other hand, there are some theories that do not fit together (even if they don't directly contradict one another). For example, no one currently knows how to combine quantum theory and gravity to understand the earliest part of the universe or what really happens around black holes. And then every theory has a limited range of application. So Newton describes gravity as a simple force between two masses. General relativity describes it completely differently. They both give the same results in most cases, but there are areas where Newtonian gravity no longer works and you have to use GR instead.

I disagree with your definition of sentient. But, given that definition, I would say that humans are the only species we know fits. Dolphins can communicate but whether that constitutes a proper language or is just the same as birdsong, the howls of primates, etc. is, I suppose, unknown. I'm not aware of any evidence it is different from other animal communication systems.

The annoying thing about people posting images instead of text is that it makes it difficult to quote and argue with. But as the text in that image is so stupid, here we go: In my opinion, man frequently creates gods. And there is no reason to think that god created anything. So it does not have to be accepted. Nonsense. Here I am doing just that. As so are you. So we have both broken your rule.

Or, are the scent trails used by insects a language? Only in a very limited sense. They are ways of transferring a limited range of information in a fixed way. The point about "real" languages is that they are capable of expressing any idea at all.

Atheism is not a scientific hypothesis. It has nothing to do with science. There are atheist scientists and religious scientists. (One of the key figures in the big bang model was a Roman Catholic priest and mathematician.) The reason that the big bang model, or any scientific theory, is accepted as mainstream is because of the evidence. (Not because some mysterious elite is enforcing them - how would they even do that?) You have provided no evidence for your ideas, just incoherent rants.

Such as?

You must be using a rather broad definition of "language".

Science investigates all ideas until they are shown to be impossible. Your disbelief doesn't count. As life exists now (and previously didn't) then it must have arisen somehow. How this happened seems a reasonable question for science to try and answer.

The whole thing is intended to be a joke.

So what is the alternative?

They are not in use in contemporary English. So what. Or are you just moving the goalposts because it is clear you are talking nonsense. You can't speak in hieroglyphs; it is writing system. That is a very convincing argument.

Theoretical physicists use the word "theory" rather differently than experimental physicists.