Creation of the Universe Theories

[watatoad]

It's simply about belief religion believes one thing, the religion of science currently believes another, I guess agnostics suit themselves if they also decline to follow the current scientific belief system.

 

What do I believe...simple that there is no proof either way the big bang theory is total codswallop as scientists cannot even suggest what was before the big bang, creationists also offer no proof.

 

For me I just don't care either way, it was so long (well so people say...hehehe) ago, that it matters little to me.

 

What does matter is most scientists have not grow up and are just trying to kid everyone that they know things when they are basing what they state as absolute truth today on just theories and or expansion of theories, their theories could all be replaced tomorrow by a new and accepted theory. Some talk of a better understanding yet most don't understand themselves and many don't even know their neighbours let alone the planet and all its species, narrow minded and bigoted and they can't take even the slightest knock without getting all upset and their feathers all ruffled. At the end of the day who really cares what they say.

 

I care about things. Yes especially On both sides of any argument or discussion being fully and properly aired so as to allow as many as possible to make up their own minds. I will join any side just to achieve this end whether I really agree or disagree, just so people have the opportunity to look a bit closer and more carefully.

 

I think mankind should look to learning about the planet he/she is on, curing all disease and illness, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, educating the people of this planet as a whole, eradicating corruption, greed, avarice, stop eradicating other species and letting me get on with some quiet fishing.

 

Why should I care...after all at the end of the day I describe myself as a green toad...hehehe

[Worms]

It's simply about belief religion believes one thing, the religion of science currently believes another, I guess agnostics suit themselves if they also decline to follow the current scientific belief system.

 

What do I believe...simple that there is no proof either way the big bang theory is total codswallop as scientists cannot even suggest what was before the big bang, creationists also offer no proof.

 

For me I just don't care either way, it was so long (well so people say...hehehe) ago, that it matters little to me.

 

What does matter is most scientists have not grow up and are just trying to kid everyone that they know things when they are basing what they state as absolute truth today on just theories and or expansion of theories, their theories could all be replaced tomorrow by a new and accepted theory. Some talk of a better understanding yet most don't understand themselves and many don't even know their neighbours let alone the planet and all its species, narrow minded and bigoted and they can't take even the slightest knock without getting all upset and their feathers all ruffled. At the end of the day who really cares what they say.

 

I care about things. Yes especially On both sides of any argument or discussion being fully and properly aired so as to allow as many as possible to make up their own minds. I will join any side just to achieve this end whether I really agree or disagree, just so people have the opportunity to look a bit closer and more carefully.

 

I think mankind should look to learning about the planet he/she is on, curing all disease and illness, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, educating the people of this planet as a whole, eradicating corruption, greed, avarice, stop eradicating other species and letting me get on with some quiet fishing.

 

Why should I care...after all at the end of the day I describe myself as a green toad...hehehe

Typical ****s from a complete 4rsehole, yet again today.....yet he'd have you believe he's a scientific genius when it comes to internal combustion engine design. If that isn't science what is?

 

Care about things? don't know about species? who do you think supplies the information about everything you woffle on about if not scientists? Even scientists created your Roller

 

Come on watatoad, quit your bullshit and get a life

Edited April 2, 2011 by Worms

[watatoad]

Typical ****s from a complete 4rsehole, yet again today.....yet he'd have you believe he's a scientific genius when it comes to internal combustion engine design. If that isn't science what is?

 

Care about things? don't know about species? who do you think supplies the information about everything you woffle on about if not scientists? Even scientists created your Roller

 

Come on watatoad, quit your bullshit and get a life

 

To quote a comment - "yet he'd have you believe he's a scientific genius when it comes to internal combustion engine design. If that isn't science what is"

 

REPLY:

I have never said nor implied I am a scientific genius just a person who describes himself as a green toad and who knows a little about tuning high performance engines properly

 

And another would be pseudo scientist or scientist supporting person who cannot even read a post properly or clearly bites the dust under their own failure to accept sciences inability and lack of proof.

 

And has the audacity to attack me I have not made any comment personal. READ THE POSTS AND ESPECIALLY THE THREAD TITLE. Which is what I at least have been referring to and simply offering some examples of the scientific religions failures.

 

I simply refuse to accept everything either religious clergy or scientific clergy come out with as absolute truths.

 

If a person cannot have a different point of view without someone attacking them rather than attacking their point of view, to my mind makes me question both the validity of their comments and their conviction in their own point of view.

Edited April 2, 2011 by watatoad

[Worms]

To quote a comment - "yet he'd have you believe he's a scientific genius when it comes to internal combustion engine design. If that isn't science what is"

 

REPLY:

I have never said nor implied I am a scientific genius just a person who describes himself as a green toad and who knows a little about tuning high performance engines properly

No you said you were a tinkerer and not an engineer!

 

And another would be pseudo scientist or scientist supporting person who cannot even read a post properly or clearly bites the dust under their own failure to accept sciences inability and lack of proof.

evidence?

 

And has the audacity to attack me I have not made any comment personal. READ THE POSTS AND ESPECIALLY THE THREAD TITLE. Which is what I at least have been referring to and simply offering some examples of the scientific religions failures.

****s, you are constantly attacking and bullying other posters with your aggressive attitude. You waffle and bullshit with 'better than you' stories all the time. Audacity to attack? no, just defending myself against a spray of bullshit.

 

I simply refuse to accept everything either religious clergy or scientific clergy come out with as absolute truths.

Say no more!

 

If a person cannot have a different point of view without someone attacking them rather than attacking their point of view, to my mind makes me question both the validity of their comments and their conviction in their own point of view.

Ever thought of reversing that ideal? You are arrogant, rude and, in my view, a total bullsh1tter. You patronise posters with almost everything you say. He,he,he :bigemo_harabe_net-163:

 

Listen Toady, you spout off with no knowledge of subjects all the time. I don't believe you have any knowledge of tuning (successfully) engines as your posts on Elton's car are plain to see. Your refusal to acknowledge scientific evidence is just sad and, yes I am a scientist, highly qualified (also a qualified engineer with extensive knowledge in tuning 2 and 4 stroke engines)

 

Your ridiculous posts regarding "absolute proof" are typical of people who don't understand basic scientific logic so you slag it off. Then of cours in your multiple edits throw totally irrelevant Wikipaedia facts in. Sorry Toady. I don't believe most of what you say and I have little respect for your childish rants. Think about it, you slag off scientists yet just about everything you touch was created/designed/improved by them. Ok not all science is 100% all of the time but believe me, more work has gone into that than the thought or respect that you reserve for people on this forum!

[Ken L]

The experts say that before the big bang there was NOTHING !! How can something be made from nothing, how can an exposion happen from nothing ?

 

So OK, there was "something" before the big bang. Where did that something come from ?

Unless you are prepared to answer that, why complicate things any further by adding multiple stages (that you have no evidence for) to the problem ?

You can populate your simple "we don't know" with a god or with some sort of mathematical model of the physics of a universe before the expansion that we call the big bang but either way you have you get all the way back to something from nothing eventually unless you're prepared to state that "it's turtles all the way down"....

[watatoad]

The problem I appear to be giving some is that I do fully understand scientific logic and it is solely based upon a current acceptance of whatever theory appears to fit.

 

The shame is people comment without reading or understanding I have in the last few days praised scientists for some of their work but so far as the Creation of the Universe Theories that is all it is a theory not different from a belief in an all powerful Deity.

 

Scientists have proven on countless times that they are not infallible and on countless times they have changed their minds on what they have been telling the average member of public is true.

 

So whatever they say must based on previous data obtained from their previous statements never be accepted as absolute truth.

 

Perhaps they don't like that, then I would suggest stop telling us to believe whatever they say, just admit its the best idea or theory they can come up with at that current moment of time.

 

So far as my knowledge of tuning high performance engines goes that to me is simple car mechanics not engineering I have no idea which of my comments is being referred to, by a scientist perhaps he/she failed to read the point I made concerning the balancing of the exhaust system to which on a four stroke (which I assume Elton's V8 is) one of the most important areas is the header, perhaps a scientist does not like my suggestion of using copper which when considering the heat and make up of the exhaust gas will not last long. I was not referring to longevity of a part and I did offer stainless steel as an alternative.

 

Whatever, like many a scientist who picks up on one point and even then not clearly, yet totally fails to either follow the threads or read the posts fully. Yet I am suppose to accept that scientist theories as absolute truth, no chance.

 

Then a scientist makes up false statements and states that I made then? Although the scientist did admit finally that they were in error.

 

Then a scientist attacks me personally when I had only attacked scientists idea that we must believe absolutely whatever they say.

 

Finally the same scientist has ended up admitting that scientists are not right 100% of the time...what a pointless personal attack which has finally ended with a scientist admitting I am right not to accept what scientists say as absolute truth. Which is all I have been saying all along.

 

True I do not respect without reason you want my respect then earn it. But I try to be civil, I wont however back down from anything unless it can be proved positively that I am wrong, because I will not be bullied some people don't like it...tough.

 

Sure I can get banned from this forum for standing up for what I believe in, if that happened it would simply show a bias towards bullying and mean this forum was inappropriate for me. Would that effect me no. Would anyone care? I don't know. But I think the forum would be worse off without my childishness as I have always said if it not fun why do it. Some would be surprised at the invites I get from other forums.

[corydoras]

So OK, there was "something" before the big bang. Where did that something come from ?

Unless you are prepared to answer that, why complicate things any further by adding multiple stages (that you have no evidence for) to the problem ?

You can populate your simple "we don't know" with a god or with some sort of mathematical model of the physics of a universe before the expansion that we call the big bang but either way you have you get all the way back to something from nothing eventually unless you're prepared to state that "it's turtles all the way down"....

Let's just clarify something when cosmologists say "nothing" they don't mean the same as Joe Public, because the 'nothing' that Joe Public thinks of does not exist. Even in the hardest vacuum of deep space where there is no matter, virtual particles are constantly being created and being destroyed. "Nothing" does not exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

[watatoad]

Let's just clarify something when cosmologists say "nothing" they don't mean the same as Joe Public, because the 'nothing' that Joe Public thinks of does not exist. Even in the hardest vacuum of deep space where there is no matter, virtual particles are constantly being created and being destroyed. "Nothing" does not exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

 

Thank you for clarifying that, I am certain many will be grateful...would I be correct in describing 'sciences nothing.' as simply being scientists don't know nor do they have a generally agreed theory?

 

There lies much of the problem rather similar to 'jargon', 'in word's', 'buzz words', 'fashionable words' or phrases. which are used by some who are being patronising or needlessly implying a complexion which is obviously (to them at least) far beyond and above the average persons intellectual ability. Are really just spin, avoidance, fabrication, misdirection and plain dishonesty.

 

People speak of respect and some even appear to demand it, that's o.k. they may even get it when they give the average person due respect and credit, and make a serious effort to be honest and stop hiding behind all the jargon. Instead of looking down on the average person and patronising everyone all the time, whilst enjoying their own self importance and self aggrandizement. True legends in their own lunchtimes.

[chesters1]

Let's just clarify something when cosmologists say "nothing" they don't mean the same as Joe Public, because the 'nothing' that Joe Public thinks of does not exist. Even in the hardest vacuum of deep space where there is no matter, virtual particles are constantly being created and being destroyed. "Nothing" does not exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

surely only changed can matter be destroyed?

or are virtual particles only in the mind?

Edited April 3, 2011 by chesters1

[ColinW]

Thank you for clarifying that, I am certain many will be grateful...would I be correct in describing 'sciences nothing.' as simply being scientists don't know nor do they have a generally agreed theory?

 

There lies much of the problem rather similar to 'jargon', 'in word's', 'buzz words', 'fashionable words' or phrases. which are used by some who are being patronising or needlessly implying a complexion which is obviously (to them at least) far beyond and above the average persons intellectual ability. Are really just spin, avoidance, fabrication, misdirection and plain dishonesty.

 

People speak of respect and some even appear to demand it, that's o.k. they may even get it when they give the average person due respect and credit, and make a serious effort to be honest and stop hiding behind all the jargon. Instead of looking down on the average person and patronising everyone all the time, whilst enjoying their own self importance and self aggrandizement. True legends in their own lunchtimes.

 

The only time I've seen scientists being apparently "patronizing" is when they are trying to dumb down their subject for consumption by the general public. Personally, I don't believe I understand Stephen Hawking's work just becase I've read "A Brief History of Time", because it is undoubtedly just some old tosh he published to build up his bank account as much as he can before his condition finally leads him to find out whether god actually does exist or not. That's something those who believe ignorance is a virtue won't understand, the idea that a man who according to them is "in a world of his own" is actually thinking about how his family will survive after he has gone.

 

On the original topic, my own view is that nothing I know about requires the existence of a supreme creator. The fact that certain things which are so improbable are required to be true for me to exist doesn't mean that those things happened by design. It just means that in the infinite other possible universes I wouldn't be around to ask the question! The fact that I'm here means that those circumstances HAD to come about. In an infinite universe, even the almost infinitely improbable is a certainty.

Edited April 3, 2011 by ColinW