Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

[Lydiot]

Yep, got it. No worries.

[MIG29pilot]

Lydiot, you'll have to blame the dog, like IAHM-COL said. None of your posts have been deleted. To date the only posts that have been deleted by the administrators have come from spammers or persons trying to sell pornography.

Please let old bones lie buried.

[KL-666]

First of all, in terms of making claims and the size of those claims, there is currently no bigger claim than that of god. An omniscient omnipresent omnipotent creator of universes is clearly by far a more "huge" claim than dark matter. So if the size of the claim was an issue then bringing up dark matter in a thread about "creation or evolution / big bang or big belief" seems a bit.... unconvincing.

Such statement has no meaning to me. I have seen you argue earlier along these lines towards me. As if i am thinking: "no science, then god". Probably this preconception troubles your understanding of what i say. You have to realize that i am one of the truest non-believers in existence. Anything that is told me to believe, i take as highly doubtful and invalidating related statements. I believe not in god nor in scientific fantasies like the dark stuff (they are far from proven, unlike you trying to say they are). If you rethink all i say from this perspective, you may understand why the dark stuff is very troublesome for me. It invalidates a lot of scientific statements. Cut the dark stuff out and look more than now is done at some convictions of science that are at the base of expanding universe to get some serious explanations.

- It promotes some theories / hypotheses more than others = it's a biased community
- It takes into account all hypotheses and give them all equal time and attention = there's no consensus so who knows what's "true"

Being biased is not helping the "truth" either. Running everywhere like in the second option is a bit bit of caricature. This is still not about new hypotheses, but more about investigating current hypotheses. Try to find observations that contradict your theory, not only the ones that agree. Do not fix contradictions with fantasy matter, but rethink your basic assumptions. Then there is a win situation for science.

Kind regards, Vincent

[Lydiot]

First of all, in terms of making claims and the size of those claims, there is currently no bigger claim than that of god. An omniscient omnipresent omnipotent creator of universes is clearly by far a more "huge" claim than dark matter. So if the size of the claim was an issue then bringing up dark matter in a thread about "creation or evolution / big bang or big belief" seems a bit.... unconvincing.

Such statement has no meaning to me. I have seen you argue earlier along these lines towards me. As if i am thinking: "no science, then god". Probably this preconception troubles your understanding of what i say. You have to realize that i am one of the truest non-believers in existence. Anything that is told me to believe, i take as highly doubtful and invalidating related statements. I believe not in god nor in scientific fantasies like the dark stuff (they are far from proven, unlike you trying to say they are). If you rethink all i say from this perspective, you may understand why the dark stuff is very troublesome for me. It invalidates a lot of scientific statements. Cut the dark stuff out and look more than now is done at some convictions of science that are at the base of expanding universe to get some serious explanations.

- It promotes some theories / hypotheses more than others = it's a biased community
- It takes into account all hypotheses and give them all equal time and attention = there's no consensus so who knows what's "true"

Being biased is not helping the "truth" either. Running everywhere like in the second option is a bit bit of caricature. This is still not about new hypotheses, but more about investigating current hypotheses. Try to find observations that contradict your theory, not only the ones that agree. Do not fix contradictions with fantasy matter, but rethink your basic assumptions. Then there is a win situation for science.

Kind regards, Vincent

Ok. Well, all I can say is that science has worked fantastically, and you seem to completely ignore the fact that dark matter / energy is proposed by far greater minds than ours, along with the fact that other theories exist along side it. You insisting on complaining about scientists being biased while other theories (or hypotheses) exist as well seems ironic to me, to say the least.

In addition to the no-win situation you set up for science the fundamental problem with your reasoning and accusing scientists of being biased is that you seemingly expect all scientists to investigate all hypotheses simultaneously, and equally. Yet, curiously, I don't see you criticizing those who propose alternatives to dark matter / energy. Why are they not the ones being biased against dark stuff rather than vice versa? Why are you criticizing only proponents of dark stuff and not the rest who are also critical of it?

"science has transformed in a bunch of meddling apes"

No offense, but I'm siding with the "apes" that gave us 4G LTE......

[KL-666]

Yet, curiously, I don't see you criticizing those who propose alternatives to dark matter / energy. Why are they not the ones being biased against dark stuff rather than vice versa? Why are you criticizing only proponents of dark stuff and not the rest who are also critical of it?

Somehow you simply do not listen to what i am saying. If you would, you would not have said this (and many other things). I am not with them either. I am against iffy science that incorporates fantasy stuff to fix their problems. And that counts for anyone doing so.

Small scale technical success (LTE, etc...) does not prove that you can simply extrapolate these micro scale theories to large scale, like billions of light years. Specifically if problems start to arise you'll have to investigate if there is not a mistake in doing so. I do not accept filling gaps with fantasy.

Kind regards, Vincent

[Lydiot]

Yet, curiously, I don't see you criticizing those who propose alternatives to dark matter / energy. Why are they not the ones being biased against dark stuff rather than vice versa? Why are you criticizing only proponents of dark stuff and not the rest who are also critical of it?

Somehow you simply do not listen to what i am saying.

Dude, I'm listening, so you can stop saying that. There's a difference between me disagreeing with you and me not listening.

I am not with them either. I am against iffy science that incorporates fantasy stuff to fix their problems. And that counts for anyone doing so.

If you are equally critical of any theory or hypothesis that isn't "proven", then you are iffy against ALL non-settled science. And since science is based on a method it will by definition take time to figure stuff out. And since it takes time to figure things out you will ALWAYS have that objection against science - until we have complete knowledge, which probably won't happen.

Dark matter / energy being fantasy is just your opinion as a layman. IF it turns out to be true you can continue to be iffy about any other hypothesis that exists that isn't proven. So your convenient stance allows you to always criticize science and biased science apes.

This all is very reminiscent of decades past when these "apes" had "theories" about small stuff we humans couldn't see, called atoms. It was unbelievable and just sounded like fantasy. Scientists persisted, and while they made their calculations they even hypothesized the existence of the electron. Guess who was right?

Small scale technical success (LTE, etc...) does not prove that you can simply extrapolate these micro scale theories to large scale, like billions of light years. Specifically if problems start to arise you'll have to investigate if there is not a mistake in doing so. I do not accept filling gaps with fantasy.

Kind regards, Vincent

Like I said, far smarter people than you have evaluated this and found it to be a reasonable explanation. I'm inclined to listen to their actual arguments based on actual observations and calculations than someone simply repeating the word "fantasy" to describe it. You thinking it's "fantasy" doesn't make them biased, and it doesn't make it not true.

[KL-666]

Far smarter people than me have proven god.

Kind regards, Vincent

[Lydiot]

Far smarter people than me have proven god.

Kind regards, Vincent

So show us a person and his proof that god exists.

[KL-666]

Get away. If you pretend to have any knowledge, you would know them.

And please do not start about me believing in god, because i do not.

Kind regards, Vincent

[Lydiot]

Get away. If you pretend to have any knowledge, you would know them.

And please do not start about me believing in god, because i do not.

Kind regards, Vincent

So what was your point when you write that? I mean, are you really sure they're smarter than you are? I'm not so sure.