I personally handle the countless possibilities, the asphyxiating (sp) clutter, the same way I handle the endless advertisiing (also typically "half-baked") in my environment: I tune it out reflexively. Occasionally the improbable, to my gut feeling, emerges from the noise at someone's insistence, like the idea that 9/11 was perp'd by our own government, and I'll say, "really? Show me." But I really don't experience "countless" ideas anyway, I go to my man cave when it's too noisy. I think I grok you now. I should probably drop this argument... some are certain of what IS, some are certain of what ISN'T, and myself... I'm certain that the certainties are actually probabilities. ; )
Yes, the laws of physics allow for it. The laws of physics allow for many things because all the theories in physics begin with postulates. The postulates can't be proven. If you accept the postulate you can go on to construct a theory based on those postulates. If you reject the postulates then the theory is meaningless to you. One must make assumptions that the numbers you're working with are the right numbers, and it all works fine until someone comes along with a different set of numbers. x+y=4 must mean x=2 and y=2. Perfect. Wait, x=3 and y=1 gets you 4 as well. Oh no, x=2.5 and y=1.5...OMFG x=3.9 and y=.1 They all equal 4, and how many different sets of numbers can you come up with to equal 4? Pick your theory my friend. At the end of the day no one theory is any better than the other, and just because you personally like one over the other doesn't make everyone else wrong.
How do you know what these biologists study? What percentage of them do you think will be able to explain Darwinian evolution? What I find curious, is that these scientists will believe in the resurrection (of the species) before they will accept intelligent design. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_taxon
I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but I have noticed human beings seem to have a tendency to cling to their positions regardless of the evidence. Their ego makes it hard to let go and change their mind. But when this happens, this is not true science. True science is a beautiful thing.
You seem to become more and more the grumpy old atheist everyday. How tough has life been for you? That is pretty kung fu. Of course you lie again... i have not problem understanding that some scientists say the universe could start from nothing. I am just asking you to cite to those scientists so that we can all be learning in context. The funny thing is, is that the universe came from nothing argument is the argument string theorist use to combat the design inference. The very point being made here. In order to combat the fact that the laws of our universe manifest a designer - scientist propose there are infinite other universes that pop up. ....
What you have defined there as religion - is not science. The real use of philosophical statements like "true" in the end, is only in as far as they can be tested by science.
You alter specifically and in context what a physicist says in his own video I hardly think you would be writing the things you do if you wanted to understand, let alone learn something.
The math proves your postulate incorrect. It makes 'everyone wrong' who says x+y=4 must mean x=2 and y=2. What are you trying to say?
It means everyone IS wrong. We know the answer is 4, or 6, 20, 10,000...whatever, we're here, the universe exists. We know that and only that. How it came to be is the question. The tone of your posts seem to say that x MUST=2 and y MUST=2, while ignoring all of the other possibilities. That's what I'm trying to say. Perhaps I'm mis-interpreting the tone of your posts, but you sure come off as a my way or the highway kinda' guy when it comes to this subject matter.