You're doing it again. After what you've said and are still saying above, it's difficult to believe that's true.
Clearly Lucrum still doesn't get that. You might start with metaphysics, my point being that you always need do the science to go any further. That's not "all it represents" Science is more than just metaphysics.
If stu is willing to argue with these guys.. he is willing to argue with you. He is unwilling to accept science if it conflicts with his worldview.
And you're obviously very much a liar because I schooled you about dark energy and dark matter here and you know it: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2952513#post2952513 STUpid = ignorant, lying troll.
What, pointing out that there are unproven scientific theories and that these theories are not the same thing as proven laws or facts of absolute certainty? Refusal to acknowledge or believe reality, doesn't change it.
No, I'm saying it's either in ignorance or deceit that anyone would suggest scientific theories are unproven in false comparison to "not the same thing as proven laws or facts of absolute certainty", or infer that they are just a theory, when in fact they are always far from both those descriptions. Scientific theories are valid, being grounded in logic, containing fact, are proven to a great degree and have substantive explanations of the natural world. They never are â¦just unproven. Like the two posts prior to yours, you're still trying to present a false argument based on something that evidently isn't true in reality.
If it's "proven", it's no longer just a theory. If it's not proven it's just a theory. It may be a popular even widely accepted theory. But it's still just a theory.
You idiot, it's a continuum and the "universe from nothing" speculation that you keep mindlessly parroting is a stretch, as was Hawking's speculation that the universe would collapse and time would reverse. Which he later had to retract. But your child-like understanding of science leads you to believe that scientists know much more than they really do. just like this link shows how you had what scientists understand about the universe BACKWARDS. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2952513#post2952513
It seems to me its the theologians who are the ones who should be put on the defensive. They're the ones who're cocksure about their beliefs and for no better reason than faith. Science overtly admits when they use the word theory that the bottom hasn't been plumbed yet as to the prospects for graduating a theory or hypothesis to the next level ...law. Theres reason and theres faith, and its a faith based on what some primitive writers prescribed. And you don't get to use agnostic perspectives to support christian beliefs. You have to defend Noah et al.