Search results

I take your point Hansel but you might as well be saying philosophy is science as hydrogen is water. Philosophy is at most not always an essential ingredient in the scientific process anyway. Every philosophical idea that does actually become science itself has moved from thinking to doing...

I have a Nobel prize winner telling me there is no need for what you call design - but is meant to mean intelligent design - in the universe. You have a built in incomprehension of what a Nobel Prize winner is actually telling me. Were you to ever stop trying to read stuff which isn't there...

Yes, you are wrong and you have no clue.... looking down the wrong end of a telscope as per usual. Hypotheses need to be reconciled with the laws of physics (why would you put laws of physics in quotes??) not the other way round. There is nothing known of in the universe that...

Like I say, no argument , no discussion, no substance. You make it abundantly clear, ultimately cheap snide remarks is all you have.

What are you trying to get at H? The product of philosophical logic is either more philosophy OR the logic can be developed scientifically. You can't develop that logic scientifically with more philosophy!! Karl Popper's falsifiability - if it is first a philosophical construct as you...

A Designer Universe? It is still too early to tell whether there is some fundamental principle that can explain why the cosmological constant must be this small. But even if there is no such principle, recent developments in cosmology offer the possibility of an explanation of why the...

Lol. You sound more juvenile each time you post. Does it not occur to you there could well be more trolls on this board prepared attack anything that questions religion? People call me all sorts of things usually because like you they can’t deal with the substance of the topic...

That joke was told later on.

Are you really trying to say the laws of physics don't apply in or to the universe. Are you being serious? Dark Energy and Dark Matter , and macroscopic quantum effects are difficult to reconcile, not the laws of physics. Why exactly would want you hold off deciding whether the...

So you're saying because all the multitudinous complex reactions present in the universe are not fully accounted for, and because there may be controversy over one scientific hypothesis in particular: that means entropy, the second law of thermodynamics, is hostile to big bang, galactic...

Yes I've got the message. Everyone who doesn't go with your wacky nonsense is a troll. I'd expect no better from you. First you insist marriam webster , a dictionary, in which words get constantly redefined and meanings expanded, definitively states what an atheist is. Then having done...

You're not kidding The End. First you come out with a piece of pseudoscience in the guise of a question , then close down your mind to everything but your own personal beliefs. That is not a particularly intelligent thing to do. If you're not careful, next you'll find yourself like...

Likewise to bigarrow's request. Go ahead and post the laws of physics, or the title and the quote from the physics text book which state how Big Bang to galactic systems to a planet teaming with life would in any way be not possible or prevented because of entropy. The answer is Yes. The...

Yeah well to religious nutters like yourself , any reasonable comment or logical proposition are just word games, basically because you don't have a reasonable argument to make. There would be no need for agnostics if atheism were no belief? wtf are you talking about now. Of course atheism...

Yep. If no belief = belief (according to the creationist argument) then equally belief must = no belief. Which of course both propositions are absurd, but then that's creationists for you.

You've given 2nd and 3rd hand skewed opinionated interpretations from Bible websites, and misleading part quotes to form false impressions , not science. There is at least one of your Nobel prize scientists who has described how the universe would form without the need for multiverses. So...

'A way of knowing' is deliberately formed and generally intended to mean A way of not knowing. No sound basis to attack science. It's not only science that is irrelevant and inapplicable to that metaphysical. Everything is. Purposely placing imaginary concepts permanently beyond and...

If non belief is a belief, belief is a non belief. Could you keep YOUR daft comments to yourself?

Where is the science? "Take your choice" is not science! I've said to you before, scientists, Nobel winners or not, are not treated in the way which religionists like yourself are, blindly accepting what a Pope or a priest a bible or their own fanciful ideas might tell them. If Ed...