Which theory will be next?

But you are completely ignoring what I'm saying about quantum nothingness with its particles. You are saying they were always there. No scientist on the planet worth his salt would consider an infinite thing like that. It's impossible. You seem to throw in the notion of this quantum nothingness and think it solves it. But it's like someone saying God made the universe, and then refusing to answer where God came from, or saying he was always there.

You asking a christian to explain it away is no more valid than a scientist explaining it away. Nothing you've said explains anything. Maths and experiments will only work on one level, once you include infinity it breaks down.

And you'll never find evidence of true nothing. That's the point...it has no presence. It's unreality. Perhaps if we discovered that quantum nothingness has an age. That it came into being only a squwillion years ago. Then you would have a chance of doing that.

But really, you put too much faith in these quantum scientists. Have you had a look at the equipment they use?

I think you probably had a Christian upbringing, became an atheist and was totally sucked in by the quantum theory, despite the glaring errors in logic it fails to solve.

You haven't solved the mystery of where reality came from, you've just renamed God as science.

And no, I don't believe or disbelieve in God. I feel the need to keep pointing that out to you because you seem to keep forgetting.

Hey, albie, I don't mean to interrupt your discussion with Produkt, but what's your take on the subject of this thread? Which theory do you think is next in line to be attacked by people who think an alternate theory with some intelligence involved is better?

Please feel free to interrupt this pointless (on both sides) discussion.

They aren't about to be teaching complex quantum mechanics in schools anyway.

But anyway, your denial of the possible existence of god is unscientific. According to the present state (mess) of quantum mechanics the existence of god is no less unlikely than you existing. That is fact, not my opinion.

Of course, if he never visits. Doesn't even email us anymore...he ain't getting a christmas card.

The problem is that God is absurd. Yet, so is the universe. It's just that we are so bored by our life, the colour brown, the smell of coffee, that we don't realise how absurd and impossible our lives are.

[edit on 21-2-2006 by albie]

Originally posted by albie
Please feel free to interrupt this pointless (on both sides) discussion.

They aren't about to be teaching complex quantum mechanics in schools anyway.

But anyway, your denial of the possible existence of god is unscientific. According to the present state (mess) of quantum mechanics the existence of god is no less unlikely than you existing. That is fact, not my opinion.

Of course, if he never visits. Doesn't even email us anymore...he ain't getting a christmas card.

The problem is that God is absurd. Yet, so is the universe. It's just that we are so bored by our life, the colour brown, the smell of coffee, that we don't realise how absurd and impossible our lives are.

[edit on 21-2-2006 by albie]

What is that? I have no idea where you're going. As for your assertion that I think God doesn't exist, that's wrong. I happen to believe in God, but that has nothing to do with ID.

My question was which theory will they attack next; I have no idea what your answer was.

OK. I'm just gonna be real and come out and say it.

There will be no other attacks on other theories compared to the ID attack on evolution. This is because the ID people have a Christian agenda. For some reason, they think evolution clashes that, and that's why they wanna scrap it.

It really is a shame, though. They wanna take away the biggest thing in biology now, all because of some belief. It's bad enough that biology is not a "hard science" like physics and chemistry, but these guys just wanna push their agenda. It would be a lot funnier if these peeps didn't have actual clout.