All aboard the atheist bus?

No more or less reasonable than believing in other things for which we have no proof.

 

such as singularities...

 

"Proof", perhaps not, evidence, yes. "God" is evidence-free, just like a pink unicorn, or the flying spaghetti monster.

 

Please reread bub - string theory, general relativity and cosmology are all taught on bsc and phd theoretical physics courses (which I took). Your knowledge however comes off the back of a cornflakes packet. Flying monster spaghettios most likely

My minor was in history and philosophy of science specialising in the theory and philosophy of evolution. Evolutionary, neural and genetic techniques for solving physics problems are the research topics I now specialise in - both for my dissertation and in my subsequent research and then trading career.

The way you talk about evolution is the way theists talk about god. Why dont you read a brief history of time over the weekend? I will be interested to hear your opinions on the work of prof hawking.

 

String theory is also evidence free. Compact massive objects exist but a "black hole" or "singularity" is a theoretical entity currently bub - so much of what you hold to be "proof" is not.

You are just regurgitating from what you have read like reading a passage from the bible. Its rather oafish.

 

I've taken your posts regarding your academic background with a tiny pinch of salt ever since the great A level debacle, bio. Sorry, and all that....

I haven't claimed proof, I was careful not to. Oafish? Whatever you say.

 

Oh dear. Are you one of the geniuses who've just trashed the banks & stock exchange? Impressive.

 

There was no a-level debacle bub.

Nope thats banks not hedge funds - dont believe the hype bub. I am up 60% in 08

Things are much fuzzier in science than you imagine bub - but it doesnt sell popular science books - try to look a little deeper and stop being such a lummox.

 

I was referring to your A-level-grade-bragging-train, which ran into the buffers, so to speak, of an A level examiner.

It was quite funny, you must admit.

 

It did no such thing bubby boy - now keep on topic. I look forward to you expounding on cosmology - its like shooting fish in a barrel... with a howitzer. Please continue.

 

I agree, you'd be hard pushed to find evidence of a pink unicorn but they're not a runner in the 'who/what started the universe?').

However, there is loads of evidence of creation (small 'c') of the universe, the obvious being that I see it wherever I look but even that evidence does not prove anything. At best we can look back and see / detect that there was a big bang but we have no evidence of what happened before then. To get from a few millenia after the big bang to what happened before suddenly becomes all theories and bits of paper and equations.

The evidence supports those theories but equally so does the theory of God or the flying spaghetti monster (may you be touched by his noodly appendages). Even if you can discount 'intelligent design' and the idea of someone / something running the universe day-to-day, you cannot get away from the fact that there is evidence and tons of theories but ultimately, these are governed by the same degree of prejudices on all sides.

Fact is, I don't know how it all began, you don't know, brizonbiovizier doesn't know, the pope doesn't and even Prof Hawking doesn't know.

 

Yes, but is "not knowing" something a good enough reason to just throw up your hands and say "it must be god"? Why must it be god, and not, say, a pink unicorn? Or nothing?

Here's some stuff, none of it written or thought of by me nor brizonbiobllox:

http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/10/04713844/0471384410.pdf

 

I wish you'd keep on topic. For the record, the A level examiner very effectively howitzered your "I got superspecial A grades" bragging. I'm sorry, but I really can't take any of your posts at face value. IOW, I don't believe anything you write.

 

That's the point I was trying to make (badly) albeit without the 'anti-god' bias

 

Nor is it reason to discount special creation by God.

Again from the links you provided earlier:

 

Come and see for yourself Bub. Or give me your email address and I will send you a scan of the "special paper distinctions" I received from my examining board. Oaf.

Please note that evolution is a theory - its still incomplete with many areas to be addressed and better understood. This is the hallmark of a theory - one cannot have an incomplete fact, something is a fact or it is not. Arent you getting it yet?

 

Not quite. You have to make the distinction.

Evolution is a FACT - we can observe it happening.

The mechanism(s) behind Evolution are still theories.

 

I would have to disagree with you there, Seeker UK.

Variation has been observed but evolution has not been observed taking place.

 

The "Theory of Evolution" - sometimes referred to in common parlance as "Evolution" is a theory not a fact. That species adapt is a fact. However "adapt" can be exchanged for the common meaning of "evolve" so its a confusion of common and technical semantics. Noone has ever seen a new species emerge, it is inferred using the theory from the fossil record.

 

Perhaps not but evolution has been observed in our time:

http://www.livescience.com/animals/060713_darwin_finch.html

Of course, this is not speciesization (sp?) but if the journal "Science" call it evolution, who are we to argue.