I challenge scientists to a debate over their "belief" of how things started?

Scientists have government money so they don't need to prove everything. When you have government money, you're absolutely immune to debate.

Are you kidding, do you really believe there any Scientist here?

There's all sorts on GLP. That's what makes it so interesting

But none will be able to answer the question????

So a lack of Scientist on GLP equates to them not being able or willing to answer the riddle. With reasoning like that, its the obvious reason why there are no Scientist on GLP.

False premise/straw man - I don't believe the universe came "from nothing." I think the matter/energy always existed in one form or another (in this dimension or others), since we have never been able to show the destruction of matter/energy.

Anyway, I'm tired so I'm not going to respond to further idiotic statements, but I just thought I'd point out that your question is illogical from the get-go.

You are right that all is based on theory. All scientist do is look at probabilities. The normal procedure is:

- a theory is thought off
- an experiment to test the theory is thought off
- the experiment is done many times and the result is noted
- a second 'debunk' experiment is thought off
- that one is done mane times and the results are noted
- if these results show a probability of our theory explaining the results in more then 95% of the results, we go to the next stop
- that next step is asking 'peers' (other people in your field who have already done other trusted experiments) to redo all your experiments.
- if they find the same results then it will be published
- if most scientist in the field agree to the publication and see all is done with care and scrutiny, then the new theory will start being accepted.

So, it is a pretty foolproof way to build up a set of theories that have actual merit in the real world. Still theories, but they all describe nature workings pretty often pretty good.

Peace

What constitutes the label 'scientist'? Loosely defined, any amateur astronomer, phlebotomist, or even a nurse can be labelled a "scientist". OP is just terrified to have his beliefs challenged. It's quite common among religious people.

Your answer clearly shows how science runs away from the challenge.

Science's "mission" is to explain everything. Have some theory for everything etc.

Your statement "I think the matter/energy always existed in one form or another" just side steps the issue" What is the scientific theory that comes to that conclusion ????

There is NONE ... it is yours (and I guess others) BELIEF and you can come up with absolutely no plausible explanation.

In fact your only explanation is to say the question is flawed. .... Hmmmm .... I won't come up with an answer because I don't like (or find too hard) the question. Now that is illogical, lol

It COULD be god. But I cannot think of an experiment to test your theory.

We were created by a race much like our own.

You’re free to interpret the label as you choose fit. It is of no consequence to the answer.

But stick to answering the question rather than distraction.

And of course it is scientists who “run a mile” and use distraction when they have their beliefs challenged and scrutinised as they can offer nothing that comes close to answering this fundamental question. But have faith someone may come to your rescue and offer hope!!!

Last Edited by FreedomFox on 05/23/2011 06:53 AM

Ok, so your take on it is what........If you answer with god created it all, you're no different than the people you are trying to make fools of. Science must work even from one of the statements above that you have tried to ridicule.

Your statement "I think the matter/energy always existed in one form or another" just side steps the issue" What is the scientific theory that comes to that conclusion ????

There is NONE ... it is yours (and I guess others) BELIEF and you can come up with absolutely no plausible explanation.

So IF and this is a big IF, god exists what is it/he....... by your defenition it would be just Matter/Energy.

Now FUCK OFF Religitard

You aim for materialist atheist sceptics. That has little or nothing to do with science. I agree fully that they are completely nuts.

I understand that there is this black and white debate of absolute opposites going on. I suggest staying away from both sides.

We don't have all the answers, but the answers that we have now, aren't supportive of either side of the debate.

Fuk off OP, your not going too Debate, your going too shit all over the Chess Board and Claim Victory. eat shit and die with all the other Godtards. Evolution and the Big Bangs have been proven in several ways.

How sad you have to resort to such language/tactics and deviate from the question at hand.

My point in the post is to clearly show that science is based on a BELIEF system. You've added nothing to address that stamement only unfortunate abuse.