₦airaland Forum

Here are a few: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

When I saw wikipedia I didn't bother clicking, call me shallow.
Besides, I found the answer to those questions.  They provided me with more than enough reasons why cosmology is a junk of zilch.


Quote
"Associated Cosmological Problems in Need of Solution
Other difficulties the new approach appears to resolve arose from a revision of the "big bang" which, cosmologists freely admit, still contains unacceptable false predictions. It assumes all the energy, ultimately to become the universe, was created in a massive explosion--all over in a split second.

Actually, no, it doesn't.

Lol sure honorable KAG I'll take your word for it? Your words are as good as gold, LMAO.



Theorists can, however, find no way of switching off this explosion, called "inflation". So the theory then [b]predicts that galaxies should still be accelerating away from one another at rates 10120 (a one with 120 noughts after it) higher than astronomical observations can allow. (Some error!) This was the figure given by Greene (2) in 1999 when writing about this problem, known as the "cosmological constant".

What error?

There deals with the problem about the "cosmological constant" - can't you read?
You have to do better than these one-liners.



"Is string theory right? We just don't know."

However, we may know very soon. The Laarge Haldron Collider (LHC) should, by the next year, be givng data that should collaborate aspects of String theory. Also, the gravitational effects of the other proposed branes may soon be testable.

We may know, that doesn't refute the statement about us not knowing now does it?
Come next year if it doesn't happen you'll be here giving us some other intanginble reasons why we should wait another year.



A second difficulty met with in big-bang theory is that some stars seem older than the universe, whose age cosmologists set at about 12 billion years.

I don't know of any stars that are older than the Universe - I suspect the problem comes from your misunderstanding. By the way, I think the lower limit set for the age of the observed Universe is well over 13 billion years.

Since you don't know of any, go on google you'll find 'some'.    Lol hahahaaaa it is my misunderstanding, or you mean another cosmological error caught red-handedly. you are too funny.




Thirdly, in 1998 observations of remote supernovae were claimed by Schwarzschild (3) which show that the expansion of the universe is speeding up instead of slowing down as they had supposed. Puzzled cosmologists are saying that some new mysterious repulsive force must be acting and two invoke "quintessence" having strange anti-gravity effects.

The acceleration of the expansion of the Universe is not a problem for the Big Bang theory.

It's just a cosmological problem right?





So is this what I'm supposed to suck up to? Your big bad assumption-filled, prediction-filled, erroneous cosmological theories. looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool.

No one wants you to suck up to any science theories - you're expected to, at least, learn and understand them before disingenuously typing silly things about them.

I'm afraid I can't do that.  You lads failed to induce the same respect when it comes to christianity.  You quickly turned a blind eye.

LoL, I don't think anyone has stated cosmology is ideal - it's certainly better than fantasy, though. Also, you aren't really finding any problems with cosmology, you're just copy/pasting the words of others.

Mind you I provided the links to them.
What better ways to shatter your discourse than to provide factual evidence from the likes of those you adore, aka Scientists.
If you don't think cosmology is ideal, fact is it isn't, then why are you and nferyn here expecting perfection from every other religion sect.




Next time your friend Nferyn will learn to distinguish from those who dance around the hot potato and those who stick to their words.
You wanted faults and shakiness? you got it. Think I'm done? ha lol, not even.

"In cosmology, the Big Bang theory is the scientific theory of the early development and shape of the universe. The central idea is that the theory of general relativity can be combined with the observations on the largest scales of galaxies receding from each other to extrapolate the conditions of the universe back or forward in time. A natural consequence of the Big Bang is that in the past the universe had a higher temperature and a higher density. The term "Big Bang" is used both in a narrow sense to refer to a point in time when the observed expansion of the universe (Hubble's law) began, and in a more general sense to refer to the prevailing cosmological paradigm explaining the origin and evolution of the universe."

"The term "Big Bang" was coined in 1949 by Fred Hoyle during a BBC radio program, The Nature of Things; the text was published in 1950. Hoyle did not subscribe to the theory and intended to mock the concept."

The Big Bang and Redshift Theories are not scientific laws or laws of physics. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law was wrong. This web page will prove that the Big Bang and Redshift Theories fail many challenges, not simply one. The Big Bang Theory will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. The Redshift theory is not proven and also fails. This is why they are called a theories instead of laws. The Big Bang and Redshift Theories are "politically correct" concepts that are perpetuated by brainwashing of the general public, especially school students.

Universities are centers of higher brainwashing


A good example of "politically correctness" and brainwashing is the Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia prides itself in allowing visitors to revise the web page in most cases. However, they do not allow a reference and link to this website because we refute UFOs, Aliens, Bigfoot, Loch Ness, Roswell, Area 51, Crop Circles, Antigravity, Bermuda Triangle, evolution, Big Bang Theory and Red Shift Light Theory. Wikipedia is a good example of the media perpetuating myths.

Brainwashing and Other Mental and Personality Disorders.




Big Bang Flaw No. 1 - The Expanding Universe Theory

The Big Bang Theory violates the basic foundation of science that is Dr. Albert Einstein's "Theory of Special Relativity."

E = M * C2

Dr. Albert Einstein developed this formula that gives the relationship between energy (E), mass (M) and the speed of light (C). The theory has been proven in numerous ways. It is the theory behind the atomic bombs for both fusion and fission reactions. Dr. Einstein conducted experiments to prove his theory. It stands without a challenge.

The Big Bang Theory states that the universe was once a dense, hot body of matter that exploded and has been expanding since the beginning, some 10 to 20 billion years ago. Dr. Einstein's formula shows that the material could not exceed the speed of light as it expanded. Mass becomes infinite as the speed approaches the speed of light. Increasing the energy in the initial "bang" cannot increase the speed beyond the speed of light. The mass will increase proportionately as the initial energy is increased. The mass increases to approach infinity as the energy level approaches infinity. The big flaw in the big bang theory is not solved.

The initial near speed of light for the expanding universe in the Big Bang theory seems large at first glance, but this is not the case. The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second (300,000 kilometers per second). This may seem fast to us, but it is a snail's pace in cosmic terms. A cosmic distance of 186,000 miles is negligible. One second is like an eternity in Big Bang terms.

A speed near the speed of light is inadequate for mass to escape the tremendous gravitational field at time zero in the Big Bang theory. The matter would simply decelerate sharply and collapse back onto itself again. The speed of light is much less than the escape velocity needed for matter during the Big Bang explosion. The Big Bang would simply give a big burp or big beluga and collapse back again. The energy would be changed back into mass. This condition is witnessed daily in observing the sun. Giant explosions called sun spots on the sun blast material hundreds of thousands of miles (km) into space only to decelerate and collapse back into the sun again. Radiation and light escape from the sun but matter cannot.

One cosmologist has suggested that the material forming our universe blasted out from the "Big Bang" at a speed greater than the speed of light. At least this guy can see the speed of light as a barrier to the expanding universe theory. However, having matter move at a greater speed than the speed of light is totally devoid of any theoretical formulas, violates Dr. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, and lacks astronomical observations to prove it. Nothing in the universe has been shown to travel at a speed greater than the speed of light except some forms of radiation. These scientists are going at the problem backwards. The scientific formulas and laws must be developed to support the theory before the theory is accepted. Instead, the scientific community has accepted the Big Bang Theory without any supporting science or supporting observations. Now they are simply throwing out any wild idea imaginable in hopes of saving the Big Bang Theory from collapse.

The Big Bang Theory is based on energy being turned into matter. Scientists are using particle accelerators in an attempt to prove this theory. The success has been very limited. Scientists have been unable to create even one atom of hydrogen. The atomic bomb turns matter into energy, but this process is highly irreversible. The claim that all of the matter in the cosmos was created from energy is a myth.

/bigbang.htm

why should I sum up my arguments against the big bang theory when credible, prestigious, well known scientists have devoted their time to whip up a compelling reason why you & nferyn's "holier than life" cosmology is in shackles.

It's all left to you now to go through that link and try to find a way to offer a rebuttal to that sizable chunk of defects with the cosmology you've endeared and pampered so much. Face it, all it is - is theories.


and it's no time to relax, I promised you more to come.

http://teresacentric.com/2007/04/cho-seung-hui-i-was-there-once-too/

Cho Seung-Hui: I Was There Once, Too
by Teresa Valdez Klein | April 18th, 2007 Andrew Sullivan posted today about the loner in all of us. He links to two posts that reminded me so very much of myself.

Like Cho Seung-Hui, Ross Douthat was in the midst of a bleak depression in November of 2001:

In November 2001, I was rattled, like a lot of people, by the news of the world. But I was also hit by what now seems like a laughably minor personal “tragedy,” namely a young woman broke my heart in the massive soul-crushing way that only an adolescent can really appreciate.

“I was depressed. Dangerously depressed, I’m afraid,” he wrote. He spoke of long hours in his basement apartment, reading and listening to “Photobooth” on endless repeat.

Apparently, some caring friends alerted his mother to his predicament. She took off from work immediately and showed up at his apartment, snapping him out of his daze:

On the rare occasions when I reflect on those really rough weeks I think about how lucky I was to have friends who were attuned to my pitiful mood, and to have a crazy, wonderful mother who’d go to tremendous lengths for me. So when I hear that Cho Seung Hui was “a loner,” my heart hurts.

Blogger Rod Dreher read Douthat’s post and responded:

Reihan’s entry put me in mind of the spring of 1986, when I was in my second semester as a college freshman. I was living alone in a dorm room, and seriously depressed. I was still pining away over unrequited high school love, and felt incredibly and crushingly alone in the world. I was in such a state that I couldn’t concentrate on my classes, and would walk to an off-campus bar most nights, and drink until I couldn’t stand any more, then stumble home and listen to the Velvet Underground until I fell asleep.

By the grace of God, I got pulled out of that hole by the advent of a marvelous life-loving lunatic from New Orleans named Joe Zahavi, who became my roommate and my friend. And I got out of it by starting down the road to religious faith after discovering Kierkegaard, and Thomas Merton.

But Reihan’s post got me to thinking about 19 year old me, lying there in the darkness and solitude of that dorm room, filled with self-hate, listening to sad music, unreachable. My anger and depression was never directed against other people, only myself, and I doubt I ever seriously thought about suicide. But I was closer to that trap than I ever have been, and it’s a little frightening to think back at how things might have turned out for me had I continued drifting down that dark river.

After reading those two posts, I felt that I would be derelict in my duty as a blogger if I did not respond with my own story. Because I’ve been close to the edge, too.

Like Cho Seung-Hui, I was a loner. Throughout much of my childhood, I was academically obsessive, ostentatiously unique and extremely awkward. Needless to say, I was picked on brutally from preschool to high school. My parents divorce certainly didn’t make my profound sense of isolation any more tolerable.

When I left for college in the fall of 2001, I was reeling from the recent death of my beloved grandmother. Then, nine days after I arrived on campus, the terrorist attacks on the United States undermined my already tenuous sense of security. This set the stage for my first experience with romantic rejection.

In late March of 2002, I drove up Route 39 into the San Gabriel mountains north of Azusa, CA. I pulled over on a turn-off and aimed the wheel of my 1995 Toyota Camry at a precipice overlooking the dam at the south end of the Morris Reservoir. I sat with the motor running, my foot on the gas pedal. I was fairly certain that the fall would kill me, and I was fairly certain that I wanted to die.

I imagined pressing my foot down. I imagined my car’s powerful engine pushing the little sedan over the edge. And then I imagined how I would feel after I had passed the point of no return. I realized that the second I had no choice in the matter, I would want to live.

So I turned the car off and cried for a long time. Then I started the engine and drove back to Claremont. I crawled into bed and vowed that I would try to make things better.

I’m not going to lie and say that it was an overnight transformation. It took me a long time and a lot of work to get back from the edge of that cliff. I had relapses. I had a couple more run-ins with the guy who broke my heart. On one particularly low night, I flew into a rage over a laughably minor slight and stabbed the broken shards of a mix CD he had made me into the cork board outside his door. It was a real uphill battle.

But very slowly, I reached out and made friends. I fell in love with Andy. I wrote a lot of stupid sad songs. Five years later, I look back on it all and I thank God that something He put inside my heart made me turn off that engine.

I remember hearing somewhere that “depression is rage turned inward.” That statement makes a lot of sense to me. Sometimes I feel angry one moment, only to start beating myself up the next. Even after all the positive changes in my life, it’s a relatively easy trap to fall into.

Like Douthat, when I heard that Cho was a “loner,” my heart broke a little. Obviously, nothing can excuse what he did two days ago. But I know all too well the feelings of rage and self-loathing that plagued him. With a little more testosterone and a lot less compassion for other people, I might have wound up very much like him.

My prayers are with the victims of the Virginia Tech tragedy and their families and friends. I am also praying for Cho’s family. And my prayers are with Cho. God has a capacity to forgive that transcends anything we mere mortals can hope to achieve. Wherever he is, I hope he has received that forgiveness.

And if you found this post because your long, lonely road has led you to Google Cho’s name some depressing night, my prayers are with you, too. I promise you, it’s never too late to get help and turn your life around.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/14/singer.shot.ap/index.html

CHEYENNE, Wyoming (AP) -- A woman was shot and killed early Saturday while she sang with a band at a restaurant and bar, police said. They were looking for her estranged husband, a National Guardsman who they said had sniper training.

Robin Munis was shot in the head with one gunshot that came from outside the Old Chicago restaurant where she had been performing just after midnight, Cheyenne police Capt. Jeff Schulz said. No one else in the restaurant was hurt.

Witnesses saw her husband, David Munis, in the area, but no one has reported seeing the shot fired, Schulz said. No weapon was found, but Schulz said investigators believe a rifle was used.

The couple had recently separated, and Robin Munis, 40, of Cheyenne, had complained about receiving harassing calls from her husband as recently as Friday, Schulz said.

"We are working solely on him being the suspect," Schulz said at a news conference. He described David Munis as "very dangerous."

David Munis, 36, is a second lieutenant in the Wyoming Army National Guard who is attached to the guard's training camp, according to guard spokeswoman Deidre Forster. Schulz said Munis received sniper training from the military, but Forster said she didn't know whether he did or not. E-mail to a friend

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

https://www.mediatakeout.com/photo/1180703976Akon_Grimy.jpghttps://www.mediatakeout.com/photo/1183116861Akon_Love.jpg
so much for white teeth huh?  what is so foine about this bigly fugly negro.

uzor wetin be ur own? u like am?

No. Although I'll put it this way, only sluts date for flings.  They call it "experimenting"  .  I see so many similarities between that and one-night stands
i don die o, den go commot my head for saying this.

It is often said that Nigeria has gone to the dogs. That’s no longer true. Now, even the dogs have lost the country to the swine. If the country reeks now, it is because it is the age of the swine, and the country is turning into a big piggery….

I will tell you a story. Once upon a time, there was a man named Clifford Orji. He was said to be a ‘mad man’ (By the way, how come the mad man told the police his ‘correct’ name?). But no one told Nigerians then that he was a metaphor for their country. (As a talented young Nigerian poet, Lola Shoneyin, would croon, “Now you know”!)

Orji was reportedly ensconced somewhere in Lagos, pretending to be a mad man and capturing unsuspecting people, killing them and selling off their choice parts to some interested buyers. When the story broke and the man was arrested, it was, as usual, big news in the papers. It was ‘rumoured’ in the papers later that Clifford Orji was only an agent of some ‘big men’ who needed human parts for rituals and other purposes. As usual, the ‘big men’ were never mentioned. In Nigeria no one mentions a big man’s name – except another ‘big man’.

read the rest here: http://www.nigeriavillagesquare1.com/Articles/Adebanwi1.htm

that two/three buildings defied laws of physics
that all the suspicious behavior such as:
actions by the airline companies right before 9/11
2.3 trillion dollars missing from the Pentagon the day before 9/11
some amounts of blackouts and building evacuations before 9/11
removal of bomb sniffing dogs
the way the evidence was quickly taken from the scenes and destroyed
the way video tapes of the Pentagon and surrounding buildings were confiscated
etc

Do you believe all these things are coincidences and the government is hiding nothing?

And if they are hiding nothing, why all the continued guilty demeanor?
Why all the panic before and after 9/11?

Why are so many people ignorant to believe everything on TV that is owned by coroporate media
could have been finely paid off after the 9/11 attack with the 2.3 trillion missing from Pentagon

shut the Bleep up your dirty mouth. just because you like him doesn't mean you should be over here calling people morons like they're your pets because they think he's ugly.

"Hi Everyone,
Like most people I grew up with science founded on 'particles', and cosmology founded on the 'big bang' theory. At the time I just accepted it as true with little thought. Now, at the age of 47 and having spent the last 15 years reading physics, philosophy and metaphysics I am completely convinced that both the 'particle' and the 'big bang' are incorrect. (In fact I would now say that they are extremely naive and silly conceptions and I find it hard to believe that I used to accept them as true!)

Below you will find a list of the top ten problems of the Big Bang Theory of Cosmology. Most importantly, it is easy to show how these problems can be simply solved with the"

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm

For the enthusiasts we have four very good essays on various problems of the Big Bang Theory which provide compelling evidence that the Big Bang theory is wrong.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/halton-arp-seeing-red-errors-big-bang.htm
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/lerner-big-bang-never-happened.htm
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/mitchell-big-bang-theory-under-fire.htm
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm

nferyn:
1. I never claimed that Christians cannot enjoy comfortable lifestyles
2. Christians enjoying comfortable lifestyles mean absolutely nothing when it comes to the value of Christianity in itself. The Christian plantation owners in the pre civil war US south did enjoy comfortable lifestyles as well, what on earth does that do to establish the value of Christianity?

How exactly do the altar boys establish the value of christianity in itself? Did christianity tell them to go out there and commit whatever crimes you're accusing them of, no.
Here you are, now retorting to blames because you want so hard to eliminate christianity.  Put yourself out of your misery, go sip on some orange juice to cool your nerves, blame the people for the slavery that went on in the south, some of the slave owners just happened to be christians(or so they say).
It was only a matter of time anyway until their Biblical tactics of justifying slavery were foiled.
Morevover, it isn't written anywhere in the Bible that "christians are perfect" or that christians are without fault.

3. Where exactly did you encounter any instances of me being paranoid or unstable? Or maybe it's the usual Christian apologist tactic of redefining words, like the re-definition of the word 'good' to explain the goodness of God in the face of evil in this world.

Your paranoia and instability are causing you to schizophrenically blame christianity for the shattered ruin that is slowly becoming of your life.
Why did I say this? Because out of the blue you brought up the story about some make-belief altar boys raping your soul.  I want to assure you that it's okay and everything will be alright.

Condemning molested altar boys? Where did I do that? Anyway, you may or may not know that atheism in itself is not a world view, it's merely the lack of God-belief. Atheists can be just as delusional and destructive as theists (and there have been a few examples in the 20th century), but this does not follow directly from atheism, unlike the rejection of rational thought and it's consequences that follow from Christian theism.

oh sure, you claim you never condemned altar boys, but you blamed christianity for breeding menacing altar boys.
What difference is it that I also blamed atheism for creating serial killers.  You are very good at amalgamating so I guess I learned that strategy from you.
You are very backwards, you say atheists can be just as destructive as theists yet you're very quick to combat that statement by claiming "it doesn't follow directly from atheism" on top of that you used that opportunity to try and drag christianity down even more.  Don't mistake me for a fool lol, you're a funny m8.  Christianity doesn't reject your rational thought, christians just urge you to listen when they explain to you why certain things are the way they are, is that too hard for you to comprehend?

Anyway, I guess Stephen Weinberg captured it very well: Yes 'our world' you know the one you and I inhabit? Perhaps you're an alien from outer-space you certainly reason like one.
You really have a hard time bringing substance to this interchange of ideas, haven't you? Please establish where I reason like an alien from outer-space instead of just merely asserting it.

Why else would you ask the question: our world? Does it take a genius to figure out which world I was implying.  Only an alien from outerspace would have asked that sort of question, in my opinion, hence my conclusion.

Really? Can you then begin to explain why the theories of modern cosmology are shaky and why you have a more parsimonious explanation?
You're still in the process of merely asserting things.

I decided to quench your thirst by providing the post above this, and heads up, there's more to come.

Unlike you, I value proper deductive and inductive reasoning from well established premisses and data points. I'm not really fond of vague innuendo and unfounded, unevidenced statements of fact. Or maybe you're denying your own (for once) crystal clear words:Typical apologetics, ignore 90% of one's post and focus on the 10% against which you think you can bring a compelling case. I urge you though to also tackle abiogenesis, biological evolution and to substantiate your claims about my lack of logical abilities.

It appeared to me that you valued backwardsness.  3/4 or 4/5 of your posts to me have been based on nothing but pure shenanigans you pulled out of your as$ so don't try to come at me with that nonsense about statement of facts.
Now will you stop crying&panting, I have responded fully to your post.

PROBLEMS WITH COSMOLOGY

I need a qualified physicist (who supports the status quo) to explain to a layman like me why 'Big Bang theory' and relativity theories are correct and also show any genuine flaws with the new theory.


"Associated Cosmological Problems in Need of Solution
Other difficulties the new approach appears to resolve arose from a revision of the "big bang" which, cosmologists freely admit, still contains unacceptable false predictions. It assumes all the energy, ultimately to become the universe, was created in a massive explosion--all over in a split second. [/b]After that, energy, though interchangeable through many different forms, remained fixed forever, so providing matter with a source from which it could condense. Matter appeared flying out radially at immense speeds in all directions but slowing ever-afterwards by mutual gravitational attraction. Depending on the total mass, the universe could go on expanding forever, ending in "heat death", or collapse to a "big crunch".

Theorists can, however, find no way of switching off this explosion, called "inflation". So the theory then [b]predicts that galaxies should still be accelerating away from one another at rates 10120 (a one with 120 noughts after it) higher than astronomical observations can allow. (Some error!) This was the figure given by Greene (2) in 1999 when writing about this problem, known as the "cosmological constant". On page 225 he says:

"quantum mechanical fluctuations in the vacuum of empty space tend to generate a nonzero cosmological constant whose value is some 120 orders of magnitude (a 1 followed by 120 zeros) larger than experiment allows! This represents a wonderful challenge and opportunity for string theorists: Can calculations in string theory improve on this mismatch and explain why the cosmological constant is zero, or if experiments do ultimately establish its value is small but nonzero, can string theory provide an explanation? Should string theorists be able to rise to this challenge - as yet they have not - it would provide a compelling piece of evidence in support of the theory".
This was written by a physicist: an enthusiast and expert in string theory! String theory is the present spearhead of mainline physics. Written in eleven dimensions including time, it is aimed at providing a "Theory of Everything". The seven extra spatial dimensions are described as "curled back on themselves" in minute balls called, "Calabi-Yau spaces".

Greene also states on page 211,

"physicists have not as yet been able to make predictions with the precision necessary to confront experimental data"
followed by:

"Is string theory right? We just don't know."
Obviously when such exotic assumptions are involved it is advisable to keep alive an alternative approach, based on the three spatial dimensions of common experience. Indeed this is necessary as an insurance, just in case theoreticians could be misleading themselves by an excess of sophistication. This is one raison d'être of the argument summarised here. It is strongly backed by my finding that the problems which most bedevil the pure theorists are ones which overlap the expertise of the mechanical engineer. Mechanics, fluid mechanics and thermodynamics are our main specialisations and so some cross collaboration seems desirable.

A second difficulty met with in big-bang theory is that some stars seem older than the universe, whose age cosmologists set at about 12 billion years. Thirdly, in 1998 observations of remote supernovae were claimed by Schwarzschild (3) which show that the expansion of the universe is speeding up instead of slowing down as they had supposed. Puzzled cosmologists are saying that some new mysterious repulsive force must be acting and two invoke "quintessence" having strange anti-gravity effects.

[b]The major problem, however, interrelated with all these, is that Einstein's relativity theories, which describe large scale mechanics of the cosmos, do not match up with quantum theory. [/b]The latter covers the dynamics of small things like atoms and their "sub-atomic particles". It is indeed this problem which Greene (2) shows string theory is set up to solve."

http://www.astronomy.net/forums/bigbang/messages/842.shtml
-----------------------------------------------------------

So is this what I'm supposed to suck up to? Your big bad assumption-filled, prediction-filled, erroneous cosmological theories. looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool.
I just haven't had adequate time, I'll find even more problems with your ideal cosmology.

It hurts me indeed to see how many people's lives have been destroyed in the name of these fables. From molested altar boys to the witches burned at the stake, from the Kathars to the Reconquista , from the sack of Jerusalem to the Ustasha. And we shouldn't forget the tolerant behaviour of Calvin in Vienna or the impact of the anti-Semitic pamphlets of Luther. I must say that that is really an excellent foundation indeed, for bigotry and intolerance

If you weren't so paranoid and unstable you would realize that so many christians enjoy comfortable lifestyles. George Bush is a christian, I guess America should declare a state of emergency because he will hire some molested altar boys to destroy the nation. While you're in the process of condemning molested altar boys, don't forget the irresponsible atheist men that have gone around destroying innocent lives because they can't distinguish right from wrong.

Our world? They definitely have. When it comes to the universe, the currently proposed explanations in cosmology definitely are far more compelling than anything religion has to bring. I don't have very much confidence in your understanding of the scientific method though, so I won't bother to undermine your fantasies.

Yes 'our world' you know the one you and I inhabit? Perhaps you're an alien from outer-space you certainly reason like one.
Cosmology is just a transparent branch of physics which 'proposes' some shaky theories to explain this worldly phenomena

Could you begin to substantiate that cheap slur instead of dancing around the hot potato?

Lol cheap slur. I'm glad it didn't cost you a fortune. At least I'm not dancing on the hot bananapotato as you would. I did what you asked by the way, it's just unfortunate that your menial skills to correctly interpret the words told to you not only led you down the wrong path, but they also forced you to form the wrong conclusions. You can go back to that post and read it over 100 times, I'm sure you'll understand what I mean on your 101^st attempt.

As far as your little tale about cosmology is concerned I'll be back to tackle it.

actually, come to think of it now that's not true. perfection is without flaws.

@ Kobe

which one is Bleep and SILLY gay!

Its people like u that discourages people from sharing
their problems with people that could end up helping them.

I GUESS HE REALISED THAT WHAT HIS DOING IS WRONG,
THAT IS WHY IS CALLING FOR HELP.

so plz spare us kobe! and stop this holier than thou attitude.

you are mad. you should have pressed fast forward if you didn't like the response.
what exactly have you said now to help him.

whatever. journalism my black foot.

Beckham, Posh and kids arrive in L.A.
Updated: Jul.13, 2007, 12:41 am EDTLOS ANGELES (AP) --
AP
Key dates:
July 13: Official introduction with L.A. Galaxy.
July 21: Friendly match vs. Chelsea F.C.
August 5: First MLS match: at Toronto F.C.
Remainder of 2007 Galaxy schedule.

More on Beckham
Beckham signs deal with L.A. Galaxy
What sparked Beckham's decision
What the MLS is waiting for

Soccer star David Beckham and his wife, Victoria, arrived Thursday night to begin their new lives in the United States.

The British power couple smiled and held hands as they walked out of a Los Angeles International Airport terminal shortly before 8:20 p.m. after arriving aboard a British Airways flight from London.

Dozens of reporters and photographers pushed and shoved behind barriers set up at the terminal before the duo, surrounded by security guards, left in a black sport utility vehicle without commenting.

Their three children accompanied them on the flight, but didn't exit the terminal with them. Victoria Beckham, also known as Posh Spice of the Spice Girls, wore a sleeveless black dress and sunglasses and gave a quick wave to the paparazzi. David Beckham was dressed in a black jacket and jeans.

ahhhh! seen many couples like that too.

though I don't understand how it works out. I can't stand the smell of cigarettes/nicotine.

Can someone please help me.

It all started with my neighbour back then in Secondary school. He lured me into having sex with me and since then whenever I see a male, my privates rises especially if I can view the privates form the trouser. I want to believe I am not a full gay

what the Bleep you silly gay.
Don't you know Dicks are for chicks.

Michael Clarke Duncan
https://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/castle_rock_entertainment/the_green_mile/michael_clarke_duncan/green.jpg

in fact them plenty, I go dey back later.

I don't think they're ugly o.

Jack Black
https://www.staralicious.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/jack-black.jpg

oh how can I forget Michael Jackson

https://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/images/michael_jackson_prisoner.jpg

Jon Heder
https://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/PF/PF_1107473_999.jpghttps://ticklebooth.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/napolean-dynamite-original.jpg

Akon alias Crab
https://worldmusiccentral.org/staticpages/images/Akon.jpg

wesley snipes
[img]http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/10/19/snipes_narrowweb__300x440,0.jpg[/img]

RuuDie lol  .  sister luxwire pardon brother rudie for his misdemeanor, lmaaao.

@ topic

no guy is perfect! they mostly come in dumb packaging

go smoke some weed to curb your enthusiasm, isiewu.

luxoire why did you feel the need to type in all caps. everything you've mentioned was addressed.

the thread starter didn't say virgins think they're more dignified than non-virgins
he asked which one you'd prefer.