science vs religion?

[Repox]

Evidently, according to replies, people on this forum need education about basic ideas about science. First, here is a good definition of theory.

A plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

According to dictionary definitions, I have followed correct procedures. As for experience, I have conducted research and published my findings in a book. For obvious reasons, I will not post details. I am posting formal definitions in order to clear up a lot of muddy water.

For everyone’s edification, here is some useful information. The initial phase of research entails an idea or theory to explain a particular phenomenon. In the process, variables are identified, and therefore become the framework for the theory. The theoretical statement explains how variables interact to explain the situation or phenomenon under study.

Before anyone objects to my statement about theory, I suggest they contact Merriam-Webster and convince them to change their definition. Then, I suggest everyone study the "scientific method" in order to learn how science tests hypothesis to confirm a theory in order to advance knowledge. It is not subject to debate! Either you understand and apply the scientific method or you don't. If you don't do it correctly, you will not have your findings published in a professional journal, or by a reputable book company.

I probably won't be posting much more on this forum. It is an exercise in futility.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Evidently, according to replies, people on this forum need education about basic ideas about science. First, here is a good definition of theory.

A plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

In science, the word theory has a specific meaning. A scientific theory is a narrative that unifies all relevant observations to date. Scientific theories often cannot be proven correct (I'd say that the heliocentric theory and the germ theory of disease have been proven, but theories such as evolutionary theory and the Big Bang theory of cosmogenesis cannot), but if incorrect, it must possible at least in principle to demonstrate that fact. It needs to make specific, testable predictions that were not anticipated before the theory predicted them, and which were subsequently confirmed.

Does your idea meet these criteria?

 

[Repox]

This is mostly for those who don't understand the scientific method. Here is a useful definition.

Purpose/Question

1. Ask a question.
   
2. Research
   Conduct background research. Write down your sources so you can cite your references.
   

1. Hypothesis
   Propose a hypothesis. This is a sort of educated guess about what you expect. (see examples)
   
2. Experiment
   Design and perform an experiment to test your hypothesis. An experiment has an independent and dependent variable. You change or control the independent variable and record the effect it has on the dependent variable.
   
3. Data/Analysis
   Record observations and analyze what the data means. Often, you'll prepare a table or graph of the data.
   
4. Conclusion
   Conclude whether to accept or reject your hypothesis. Communicate your results.

https://www.thoughtco.com/steps-of-the-scientific-method-p2-606045

In short, we can all agree about rules of the game, therefore, limit debate for a useful discussion.

There has been a lot of misunderstanding about my posting. I never said it was a formal theory. I proposed as a theory, or idea, to explain how probability theory can assist us in proving God designed the universe. I see nothing wrong with my proposal. As a matter of fact, I am continuing to do research on the topic. I understand some research problems, but, nevertheless, it has merit.

It has become clear to me, there are many atheists and God haters on this forum. It might be a real embarrassment for them if someone proved God based on the scientific method. What would atheists say. I got it, "it is a big deceitful lie. There is no God!"

This may offend some, but it is true. In science, you don't make up rules, or perverse logic, you conform to the "scientific method."

 

[Sapiens]

This is mostly for those who don't understand the scientific method. Here is a useful definition.

Purpose/Question

1. Ask a question.
   
2. Research
   Conduct background research. Write down your sources so you can cite your references.
   

1. Hypothesis
   Propose a hypothesis. This is a sort of educated guess about what you expect. (see examples)
   
2. Experiment
   Design and perform an experiment to test your hypothesis. An experiment has an independent and dependent variable. You change or control the independent variable and record the effect it has on the dependent variable.
   
3. Data/Analysis
   Record observations and analyze what the data means. Often, you'll prepare a table or graph of the data.
   
4. Conclusion
   Conclude whether to accept or reject your hypothesis. Communicate your results.

https://www.thoughtco.com/steps-of-the-scientific-method-p2-606045

In short, we can all agree about rules of the game, therefore, limit debate for a useful discussion.

For a somewhat limited middle school explanation, that will work.

There has been a lot of misunderstanding about my posting. I never said it was a formal theory. I proposed as a theory, or idea, to explain how probability theory can assist us in proving God designed the universe.

Your are misusing the word "theory."

I see nothing wrong with my proposal.

Therein lies your problem.

As a matter of fact, I am continuing to do research on the topic. I understand some research problems, but, nevertheless, it has merit.

You think so, as a life-long practicing scientist I think it is so much horse puckey.

It has become clear to me, there are many atheists and God haters on this forum. It might be a real embarrassment for them if someone proved God based on the scientific method.

No, it would make me happy to see the issue settled one way or the other, but it is obvious to me that there is passing small chance of what you are suggesting.

What would atheists say. I got it, "it is a big deceitful lie. There is no God!"

Is that not the only demonstrably rational conclusion?

This may offend some, but it is true. In science, you don't make up rules, or perverse logic, you conform to the "scientific method."

... and you need actual evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

I did propose a theory. Again, here it is from post #198.

And once again, there is no theory here. You have NOT proposed a theory. You have given some vague speculation about what might be done.

At some particular point, probable when elements began to form, the universe as we know it began to take shape, maybe 380,000 years after the BB. Anyway, there must be some way of isolating key variables, or subatomic particles, for a model of predictability based on interacting events.

OK, to be a proposal for a theory, you need to actual isolate those key variables, state what they are, say which subatomic particles are relevant, and actually give a probabilistic model based on interactions. You have not done this.

Would the interactive model for that particular time predict chaotic outcomes, or It would predict a trend toward an intelligent design for the universe? Theoretically, it is possible to isolate key variables for a usable matrix allowing for predictable outcomes.

It is possible. You haven't done it, but it is possible. You haven't even suggested how it might be done. But it is possible.

I think the main task is to first identify key variables (virtual particles, matter and anti-matter), at specific points on a time line.

Who would have imagined that the first task is to identify key variables? Wow, you are a *bright* one, aren't you?

Here's the thing. It is the *first* task. It is a task that should be done *way* before proposing a theory. In fact, part of defining a proposal is stating clearly what the key variables for your thoery actually are. Without this, you don't have a proposal at all.

I never said the theory was complete. I said "propose," and then you and others jumped on it without knowing anything about it. I did post the "proposed theory."

Where did you post it? Certainly not in this post! What you have here are some vague ramblings, not a proposal at all.

Apparently, there are those here who like to argue. You did it again. You said I claimed to be mathematical. What does that mean? If you can add and subtract, are you mathematical? There is a lot of stupidity here.

You claim to have proposed a theory. No, you did not. You rambled a bit. That is all. There is nothing in this post that amounts to a proposal for a theory.

If you knew anything about science theories, you would understand the process. A theory is proposed, it is developed and tested. Finally, the hypotheses or accepted or rejected. It is called the scientific method. Do some research.

And you have not given a hypothesis. You have not proposed a theory. You have made some incredibly generic statements that come nowhere close to a proposal. You have literally mused that something should be possible without giving any insight on how to actually do it.

 

[Polymath257]

This is mostly for those who don't understand the scientific method. Here is a useful definition.

Purpose/Question

1. Ask a question.
   
2. Research
   Conduct background research. Write down your sources so you can cite your references.

Quoting a couple of websites without references doesn't qualify.

1. Hypothesis
   1. Propose a hypothesis. This is a sort of educated guess about what you expect. (see examples)

And you have not done this.

1. Experiment
   Design and perform an experiment to test your hypothesis. An experiment has an independent and dependent variable. You change or control the independent variable and record the effect it has on the dependent variable.
   
2. Data/Analysis
   Record observations and analyze what the data means. Often, you'll prepare a table or graph of the data.
   
3. Conclusion
   Conclude whether to accept or reject your hypothesis. Communicate your results.

https://www.thoughtco.com/steps-of-the-scientific-method-p2-606045

And clearly you have not done these.

In short, we can all agree about rules of the game, therefore, limit debate for a useful discussion.

There has been a lot of misunderstanding about my posting. I never said it was a formal theory. I proposed as a theory, or idea, to explain how probability theory can assist us in proving God designed the universe. I see nothing wrong with my proposal. As a matter of fact, I am continuing to do research on the topic. I understand some research problems, but, nevertheless, it has merit.

WHAT proposal? A statement that something should be possible? Wow. You have a LOT to learn about making a proposal.

It has become clear to me, there are many atheists and God haters on this forum. It might be a real embarrassment for them if someone proved God based on the scientific method. What would atheists say. I got it, "it is a big deceitful lie. There is no God!"

This may offend some, but it is true. In science, you don't make up rules, or perverse logic, you conform to the "scientific method."

Exactly. And you haven't done so.

 

[Repox]

For a somewhat limited middle school explanation, that will work.
Your are misusing the word "theory."
Therein lies your problem.
You think so, as a life-long practicing scientist I think it is so much horse puckey.
No, it would make me happy to see the issue settled one way or the other, but it is obvious to me that there is passing small chance of what you are suggesting.
Is that not the only demonstrably rational conclusion?
... and you need actual evidence.

What planet do you people come from? I posted the dictionary definition of theory, and you disagree? Simple read the definitions of theory and the scientific method. You ae a life-long practicing scientist! And you don't accept the "scientific method"? Wow!

 

[Repox]

And once again, there is no theory here. You have NOT proposed a theory. You have given some vague speculation about what might be done.


OK, to be a proposal for a theory, you need to actual isolate those key variables, state what they are, say which subatomic particles are relevant, and actually give a probabilistic model based on interactions. You have not done this.


It is possible. You haven't done it, but it is possible. You haven't even suggested how it might be done. But it is possible.



Who would have imagined that the first task is to identify key variables? Wow, you are a *bright* one, aren't you?

Here's the thing. It is the *first* task. It is a task that should be done *way* before proposing a theory. In fact, part of defining a proposal is stating clearly what the key variables for your thoery actually are. Without this, you don't have a proposal at all.


Where did you post it? Certainly not in this post! What you have here are some vague ramblings, not a proposal at all.



You claim to have proposed a theory. No, you did not. You rambled a bit. That is all. There is nothing in this post that amounts to a proposal for a theory.



And you have not given a hypothesis. You have not proposed a theory. You have made some incredibly generic statements that come nowhere close to a proposal. You have literally mused that something should be possible without giving any insight on how to actually do it.

Here is another example of someone who can't read. I never said it was a formal theory. I said I was working on it. Try reading what is posted. Based on the definition for the "scientific method" I have proposed a theory.

In case you missed it, here it is again.

"At some particular point, probable when elements began to form, the universe as we know it began to take shape, maybe 380,000 years after the BB. Anyway, there must be some way of isolating key variables, or subatomic particles, for a model of predictability based on interacting events. Would the interactive model for that particular time predict chaotic outcomes, or It would predict a trend toward an intelligent design for the universe? Theoretically, it is possible to isolate key variables for a usable matrix allowing for predictable outcomes. I think the main task is to first identify key variables (virtual particles, matter and anti-matter), at specific points on a time line."

Now, read the definition of the scientific method which I posted and tell me it is not a "proposal of a theory." Remember, I stated "propose." That means is not certain until proven.

Why don't people read what is posted? I can only conclude, people on this forum are obsessed in taking down believers.

 

[Polymath257]

Here is another example of someone who can't read. I never said it was a formal theory. I said I was working on it. Try reading what is posted. Based on the definition for the "scientific method" I have proposed a theory.

Once again, NO YOU HAVEN'T.

In case you missed it, here it is again.

I clearly didn't miss it. It was the very post I was quoting from!!!!

At some particular point, probable when elements began to form, the universe as we know it began to take shape, maybe 380,000 years after the BB. Anyway, there must be some way of isolating key variables, or subatomic particles, for a model of predictability based on interacting events. Would the interactive model for that particular time predict chaotic outcomes, or It would predict a trend toward an intelligent design for the universe? Theoretically, it is possible to isolate key variables for a usable matrix allowing for predictable outcomes. I think the main task is to first identify key variables (virtual particles, matter and anti-matter), at specific points on a time line.

Now, read the definition of the scientific method which I posted and tell me it is not a "proposal of a theory>"

OK. It is not a proposal of a theory.

Why don't people read what is posted? I can only conclude, people on this forum are obsessed in taking down believers.

The problem is that people *have* read what you wrote. And what you wrote doesn't do what you claim it does. You claim it proposes a theory. It doesn't. It doesn't even propose a broad outline of what one might do before proposing a theory.

I think the problem is that you have no idea what it means to propose a theory. That, and the fact that many others in this forum *have* actually proposed theories and know what it takes to do so.

Yes, I know you want to say that you don't have a 'formal theory'. While that is CLEARLY true, you don't even have a non-formal theory. What you have is a few vague musings and nothing more.

 

[Repox]

For a somewhat limited middle school explanation, that will work.
Your are misusing the word "theory."
Therein lies your problem.
You think so, as a life-long practicing scientist I think it is so much horse puckey.
No, it would make me happy to see the issue settled one way or the other, but it is obvious to me that there is passing small chance of what you are suggesting.
Is that not the only demonstrably rational conclusion?
... and you need actual evidence.

Why do I get all these people lecture me? Why don't they read what is posted!

You say "I need actual evidence." Read what I wrote! When you propose a theory the next step to test it. I never said I had evidence. I said PROPOSE. Why do I bother? It is hard to believe, I post definitions and no one reads it. It must be our crazy world of uneducated people. Even if you have a college education it doesn't mean your educated. It is a disgrace.

 

[Polymath257]

Why do I get all these people lecture me? Why don't they read what is posted!

You say "I need actual evidence." Read what I wrote! When you propose a theory the next step to test it. I never said I had evidence. I said PROPOSE. Why do I bother? It is hard to believe, I post definitions and no one reads it. It must be our crazy world of uneducated people. Even if you have a college education it doesn't mean your educated. It is a disgrace.

 

[Sapiens]

What planet do you people come from? I posted the dictionary definition of theory, and you disagree? Simple read the definitions of theory and the scientific method. You ae a life-long practicing scientist! And you don't accept the "scientific method"? Wow!

No, I simply understand, as you should, that the scientific method is somewhat more complex than your post, which I might find adequate for a dull middle schooler, little more. I suggest you get a better dictionary at a minimum, or you might read one of the major tomes that are available on the subject.

You might start with the classic: Karl R. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, Routledge, 2003. but I recommend to you: Gauch, Hugh G. (2003). Scientific Method in Practice (Reprint ed.). Cambridge University Press because he specifically addresses your major error, the idea that that, "the scientific method 'is often misrepresented as a fixed sequence of steps,' rather than being seen for what it truly is, 'a highly variable and creative process.'

Gauch also, further addressing your seminal error, notes that, "... science has general principles that must be mastered to increase productivity and enhance perspective, not that these principles provide a simple and automated sequence of steps to follow."

 

[Repox]

No, I simply understand, as you should, that the scientific method is somewhat more complex than your post, which I might find adequate for a dull middle schooler, little more. I suggest you get a better dictionary at a minimum, or you might read one of the major tomes that are available on the subject.

You might start with the classic: Karl R. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, Routledge, 2003. but I recommend to you: Gauch, Hugh G. (2003). Scientific Method in Practice (Reprint ed.). Cambridge University Press because he specifically addresses your major error, the idea that that, "the scientific method 'is often misrepresented as a fixed sequence of steps,' rather than being seen for what it truly is, 'a highly variable and creative process.'

Gauch also, further addressing your seminal error, notes that, "... science has general principles that must be mastered to increase productivity and enhance perspective, not that these principles provide a simple and automated sequence of steps to follow."

Here is another person who can't read. I just posted principles for the "scientific method." Why don't you read what is posted? I have gotten so many misinterpretations it makes your head swim.

Oh, I get it. If you disagree with the proposal it is because it is not "creative." Wow, we are certain busy looking for reasons to reject. No one here even understands the proposal. What a revolting development this is!

 

[Sapiens]

Why do I get all these people lecture me? Why don't they read what is posted!

We do, and what you post is muddled at best and flat our wrong at worst.

You say "I need actual evidence." Read what I wrote! When you propose a theory the next step to test it. I never said I had evidence. I said PROPOSE. Why do I bother? It is hard to believe, I post definitions and no one reads it. It must be our crazy world of uneducated people. Even if you have a college education it doesn't mean your educated. It is a disgrace.

You did not, as previously noted, PROPOSE A THEORY.

 

[Repox]

I am getting so many stupid replies, I must post a challenge. I posted a summary of the scientific method. Apparently, most everyone disagrees. Well, post articles from reliable sources which state my definitions are in error.

Oh, for that person who stated my dictionary definition of theory is wrong, post the correct definition. I am getting so many really dump replies, I can't keep track.

Again, post reliable sources for refuting my definition of theory and the scientific method.

All of you must admit, it is crazy to criticize a theory before it has been tested.

Go ahead, amazing me some more, post the most ridiculous critique you can think of. Maybe there should be a prize for the most bizarre reply.

I understand most here have a short memory span. In case you forgot, here is the statement from post #198 which has generated so much acrimony and hostility. It is a "proposed theory."

"At some particular point, probable when elements began to form, the universe as we know it began to take shape, maybe 380,000 years after the BB. Anyway, there must be some way of isolating key variables, or subatomic particles, for a model of predictability based on interacting events. Would the interactive model for that particular time predict chaotic outcomes, or It would predict a trend toward an intelligent design for the universe? Theoretically, it is possible to isolate key variables for a usable matrix allowing for predictable outcomes. I think the main task is to first identify key variables (virtual particles, matter and anti-matter) at specific points on a time line."

What seems to be the problem? It is about proving intelligent design, God's creation? As I stated, it is a proposal of a theory. I never said the theory has been operationalized. Why can't people read? Oh, I got it. People hate God and they can't stand ideas favorable to God as the creator of the universe,

How many God haters are there on this forum? We should conduct a study.

 

[Polymath257]

I am getting so many stupid replies, I must post a challenge. I posted a summary of the scientific method. Apparently, most everyone disagrees. Well, post articles from reliable sources which state my definitions are in error.

The definitions are fine. Yourunderstanding of them is a problem, though.

Oh, for that person who stated my dictionary definition of theory is wrong, post the correct definition. I am getting so many really dump replies, I can't keep track.

A *scientific* is a well-organized collection of ideas and methods that is supported by observation and testing.

Again, post reliable sources for refuting my definition of theory and the scientific method.

All of you must admit, it is crazy to criticize a theory before it has been tested.

Go ahead, amazing me some more, post the most ridiculous critique you can think of. Maybe there should be a prize for the most bizarre reply.

I understand most here have a short memory span. In case you forgot, here is the statement from post #198 which has generated so much acrimony and hostility. It is a "proposed theory."

We have read it. You have posted it multiple times and we have explained *in detail* why it is not even a proposal for a theory.

"At some particular point, probable when elements began to form, the universe as we know it began to take shape, maybe 380,000 years after the BB. Anyway, there must be some way of isolating key variables, or subatomic particles, for a model of predictability based on interacting events. Would the interactive model for that particular time predict chaotic outcomes, or It would predict a trend toward an intelligent design for the universe? Theoretically, it is possible to isolate key variables for a usable matrix allowing for predictable outcomes. I think the main task is to first identify key variables (virtual particles, matter and anti-matter) at specific points on a time line."

What seems to be the problem? It is about proving intelligent design, God's creation? As I stated, it is a proposal of a theory. I never said the theory has been operationalized. Why can't people read? Oh, I got it. People hate God and they can't stand ideas favorable to God as the creator of the universe,

That is claims to be about ID is not at all the problem. The problem is the complete lack of anything more than rambling, vague concepts that are either false or trivial. You don't have a *proposal* here. At no point did you give anything like an actual proposal. Instead, you make some very general statements that have very little content. I gave a *detailed* critique a few posts back, which you ignored.

How many God haters are there on this forum? We should conduct a study.

Diverting to a different topic now?

Well, all I can say is that you seem to be convinced you presented a proposal and are incensed that nobody else sees it as worth a hill of beans. It is clear you don't understand thebasic concepts and are fundamentally unable to debate. So I am bowing out of this 'conversation' and would encourage others to do the same.

 

[Sapiens]

I am getting so many stupid replies, I must post a challenge. I posted a summary of the scientific method. Apparently, most everyone disagrees. Well, post articles from reliable sources which state my definitions are in error.

Educating you is not my problem. I graciously provided you with two references, come back for your next lesson when you have read and comprehend them.

Oh, for that person who stated my dictionary definition of theory is wrong, post the correct definition. I am getting so many really dump replies, I can't keep track.

As I stated above.

Again, post reliable sources for refuting my definition of theory and the scientific method.

As I stated above.

All of you must admit, it is crazy to criticize a theory before it has been tested.

No, you have no theory.

Go ahead, amazing me some more, post the most ridiculous critique you can think of. Maybe there should be a prize for the most bizarre reply.

Increased ridiculousness is unnecessary and would just be redundant overkill.

I understand most here have a short memory span. In case you forgot, here is the statement from post #198 which has generated so much acrimony and hostility. It is a "proposed theory."

You wrote in post #198:

I have thought about this possibility after discussing on the internet with those who propose there is no proof for God as the creator of the universe. Then, I recall scientific studies about what happened with matter and anti-matter particles collided at the beginning of the universe. At some particular point, probable when elements began to form, the universe as we know it began to take shape, maybe 380,000 years after the BB. Anyway, there must be some way of isolating key variables, or subatomic particles, for a model of predictability based on interacting events. Would the interactive model for that particular time predict chaotic outcomes, or It would predict a trend toward an intelligent design for the universe? Theoretically, it is possible to isolate key variables for a usable matrix allowing for predictable outcomes. I think the main task is to first identify key variables (virtual particles, matter and anti-matter), at specific points on a time line. It may not be possible, I don't know. What I do best is come up with abstract problems. I am a retired college professor with some spare time. When I was in graduate school I had a reputation for critiquing theories. It drove my professors batty, they put me into independent studies to get me out of their classrooms.

I'll attempt to learn more about the possibility of a research design for the project. Again, the main problem is to identify key variables. If you can quantify them, you can apply probability equations for testing expected outcomes. I believe it is possible. I don't think it has ever been done. If achieved, it would be a strong argument for God as the designer of the universe. The argument would be based on the laws of probability for God's design, as apposed to random or accidental outcomes, which would be associated with chaos, no physical laws, and no natural beauty.​

Alas, there is nothing there that qualifies as a scientific theory.

"At some particular point, probable when elements began to form, the universe as we know it began to take shape, maybe 380,000 years after the BB. Anyway, there must be some way of isolating key variables, or subatomic particles, for a model of predictability based on interacting events. Would the interactive model for that particular time predict chaotic outcomes, or It would predict a trend toward an intelligent design for the universe? Theoretically, it is possible to isolate key variables for a usable matrix allowing for predictable outcomes. I think the main task is to first identify key variables (virtual particles, matter and anti-matter) at specific points on a time line."

Scientific word salad, nothing more. Worthy of Professor Irwin Corey.

What seems to be the problem? It is about proving intelligent design, God's creation? As I stated, it is a proposal of a theory. I never said the theory has been operationalized. Why can't people read? Oh, I got it.

You proposed no theory, as previously noted.

People hate God and they can't stand ideas favorable to God as the creator of the universe,

Why hate the nonexistent? That's no better than being a believer, an utter waste of time and energy.

How many God haters are there on this forum? We should conduct a study.

Feel free, mark me down as utterly indifferent.

I should bow out too, but while I may not hate Repox's god, I do love to watch his train wreck.

 

[Repox]

The definitions are fine. Yourunderstanding of them is a problem, though.



A *scientific* is a well-organized collection of ideas and methods that is supported by observation and testing.



We have read it. You have posted it multiple times and we have explained *in detail* why it is not even a proposal for a theory.



That is claims to be about ID is not at all the problem. The problem is the complete lack of anything more than rambling, vague concepts that are either false or trivial. You don't have a *proposal* here. At no point did you give anything like an actual proposal. Instead, you make some very general statements that have very little content. I gave a *detailed* critique a few posts back, which you ignored.



Diverting to a different topic now?

Well, all I can say is that you seem to be convinced you presented a proposal and are incensed that nobody else sees it as worth a hill of beans. It is clear you don't understand thebasic concepts and are fundamentally unable to debate. So I am bowing out of this 'conversation' and would encourage others to do the same.

Yes, I am not flexible. It is like knowing two and two equals four, and everyone saying you are wrong. No one, including yourself, has address the cosmological theory I proposed. Neither you, or anyone else, even understands the cosmological issues confronted by the theory. Evidently, for all of you, pride has gotten in the way. You must be right, even though you do not know what you are talking about. Nobody here, including yourself understands the meaning of theory for an empirical study.

You are adults, so if the shoe fits, wear it. If you don't know, admit it. Everyone pretends, but no one, including yourself, knows. Do you know the difference between a virtual particle and an atom? How is time related to the universe and the big bang? My point is none of you know anything about subjects related to my research proposal, and yet everyone stupidly lectures me. I will not give you anything. All of you have failed miserably.

 

[Repox]

Educating you is not my problem. I graciously provided you with two references, come back for your next lesson when you have read and comprehend them.
As I stated above.
As I stated above.
No, you have no theory.
Increased ridiculousness is unnecessary and would just be redundant overkill.
You wrote in post #198:

I have thought about this possibility after discussing on the internet with those who propose there is no proof for God as the creator of the universe. Then, I recall scientific studies about what happened with matter and anti-matter particles collided at the beginning of the universe. At some particular point, probable when elements began to form, the universe as we know it began to take shape, maybe 380,000 years after the BB. Anyway, there must be some way of isolating key variables, or subatomic particles, for a model of predictability based on interacting events. Would the interactive model for that particular time predict chaotic outcomes, or It would predict a trend toward an intelligent design for the universe? Theoretically, it is possible to isolate key variables for a usable matrix allowing for predictable outcomes. I think the main task is to first identify key variables (virtual particles, matter and anti-matter), at specific points on a time line. It may not be possible, I don't know. What I do best is come up with abstract problems. I am a retired college professor with some spare time. When I was in graduate school I had a reputation for critiquing theories. It drove my professors batty, they put me into independent studies to get me out of their classrooms.

I'll attempt to learn more about the possibility of a research design for the project. Again, the main problem is to identify key variables. If you can quantify them, you can apply probability equations for testing expected outcomes. I believe it is possible. I don't think it has ever been done. If achieved, it would be a strong argument for God as the designer of the universe. The argument would be based on the laws of probability for God's design, as apposed to random or accidental outcomes, which would be associated with chaos, no physical laws, and no natural beauty.​

Alas, there is nothing there that qualifies as a scientific theory.
Scientific word salad, nothing more. Worthy of Professor Irwin Corey.
You proposed no theory, as previously noted.
Why hate the nonexistent? That's no better than being a believer, an utter waste of time and energy.
Feel free, mark me down as utterly indifferent.

I should bow out too, but while I may not hate Repox's god, I do love to watch his train wreck.

Educating you is not my problem. I graciously provided you with two references, come back for your next lesson when you have read and comprehend them.
As I stated above.
As I stated above.
No, you have no theory.
Increased ridiculousness is unnecessary and would just be redundant overkill.
You wrote in post #198:

I have thought about this possibility after discussing on the internet with those who propose there is no proof for God as the creator of the universe. Then, I recall scientific studies about what happened with matter and anti-matter particles collided at the beginning of the universe. At some particular point, probable when elements began to form, the universe as we know it began to take shape, maybe 380,000 years after the BB. Anyway, there must be some way of isolating key variables, or subatomic particles, for a model of predictability based on interacting events. Would the interactive model for that particular time predict chaotic outcomes, or It would predict a trend toward an intelligent design for the universe? Theoretically, it is possible to isolate key variables for a usable matrix allowing for predictable outcomes. I think the main task is to first identify key variables (virtual particles, matter and anti-matter), at specific points on a time line. It may not be possible, I don't know. What I do best is come up with abstract problems. I am a retired college professor with some spare time. When I was in graduate school I had a reputation for critiquing theories. It drove my professors batty, they put me into independent studies to get me out of their classrooms.

I'll attempt to learn more about the possibility of a research design for the project. Again, the main problem is to identify key variables. If you can quantify them, you can apply probability equations for testing expected outcomes. I believe it is possible. I don't think it has ever been done. If achieved, it would be a strong argument for God as the designer of the universe. The argument would be based on the laws of probability for God's design, as apposed to random or accidental outcomes, which would be associated with chaos, no physical laws, and no natural beauty.​

Alas, there is nothing there that qualifies as a scientific theory.
Scientific word salad, nothing more. Worthy of Professor Irwin Corey.
You proposed no theory, as previously noted.
Why hate the nonexistent? That's no better than being a believer, an utter waste of time and energy.
Feel free, mark me down as utterly indifferent.

I should bow out too, but while I may not hate Repox's god, I do love to watch his train wreck.

What a stupid reply. You know nothing about cosmology, the subject of the theory. It is amazing, you don't even know the meaning of the scientific method, you like everyone else here, just blast away with no ammunition, just unfounded ideas. Read a book about cosmology, learn something about what you say.

 

[Sapiens]

Yes, I am not flexible. It is like knowing two and two equals four, and everyone saying you are wrong.

The problem is that you added two and two and got not four, but three.

No one, including yourself, has address the cosmological theory I proposed.

You did not propose a theory. Besides, the sort of cosmology you propose is unsuited to science because it is not falsifiable.

Neither you, or anyone else, even understands the cosmological issues confronted by the theory.

Of course not, no one is a smart as you are.

Evidently, for all of you, pride has gotten in the way. You must be right, even though you do not know what you are talking about. Nobody here, including yourself understands the meaning of theory for an empirical study.

Of course not, no one is a smart as you are. I'm starting to see a pattern though.

You are adults, so if the shoe fits, wear it. If you don't know, admit it. Everyone pretends, but no one, including yourself, knows. Do you know the difference between a virtual particle and an atom?

A virtual particle is not a particle. It is a disturbance in a field. An atom is the smallest constituent unit of ordinary matter that has the properties of a chemical element. OK so far?

How is time related to the universe and the big bang?

Time is thought to have started at the Big Bang.

My point is none of you know anything about subjects related to my research proposal, and yet everyone stupidly lectures me. I will not give you anything. All of you have failed miserably.

I don't need anything from you so that is no loss.

What a stupid reply. You know nothing about cosmology, the subject of the theory. It is amazing, you don't even know the meaning of the scientific method, you like everyone else here, just blast away with no ammunition, just unfounded ideas. Read a book about cosmology, learn something about what you say.

That's why, when it comes to cosmology, I prefer Ambiplasma as described by Alfven and Klein. Do you dispute their model? BTW: Name calling is not allowed here.