Just clicked the link, it looks good alright ,, and some favourable comments underneath..but havent got the head for it atm ,...

will have a butchers at some stage Neil, ta.

Another one of those, let make something sound sciency so we can give plausability to our unsciencable beliefs ...

A brief look on the net regarding this dude is that he's a bit of a Quack. I actually watched about 30 min of the viedo you posted Moo ... but alas, I find him rather patronising and in the end  I found it more entertaining to find out what skeptics think of him ...

http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/06/whats-so-misleading-about-nassim.html#s2

Looking at how young he looks in the video I posted, he's been babbling the same stuff for years ...

Well I thought that was excellent, cheers Mooshoo 

As someone said Science and Spirituality go hand in hand and Im glad people like this are around that are willing to think outside the box.

lets say for example that I create a machine that provides free energy, Im not a scientist but it works better than anyone could have ever expected, should I not be taken seriously even though I dont have the 'correct credentials'.

il check this out later when im home,

who said? They are at complete odds with each other.

One is the about the logical process of testing and proving / disproving theories thereby gaining knowledge and submitting clear unambigious retestable evidence to ones peers for broader acceptance and further testing.

The other is about misleading naive and gullible people who will accept without question anything and everything in the guise of spirituality, no matter how unreasonable or illogical, no matter how rediculous the burden of proof, no matter how ill conceived the idea. They prey on the weak minded with convenient ideas making them sound like something they are not, and get paid for it by selling books and media and hosting conferences too ...

As someone said, after being shown that the photograph they have taken of amazing supernatural orbs were simply dust specs caught in the flash ... "But I liked the idea they were orbs" ....

That my friend is the Crux .... people "like" the idea that somehow science gives credence to there magical fairyland belief .. and so they look for any and everything that is portrayed in such a way ... no matter what, no proof, no testing and certainly no science.

Like that video you posted previously, showing 6 or 7 scientists talking about one thing, and in the middle some spiritual nonsense, and you came away with the idea that they were all talking about the same thing ... science and spitiual nonsense intwined when in reality they have never been further apart.

Nonsense.

You've combined two things into one, so best to seperate them.

Firstly, any inventor, will have gone through some sort of design, analysis, trial and error etc to reach their goal, regardless of their qualifications. If they show their idea works, and submit that for examination, then regardless of their credentials they will have invented something. However, when it comes to very complex ideas, in ANY field, due to the number of bogus ideas etc, the scientific community, or an investor, might look upon some outlandish ideas with some skepticism and require a very high burden of proof in order to accept the idea or invest. Taking that further, if your idea happens to break a few laws of physics along the way, and you as the inventor have absolutely no qualifications at all ... rather than being taken seriously, one might simply take your idea with a pinch of salt. The idea would carry an enourmous burden of proof to be accepted ... and such is the case with loads of people who have so far attempted and failed to make such claims ... although there are a couple of cold fusion claims being made so ar that appear to be doing very well ... so we wait and see....

the Second part of your question / statement is that is more to do with this thread rather than inventing something and makign a claim about it. If you are going to use scientific theories  to prop up your wild and magical scientific beliefs, it would really help if you understood those scientific theories properly. However, if you're going to claim that you yourself is in fact a world leading physicist, then one would expect at the very least some sort of learned qualification to back that up ... no?  If not it comes across that you might simply be adding those ideas to your argument for the sake of making your argument look good ... or in a lot of cases, for making a bunch of naive and gullible people who are desperate for any sort of subtext that gives their rediculous beliefs further credence, no matter how underhanded those claims are.

Science and Spirituality are at complete odds. 

Mike, are you aware of any of the following experiments:

Dr Cleve backsters polygraph experiments on plants

Dr Peter Garievs DNA Phantom effect

Professor Ignacio Pacheco's experiments in spontaneous generation

Cleve backster hooked up a polygraph to a plant to see if there was any reactions that could be measured. When he simply 'thought' about setting fire to the plant, The plant gave off a 'panic' reaction. He said himself that it was like the plant read his mind.

Peter Gariev realised that DNA actually absorbs and stores light, however when you remove the DNA, the photons remain where the DNA was in a spiral formation. Its like the DNA is still there.

Prof Pacheco found evidence that life would spontaniously just appear out of 'nothing'. He heated up sand from an ordinary beach to 1400 degrees celcius, which supposedly destroys all know forms of biological life, other than certain onesfound in volcanoes and nuclear reactors.The sand was cooled off in a sterile environment and poured into a testube with distilled water. Each tube was then steralised twice with 24 hours between each steralisation. He then studied the particles floating on the top of the water after each 24 hour period and this is what he saw:

Its experiments like these that tell me theres something more going on than we understand. Spiritual people believe that everything is connected and your thoughts affect things around you, and based on the results of the polygraph experiments it looks like our thoughts do have some kind of effect. Spritual people believe there is much more to light and DNA than we are lead to believe. We're supposed to have 'light bodies' and stuff like that, and with the results of the DNA phantom effect experiments it looks like there may be some truth in that too. And as for the spontanious generation of life, well that supposed to simply be impossible, and yet there are results from experiments that show that it happens!

believe me, when I first started getting into all this stuff my 1st reaction was 'bullshit, what a load of crap', but then I read about experiments like these (and shit loads of others) that made me start to think differently.

I suppose they're all simply quacks though eh!

Yup * 2

What you pointed out is that there actually some science going on ... experiments, trial and error etc ... the problem is that when these experiments are demonstrated to or  repeated by the scientific community ... they inveriably fail. But the problem is the people who think them up refuse to admit this and continue spouting thier shit as if it's all proven. 

In reply to

In reply to

In reply to

Another one of those, let make something sound sciency so we can give plausability to our unsciencable beliefs ...



A brief look on the net regarding this dude is that he's a bit of a Quack. I actually watched about 30 min of the viedo you posted Moo ... but alas, I find him rather patronising and in the end I found it more entertaining to find out what skeptics think of him ...

http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/06/whats-so-misleading-about-nassim.html#s2



Looking at how young he looks in the video I posted, he's been babbling the same stuff for years ...

Good link Mike.

The guy is just another fucking idiot talking shit and making money from other idiots.

So you're a physicist now are you???  As i've already proven, he has had his paper on this peer reviewed, printed and won an award for it.  He's being taken seriously by the scientific community enough to get that done but you and Mike want to disagree with it as it stands in the face of all that you believe to be right and true.  You can't even participate in a debate without getting all playground and calling people idiots for not thinking how you think.  You're a very narrow minded person and aren't deserving of a decent answer but there you go.

Moo, it's fine, pay this guy money, buy his books, attend his seminars, fund his research etc etc ... and the next time you type the words "but this isn't about religion" you think about all the money getting paid to these quacks ... they can't ALL be right ....

This guy has been at it for over 20 years and all he has is one measly award at some convention - He has almost no support accross the scientific community .. He claims his Schwarzschild Proton paper was "chosen by a panel of 11 peer reviewers, Haramein's paper won the prestigious 'Best Paper Award'. - actually it turns out it was awarded for best paper presented in that category at a single computing systems conference; and that the 'peer reviewers' who awarded it were just the other people on the conference. Most people understand peer review to mean something quite different.

Science doesn't – will never and should never – work by someone having a 'vision' which he has convinced himself is the truth, and then trying to force some equations to fit the fantasy without any respect for evidence or for reasoning. Especially if in the meantime they go around claiming they've already proved it.

Peer review 100% debunked:

OMFG - A fraud , with no backing after 20 years of spounting this shit, not a single peer reviewed article and a measly award from a conference voted on by attendees from a completely different subject altogether ...  and you put him alongside Einstein who's won the nobel physics prize and who's theories have the backing of pretty much the entire scientific community for generations ...

Sorry mate ... That's what is so rediculous about this. He draws some lovely fucking fractals on the screen, procaliams it the fingerprint of God, and Boom ... All the hippies in the room suddenly get it ...

I think you need to tone down your descriptions, as while your explanations are not far off the mark the way you descibe them is.

To say the theory of relativity is WRONG is factualy incorrect. Same as Newtonion Physics ... They are two very strong theories. It would be more accurate, and less conflicting for the sake of this discussios to express that the theories are, as the authors themselves agree, INCOMPLETE.

Both theories have been proven many times over. It is true that neither theory explains everything but that is not a requirement for a theory. Newtonian physics is still used in engineering regardless of the fact that it doesn’t explain what happens at extreme masses or velocities.

So, To put these time tested theories alongside a fraud, with not a single peer reviewed  article after 20 years ... well .. you've made up your mind so ...

Apologies, I should have said drug induced imagination. You're right, it' nothing like religion at all mybad

Didn't I just say, literally in the post above, that using your imagination, drug fueled or not, is totally different to relgion?

Didn't I?

I believe Science gives us a much clearer view of the univserse. The big bang theory is ever changing, along with our technology, and as a result our view gets a little bit clearer along the way. There are no definites here ...

But to address your question directly,  I don't think anyone without a phd in physics, cosmology and/or quantum physics really has any understanding of what is meant by the term "big bang". It like many theories has been explained to us simpletons in such layman terms when the maths and theories behind the concept are actually truly astounding.  If you're asking me if I believe in the simplest of terms, the layman version of the big bang ... then my answer, in the very simplest of terms is: yes - I generally accept that all the matter of the univerve came from a single point roughly 13 billion years ago because there is hell of a lot of evidence to suggest so ... and not very much evidence to suggest otherwise. What came before is unknown at this point, maybe we'll never know, but right now that is how it looks to the best of our knowledge. Many of the experiments of recent times and confirmed a lot of the theories that have been made over the last 100 years regarding the orgins of the universe, however we're no where near having any sort of definitive picture.

It's only sarcasim if it's enclosed in special tags:

<sarcasim></sarcasim>

The comparison to religion from my part was more on the side of all the hocus pocus spirituality nonsense that is clearly fraudulent and preying on naive and gullible people - there's a huge money making industry around all this ... spouting nonsense is making a lot of individuals really rich ...

But none of that makes it OK for old fairy toes whom this thread is about to fraudulently claim he has the answer to everything and make money from naive people does it?

In reply to
Imagine where we would be today if some people had not looked at certain things differently. There was once a time where The Church said the earth was flat, and if anyone ever said any different they were ridiculed and probably killed. There was once a time when The Church said the earth was the center of the universe and everything went around it. Its a good job that there were 'Scientists' that were not willing to accept that explanation given by The Church and looked at things differently, regardless of what the Religious Zealots at the time said.

You sir are a very very confused man, you're so busy trying to be a free thinking spiritual individual you've gotten your scientists and your Religious Zealots mixed up ,so I've taken the opportunity to update your text into reality.

I suupose you would say Copernicus was a free thinking spiritual individual too, and that science had nothing to do with what he did

I'm actually appalled that your view of science is so skewed mate ... simply appalled.

In reply to

In reply to

In reply to
Imagine where we would be today if some people had not looked at certain things differently. There was once a time where The Church said the earth was flat, and if anyone ever said any different they were ridiculed and probably killed. There was once a time when The Church said the earth was the center of the universe and everything went around it. Its a good job that there were 'Scientists' that were not willing to accept that explanation given by The Church and looked at things differently, regardless of what the Religious Zealots at the time said.

 

You sir are a very very confused man, you're so busy trying to be a free thinking spiritual individual you've gotten your scientists and your Religious Zealots mixed up ,so I've taken the opportunity to update your text into reality.

I suupose you would say Copernicus was a free thinking spiritual individual too, and that science had nothing to do with what he did

I'm actually appalled that your view of science is so skewed mate ... simply appalled.

Until it was possible to prove otherwise, even 'scientists' believed the earth was flat, although admittedly that was a view influenced by the church.

what is your point?

Every single scientific theory is open to scrutiny and if more modern technology or maths or whatever enables us further confirm, improve or often is the case compelelty disprove a theory ... then that is called ... Progress.

So please explain, what is your point in all this? That People were able to make observations that improved our understanding of the earths shape and place in the univsere ... well done science

Norris I see your point as:

You spend much of your time trying to discredit science and promote a load of "free thinking spirituality" nonsense - while at the same time you latch on to any idiotic theory which, no matter how unproven, untestable and lacking in any sort of reasonable credentials, just so long as it sounds sciency and gives credence to you personal beliefs which just happen to amount to no more than beliving in Santa claus?

I really shouldn't have had to type that up for you, but there you have it.

I dont try do discredit science at all. Obviously we need science to develop and get anywhere, thats blatently obvious. but science can only go so far. For you to dismiss spirituality (and some of the scientific thinking behind it), and in turn ancient cultures that seemed to understand something we dont (look at the pyramids, I dont care what anyone says but they were not built by slaves dragging rocks on logs, that much is fecking obvious too! And other ancient sites where the rocks seem to have been softened and stuck together in such a way you cant get a raor blade through the gaps, these were all 'spiritual' cultures), just because 'science' hasnt proved it yet is ignorant and arrogant (and it certainly hasnt disproved it either). In the same way that we had to wait until the technology was developed enough to prove the world wasnt flat, IN MY OPINION we also may have to wait until the technolgy has progressed enough to prove things that spiritual people talk about are true too.

I really shouldn't have had to type that up for you, but there you have it.

In reply to

If science at the level we currently understand it is accepted as fact, then we could never meet them anyway as the distances and speeds involved are just too great....

Besides, everyone knows aliens dont exist and human beings are just a random accident.........

You're even more confused than I first thought.

Stop mixing science and spiriuality up. They are at odds with each other. You seem to think that science is "out there" to disprove stuff you believe in ... that's just nonsense.

How the pyramids were built has nothing to do with the spirituality of the builders. I too don't believe the old "slaves built it" theory, BUT, again that's based more on biblical history than reality, and also the fact that the egyptians quite like the idea that their ancestors built it .. it's good for tourism. However, although there is a lot of evidence to suggest the "slaves pulling rocks up ramps, and lifting + lowering 100 tonne rocks with precision when no such equipment has ever been found nor known to exist at the time" theory is bullshit, there is NO or very little evidence of an alternative. What's arrogent about that? What's it got at all to do with spirituality? It's an engineering problem to solve, not a spiritual one.

It would also be fairly acurate to say that all ancient monuments came from "Spiritual Cultures" ... name one that wasn't? All of them had beliefs and differnet gods etc ... again none of this has anything to do with the science of underrstanding how monuments were built?

What you're waiting for, IN YOUR OPINION, is for the scientific varification of spiritual stuff ... Which, I conclude as per my previous understanding of your point, is that anything that comes along and sounds sciency, no matter how unsciency it is, you will latch on to it in the hope that it gi9ves further credence to this thing you're desperately waiting to prove.

That's full circle. Thank's for confirming my understanding of your point of view was 100% correct

 OK Mike

And if every culture, bar none, was spiritual dont you think that maybe, just maybe there might be something in it..... why the fook do you think they believed these things.

Mahatma Gandhi 

couldn't have put it better myself. Majority belifs do not equat to the truth ... especially regarding spirituality if they were anywhere near the truth, don't you think they'd ALL BE THE SAME? They're nothing but supertition dogma that each and every culture throughout the ages invented to cope with simple things they couldn't explain, especially without modern science.

That's not to say some of the architectural feats of ancient civilisations aren't impressive, I still don't see the correlation between the engineering and the spirituality of the culture ... ?

In reply to
Its mirroring Niel, its not even a self cognizant, researched opinion, its the mirror opinion of a general and given understanding within the corporate world of logical development. If you asked Mike a succinct question about any religious/spiritual point he would have no internal comprehension and as such will rattle off a pre-voiced conditioned opinion.  Mike and his like have never studied any of the varying understandings of existance and has only a single track of 'educated' theory to opine from, his research about anything outside of his view is a google search for:  '.......... debunked' and as such he will always find what he is looking for and will never come to an understanding of what he argues against and that is why it can never be a plausible debate.

I dont care anymore myself, after years of questioning. I wake up in the morning and feel gratefull because the Robin is chirping outside my door in glee for the wee bit of bread I left out for it or I see the happiness in my kids faces when we have a good family moment. I dont care wether it was a random bang or a created bang. All theories can go fuck themselves for a bit I recon.

You got teh buttsore coz your happy tree friends are just frauds ...

Awww

First it's mooshoo saying that spiritaulity has special powers to be unsciencable, and then you declare me incapable of possibly comprehending this nonsense because I went to school and learnt maths and science and stuff ...

That's a fantastic opinion

The fact is , you guys believe any old shit from any old idiots, when as you have clearly show, it's simple to check google to find out how REAL and accurate their research really is .... the fact that you STILL cling to this bullshit goes further for proving what a bunch of morons you all are than I or any any of the other realists on BT ever could.

In reply to

In reply to

In reply to
Its mirroring Niel, its not even a self cognizant, researched opinion, its the mirror opinion of a general and given understanding within the corporate world of logical development. If you asked Mike a succinct question about any religious/spiritual point he would have no internal comprehension and as such will rattle off a pre-voiced conditioned opinion.  Mike and his like have never studied any of the varying understandings of existance and has only a single track of 'educated' theory to opine from, his research about anything outside of his view is a google search for:  '.......... debunked' and as such he will always find what he is looking for and will never come to an understanding of what he argues against and that is why it can never be a plausible debate.

I dont care anymore myself, after years of questioning. I wake up in the morning and feel gratefull because the Robin is chirping outside my door in glee for the wee bit of bread I left out for it or I see the happiness in my kids faces when we have a good family moment. I dont care wether it was a random bang or a created bang. All theories can go fuck themselves for a bit I recon.

You got teh buttsore coz your happy tree friends are just frauds ...

Awww

First it's mooshoo saying that spiritaulity has special powers to be unsciencable, and then you declare me incapable of possibly comprehending this nonsense because I went to school and learnt maths and science and stuff ...

That's a fantastic opinion

The fact is , you guys believe any old shit from any old idiots, when as you have clearly show, it's simple to check google to find out how REAL and accurate their research really is .... the fact that you STILL cling to this bullshit goes further for proving what a bunch of morons you all are than I or any any of the other realists on BT ever could.

 

 

 

 

I sid THAT did I?

Clearly my schooling would form part of the "corporate world of logical development" as it's the only place I ever could have obtained my "single track of 'educated' theory etc ...

However, DO YOU or DO YOU NOT believe the idiot for whom this thread was created, with no credentials what so ever and absolutely ZERO peer reviewed papers to his name after 20 years,  even though he claims to, do you believe he's cracked the meaning of life Jakedy Jake?

Or are you suffering the same 'Clingyness' as the other two fairy chasers in this thread?

In reply to

In reply to

In reply to
Gotta respect the staunch faith of the athiestic community. I wish I had such a surity, would be so much easier.

In a sense atheists are similar to religious people. Saying there is definitely no God is almost as daft as saying there definitely is one. The trick is not to think of God in a religious sense, but instead take it for what it actually means - "Creator." Something may well have created us. Perhaps it was some sort of mystical higher power, perhaps we are an alien experiment, perhaps we are stardust, or maybe the Earth itself is our God, or maybe we evolved from microscopic bacteria... Who knows? The answer: Nobody, not even atheists. religion and the idea of a creator are two very different things, and also, what created the universe may not have created us.

Read Śrīmad Bhāgavatam .

 All of the cosmos and all of the actions of mind, ego and soul are adressed, better than any other scripture I have read and better than science can touch. You wont read past the first page though probably as all the respectfull obiesences can be a bit Caine begat Jesus. But if you take all that as love then maybe you will.  btw: I agree with your first sentance there, its all faith for those that need the security of it, same thing.

May I interject?

I don't agree. Athiest I may be, I don't consider FACT there is NO god, or that FACT that the big bang theory (what exactly is that again) happened preceisely as has been explained in laymans terms to us plebbs ....  You lot always seem to put the word FACT into our mouths ... stating that our science is announcing FACTs ... The truth is, science is about proability ... plain and simple. You test your hypothesis until the probability of it being true enough to be called a fact, is proven beyond reasonable doubt and subbmitted to ones peers for close examination, retesting and ultimately agreement by the scientific community.

This argument that athiesm is a belief system in itself is used constantly by "believers" to try and quantify something that is at odds with their own core beliefs ... but its flawed.

If someone chooses to believe in unicorns ... why should someone who does not, based on the evidence that no unicorns have ever been proven, have to carry the label of a "unicorn non believer"? A lack of theism is exaclty the same. You can repeat your babbling on the subect as much as you like, but it won't change the truth about it I'm afraid. You will argue than my "staunch surity" is a kind of belief system, in fact that's exatly what you said Jake, however, it's not. How is saying that because there is little or no evidence that God, unicorns, santa,  spirits etc, and from that having drawn the understanding that even though one day proof may emerge I find it very very unlikely ... how does that become a belief system? lets face it ... it isn't. It doesn't give any security. It doesn't try explain or niceify what happens when we die etc ... it's just an understanding. that's all.

No problem bruv ...

In reply to

In reply to

In reply to

In reply to

In reply to
Gotta respect the staunch faith of the athiestic community. I wish I had such a surity, would be so much easier.

In a sense atheists are similar to religious people. Saying there is definitely no God is almost as daft as saying there definitely is one. The trick is not to think of God in a religious sense, but instead take it for what it actually means - "Creator." Something may well have created us. Perhaps it was some sort of mystical higher power, perhaps we are an alien experiment, perhaps we are stardust, or maybe the Earth itself is our God, or maybe we evolved from microscopic bacteria... Who knows? The answer: Nobody, not even atheists. religion and the idea of a creator are two very different things, and also, what created the universe may not have created us.

Read Śrīmad Bhāgavatam .

 All of the cosmos and all of the actions of mind, ego and soul are adressed, better than any other scripture I have read and better than science can touch. You wont read past the first page though probably as all the respectfull obiesences can be a bit Caine begat Jesus. But if you take all that as love then maybe you will.  btw: I agree with your first sentance there, its all faith for those that need the security of it, same thing.

 

May I interject?

I don't agree. Athiest I may be, I don't consider FACT there is NO god, or that FACT that the big bang theory (what exactly is that again) happened preceisely as has been explained in laymans terms to us plebbs ....  You lot always seem to put the word FACT into our mouths ... stating that our science is announcing FACTs ... The truth is, science is about proability ... plain and simple. You test your hypothesis until the probability of it being true enough to be called a fact, is proven beyond reasonable doubt and subbmitted to ones peers for close examination, retesting and ultimately agreement by the scientific community.

 

This argument that athiesm is a belief system in itself is used constantly by "believers" to try and quantify something that is at odds with their own core beliefs ... but its flawed.

If someone chooses to believe in unicorns ... why should someone who does not, based on the evidence that no unicorns have ever been proven, have to carry the label of a "unicorn non believer"? A lack of theism is exaclty the same. You can repeat your babbling on the subect as much as you like, but it won't change the truth about it I'm afraid. You will argue than my "staunch surity" is a kind of belief system, in fact that's exatly what you said Jake, however, it's not. How is saying that because there is little or no evidence that God, unicorns, santa,  spirits etc, and from that having drawn the understanding that even though one day proof may emerge I find it very very unlikely ... how does that become a belief system? lets face it ... it isn't. It doesn't give any security. It doesn't try explain or niceify what happens when we die etc ... it's just an understanding. that's all.

 

 

I totally agree with what you are saying. Atheism isn't a belief system at all, but they do believe in an ideology, and that ideology is that there is no God. You can't say this for definite. but I do take back what I said about atheists being nearly as daft as religious people, they aren't. 

Atheism is just slightly naive and the opinion is often formed from the viewpoint of "all religion is bollocks and I don't believe any of that shit." which I myself agree with. But as I have stated, the possibility of a creator and the medieval fairytale magic bullshit that is religion are two completely different things. Realising this and accepting we know fuck all and accepting the fact that you can't comment on any side of the "is there a God" debate with any authority is in my opinion, the best way to look at things. 

and what do you mean "you lot" by the way Mike? Are you implying that you are more intelligent than anyone on this board because you have a broader knowledge of science? I thoroughly believe in scientific progress and I believe that it can help to credit logical, plausible theories. But I simply do not believe it can prove beyond a reasonable doubt exactly what happened six billion years ago. And I do understand that science works in a democratic way and also that it redefines and re-examines its findings until it releases anything as a "fact." 

Ah, debate ... that's why we're here after all ...

Athiesm in its' strictest sense says - THERE IS NO GOD.

Agnostic says - No idea what it is, but, there most likely was some kind of creator/s we don't understand it (and I'll probably not waste too much time trying to either)

An Agnostic Athiest says - There is no evidence to date of God / Creator, And given our current understanding of the universe there is no requirement for a creattor, that doesn't mean one doesn't exist ... however , the possiblity is really really small ... I'll keep the door open, but only a tiny amount.

Even richard Dawkins considers himself an "Agnostic Athiest" ... I think there are really very few real athiests about ... Because even science deals with possibilties not facts ...

With regards to the "You Lot" statement, taken out of context I use it to refer to the general bunch of misfist who are generally anti establishment, spiritual this and that , "They're out to get me", UFO  / ORB hunting  conspiracy nut jobs ... etc ... nothing to do with intelligence - although I do question the intelligence of supporting blindly the words of someone who makes grand statements and after 20 years can't back them up with any degree of confidnce ... Heck, might as well be a religion? innit?

I myself can't claim to be more intelligent, even with my understanding of sciece as I'm no more educated inthe matter than anyone who finished high school. I may have read books on the subject for entertainment ove rthe years, but nothing more.

The big bang is said to have take place at least 13 and a half billion years ago ... not 6.

Certain theories about the event have been proven, however, as you're right to point out there isn't enough information to complete the picture. Maybe we'll never find out ... But with each technology step we find out more and more ... Like what's going on at the LHC at present ... all filling in pieces of the puzzle ... who knows what we'll know 100 years from now?