D wiltshire;
I do not want to get into a arguement with you. You were rude, you said I had no solid facts, you CAPS LOCKED, so either you have poor social skills netwise and were rude by mistake (I notice you don't apologise... ), or you were deliberately being rude. Please save your proverbs about finger pointing; you claim you thought I was rude, pity you didn't bother calling me on it and just decided to be rude back.
When I said 'High School or sophomore', I was not indicating any doubt as to you finishing High School, but rather indicating I did not know where they cover this stuff in the US education system, whether it is covered in High Schools, or whether it is stuff covered in First Year at College. You obviously made some assumptions there that were wrong, and what's more seem to imply I am two-faced (saying 'without being rude' and then being rude would be two-faced).
Sorry if you think I am haughty, but hell, I think you're rude, so we'll just have to live with what we both think are the others misconceptions. The minute I thought you were being rude, I called you on it. Maybe that demonstrates the fact I wasn't being rude, or do you think I am that big a hypocrite?
You then take my description of a singularity and say I'm being dogmatic. You ask questions and snipe at the replies. How... well, words fail me... Sorry if an answer to a question sounds dogmatic to you, we don't all go round saying 'BUT WHY' or 'WHAT DOES THAT MEAN', some of us FIND OUT WHY. That way we can answer questions rather than asking them, or ask (BIG HINT HERE) better questions. Ooops. CAPS LOCK keeps slipping on. Funny how rudeness is catching, isn't it?
Then you completely twist this sentence;
Now, my level of understanding of the above physics is slightly better than your understanding of evolution I'd say, but I fully admit that's a vert layperson explination, so any one who can do better I salute and open the floor to, but, matter is ALL from the big bang, and that can be dated, so matter did not exist for ever.
You say this "Sound pretty dogmatic and self acrediting." I said, based on the fact you know virtually nothing about evolution, that I know slightly more about physics than you do about evolution. Wow, I am SO vain, saying I know slightly more than someone who knows virtually nothing.
Oh by-the-way, that was SARCASM. Ooops... more CAPS LOCK, see how annoying it is?
I also say that my explaination was a very layperson explination, as I am not a graduate in Physics, and that anyone who can do better can feel free. More of my vanity I suppose. I thought I was saying 'I can't explain this that brilliantly, jump in if you can do better'. Yet again you doubt me and cast aspertions upon my character without cause.
And yet agin, more accusations about being 'pretty dogmatic'. What IS your problem? You seem incapable of accepting that it is possible to know things with a high degree of certainty. If stating something with certainty because of what you know about that thing is dogmatic, well excuse me. Shit smells bad; dogmatic! Some people must like it. Horses have four legs; dogmatic! Some lose legs.
Maybe you'd rather we preface EVERY sentence with 'the current theories are' or some such. Well, some small scale DNA surveys have revealed that maybe upto 30% of people are actaully not fathered by their father, but by someone else. That might be just those surveys as it's not like they've done all the population. But maybe everyone should start saying 'this is probably my father' when they introduce him, unless they have had a DNA test to prove it, just so YOU DON'T CALL THEM DOGMATIC!
ARGH!
Notice you have not at any point accepted loads of well-intentioned people (that includes me despite your bad-mouthing me) pointing out that, maybe, just maybe, you need to read a book or two so you have a better basic understanding of the Sciences. You just repeat the uncontested fact you have a right to ask questions.
No one ever said you didn't. What some people have said is that maybe you'd be asking better, different questions if you knew more. And I suppose it is everyone elses' fault you are so intransigent? Or that some of your questions are pretty basic?
You say elsewhere that you are not trying to upset anyone, yet, as I said before, you smell more like a troll everyday. You are like someone who has never cut a piece of wood with a saw attacking the finer details of cabinet making.
In England we have a comedy program with a bumptious old fool who says 'You don't want to do it like that, you want to do it like this', before making it abundently clear he doesn't know what he's talking about. You are dangerously close to being that man.
I think maybe the problem here is that you have read enough to realise sub-conciously that god probably doesn't exist. But you are so pre-disposed to belief in god that you are fighting tooth and nail despite the facts that are already in your head. It's called cognotive dissonance, but I am sure you will just think I am being dogmatic and haughty by saying that.
I don't expect you to apologise for being rude; if you sincerely thought I was being rude, then you being rude back is no big thing. But, now I have explained myself, maybe we can get on better. If you don't doubt my motives, maybe I won't doubt yours.
If someone knew more about something than you, wouldn't you look stupid if you accused them of being dogmatic everytime they tried to teach you something?
edited for a major typo, but sod the little ones, I'm off home
