And where do you think some of the funding comes from? Tax payers, do you honestly think tax payers want to pay for this?

Not all of it is government grants.

From what i understand , if the standard model is disproved then everything we think we know about the universe could be wrong and we have to start from scratch .  I think this is important .

How is it irrelevant?

Agent, I didn't say it was all govt. funded, I did say some.

Agent, I didn't say it was all govt. funded, I did say some.

Don't be a hard ass.

Understanding the universe is always relevant.

Understanding the universe is always relevant.

Very true, the same can be said for the nature of matter itself.

I have nothing against learning more about the universe or our origins,but the biggest problem is that information has a way of being used andtwisted to meet someone's ideology.

No it's doesn't, it's used to satisfy science, nothing more nothing less.  The problem only comes when the facts don't agree with existing ideologies.  When the facts disprove religious assumptions you'll end up with people belittling the facts.  Evolution is a great example.  Here we build a model for how life is manifested and it's flawless yet look at the reaction.  All because it contradicts existing ideologies.

Also if you were insinuating that Atheism is an ideology, you couldn't be more wrong.  Atheism is the absence of an ideology. 

The point is to build for the future, all 6 billion of us are irrelevant, the goal is to thrive forever, not for a few more thousand years, not for a million more years, FOREVER.  It doesn't matter if we end world hunger right now and then die off millenia later because of something we could have prevented with more research in technology.   If you don't understand how this is important then you are just a fucking idiot. 

Religious zealots need to back off and stop acting like your beliefs matter, just like we have no fucking idea what religion people practiced 20,000 years ago, no one will know or give a fuck about yours at some point in time, get over it. 

In the grand scheme of things religion is a fad and an insult to reason, technology is not.

In the grand scheme of things religion is a fad and an insult to reason, technology is not.

Was?

I couldn't care less about it personally, but I just saw a thing on it in TIME... it sure looks cool.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_re_eu/eu_big_bang
And its all now officially down the drain due to a glitch.

lmao

No, I don't believe there is a Christian who cares about the true origins of the Universe. 

I do... just not at the expense of doing other stuff.

I'm open to just about any theory about earth's creation, and the universe's possible creation. I'm no scientist, and I'm not the best Christian on earth either. Evolution? Why not. Microevolution? Why not. Young-earth creationism?


....Eeehhh. [:P]

But you get the point I think. I don't pretend to have enough knowledge on it to form an educated opinion, and quite frankly, I'd rather take care of a clear and present problem, like helping people like me through school, or helping someone with leukemia. If someone wants to fund it privately, it's their deal, but I don't want to have to pay for anything that doesn't (and won't ever have a chance of) directly effect(ing) me.

Why not. Microevolution?

There is no distinction between macro and micro evolution, there is only evolution.  It's not up for debate either.  It's a theory in the same way that gravity or electromagnetism is a theory.  Everything is proven and well understood.  The term micro and macro evolution were made by Christians in order to discount what they call macro evolution. 

If someone wants to fund it privately, it's their deal, but I don't want to have to pay for anything that doesn't (and won't ever have a chance of) directly effect(ing) me.

How much tax dollars do you think effects you?  How much do you think benefits you?  Your government just pissed away 3 trillion dollars for an illegal war.  Actually I can't even say how much Iraq will cost Americans because no one seems to agree on the cost.  Estimate range from 1 to 5 trillion.  Doesn't that piss you off!?  They don't even know how much they're spending! 

There is no distinction between macro and micro evolution, there is only evolution.

Sure there is. Some people only believe in microevolution, therefore, it's a theory. It's not widely accepted by modern science, but it still exists.

Does it have credibility? I don't know, and I'm not really bothered to figure it out. That's not an, I don't care, so I don't have to face the truth kind of answer. I just honestly can't be bothered, in the same way I can't be bothered with Civil War history, or ancient Asian civilizations. It just doesn't interest me.

How much tax dollars do you think effects you?  How much do you think benefits you?

Probably not much, but multiply those "not much" pet projects by hundreds of thousands, and you have an accurate cross-section of American taxation.

And yeah, the lack of fiscal conservativism in the current administration bothers me, a lot, because I know my generation, and my children's generations will be footing the bill. I'm nondiscretionary in my dislike for big government spending.

Sure there is. Some people only believe in microevolution, therefore, it's a theory. It's not widely accepted by modern science, but it still exists. Does it have credibility? I don't know, and I'm not really bothered to figure it out. That's not an, I don't care, so I don't have to face the truth kind of answer. I just honestly can't be bothered, in the same way I can't be bothered with Civil War history, or ancient Asian civilizations. It just doesn't interest me.

I understand you're not taking a stance on this, that's why I'm not arguing.  I just want to clarify what the word "theory" means in scientific terms. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

When I use the term "theory" I'm talking about the scientific method.  Theory does not mean a guess or lie in Science.  A belief is not a theory either.  In this sense macro and micro evolution are not theories, they're just bullshit derived from the theory of evolution.  Bullshit does not deserve the term "theory" in Science.  It doesn't even matter if it's true or not.  Adding macro and micro evolution as opposed to evolution doesn't explain anything.  Just like creationism itself. Creationism is built on a series of statements that are not supported by proof or even evidence (at least the latter is needed to form a theory). Furthermore creationism does not explain anything, therefore it's not a theory.  It just extends the question of why.  Does not explain how either.     

A theory has to be qualified first.  Then it must endure tremendous scrutiny by scientists.  Evolution on the other hand is a theory, it encompasses both micro and macro evolution because both are directly related.  The whole point of evolution to explain the diversity of life.  It is not however meant to explain the origin of life.  The big bang theory is also not responsible for explaining the origin of life.  Science does not have a proper theory on the origin of life, we simply do not know.  We don't have any evidence that we could use to build a theory for the origin of life.  A lot of guesses though.

"Science-damn you!"

Zoy

There's always someone...

Repent thy sins!

EDIT: and lol at RROD. :)