>i understand the theory.
>wholly.
>entirely.
>exhaustively.
>it is all too clear to me.

Really? Then perhaps you can explain to me how it solves the flatness problem of why the omega value of the universe is ~1; why recent astronomical observations which show that the rate of cosmic expansion is actually accelerating instead of slowing lends support to the theory; why the theory doesn't violate the principle of conservation of energy, etc.?

>i keep my posts short because i know people don't like
>reading lots, and that means they might read my posts.
>short but sweet:

And because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

>i'm not convinced by that theory. you may be. i may not be.
>maybe you've actually won this argument: in other words,
>you've proven.... you can place your faith in a mediocre
>theory.... or place your faith in belief in a creator... but
>this is not scientific... this is consistent with what many
>posters have attested here: "you can't prove the existence
>of god with science".

Whatever. You're the one who asked the damned question. Nobody asked you to be convinced by the theory; I myself am not necessarily "convinced" that it's absolutely true, I am only convinced that the theory sounds scientifically plausible. But you've dismissed it out of hand without even bothering to try to understand what it's actually about, so why even bother asking the question? Like Solarus said, this post has nothing to do with science and everything to do with philosophical rhetoric.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is Precious Roy! You guys are SUCKERS!!!

Precious Roy,
Precious Roy,
Making lots of suckers out of girls and boys!
*PING*

___________________

Mar-A-Lago delenda est