[Closed] evolution/creationism

Fair point T19. Also I have been christened into the anglican chirch never been though. Except when I was in scouts and we had to go for Easter.

The problem with religion and frankly some scientists is their level of confidence that they have "the" answer.

The reason I choose science over religion is science is prepared to change and be proven wrong, religion on the other hand is pretty intransigent or it wouldn't be religion.
Seems to me if you can't change you can't learn and grow.

My point is simple: what do the good works of atheists prove?

It proves that you don't have to be religious to do good.

The only fair thing to do when balancing this evidence, is to say that they are evidence against God; as they are evidence that people can do good without biblical reward or damnation.

Nah, that's flawed logic.

I dunno, I checked it out on Wiki too and it still sounds like bollocks. It's all cool up to the Big Bang Bollocks. How big a point? An infintesimally small one? Or a rubiks cube size? Or a football? The whole hooniverse, in one point? One single point you say? Sounds like made up shit to suit the measurements to me. And you believe it?

It's got to be bollocks.

It fits the evidence so is the best [i]theory[/i] there is at the moment (as far as I know). But keep fishing if you want you might get that big bite yet.

I don't know about that just the church that the queen is the boss of. Lifer a book having bad things happening in it doens't make it bad now does it? Are journalists who document wars bad? By your definition I would guess so. Just out of curiosity lifer do you have any published works in the big bang. Hows your research going. Discovered any black holes, or for that matter the god particle I'm guessing you've got a cup of coffee resting on that little treat and you'll bring it out when the hadron colider doesn't work.

+1 JB

Ouch

Lifer - Member
It fits the evidence so is the best theory there is at the moment (as far as I know). But keep fishing if you want you might get that big bite yet.

It proves that you don't have to be Christian to do good.

Ergo, citing the good works of Christians as evidence of God is deeply flawed logic.

If I believed that apples fall to the ground because of some mystical appley power and someone pointed out that oranges and many other fruit also fall to the ground, then would it still be reasonable for me to use the apples as evidence of a that special apple power?

Yeah yawn, I mean loads of eminent, erudite scientists lend credence to the Big Bang and yet all you can say is bollocks? Do you know any of the science? So you looked it up on wikipedia, big deal. Is that the bets you can do? Ss that equivalent to maths and physics A levels, a physics degree, a PHD and years as a research scientist? If you want an argument try at least posting on something you some knowledge about or can bullsh*it about for a bit, this effort is just lame.

Lifer a book having bad things happening in it doens't make it bad now does it? Are journalists who document wars bad?

No but I would say a journalist glorifying the destruction of an entire people because of what they belive is bad, or a book justifying corporal punishment, I'd say that's pretty bad.

Lifer. Its love really.

deadlydarcy - Member

So it's only a theory...it's ok for me to not believe it then is it? Are there any other hypotheses postulated? I hope so. Big Bang Bollocks is just that. Bollocks.

Given your advanced knowledge of astrophysics, life the universe and everything would you care to propose any theories of your own?

alex222 - Member
Lifer. Its love really.

What?

Confused of Sussex.

My point is simple: what do the good works of atheists prove?

It proves that you don't have to be religious to do good.

Or, that you don't need to believe in God to receive his Grace....

...The Father cares for all His sons, whether they know him or not 🙂

@dk: Nah, that's flawed logic.

Why so?

Tru dat

Or, that you don't need to believe in God to receive his Grace....
...The Father cares for all His sons, whether they know him or not

No, no, dk already assured me that he didn't think atheists doing good were doing God's work without realising it.

Besides, that would contradict "free will".

Yeah yawn, I mean loads of eminent, erudite scientists lend credence to the Big Bang

First you have to accept the existence of these scientists. I've never met them, and even if I thought I had I might have been delusional at the time.

I never said I have advanced knowledge of all that scientific stuff like you clever fellows. And I certainly don't have any theories of my own. But you don't have to be a scientist to think it's all a bit suss. It sounds a bit ridiculous to say that all this shit around us was the result of something very small going bang and then all this. I suspect lots of clever people privately think the same thing but are just afraid to say it.

Perhaps something else was at work? Some higher power that we just don't understand?

GrahamS,

I like your appley argument, but I still think it's your logic that's flawed, not mine.

I could have one leg and ride a bike. That doesn't mean that all one-legged people are cyclists. But it's evidence that people with one leg can ride bikes.

The existence of one-legged men who don't ride bikes wouldn't, on the other hand, prove that people with one leg can't ride bikes. And the existence of a one-legged cyclist wouldn't even prove that all people with one leg [i]can[/i] ride bikes.

Understand now? 🙂

simonfbarnes - Member

Yeah yawn, I mean loads of eminent, erudite scientists lend credence to the Big Bang

First you have to accept the existence of these scientists. I've never met them, and even if I thought I had I might have been delusional at the time.

True. Anyway I wasn't asking you. Although do you have an alternative theory as to how our universe started? You are in fairly rarefied company there's some leviathans on here.

Or, that you don't need to believe in God to receive his Grace....
...The Father cares for all His sons, whether they know him or not
No, no, dk already assured me that he didn't think atheists doing good were doing God's work without realising it.

You're having a problem with logic this morning 🙂

hilldodger - Member

My point is simple: what do the good works of atheists prove?

It proves that you don't have to be religious to do good.

Or, that you don't need to believe in God to receive his Grace....

...The Father cares for all His sons, whether they know him or not

But only if they don't 'know' another?

Who is on the Lord's side? .... Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour ... and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men. Exodus 32:26-28

The LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made. Exodus 32:25

Alex222 - When you said 'it's love really' what were you talking about?

deadlydarcy - Member

Perhaps something else was at work? Some higher power that we just don't understand?

Perhaps. I personally doubt it. I think you might be missing your own point. I think its daft to criticize the big bang if you don't know anything about the science behind it, but that's your choice. I think the question you really want to ask is what came before that? That's where the clever theologian will put a god. (I'm not saying they can still win the day but its that hardest one for us scientists to answer)

Or, that you don't need to believe in God to receive his Grace....

...The Father cares for all His sons, whether they know him or not

Even those that 'know' him aren't safe either:

Numbers 16

But on the morrow all the congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron, saying, Ye have killed the people of the LORD. (v.41)

Behold ... the glory of the LORD appeared.
...
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Get you up from among this congregation, that I may consume them as in a moment. (v.42-45a)

And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and put on incense, and go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them: for there is wrath gone out from the LORD; the plague is begun. (v.46)

Now they that died in the plague were fourteen thousand and seven hundred, beside them that died about the matter of Korah. (v.49)

Lifer - Member

Or, that you don't need to believe in God to receive his Grace....

...The Father cares for all His sons, whether they know him or not

Even those that 'know' him aren't safe either:

Numbers 16

But on the morrow all the congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron, saying, Ye have killed the people of the LORD. (v.41)

Behold ... the glory of the LORD appeared.
...
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Get you up from among this congregation, that I may consume them as in a moment. (v.42-45a)

And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and put on incense, and go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them: for there is wrath gone out from the LORD; the plague is begun. (v.46)

Now they that died in the plague were fourteen thousand and seven hundred, beside them that died about the matter of Korah. (v.49)

If you like it bloodthirsty the Old Testament is the place to go. Good quoting Lifer.

I was shocked to hear at the weekend that some schools in the North East built with funding from an evangelical car magnate now teach creationism.

Common sense alone dictates that the creation story (as told in the bible) is nonsense.

dk: sorry your cyclist argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.

If the existence of a one-legged cyclist doesn't prove or disprove the existence of one-legged cyclists, two-legged cyclists, bicycles or legs then how can you cite Christian good as evidence of a Christian God?

lifer when you said ouch after my post. I just thought I'd be nice and a bit stupid.

I don't see what the Bible has to do with a perfectly good argument about logic and Big Bang Bollocks. 😉

neninja - Member
I was shocked to hear at the weekend that some schools in the North East built with funding from an evangelical car magnate now teach creationism.

Common sense alone dictates that the creation story (as told in the bible) is nonsense.

There'll be plenty more if the Tories get into power! Also check out Waldorf - Steiner schools if you think Creationism is bad

[url] http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/concerns.html [/url]

[i]If the existence of a one-legged cyclist doesn't prove or disprove the existence of one-legged cyclists, two-legged cyclists, bicycles or legs then how can you cite Christian good as evidence of a Christian God?[/i]

I think you're confusing evidence with proof. There is no proof for what I say, but I see it as evidence. Lots of evidence but no proof. And you might read the evidence differently, and I'm cool with that, not having any interest in persuading or converting people.

Do you understand the science behind it Lifer? I watched Brian Cox's series so in fairness, I have some understanding of it - that was a very informative programme. I also have Horizon on series link and am a big fan. So I think I can justifiably question a theory which sounds as ridiculous as Big Bang Bollocks.

deadlydarcy - Member

Do you understand the science behind it Lifer? I watched Brian Cox's series so in fairness, I have some understanding of it - that was a very informative programme. I also have Horizon on series link and am a big fan. So I think I can justifiably question a theory which sounds as ridiculous as Big Bang Bollocks.

How incredibly funny, you watched a couple of tv programmes about the big bang and now you are an astrophysicist. 😆

deadlydarcy I am your new stalker, I'm going to watch everything you post just in case you come out with more comedy magic such as this. I think I might write poetry about you. Do you post on any other sites, still as deadlydarcy or what are your other user names? Please.

I also think its worth pointing out you can believe in both creationism and evolution for this very reason

Right, quote from way back... Creationism isn't the same as religion - it's the doctrine that the entire earth was created [b]as it is now[/b] by God. So it runs counter to evolution.

Seems perfectly reasonable to assume that life or indeed the universe were created by God in some form in the past. The big bang and the genesis of life are sufficiently unknown to allow for it. However it's also worth stressing that just because science doesn't know what happened at a particular point, it [b]does not[/b] mean that anything else it claims to know is invalid.

If you ask most scientists how life started, they'll say they don't really know. This is a key difference between science and creationism. Creationists claim to have all the answers, scientists do not.

Horizon 😆

Okay you win

… also, Quantum Physics, wherein something can simultaneously exist and not exist. Intuitively, this seems like bollox to me.

http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/EmmanuelSchoolsFoundation2

Good article about the pressure teachers are under to teach Creationism in non-state schools.

Lifer - Member

Horizon

Okay you win

Shooting fish in a barrel.

Toys 19 aren't they trying to find that answer to what happened before the big bang in the hadron colider? The higgs Boson or the 'God Particle'. What happens when they (if they do) find that? Another question is asked and the whole thing is started up again. You can't ever find a deffinitive answer to whether god exists or not because it is faith that drives the desire to believe in him/it. All you do is push the understanding of what gods role in all of this is further away. Just like in Hitch Hickers Guide to the Galaxy. The bable fish is conclusive proof that god exists but because gor requires faith to exist he disapears in a puff of logic or something. Like someone said earlier in the post there is no evedence either way. There never will be. No matter how many small building blocks to the universe you find there will always be something else to look for. I also think the point you made is what dedly darcy was eluding to. There was a point of super dense and super hot matter then it exploded creating the universe after 1 secon hydrogen was created etc. The point is how did the super hot super dense bit of matter get there. Had it always been there just suspended floating around in nothing or did a higher power go I create this ball of super hot super dense matter and when I click my fingers (or blow my celestial whistle) you explode into the universe creating all things that exist in it and deny all things within it an inate understanding of what it is they are doing and/or why.

I think you're confusing evidence with proof. There is no proof for what I say, but I see it as evidence. Lots of evidence but no proof.

I think you are arguing semantics to avoid the logic, but okay. So when you said...

It might not make any sense, or be provable scientifically, but why should it be? For [u]proof of the existence of God[/u] (who is manifest on this Earth by love, some would say), I look to the work of religious organisations who provide all sorts of help to people who need it.

did you mean that work was "evidence" or "proof"?

And either way, how is it not questionable given that atheists perform similar work, without the benefits of God, apples or wooden legs.

alex222 - Member

Toys 19 aren't they trying to find that answer to what happened before the big bang in the hadron colider? / [b]TRUNCATED FOR BREVITY[/b] ? tle) you explode into the universe creating all things that exist in it and deny all things within it an inate understanding of what it is they are doing and/or why.

Yup fine, I agree, just one question. How did God get there?

did you mean that work was "evidence" or "proof"?

Bah! I should have said [i]evidence[/i].

… also, Quantum Physics, wherein something can simultaneously exist and not exist. Intuitively, this seems like bollox to me.

So intuitively does it make sense that an object the size of a pinhead could be heavy enough to crush you?

Or that combining flammable gases can create a liquid that is pretty good at putting out fires?

Intuition can be a terrible measure of bolloxosity, as it relies on your current knowledge as a frame of reference.

No I don't write poetry, although in teenage flushes of unrequited love, I did make some poor attempts. They were quite embarrassing to be honest. I do like William Butler Yeats though - it takes a reasonable level of intelligence to understand his poetry. You should try reading the Lake Isle of Innisfree - it's a beautiful poem about the sometimes need for solitude from our busy lives. Rich with metaphor, science would struggle to explain the beauty of Yeats' verse. I can't imagine his intellect being compressed into a single point, let alone the rest of the universe along with it. His brother was a rather fine painter too.

I don't recall claiming to be an astrophysicist. Are you one? If so, then I bow to your undoubted superior intellect. All I said was that the solar system tv series gave me a new insight into things. Also, the recent series of Horizon had lots of stuff about the universe, including one programme entitled "Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong?". That opened my eyes a bit I can tell you.

I used to watch Equinox too - Horizon is sort of dumbed down recently I feel, but it helps some of us to understand these complex questions.

I'm really pleased to have a stalker now. I think my deadlydarcy persona is just here though. Though, feel free to search elsewhere...maybe you already have.

I don't know. Thats my point. I'm not even saying he/it is there. I'm just pointing out that science can't prove everything it just show how much more there is to learn. Could god be the universe? Could god be the point of matter that existed before the big bang? I don't know, I'm not paid to find out I just think having an open mind is the most important thing. Saying something is the deffinative answer surely is unscientific.

GrahamS - Member

… also, Quantum Physics, wherein something can simultaneously exist and not exist. Intuitively, this seems like bollox to me.

So intuitively does it make sense that an object the size of a pinhead could be heavy enough to crush you?

Or that combining flammable gases can create a liquid that is pretty good at putting out fires?

Intuition can be a terrible measure of bolloxosity, as it relies on your current knowledge as a frame of reference.

I need lessons in composition, why can you write what I want to say in about a 10th of the number of lines. I write for a living too...

Molgrips I'm sorry I confussed religion and creationism. I did mean religion, I do accept that creatiosm as a form of fundamentalist christianity is wrong. I did mean the story of creation in the bible aka christianity.

Intuition can be a terrible measure of bolloxosity, as it relies on your current knowledge as a frame of reference.

I don't recall claiming to be an astrophysicist. Are you one?

As mentioned in my first reply to you, no.

And my laughing at Horizon was because I agree with you on the dumbing down, soon half the programme is going to be long shots of scientists walking through warehouses. I saw that same progamme about everything we know being wrong, but didn't think it was very good. The one on infinity was excellent though.

Also DK i think quantum physics is no more bs than relligion in this sense. How could god create him self as himself on earth yet somehow be his own son who doesn't know who he is and then a ghost comeback to life when he comes back to life and then talk to someone as a real person but be a ghost who is god who is his son whos is a ghost made of orange with a candle on top and a bit of red ribon around the middle?

alex222 - Member

I don't know. Thats my point. I'm not even saying he/it is there. I'm just pointing out that science can't prove everything it just show how much more there is to learn. Could god be the universe? Could god be the point of matter that existed before the big bang? I don't know, I'm not paid to find out I just think having an open mind is the most important thing. Saying something is the deffinative answer surely is unscientific.

What you say is a far cry from creationism, the bible and all that crap. Think of it another way, who first discovered God, can you imagine how? I like the atheists idea of the flying spaghetti monster (FSM), if you apply the same thinking that you have applied to god, i.e. you cannot prove he doesn't exist, then I say its not god its the FSM, or orbital chocolate teapots or any other fantasy you want. This woolly thinking has no place in our world. We can only believe in what we can observe, we can only prove that something does exist, not the other way round. So we could spend the rest of our lives postulating new hidden deities, and that to quote some of the big thinkers above, is BOLLOX

But there are many things which we observe but cannot explain. The beauty of a flower, woman's intuition, Lionel Messi, consciousness. I wish science would get on with explaining these things instead of worrying about Big Bang Bollocks.

deadlydarcy - Member I don't recall claiming to be an astrophysicist. Are you one?

Nope but I am a physicist. Maybe this conversation will serve as to get you educated, why not do physics A level in night school? Then come back and comment.

deadlydarcy - Member

But can science explain a woman's intuition?

Intuitively, this seems like bollox to me

Well, it's not. At least, I assume you are talking about the superposition of quantum states, rather than something not existing and existing. Something can be in two states at the same time. It all makes perfect sense if you actually study it properly. It's all about waves, which can be super-imposed on each other quite readily.

This woolly thinking has no place in our world

No? Why's that then?

I think that what you meant to say was that it has no place in YOUR world 🙂

deadlydarcy - Member

But there are many things which we observe but cannot explain. The beauty of a flower, woman's intuition, Lionel Messi, consciousness. I wish science would get on with explaining these things instead of worrying about Big Bang Bollocks.

If you look hard enough you will find science has an explanation for many of these things (apart from Lionel Messi who is he?), you are basically commenting from a position of ignorance.

molgrips - Member

Intuitively, this seems like bollox to me

Well, it's not. At least, I assume you are talking about the superposition of quantum states, rather than something not existing and existing. Something can be in two states at the same time. It all makes perfect sense if you actually study it properly. It's all about waves, which can be super-imposed on each other quite readily.

This woolly thinking has no place in our world

No? Why's that then?

I think that what you meant to say was that it has no place in YOUR world

Molgrips which side of the fence are you on?

I'll think you will find I phrase my sentences quite carefully so do not waste your time trying to correct them, what you think I wanted to say has no bearing on what I said and what I wanted to say. Woolly thinking has no place in your world either, unless you can prove to me that God exists, then he doesn't and no amount of postulating or talking about it will prove otherwise.

all of those things can be explained by evolution darcey, not proved but can be explained

You call it the FSM or god it doesn't make any difference. I've never heard of that and the fact that athiest have a theory of a FSM basically means that they do believe in god they just don't want to call it god because then they're accepting religious teachings, mostly because of a need to be subversive not because of any true desire to find understanding of anything. Its the most absurd counter argument. Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't nhiedls bhor and einsten both very religious. So much so that einstein married his own cousin and I was of the belief that to be that inbread you had to be religious. As for proving something that does exist like the god particle? People believe it exsts so much they look for it, then they can't find it so they rationalise about it. It sounds alot like religion to me. Reminds me of an episode of the tick where scientists discovered that light wasn't the fastest thing in the universe lint was, why? Because its already there when you get your jeans out of the washing machine.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

alex222 - Member

You call it the FSM or god it doesn't make any difference. I've never heard of that and the fact that athiest have a theory of a FSM basically means that they do believe in god they just don't want to call it god because then they're accepting religious teachings, mostly because of a need to be subversive not because of any true desire to find understanding of anything. Its the most absurd counter argument. Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't nhiedls bhor and einsten both very religious. So much so that einstein married his own cousin and I was of the belief that to be that inbread you had to be religious. As for proving something that does exist like the god particle? People believe it exsts so much they look for it, then they can't find it so they rationalise about it. It sounds alot like religion to me. Reminds me of an episode of the tick where scientists discovered that light wasn't the fastest thing in the universe lint was, why? Because its already there when you get your jeans out of the washing machine.

They postulated the FSM to prove exactly how absurd god is, they don't believe in the FSM, they use it as an example to show how dumb believing in a god is. The rest of what you wrote there is just irrelevant. Apart from the lint thing, that was funny.

I also thought quantum physics explained the same thing existing twice using photons. Light can therefore behave has a particle and a wave. I remember an experiment with an plate and some kind of device where by if light were a wave changing the intensity would mean changing the frequency hence taking it out of the visible spectrum whereas if light were a particle changing the intensity ment more particles hitting the plate. Hence light can exist as a particle and a wave, allowing one photon it to be diffracetd into two points of light.

why not do physics A level in night school

But this would never get me to the level of guys like you, yet you feel the need to insult my level of intelligence so readily. Is this to make me feel bad? Or to make yourself feel better? From my studies into Buddhism, I've gained a useful insight into why others choose to insult...but I'm always open to furthering that insight. It's a fine religion you know.

So I watch TV and read a bit about it on Wiki...going any deeper would simply confuse me. Whenever I flip a bit of pron onto my phone, mrs deadly comes downstairs even though I've got it on silent. Isn't that woman's intuition?

Did you have a read of that poem? I find that sciencey types get so involved in their world of discovery that sometimes they forget the beauty that's around them, that hasn't been explained yet?

A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. (Albert Einstein, Religion and Science, New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930)

How many people [b]fully[/b] understand the workings of, for example, an iPhone?

Does one person's ignorance of the workings of that technology provide evidence of a 'higher being'?

Here's a question:

Would you prefer to jump from a cliff with a hang-glider that had been designed by someone with knowledge of accepted engineering principles of wing design or one that had been designed by somebody without technical knowledge but a lot of prayer?

not proved but can be explained

Appart for the looking for something that doesn't exist. Like hmmm the higgs boson?

But this would never get me to the level of guys like you, yet you feel the need to insult my level of intelligence so readily. Is this to make me feel bad? Or to make yourself feel better?

You're the one that came on the thread with the argument 'The Big Bang is a bollocks theoary so it must be bollocks'

Lifer, what do you do for a job? Look uo what some people once said? 😀

I've never heard of that and the fact that athiest have a theory of a FSM basically means that they do believe in god

[URL= http://www.venganza.org/ ]read about His noodly appendage here[/URL]

Atheists don't believe in FSM either. Only the devoted Pastafarians do.

But this would never get me to the level of guys like you, yet you feel the need to insult my level of intelligence so readily.

How do you know it wouldnt help you to understand this, I think it would. I wasn't insulting you, more taking the pish, but the night school comment was genuine freindly encouragement. Do it, science is wonderful and beautiful.

I find you non science types get involved in your world of whatever that you forget the beauty that's intrinsic in the physical word around us.

I haven't read the poem, I have googled it though and will take a look, 99% of poetry I find dull, quite like Seigfried Sassoon and some of the other war poets though.

Does one person's ignorance of the workings of that technology provide evidence of a 'higher being'?

Yes! St. Steven!

Alex222 do you want some more quotes to prove you wrong about Einstein?

And how do you know it doesn't exist when we've only just developed the equipment necessary to start looking for it?

"Saying something is the deffinative answer surely is unscientific."

Hypocrite.

Molgrips which side of the fence are you on?

Both, and neither 🙂

The question remains, if I like Woolly Thinking, why should I not be allowed to think in a Woolly manner?

Science clearly works for you, Woolliness might work for me. As long as I am not influencing others, or trying to do anything scientific, what's the Woolly problem?

alex222 - Member
Lifer, what do you do for a job? Look uo what some people once said?

No, I work in accounts.

I thought it was good practise to back up what you say with evidence, otherwise you could spout any old nonsense.

molgrips - Member

Molgrips which side of the fence are you on?

Both, and neither

The question remains, if I like Woolly Thinking, why should I not be allowed to think in a Woolly manner?

Science clearly works for you, Woolliness might work for me. As long as I am not influencing others, or trying to do anything scientific, what's the Woolly problem?

As I said before I'm not an exclusionist, you think what you like. I won't take you seriously that's all.

I am going to make lifers quote my tag line. It's just about the most sensible thing I've heard all day and quite witty.

I thought it was good practise to back up what you say with evidence, otherwise you could spout any old nonsense.

Science clearly works for you, Woolliness might work for me. As long as I am not influencing others, or trying to do anything scientific, what's the Woolly problem?

Woolliness is fine based on that description.