Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The Myth of the Big Bang


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
291 replies to this topic

#196    Beckys_Mom

Beckys_Mom

    Sarcastic Muppet..!

  • Member
  • 51,196 posts
  • Joined:01 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ireland

  • "I hate pretentious people. I mean, what is the point in applying exorbitantly extensive vocabulary, it is just straightforwardly unnecessary".

Posted 14 April 2012 - 04:22 PM

View PostMr Walker, on 14 April 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

Why do you accept "sciences" right to redefine or even recreate the meanings of words and get away with it?

In all of my natural life, there has never been a change in the terminology ..You have  - THEORY.. and  then  SCIENTIFIC THEORY ... Since I was old enough to understand , this is how it has always been

Here is  what Cambridge  University  dictionary   used to describe the  term  -  THEORY  in a laymans  tone

theory noun

Definition

a formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based or of ideas which are suggested to explain a fact or event or, more generally, an opinion or explanation economic theory
scientific theory
Darwin's theory
of evolutionHe has a theory that the hole was caused by a meteorite.in theory
If something is possible in theory, it should be possible, but often it does not happen in that way In theory, the journey ought to take three hours, but in practice it usually takes four because of roadworks.
http://dictionary.ca...theory?q=Theory

Next dictionary will  give you more about scientific theory  with a little  of layman's theory


the·o·ry


noun, plural the·o·ries.


1.a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonlyregarded as correct, that can be used as principles ofexplanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law,doctrine.

2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural andsubject to experimentation, in contrast to well-establishedpropositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actualfact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration,substantiation

3.Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like,belonging to one subject: number theory.


4.the branch of a science or art that deals with its principlesor methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.5.a particular conception or view of something to be done orof the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles:conflicting theories of how children best learn to read

.http://dictionary.re...m/browse/theory


Now  it couldn't be more clearer than that.. UNLESS now you wish to say these on line dictionaries are all under some brainwashing  experiment?


Quote

       I dont accept anyones right to redefine the english language without the common consent of all users.            


I have seen you do exactly this many times when linking words from the bible and religion to suit your own personal definitions..I have  on a couple of occasions  poked fun  for laughs at your personal touches to the English words and their definitions .. Amazing how you can turn when it suits...  

The trouble here is your own lack of understanding  of the term Theory in science.. You prove this each time you post your replies...    I thought you of al people would know this and not need it explained.. I guess I was wrong .



Edited by Beckys_Mom, 14 April 2012 - 04:28 PM.

Posted ImageRAW Berris... Dare you enter?

If there's a heaven...I hope to hell I get there !

#197    Lion6969

Lion6969

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2010

Posted 14 April 2012 - 11:08 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 14 April 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

The Laws of Chemistry devolve from those worthy people who studied, observed, experimented, and discovered the nature of the elements. However, I suspect that will not be the answer you want to hear, based on how you put your question. You see the Laws of Chemistry as 'real entities', having an existence separate from those who propose them, yes?

Well, because they are not 'real entities', but are the conceptualised description of how atoms share electrons and are thus entirely a product of human ingenuity, there is no answer to the question you asked.

The same applies to the Laws of Physics.

You know what from you Leo I expected the correct answer. Your right they are conceptualised descriptions, however where your wrong is the notion they come from observers and those experimenting and studying them. All they do is observe the natural phenomena and conceptualise it, the laws of physics or chemistry did not originate with them did they and their not real entities are they? Like legal laws are not but are conceptualised in order to control society and the individual. Laws of physics govern the interactions on physical planes and from one physical plane to another, laws of chemistry are much the same. So they are not real entities as you said. So where did they come from?


#198    Lion6969

Lion6969

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2010

Posted 14 April 2012 - 11:28 PM

View PostHuttonEtAl, on 14 April 2012 - 06:43 AM, said:

Here is the Intelligent Design argument...

The watchmaker analogy consists of the comparison of some natural phenomenon to a watch. Typically, the analogy is presented as a prelude to the teleological argument and is generally presented as:

1. The complex inner workings of a watch necessitate an intelligent designer.

2. As with a watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the universe, everything) necessitates a designer.

This is an argument by William Paley that dates to the 1700s. Intelligent Design is not new. This is what every argument in ID is based on.

I'm well aware of the argument and that's why I said contemporary arguments are much stronger!

As a matter of interest what do you have to counter the above?


#199    Lion6969

Lion6969

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2010

Posted 14 April 2012 - 11:29 PM

View PostSaru, on 14 April 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

Please keep your comments civil and constructive, responding like this isn't going to achieve anything.

Sorry saru i will, but I was wondering how you missed copa's snidey remarks related to his physcic powers and how he predicts my responses with a hint of ridicule, are you good mates?


#200    Lion6969

Lion6969

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2010

Posted 14 April 2012 - 11:45 PM

View PostCopasetic, on 14 April 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

You didn't entertain it, because you didn't understand it. Here's two questions; Please explain in your own words why the sky is blue. Please explain in your own words why electrons are disbursed the way they are in nitrobenzene and the orbital hybridization of carbon in that molecule.

I did not entertain it as you clearly can't distinguish the difference between a profound question and the irrelevant drivel you posted!

I don't need to explain why the sky is blue, we know why it's blue, we know about most of the things you asked! Now let's flip it, if you asked me why is the sky blue and I replied "it just is!", this is not a tangible response. Therefore as you know your basic science 101 why the sky is blue and that explanation suffices on basis logic, empirical evidence etc.

So when I ask why does the universe exist at all? It's much more profound than asking why the sky is blue, because in essence I am asking why we exist all? Science, physics, etc show that it could have easily not existed. So your response is irrelevant!

I don't need to give you a science lesson nor anyone else, but you definitely need to ponder on why the universe exists at all? You may have to go beyond your comfort zone!

As for the second request I did touch on it in a reply Emma


#201    Cybele

Cybele

    Married to the Void

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined:26 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • Prick your finger it is done
    The moon has now eclipsed the sun
    The angel has spread its wings
    The time has come for bitter things

Posted 15 April 2012 - 12:09 AM

View PostLion6969, on 14 April 2012 - 04:38 AM, said:

That makes no tangible sense, it's tantamount to saying "it just is"! It's not a tangible response us humans take well to.

Whether we humans "take well to it" is irrelevant to the truth of the matter.

View PostLion6969, on 14 April 2012 - 04:38 AM, said:

What does that even mean? If we dint exist the universe would, but if the The universe whether you like it or not, the math the empirical data etc show it could have very easily not existed, and to do so in its current state is tantamount to being miraculous and at optimal tuning for life to exist and everything else.

You're not getting what she was saying. You don't look at the logical consequence of some chain of events and deem it a miracle that the chain is the way it is, especially when trillions of other chains (universes) may seem "just right" for other forms of existence. That is an incredibly arrogant, and self-centered viewpoint. If we didn't exist the universe would be different. We are a logical consequence of the universe; it wasn't "made for us" and it will destroy us just as surely as it gave rise to us. We are really just a blink of the eye on a cosmic timescale--not significant at all.

Edited by Cybele, 15 April 2012 - 12:15 AM.

My sig: "Cryptorchid", Marilyn Manson

#202    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,238 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 April 2012 - 04:37 AM

View PostLion6969, on 14 April 2012 - 11:45 PM, said:

I don't need to explain why the sky is blue, we know why it's blue, we know about most of the things you asked! Now let's flip it, if you asked me why is the sky blue and I replied "it just is!", this is not a tangible response. Therefore as you know your basic science 101 why the sky is blue and that explanation suffices on basis logic, empirical evidence etc.

No you need to explain it. Its no different than the other question you are asking--Can you answer either of them? This is, in essence, you simply moving the goal posts. Or as you wanted to critique others for saying "a god of the gaps"--Your question is really no different. You are either missing it because you are blind or missing it on purpose.  

View PostLion6969, on 14 April 2012 - 11:45 PM, said:

So when I ask why does the universe exist at all? It's much more profound than asking why the sky is blue, because in essence I am asking why we exist all? Science, physics, etc show that it could have easily not existed. So your response is irrelevant!

Its no more profound than asking why the sky is blue, or why babies grow, or why cells divide, or any number of other scientific questions that you can and cannot answer. You've simply chosen this one question because you believe, no different than some ancients believed about the color of the sky, that the question is unanswerable to science--ergo supports your god. If you cannot step back and see that, then you are blinded by your faith.

View PostLion6969, on 14 April 2012 - 11:45 PM, said:

I don't need to give you a science lesson nor anyone else, but you definitely need to ponder on why the universe exists at all? You may have to go beyond your comfort zone!

As for the second request I did touch on it in a reply Emma

Also when you ask 'why' questions you should state the conditions that would provide a satisfying answer.

You did not define, in your own words, biological complexity or information. All you said was;

Quote

Information is key, information is knowledge, it's immaterial and can't be quantified or measured. For example the DNA has four lettered code, the letters are concepts we have assigned to clear information present in the DNA, it's not a cell it's biological in nature although encapsulated within biological matter. When you refer to genetic code we assume it came about by accident, any other code, it must have been designed or at least has a cause. So where did the genetic code come from, how did this information come in to being. Not the physical biological matter that we called DNA, but the genetic code?

Which is gooblygook. It means nothing, except to  highlight your ignorance on the subject. The "letters" of DNA are not concepts, they stand for specific bases--A for instance is simply short hand for the base adenine (a purine), which when in DNA is also bound to a (deoxy)ribose sugar.

You follow up the gooblygook with more creationist bravado and questions....."where did DNA come from", "how did this information come into being"--Yet never defining any of the relevant terms you wish to discuss. So please do so now--In your own words; what is biological information and complexity.


#203    CommunitarianKevin

CommunitarianKevin

    Fact Corrector

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,279 posts
  • Joined:10 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Apple Valley, MN. Wrestling Capital of the U.S.

  • Now we know that heedless self-interests is bad economics.-FDR

Posted 15 April 2012 - 06:24 AM

View PostLion6969, on 14 April 2012 - 11:28 PM, said:

I'm well aware of the argument and that's why I said contemporary arguments are much stronger!

As a matter of interest what do you have to counter the above?

My point is that is the major contemporary argument. The contemporary arguements are the same as the old ones...
What I do I have to counter it? Just the fact the things claimed irreducibly complex have been proven not to be which shows that this complexity that appears designed can, and does occur naturally, without the need for a creator.

I guess another note is that the majority of people assume this intelligent designer is the Christian God. That logic is severly flawed...

Edited by HuttonEtAl, 15 April 2012 - 06:50 AM.

My screen names may change. My real name is Kevin. You can call me that in the threads...
My "about me" page...
http://www.unexplain...showentry=24860
http://athans-athansblog.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/KevinAthans

#204    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 18,410 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 15 April 2012 - 08:05 AM

View PostLion6969, on 14 April 2012 - 11:08 PM, said:

You know what from you Leo I expected the correct answer. Your right they are conceptualised descriptions, however where your wrong is the notion they come from observers and those experimenting and studying them. All they do is observe the natural phenomena and conceptualise it, the laws of physics or chemistry did not originate with them did they and their not real entities are they? Like legal laws are not but are conceptualised in order to control society and the individual. Laws of physics govern the interactions on physical planes and from one physical plane to another, laws of chemistry are much the same. So they are not real entities as you said. So where did they come from?

Funnily enough, I gave you the "correct answer" - according to the philosophy of science. You even part-explained, in the next few sentences you wrote, why it is "the correct answer", without realising you were doing so. But you got it wrong when you said "the laws of physics and chemistry did not originate with them [the scientists who proposed them]". Those scientists are the originators of those Laws.

The laws of chemistry and the laws of physics do not exist as 'real things'. The phenomena those laws describe are certainly very real, however. In the case of chemistry, these phenomena are dependent on the properties of the atomic elements themselves, and so we can say "in one sense, the Laws of Chemistry arise from the atomic properties of the elements".

Edited by Leonardo, 15 April 2012 - 08:08 AM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#205    eight bits

eight bits

    ...

  • Member
  • 7,630 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2007

Posted 15 April 2012 - 10:43 AM

Quote

why does the universe exist at all
The question as asked, using why, presupposess a purpose, and so presupposes an intention-holding being antecedent to the Universe. The existence of such a being is not in evidence. It follows that the question is not known to well-posed.

There can be no valid complaint that a question has no answer unless the question is well-posed.  The burden of showing that the question is well-posed falls on the complainant. Nobody owes you an answer until you have shown that there is an answer. In this case, your burden includes   showing that an intention-bearing antecedent exists.

Of course the lapse is worse than that, since the ultimate issue that divides the people in this discussion is just whether or not any such hypothetical intention-bearer does in fact exist. The question quoted, then, assumes the consequent of the argument offered by the party who is asking the question. It has no place in such an argument, nor a place anywhere else, either.

Why questions, even well-posed ones, have another feature which is pertinent to

Quote

That makes no tangible sense, it's tantamount to saying "it just is"! It's not a tangible response us humans take well to.
Perhaps we humans at the age of three don't take well to it. At that point in our development, we discover that why? is indefinitely recursable. If Q is a well-posed question, and R(Q) is a true and responsive answer to Q, then a further question may be formed syntactically according to the template "Why is R(Q) true?"

Three year-old: Why is the sky blue, Wise One?

Wise One: The sun shines on it.

TYO: Why does the sun shine on it?

WO: The sun radiates energy.

TYO: Why does the sun radiate energy?

... and so on, literally indefinitiely. Many of us have heard finite realizations of this conversation.

Religion provides no solution to the absence of a base case for a why-cascade. We know this because there is no solution. See the template above. Nevertheless, some religions give it a try.

TYO: Why do hydrogen atoms under some conditions fuse into helium, with energetic release?

WO: God intended it that way.

Presumably, the Wise One believes that he has now ended the conversation. The three year-old has a surer grasp of syntactical reasoning, however, and counters with

TYO: Why does God intend it that way?

TYO's question is not only well-posed, it is perfectly reasonable. WTF do you know about the intentions of the Creator of the Universe? She's talked it over with you, has she? Do tell.

But whatever answer WO gives (God loves us very much), TYO has the counter to that, too (Why does God love us very much?).

How does the conversation end? How must every such conversation end? WO chooses a synonym for "It just is." At the age of three, we may not take well to it.

Many of us, however, eventually accept that it is easier to ask questions than to answer them truthfully. An honest synonym for "It just is" is "I don't know." Scholars of many kinds, not just scientists, get over any emotional problem they might have with giving that answer. Generally, those scholars address audiences whose members are older than three, so it all works out swell.
-

Edited by eight bits, 15 April 2012 - 10:46 AM.

Posted Image

#206    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,180 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 15 April 2012 - 10:42 PM

View PostMelo, on 13 April 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

Wow. We are starting to agreed now and then.  :tu:

Only I think that you are wrong that we dont know answer on why?
You cant aswered on some questions How too...

Science is self corecting. And religion too.

Of course science doesn't know about all the hows: that's what they are trying to find out.

"Why" has to do with a reason, a plan, and in that case always a god shows up to explain it. Except in more mundane affairs, of course.

Science is indeed self-correcting, religion never.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 15 April 2012 - 10:45 PM.


#207    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 19,342 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 16 April 2012 - 02:40 AM

View Posteight bits, on 15 April 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

The question as asked, using why, presupposess a purpose, and so presupposes an intention-holding being antecedent to the Universe. The existence of such a being is not in evidence. It follows that the question is not known to well-posed.

There can be no valid complaint that a question has no answer unless the question is well-posed.  The burden of showing that the question is well-posed falls on the complainant. Nobody owes you an answer until you have shown that there is an answer. In this case, your burden includes   showing that an intention-bearing antecedent exists.

Of course the lapse is worse than that, since the ultimate issue that divides the people in this discussion is just whether or not any such hypothetical intention-bearer does in fact exist. The question quoted, then, assumes the consequent of the argument offered by the party who is asking the question. It has no place in such an argument, nor a place anywhere else, either.

Why questions, even well-posed ones, have another feature which is pertinent to


Perhaps we humans at the age of three don't take well to it. At that point in our development, we discover that why? is indefinitely recursable. If Q is a well-posed question, and R(Q) is a true and responsive answer to Q, then a further question may be formed syntactically according to the template "Why is R(Q) true?"

Three year-old: Why is the sky blue, Wise One?

Wise One: The sun shines on it.

TYO: Why does the sun shine on it?

WO: The sun radiates energy.

TYO: Why does the sun radiate energy?

... and so on, literally indefinitiely. Many of us have heard finite realizations of this conversation.

Religion provides no solution to the absence of a base case for a why-cascade. We know this because there is no solution. See the template above. Nevertheless, some religions give it a try.

TYO: Why do hydrogen atoms under some conditions fuse into helium, with energetic release?

WO: God intended it that way.

Presumably, the Wise One believes that he has now ended the conversation. The three year-old has a surer grasp of syntactical reasoning, however, and counters with

TYO: Why does God intend it that way?

TYO's question is not only well-posed, it is perfectly reasonable. WTF do you know about the intentions of the Creator of the Universe? She's talked it over with you, has she? Do tell.

But whatever answer WO gives (God loves us very much), TYO has the counter to that, too (Why does God love us very much?).

How does the conversation end? How must every such conversation end? WO chooses a synonym for "It just is." At the age of three, we may not take well to it.

Many of us, however, eventually accept that it is easier to ask questions than to answer them truthfully. An honest synonym for "It just is" is "I don't know." Scholars of many kinds, not just scientists, get over any emotional problem they might have with giving that answer. Generally, those scholars address audiences whose members are older than three, so it all works out swell.
-
Three year olds ask so many questions because their knowledge base is so small AND because humans seek answers to the unknown. Adults ask less questions because they know more, but they still are curious and ask questions about the unknown

I agre with you that there  may be no answer to a queston like, Why does the earth exist?" or, "Why do I exist?" except in a deterministic/ materialistic sense of explanation. Or a metaphysical one of choice. ie "i determine my purpose for my existence."

On the other hand it might turn out that the universe as we know it was; designed, engineered, and "built" by an ancient race of sapient beings, for a very specific purpose. In that case the  question would turn out to be "well posed."

Yet, in the absence of knowledge or evidence either way, humans insist on asking it. It is a core question related to our self awareness, and our need to understand our existence.  And we dont take it well to be told there is no answer. :devil:  We then create answers for ourselves which make us happy. :innocent:

In a practical sense, none of the questions or answers matter,    but it is what we do with/ in response to, the answers we find or create, that is exceptionally important to humanity. Those responses have shaped every individual, and also the species, since we  became self aware sapient beings.
For example, one has to ask why suicide is the third highest cause of death in present day humans, after diseases and accidents. Why do over 90% of humans in the 21s century still profess, either a belief in a god, (about 50%) or in the existence of a  spirituality beyond the material reality of the universe. (about  another 40%)

Edited by Mr Walker, 16 April 2012 - 02:44 AM.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#208    ZaraKitty

ZaraKitty

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,202 posts
  • Joined:10 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

  • I can see it in their eyes, they've already died.

Posted 16 April 2012 - 11:35 AM

The mystery of existence deepens..

The internet is a series of tubes, and those tubes are full of cats.

#209    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,099 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 16 April 2012 - 11:57 AM

View PostSeeker79, on 14 April 2012 - 02:35 AM, said:

I see.. No way around the goggles then. Materialism is reality not philosophyt, everything is the way a narrow few say it is despite evidence to the contrary, and the fact that experimentation prooves our universe is based on information processes instead of stuff dimply means the information intirpreatatiin is wrong because narrow minds must see stuff. Alright you win. I'll join your faith.

It's nothing to do with faith. It is to do with what the evidence presents us with, nothing more. There is no evidence for "spiritualism" in the way you want there to be. Discounting this area from science because of a lack of evidence is not being "materialistic". It is being sensible. Without it, science as a process would fall apart.


View PostLion6969, on 14 April 2012 - 04:38 AM, said:

That makes no tangible sense, it's tantamount to saying "it just is"! It's not a tangible response us humans take well to.

It makes perfect tangible sense. If the universe was different, we would exist to ask questions about it. Why is the universe suited to life? It isn't. Life is suited to the universe.


View PostLion6969, on 14 April 2012 - 04:38 AM, said:

No and that's irrelevant! My question was where did the laws of physics ie the laws the govern our universe existence come from? It's similar to asking why the universe exists at all? To say it just is, is not a tangible answer!

Its perfectly relevant. Coming from the point of view that there are no coincidences, and that human dominance is somehow planned or designed, is like saying that ice floats because one day it will help humans to exist. Its the same argument, but you're blind to just how silly it is.


View PostLion6969, on 14 April 2012 - 04:38 AM, said:

If the laws don't have to come from somewhere and are ingrained in the universe, then how so? When the universe began, did it decide it's parameters and boundaries? Did you know there is no evolutionary equivalent in physics. Laws of physics are labels we have given to naturally observed phenomena ie gravity etc. The universe could have easily not existed the fact it is, is against all odds.

Modern physics is answering the question of why the universe and its laws are the way they are. It has nothing to do with design or god or whatever. These are mysteries that are being answered if only you'd look at the science being done.

And I'd like to know how you worked out the odds of the universe existing. Care to share your workings?

Science isn’t about truth and falsity, it’s about reducing uncertainty ~ Brian Nosek

#210    karmakazi

karmakazi

    Crazy Cat Lady

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,469 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Phoenix, Arizona

  • That which does not kill us, makes us stranger.

Posted 16 April 2012 - 01:26 PM

View PostMr Walker, on 16 April 2012 - 02:40 AM, said:

Three year olds ask so many questions because their knowledge base is so small AND because humans seek answers to the unknown. Adults ask less questions because they know more, but they still are curious and ask questions about the unknown

I think adults get wrapped up in the daily routine of having responsibilities and just don't have time to ask the questions anymore.  They have "bigger" concerns so they accept the way things are.  Not that this includes anyone here, since being on this forum likely indicates we're still asking the questions :D

There is no greater risk in life than doing nothing.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users