This was stated about the neutral theory, Do you agree? Why?
969538
Disagree.  It solves some problems in evolutionary theory where selective pressures are subtle.  The mathematics are highly refined and led to new insights, but it's application in the real world is limited.
636657
Which part of the theory? Remember theories are setup as place holders until disproven. They are not right or wrong as such.
289170
To be honest I'm really not sure.  I'll have to pay attention next time.  \n\nI would be interested in hearing about your theory!
180432
I find it interesting that the individual producing the time cube theory claims that mathematics (and by implication, all science other than what he/she approves) is nonsense has declared that set of opinions on a medium that required the mathematical and scientific work that the individual curses...  The internet, and its support technology, has been built and supported by the stuff this fellow decries.\n\nFrom my standpoint, that's like someone cursing farmers and cooks while eating...\n\nJust my opinion, of course.  I'm the embodiment of all that he or she anathematizes: so is modern medicine.  I wonder what the person would do if he/she got pneumonia or a nasty case of malaria?\n\nTo move into new territory, of course, you have to find new thoughts to think--I think it's one of Fudd's Laws: to find what no one else has found, you have to look where no one else has looked.\n\nWith that said, I have to disagree with the content of the site, and wonder about what there is in the author's background that causes such an attitude.  Certainly, there is a strong element of lack of knowledge: math and science, as they exist at this point in time, certainly embrace both singularity and plurality, and a great deal of other things.  They're not nearly so limited as the individual in that site seems to feel they are.\n\nOh, well...  Time to move on, or I shall ramble.
235272
I don't really pay attention to either side's nonsense.  Rather I find 3-5 other places that confirm or deny it.  If at least 3 don't agree on what was stated or how, it's probably nonsense.  Or I compare both sides on the same issue and then make up my own opinion.
1156908
yes.  don't know why. there is no logical explanation.  theories abound. but all can be discounted.  its just how it is. it will not change. adjust perhaps. but not change. sigh.
1061038
I think it is an interesting theory surround man. As all theories are. It touches on truth.\n\nThe tree of life and sacred geometrey are fascinating points of debate
29317
By the time I read all of the answers I realized that my thoughts had pretty much been covered. So kudos to all above me!\n\nBut I do want to emphasize what Snehal has proposed. One world........no religions. I agree with the answer that said that religions have basic similarities but that man has chosen to use their religion inappropriately. Wars have been fought merely over "interpretations." People have died for believing differently. Lives have been controlled because of those reading religion as a misinterpreted call for power. People are told what to think and what not to think and are condemned for differing opinions. \n\nI'm sure right now someone reading this is shaking their head thinking, "She has no clue what she is talking about." If it would stop with that, all would be fine. We are all entitled to have our own opinions. It is when someone will write me slamming me for my beliefs and finding  a way to avenge my thoughts by blasting me somewhere that we realize this is symbolic of our world's problems. It's not just because of religion of course. Religion is the scapegoat. Man can blame his judgements of others on the fact that they belong to "the wrong" religion. If we didn't have religions..........we would all have to face what we really are without the use of the scapegoat. \n\nGod? Well I believe we have a higher order. Does he want religions killing and disagreeing? *cough* Think about what He would write if he answered this question. :)
551099
I'm not sure I understand your question.  I certainly think that the meaning of counterfactuals can be unraveled in a systematic way.
557219
I absolutely agree on that one 100%..anyone who disagrees doesn't get out often.\nAnd that "treat those as you wish to be treated" is bullshit.\nI say "treat those the way they APPEAR to want to be treated!"
812818
Its beautiful, its elegant and it  holds promise. Its true that its some what stagnant in last few years but that doesn't mean we should start disbelieving it. If you cannot test something  experimentally that does not mean that it is incorrect.  You can refute something straight away only when you have proved it to be wrong.  While  thinking about a theory of everything, we must always keep a open mind. We should also for similar reasons give heed to other attempts towards a theory of everything.
899245
Boy do I agree 100% on this one.  \nGreat Question.
298386
I will usually play devil's advocate if I see someone being blindly optimistic, even if I actually happen to agree with the point of view.\nI don't consider it a NEED to be negative but, a need to be objective.\nBlind optimism is just as bad as blind pessimism, and I'll argue a point either way if I feel the proposed idea isn't thouroughly represented in both the pro and the con.
219921
Your question is unclear, sorry.  Even if you mean conclusion, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.
1024678
Hell, I agree with you.\n\n-J.
1003421
It is an interesting idea, but do you reallly understand where the other side is coming from?  Have you read any good books written by creation scientists?
997052
The theory evolved based on the facts that have been observed in the universe. The theory may not be correct or accurate but it does fit the facts and it is the only explanation anyone has been able to give to fit the facts.  \n\nIf you have a better one let's hear it.