I agree with you guys in a way Faulkner, Starman, and TheAstronomer. You need theories as they are a part of science as is the proving or disproving of the theory. But the theories that you guys are bringing up are all observable and have been formed, proved or disproved by observation. The theories that I disagree with and the ones that many of the cosmologist's around the web whose papers I was reading were focused on theories that are not formed by observation, and not observable. Take for example the the theory that the universe is expanding we can not possibly prove or disprove this theory in our lifetimes as it would take millions of years of observation to do so. This theory was actually formed from the observation of redshift in distant stars. I can also name two other theories that were formed by the same observation. Then you take theorys like the string theory, the supersting theory, the m-theory. We do not have the technology to come even close to proving or disproving these theories nor were any of them formed from anything that is observable. I am not saying that people shouldnt theorize, its just my opinion that since we are just beginning to learn about our own solar system, that making broad generaliztions about that which cannot be studied is a waste of time, it will be decades or centuries before we gain a true understanding of the universe as a whole.