I think you are a little bit "simple".
Scientists have a model. It's called the "Big Bang Theory" - Which is a model that dates back to the earliest known periods, right up to today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Singularity

It has supporting evidence like the Cosmic Microwave Background and the expansion of the universe from a single point.

It really is considering all the empirical evidence I provided prior. 

If you are happy living in ignorance, who am I to argue?

And I provided Japan as an example.

I asked if you agree with the theory of Evolution and Natural selection. - You replied that some aspects can be debated.
Ergo, one can assume you disagree with some aspects. (Although, you didn't really get into any intricate details, but that is fine.)

I came to the conclusion that you are anti-science for all your rhetoric in this entire thread in general... The fact you believe the laws of Physics are broken and need to be rewritten is just icing on the cake.

 Before you reply with things... Please go read the evidence I presented and educate yourself.

Sure. Certain aspects of Evolution and Natural selection for starters? :)

Or hows about the fact you believe all our knowledge regarding the natural world should be scrapped and remade?

And yet... You want to ruin it all.

Prove it. Provide evidence.
Don't just assert some bullshit and run.

I agree that there are people who accept ideas without understanding the details, but I wouldn't attribute that characterization to most researchers.  This is an issue with the general population.  The researchers themselves are not using faith or belief.  

I'm sorry, but you're misinterpreting singularities.  They do not break physics; they just mean that we need to update that specific part of our model.  In the example with Newton's Laws, we needed to reconcile classical mechanics with classical electromagnetism in order to find a model that accurately represents objects moving at every day speeds and objects that move close to (or at) the speed of light.  In the case of the Big Bang singularity, we need to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics.  The model itself works well for what we can currently observe.  

A model that violates the conservation of energy would most likely break physics if it accurately represented physical observations.  

Religion or science...one advanced humanity from the dark ages and one has ideas that take us back there. :)

Ah.

True colours revealed.

You're basing your whole hypothetical model on the belief that killing off humanity completely is the worst thing that can happen when it's not.

I'd say the finality of human extinction is better than the slow and extended suffering caused by religion-justified irrationality.

Actually, that's not entirely true. Medication in general is considered safe when the side-effects are generally known and benefits for using it beats the risks involved. For example a vaccine for chicken pox is a whole different matter than a vaccine for polio. This is why they stop giving the vaccine after the disease is generally eliminated. 

They always have side-effects. For example the medication I'm currently using, has death listed as a rarely occuring side-effect, though on higher doses than I'm using, and colorectal cancer occurs more frequently on people that use the drug orally.

Or the pig flu vaccine, Pandemrix, a decade ago that caused narcolepsy among people with certain genome. And the list goes on. The point is, that there's no "non-toxic" or "toxic" vaccine or drug, there are only diseases and illnesses to which itcis more benefical to have yourself vaccinated/use a drug than not to. 

First things first - nuclear waste, oil spills, CO2 emissions are not technologies but biproducts of technologies so let's throw those out immediately as you seem to struggle with reading comprehension skills or basic application of words. Take your pick on which of those afflicts you. Fertilizer is the entirety of your case? Is this a joke?

Your intellectual laziness establishes why nobody takes you seriously.

Learn how to properly formulate an argument...tossing out random words you think establishes your case is not it...

EDIT: Start reading

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/d/dowdenb/4/logical-reasoning.pdf

lmao gunshot wounds are a byproduct of guns and that doesn't change that fact that guns result in them 

what kind of silly deflection is that?

"Your intellectual laziness establishes why nobody takes you seriously.

Learn how to properly formulate an argument...tossing out random words you think establishes your case is not it..."

i did formulate an argument, i gave examples  of technology having a harmful impact on the environment

btw "biproduct" isn't a word... you'd do well to spell words properly before you start critiquing others

what do you mean? i think we had a pretty good conversation and i've come to like you

"The researchers themselves are not using faith or belief.  "

i'm not trying to make this a general thing i believe of researchers but i do think that in terms of topics like the supporting evidence for singularities there is some degree of faith involved

faith in the idea that they eventually will come up with evidence that does not exist yet

"I'm sorry, but you're misinterpreting singularities.  They do not break physics; they just mean that we need to update that specific part of our model."

the evidence required to update the model doesn't exist yet though

furthermore from what i gather they don't even know if they will be able to manifest the evidence... maybe its possible that the model they have has problems they are unaware of? maybe it needs to be reworked in a way that excludes their current theory for singularities? that's possible also

"In the example with Newton's Laws, we needed to reconcile classical mechanics with classical electromagnetism in order to find a model that accurately represents objects moving at every day speeds and objects that move close to (or at) the speed of light."

fair enough

"in the case of the Big Bang singularity, we need to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics.  The model itself works well for what we can currently observe.  "

but aren't we only able to see 3% of the universe around us anyway? don't they just call the rest dark matter? doesn't that imply that there's still a lot of work to be done?... i might be out of my depth here, i'll concede that

"A model that violates the conservation of energy would most likely break physics if it accurately represented physical observations."

singularities represent areas with infinite energy don't they? since mass is infinite... does that not break the law of conservation of energy?

again i'm not an astrophysicist so i'm just pitching a question as a layman in this field