1
   

Big Bang Theory

 
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 06:04 am
farmerman wrote:
Gunga still wonte evr answer questions , he drops in, drops a couple of turds, and then departs. So far he hasnt added or detracted from a discussion....


Reply in "farmerman"'s own language: Oink oink oink oink oink oink oink woof woof woof woof woof hee-haaw hee-haw hee haw Oink oink oink oink oink oink oink woof woof woof woof woof hee-haaw hee-haw hee haw Oink oink oink oink oink oink oink woof woof woof woof woof hee-haaw hee-haw hee haw Oink oink oink oink oink oink oink woof woof woof woof woof hee-haaw hee-haw hee haw ....
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 06:08 am
Re: Big Bang Theory
gungasnake wrote:
One, Stephen Hawking is a hardcore ideologue and an idiot.


Stephen Hawking is an idiot? Whether you agree with him or not, it seems a *bit* of a stretch to call Hawking an idiot.

Are you sure you don't want to rephrase that statement slightly to something more plausible, such as, "I'm an idiot".
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 06:32 am
Like I say, I was watching a program a couple of weeks ago in which a reporter asked Hawking if he could cite a single case of a "beneficial mutation" which produced an increase in genetic information content, and the guy sat there with a dumb look and a pained expression on his face for several minutes. You'd think the guy might have thought about that for ten seconds before writing a book called "Climbing Mount Improbable"

How does the saying go... it takes forty some muscles to frown, seventeen or so to smile, and none to stand there with a dumb look on your face....
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 06:37 am
gungasnake wrote:
Like I say, I was watching a program a couple of weeks ago in which a reporter asked Hawking if he could cite a single case of a "beneficial mutation" which produced an increase in genetic information content, and the guy sat there with a dumb look and a pained expression on his face for several minutes. You'd think the guy might have thought about that for ten seconds before writing a book called "Climbing Mount Improbable"

How does the saying go... it takes forty some muscles to frown, seventeen or so to smile, and none to stand there with a dumb look on your face....


Hawking has a disease which pretty much prevents him from making normal facial expressions. And he's not a geneticist, so I don't know why the reporter was asking him about beneficial mutations.

Do you have even the slightest clue what you're talking about?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 02:31 pm
http://www.gocougs.net/fuskies/img/demotivivationseries/Stupidity.jpg
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 03:19 pm
I tuned into 3 threads in the last 10 min. In one Splendi is squeezing out some BS, in another Rex is doing the same , and here we have gunga, with more of his vile "snakeshit".
Quote:
Reply in "farmerman"'s own language: Oink oink oink oink oink oink oink woof woof woof woof woof hee-haaw hee-haw hee haw Oink oink oink oink oink oink oink woof woof woof woof woof hee-haaw hee-haw hee haw Oink oink oink oink oink oink oink woof woof woof woof woof hee-haaw hee-haw hee haw Oink oink oink oink oink oink oink woof woof woof woof woof hee-haaw hee-haw hee haw ....
. Your language skills are evolving nicely, soon you shall be able to delve into abstract thought. Perhaps not, but it really matters not since youve let me know about your debate skills. Ha Ha
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 03:26 pm
he said it
Quote:
Like I say, I was watching a program a couple of weeks ago in which a reporter asked Hawking if he could cite a single case of a "beneficial mutation" which produced an increase in genetic information content, and the guy sat there with a dumb look and a pained expression on his face
If this were true Hawking could make neither expression so thats mere interpretation by you. Second, asking HAwking about evolution is like asking Pat Robertson for directions to heaven.
Give some context to your otherwise stupid comment or just sit there and play with your snake.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 03:30 pm
fm-

Why don't you anti-IDers get uniforms and insignia and stuff. You are practically on parade doing drill as things stand.

I admire your loyalty to each other. It's getting a bit cosy though when it starts leading you into ridiculous positions of intellectual togetherness so to speak.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 03:32 pm
why dont you just go practice urinating in public. PS , youre the one to show up and jam your head up the snakes rectum in solidarity. I can take care of myself, it appears that you IDers and Creationists have no substance to discuss so you try a little Butt bongo.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 03:40 pm
Re: Big Bang Theory
kickycan wrote:
How about the Big Bang though? Is that one widely accepted by science as fact? Just how comfortable is science with this theory?

Very widely accepted, and very comfortable. There are some debates over details; but whichever side of these debates wins, you'll end up with some big bang theory.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 04:36 pm
Typical German scientistic propaganda . . . ever-body with a lick of sense knows that the world rests upon an elephant, standing on a turtle, standing on a turtle, standing on a turtle, etc., ad infinitum . . .

My deity can beat the crap outta yer deity . . .
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 04:47 pm
Anyone else in here want to talk about science? This namecalling is getting old and it would be best if everyone simply ignore the respective people who they find annoying.

It just so happens that anyone who, finding me annoying, ignores me... won't answer this post anyway.

((I like how logic works out sometimes)).
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 05:25 pm
Re: Big Bang Theory
Thomas wrote:
kickycan wrote:
How about the Big Bang though? Is that one widely accepted by science as fact? Just how comfortable is science with this theory?

Very widely accepted, and very comfortable. There are some debates over details; but whichever side of these debates wins, you'll end up with some big bang theory.


I say again, you really ought to take a look at the url I posted:

http://www.cosmologystatement.org

and at the credentials of some of the people who signed the statement. It includes some of the people who run Los Alamos.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 06:00 pm
e-brown. PErhaps you have something there.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 06:11 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Anyone else in here want to talk about science?
I love talking about science! If you have anything you might like to add to my thread that would be great. In particular there seems to be quite a range of views lurching into the philosophical as to exactly the what, how, who, where when of falsifiability.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 06:38 pm
Quote:
"... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.

I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "

- Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988),
from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Feynman 1985).




What we all carry with us as philosophical baggage, means little to the pursuit offacts and evidence
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 May, 2006 06:54 pm
I read the book "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" years ago, loved it, worth a reread.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 May, 2006 04:48 am
fm quoted-

Quote:
I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it.


I have scrupulously avoided describing some important aspects of Nature for this precise reason. I am well aware that-

Quote:
A little screen comes down


because I have seen it do so even when tangentially alluding to these aspects of Nature in polite company.And on EVERY occasion.

In fact it is a big screen in thickness as well as in length and breadth. And made of lead.

When I have confined myself to the milder end of the spectrum and offered a cursory scientific description of some of the processes taking place in a fancy restaurant on St Valentine's night I have been greeted with outraged indignation and been ostracised for my erudition. This explains the select company I keep in the pub and why our little group is avoided like the plague. Our reputation has been carried forth by those who have dipped a toe in our waters.

From such considerations it is quite easy to deduce that most scientific methodologists are indeed picking and choosing the grounds on which they make their intellectual stand and are thus "half-baked". This phrase means that they have been cooked over a low light rather than with a blow torch at three inches as I have. It is almost unnecessary to add that the grounds they do choose to stand upon is that which shows them in the best possible light.

Quote:
[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense.


Quite- and the role of religious belief is to referee the difficulty because without it the absurdities rise to the top. The mullahs and the ayathollas may well be crazy men but who knows what would be happening without them. A theologian, a proper one I mean, deduces from a study of unacceptable science the way forward for society and then offers other methods of achieving this without divulging the scientific principles on which his notions are based. And society is an alliance of sub societies having different ways forward depending upon economic circumstances, such as production of the budget or eating of it, tradition and geographical conditions combined with Nature's blessing of general all round greed and selfishness.

Subsidarity is an important ingredient of the glue which hold sub-societies together in a larger whole and it is best expressed, so far, by the ballot box. Judge Jones,in Dover, failed to give due weight to the fact that the school board had been elected. To dispute the bare fact of that on the grounds that they employed questionable tactics to get elected is quite a dangerous precedent as it could leave us leaderless if the argument was taken into wider fields. To dispute it on the grounds that chiclids blood clotting mechanisms behave in certain ways is to head into serious absurdity.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 May, 2006 04:55 am
are your urination skills improving? or are you still wetting your pantsfront?.

This is a thread on BIG BANG, Im not going to discuss anything not related to that subject . So peddle your tripe elsewhere spendi.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 May, 2006 05:15 am
You provided the text for today fm.

I merely fleshed it out a little.

I can't imagine Mr Feynman had much else in mind. The quantum physics was a sop.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Big Bang Theory
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/06/2024 at 03:11:04