Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America

2009-09-28 16:13:37

#126

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6790|132 and Bush

Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America..

BS. Eat Up.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-09-29 03:11:15

#127

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6601|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
None of which eliminates the existence of one, either.
Correct, but if there is a pile of evidence backing one argument, and none at all backing the other I'll go with the one which has something more than faith behind it.

That's because you don't have any faith. That's the key difference.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-09-29 03:19:40

#128

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6601|'Murka

PureFodder wrote:
FEOS wrote:
PureFodder wrote:
Look at the guy's theory (assuming it's the Dr. Russell Humphreys stuff) It requires:
a) there is an edge of the universe, contrary to physics
b) there is a centre of the universe, contrary to physics
c) the Earth is near the centre of the universe, violating the mediocrity principle.

Total fail.
a) If the universe is expanding (according to physics), there MUST be an edge. How can something be contrary and in line with something simultaneously?

b) If the universe is expanding from a central explosive singularity (again...according to physics), there MUST be a center. How can something be contrary and in line with something simultaneously?

c) It absolutely DOES NOT require the earth to be anywhere in particular in the universe. The whole concept is the earth's known/suspected position RELATIVE to the known/suspected origin point (the center), which obviates your position that it REQUIRES the earth to be somewhere near the center. All according to physics, mind you.

not so fail...if you bother to think about it for half a second.
Go read up on the physics of the universe, there really is no 'edge' of the universe. Don't try to claim things are 'according to physics' if you haven't done the research first.

singularity + vacuum + explosion = rapidly expanding sphere of matter.

Explain how there isn't an "edge" to that.

In a quick perusal of all the theories of the various possible shapes for local and global geometries of the universe, not one of them implies that there isn't an edge to any of them.

But ur reel smaht n stuf so ah gess yull figger it out.

2009-09-29 03:45:51

#129

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6864|Canberra, AUS

FEOS wrote:
PureFodder wrote:
FEOS wrote:

a) If the universe is expanding (according to physics), there MUST be an edge. How can something be contrary and in line with something simultaneously?

b) If the universe is expanding from a central explosive singularity (again...according to physics), there MUST be a center. How can something be contrary and in line with something simultaneously?

c) It absolutely DOES NOT require the earth to be anywhere in particular in the universe. The whole concept is the earth's known/suspected position RELATIVE to the known/suspected origin point (the center), which obviates your position that it REQUIRES the earth to be somewhere near the center. All according to physics, mind you.

not so fail...if you bother to think about it for half a second.
Go read up on the physics of the universe, there really is no 'edge' of the universe. Don't try to claim things are 'according to physics' if you haven't done the research first.
singularity + vacuum + explosion = rapidly expanding sphere of matter.

Explain how there isn't an "edge" to that.

In a quick perusal of all the theories of the various possible shapes for local and global geometries of the universe, not one of them implies that there isn't an edge to any of them.

But ur reel smaht n stuf so ah gess yull figger it out.

I see you don't make the distinction between an edge and an edge that is y'know, reachable.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-09-29 03:46:37

#130

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6296|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
]That's because you don't have any faith.

I have plenty of faith -just not in religion.

singularity + vacuum + explosion = rapidly expanding sphere of matter.

Thats closer - You're trying to solve a 4d problem with 3d modelling.
Imagine your universe is 2d and is the surface of a soap bubble.
Your universe can expand - but there is no edge.

But ur reel smaht n stuf so ah gess yull figger it out.

Just because you don't get it doesn't mean other people are stupid.

Fuck Israel

2009-09-29 03:56:17

#131

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7000|Nårvei

Hehe ... funny debate ...

a. Like FEOS said there must be an edge, if there are no edge how can it expand?
b. Also there must be a centre from where it all started, if the point of origin some 13 billion years ago is the same as what could be considered the centre today is another discussion ...
c. I find it hard to believe that earth is even close to the centre seeing as the universe is 13+ billion years old and the earth a mere 4,5 billion years, should put us about 2/3 out from the centre ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2009-09-29 04:10:51

#132

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6601|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
]That's because you don't have any faith.
I have plenty of faith -just not in religion.

If you have faith in anything, then you shouldn't mock those who have faith in something else. Otherwise, you are mocking yourself.

Dilbert_X wrote:
singularity + vacuum + explosion = rapidly expanding sphere of matter.
Thats closer - You're trying to solve a 4d problem with 3d modelling.
Imagine your universe is 2d and is the surface of a soap bubble.
Your universe can expand - but there is no edge.

A vacuum is an absence of anything, therefore, anything that is not the singularity is, by definition, a vacuum. In fact, that vacuum was likely the only perfect vacuum that ever existed.

The best guess of the behavior of the explosion, absent any internal or external force (and how could there be an external force, since there is nothing else?), is a sphere, until matter starts to form, causing gravity (even micro-gravity), thus affecting the shape of the explosion immediately following. Shape implies an edge of some sort.

Otherwise, you're saying it went from essentially nothing to everything. Which would be more along the lines of creationism. And I KNOW you're not saying that.

Dilbert_X wrote:
But ur reel smaht n stuf so ah gess yull figger it out.
Just because you don't get it doesn't mean other people are stupid.

Your presumption that I don't get it...orFodder's presumption that I haven't researched this stuff....or taken higher-level physics courses in college...is remarkably arrogant.

Or more accurately...predictable, considering the source.

Spark wrote:
I see you don't make the distinction between an edge and an edge that is y'know, reachable.

The only distinction I make is whether or not it exists.

Last edited by FEOS (2009-09-29 04:12:28)

2009-09-29 04:17:35

#133

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|6855|NT, like Mick Dundee

Ty wrote:
I don't want to shit all over the movie but from reading the synopsis in the OP - Darwin never lost his faith in God, in fact in Origin as well as Decent he argued that God and evolution weren't mutually exclusive; that God instead of creating everything exactly as they are instead created them and then created a rule in order to turn them into what they are today. Darwin wasn't a religious man but then he was brought up in the period after the enlightenment when people were trying to explain the world around them instead of simply falling back on "God made it that way".

Darwin wasn't the father of Eugenics either, he was a naturalist, it was others who took Origin and applied to humanity. Darwin's follow-up Decent addressed humanity and although some argue this work suggested the theory that would become eugenics Darwin never was clear on whether he believed in it - certainly not on a practical scale. It was other men, most notably Sir Frances Galton a half-cousin of Darwin's, who would define and propagate the theory.

Anyway eugenics was an accepted science, people like Winston Churchill, Ted Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson believed in it. Since it did turn out so tragically, (Mr. Hitler also subscribed to eugenics,) and looking back on it it can be seen how racist, cruel an wrong it was Christianity likes to use it as an example of what happens when you leave the "all people created equal under God", (HAH!) model and instead rely on rational thought and logic to explain the world.

Anybody else remember the outrage when that nobel prize winning geneticist admitted to believing in eugenics?

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2009-09-29 04:22:19

#134

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6864|Canberra, AUS

Dilbert_X wrote:
singularity + vacuum + explosion = rapidly expanding sphere of matter.
Thats closer - You're trying to solve a 4d problem with 3d modelling.
Imagine your universe is 2d and is the surface of a soap bubble.
Your universe can expand - but there is no edge.
A vacuum is an absence of anything, therefore, anything that is not the singularity is, by definition, a vacuum. In fact, that vacuum was likely the only perfect vacuum that ever existed.

Something about this isn't clicking for me. Sorry but I don't like it. Doesn't a vacuum carry with it notion of space?

The best guess of the behavior of the explosion, absent any internal or external force (and how could there be an external force, since there is nothing else?), is a sphere, until matter starts to form, causing gravity (even micro-gravity), thus affecting the shape of the explosion immediately following. Shape implies an edge of some sort.

Otherwise, you're saying it went from essentially nothing to everything. Which would be more along the lines of creationism. And I KNOW you're not saying that.

We have not the slightest idea of what was before 10^-43 seconds after "whatever happened there". There could be nothing, it could have been a 5D brane collision, it could have been a big Bounce or it could have been a "quantum" fluctuation in some higher entity. We don't know.

Plus... I'm having a little trouble getting myself to the point where I can agree that the early universe was truly spherical. That implies a sort of delineated you-may-never-cross-here line in the universe which sounds odd. It could exist of course but it doesn't seem right.

Dilbert_X wrote:
But ur reel smaht n stuf so ah gess yull figger it out.
Just because you don't get it doesn't mean other people are stupid.
Your presumption that I don't get it...orFodder's presumption that I haven't researched this stuff....or taken higher-level physics courses in college...is remarkably arrogant.

Or more accurately...predictable, considering the source.

Spark wrote:
I see you don't make the distinction between an edge and an edge that is y'know, reachable.
The only distinction I make is whether or not it exists.

If you cannot reach it or observe it, then how can it exist? An edge - or boundary - by definition, is a restrictive thing, but this kind of edge places no restrictions on anything.

In fact, how do we know that the universe we can see - which may be the most unimaginably minute fraction of the whole, if some interpretations of inflationary theories are to be believed - is actually representative of the universe as a whole? There may be other regions which are totally disconnected from our "universe" in every possible causal manner, so we have no way of knowing if the same laws of physics hold. A strange possibility but a possibility nonetheless.

Last edited by Spark (2009-09-29 04:25:18)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-09-29 04:28:44

#135

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6601|'Murka

Spark wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
singularity + vacuum + explosion = rapidly expanding sphere of matter.
Thats closer - You're trying to solve a 4d problem with 3d modelling.
Imagine your universe is 2d and is the surface of a soap bubble.
Your universe can expand - but there is no edge.
A vacuum is an absence of anything, therefore, anything that is not the singularity is, by definition, a vacuum. In fact, that vacuum was likely the only perfect vacuum that ever existed.
Something about this isn't clicking for me. Sorry but I don't like it. Doesn't a vacuum carry with it notion of space?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#Qua … definition

Spark wrote:
The best guess of the behavior of the explosion, absent any internal or external force (and how could there be an external force, since there is nothing else?), is a sphere, until matter starts to form, causing gravity (even micro-gravity), thus affecting the shape of the explosion immediately following. Shape implies an edge of some sort.

Otherwise, you're saying it went from essentially nothing to everything. Which would be more along the lines of creationism. And I KNOW you're not saying that.
We have not the slightest idea of what was before 10^-43 seconds after "whatever happened there". There could be nothing, it could have been a 5D brane collision, it could have been a big Bounce or it could have been a "quantum" fluctuation in some higher entity. We don't know.

Plus... I'm having a little trouble getting myself to the point where I can agree that the early universe was truly spherical. That implies a sort of delineated you-may-never-cross-here line in the universe which sounds odd. It could exist of course but it doesn't seem right.

The point being that we don't know what the shape was instantaneously after the BB (or any time thereafter). Thus, it could just as easily be spherical or triangular or ovoid or any shape you want. The point being that it has/had a shape of some sort, even if it is/was a shape we cannot conceive of in our own terms.

Spark wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:

Just because you don't get it doesn't mean other people are stupid.
Your presumption that I don't get it...orFodder's presumption that I haven't researched this stuff....or taken higher-level physics courses in college...is remarkably arrogant.

Or more accurately...predictable, considering the source.

Spark wrote:
I see you don't make the distinction between an edge and an edge that is y'know, reachable.
The only distinction I make is whether or not it exists.
If you cannot reach it or observe it, then how can it exist? An edge - or boundary - by definition, is a restrictive thing, but this kind of edge places no restrictions on anything.

Many things exist that we cannot reach or directly observe. We don't know what this edge or boundary does or doesn't do, as the operations of the universe at the boundary are not known to us at this point. We have a fair understanding looking backward, toward the source, but not outward to the edges.

2009-09-29 04:47:57

#136

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6864|Canberra, AUS

FEOS wrote:
Spark wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
singularity + vacuum + explosion = rapidly expanding sphere of matter.
Thats closer - You're trying to solve a 4d problem with 3d modelling.
Imagine your universe is 2d and is the surface of a soap bubble.
Your universe can expand - but there is no edge.
A vacuum is an absence of anything, therefore, anything that is not the singularity is, by definition, a vacuum. In fact, that vacuum was likely the only perfect vacuum that ever existed.
Something about this isn't clicking for me. Sorry but I don't like it. Doesn't a vacuum carry with it notion of space?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#Qua … definition

Uhm, still not working. Maybe I should have been clearer - the equations of quantum mechanics require things like position and time or at least some reference point within the dimensions of the universe. How can it exist in an epoch "before time", if that's what it was?

As you can see I'll come up with anything I can to not have to bring a singularity into the works. Mixing quantum mechanics and general relativity - which a singularity cannot avoid doing - is a bit dodgy IMO.

Spark wrote:
The best guess of the behavior of the explosion, absent any internal or external force (and how could there be an external force, since there is nothing else?), is a sphere, until matter starts to form, causing gravity (even micro-gravity), thus affecting the shape of the explosion immediately following. Shape implies an edge of some sort.

Otherwise, you're saying it went from essentially nothing to everything. Which would be more along the lines of creationism. And I KNOW you're not saying that.
We have not the slightest idea of what was before 10^-43 seconds after "whatever happened there". There could be nothing, it could have been a 5D brane collision, it could have been a big Bounce or it could have been a "quantum" fluctuation in some higher entity. We don't know.

Plus... I'm having a little trouble getting myself to the point where I can agree that the early universe was truly spherical. That implies a sort of delineated you-may-never-cross-here line in the universe which sounds odd. It could exist of course but it doesn't seem right.
The point being that we don't know what the shape was instantaneously after the BB (or any time thereafter). Thus, it could just as easily be spherical or triangular or ovoid or any shape you want. The point being that it has/had a shape of some sort, even if it is/was a shape we cannot conceive of in our own terms.

Fair enough, probably makes more sense if you thing about it in terms of a Spacetime... space (I forget the technical mathematical term, starts with an M), or even a 11D space (because then your 'edges' aren't really tangible things which makes everyone happy - the only problem with that is that you have to define such a space, somehow, inside some unbound infinite space, (unless my learning of topology is all messed up which is likely, teaching yourself this stuff can lead to hilarious fail))

Spark wrote:

Your presumption that I don't get it...orFodder's presumption that I haven't researched this stuff....or taken higher-level physics courses in college...is remarkably arrogant.

Or more accurately...predictable, considering the source.

The only distinction I make is whether or not it exists.
If you cannot reach it or observe it, then how can it exist? An edge - or boundary - by definition, is a restrictive thing, but this kind of edge places no restrictions on anything.
Many things exist that we cannot reach or directly observe. We don't know what this edge or boundary does or doesn't do, as the operations of the universe at the boundary are not known to us at this point. We have a fair understanding looking backward, toward the source, but not outward to the edges.

There was a proposal a while back that struck my attention, called the "no-boundary" theorem. If I remember right, what it did was it complexified time, and in doing so it removed any need for the universe to have a clearly delineated edge (which I think was problematic for a lot of people).

I'll see if I can find it.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-09-29 05:57:42

#137

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6296|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
Your presumption that I don't get it...orFodder's presumption that I haven't researched this stuff....or taken higher-level physics courses in college...is remarkably arrogant.

You were ridiculing someone elses understanding remember?

FEOS wrote:
But ur reel smaht n stuf so ah gess yull figger it out.

If you have faith in anything, then you shouldn't mock those who have faith in something else. Otherwise, you are mocking yourself.

I have faith that when I open the fridge there will be a beer there. Doesn't mean I can't mock you.

Spark wrote:
Something about this isn't clicking for me. Sorry but I don't like it. Doesn't a vacuum carry with it notion of space?

Correct - Vacuum and nothing are two different things. Vacuum exists, nothing does not.

The universe may not have an edge, it may fade out into nothing, or space-time may be distorted so there may be an edge but it can never be observed.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-09-29 06:05:58)

Fuck Israel

2009-09-30 04:22:41

#138

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6601|'Murka

Spark wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Spark wrote:

Something about this isn't clicking for me. Sorry but I don't like it. Doesn't a vacuum carry with it notion of space?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#Qua … definition
Uhm, still not working. Maybe I should have been clearer - the equations of quantum mechanics require things like position and time or at least some reference point within the dimensions of the universe. How can it exist in an epoch "before time", if that's what it was?

As you can see I'll come up with anything I can to not have to bring a singularity into the works. Mixing quantum mechanics and general relativity - which a singularity cannot avoid doing - is a bit dodgy IMO.

The whole discussion revolves around the BB theory and the Creation theory aligning, so you kind of have to bring a singularity into the works.

Spark wrote:
Spark wrote:
We have not the slightest idea of what was before 10^-43 seconds after "whatever happened there". There could be nothing, it could have been a 5D brane collision, it could have been a big Bounce or it could have been a "quantum" fluctuation in some higher entity. We don't know.

Plus... I'm having a little trouble getting myself to the point where I can agree that the early universe was truly spherical. That implies a sort of delineated you-may-never-cross-here line in the universe which sounds odd. It could exist of course but it doesn't seem right.
The point being that we don't know what the shape was instantaneously after the BB (or any time thereafter). Thus, it could just as easily be spherical or triangular or ovoid or any shape you want. The point being that it has/had a shape of some sort, even if it is/was a shape we cannot conceive of in our own terms.
Fair enough, probably makes more sense if you thing about it in terms of a Spacetime... space (I forget the technical mathematical term, starts with an M), or even a 11D space (because then your 'edges' aren't really tangible things which makes everyone happy - the only problem with that is that you have to define such a space, somehow, inside some unbound infinite space, (unless my learning of topology is all messed up which is likely, teaching yourself this stuff can lead to hilarious fail))

Actually, the more I thought about this, the more I realized that edges or boundaries are irrelevant to the man's theory, as they play no real role. The only things that are important are the distance between the Earth and the Origin Point and the rate of expansion and the relativistic effects on perspective between the two points.

Further, as I thought about "boundaries" and "edges" to the universe, I couldn't help but remember the battle that went on between Hawking and some of his colleagues regarding phenomena at the boundaries of black holes. In certain areas of thought, black holes are holes that are punched through our own spacetime (universe) into another spacetime (universe)...thus being holes in a boundary/edge of our own into another. Crazy the things you think about while mowing the lawn.

2009-09-30 04:25:03

#139

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6864|Canberra, AUS

FEOS wrote:
Spark wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Spark wrote:
Something about this isn't clicking for me. Sorry but I don't like it. Doesn't a vacuum carry with it notion of space?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#Qua … definition
Uhm, still not working. Maybe I should have been clearer - the equations of quantum mechanics require things like position and time or at least some reference point within the dimensions of the universe. How can it exist in an epoch "before time", if that's what it was?

As you can see I'll come up with anything I can to not have to bring a singularity into the works. Mixing quantum mechanics and general relativity - which a singularity cannot avoid doing - is a bit dodgy IMO.
The whole discussion revolves around the BB theory and the Creation theory aligning, so you kind of have to bring a singularity into the works.

Fair enough, but the sooner we get rid of it the better IMO. It's a big "lol we still fail" sign.

Spark wrote:

The point being that we don't know what the shape was instantaneously after the BB (or any time thereafter). Thus, it could just as easily be spherical or triangular or ovoid or any shape you want. The point being that it has/had a shape of some sort, even if it is/was a shape we cannot conceive of in our own terms.
Fair enough, probably makes more sense if you thing about it in terms of a Spacetime... space (I forget the technical mathematical term, starts with an M), or even a 11D space (because then your 'edges' aren't really tangible things which makes everyone happy - the only problem with that is that you have to define such a space, somehow, inside some unbound infinite space, (unless my learning of topology is all messed up which is likely, teaching yourself this stuff can lead to hilarious fail))
Actually, the more I thought about this, the more I realized that edges or boundaries are irrelevant to the man's theory, as they play no real role. The only things that are important are the distance between the Earth and the Origin Point and the rate of expansion and the relativistic effects on perspective between the two points.

Further, as I thought about "boundaries" and "edges" to the universe, I couldn't help but remember the battle that went on between Hawking and some of his colleagues regarding phenomena at the boundaries of black holes. In certain areas of thought, black holes are holes that are punched through our own spacetime (universe) into another spacetime (universe)...thus being holes in a boundary/edge of our own into another. Crazy the things you think about while mowing the lawn.

Lemme finish studying the maths then I'll get back to you on that one

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-09-30 04:27:33

#140

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6601|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Your presumption that I don't get it...orFodder's presumption that I haven't researched this stuff....or taken higher-level physics courses in college...is remarkably arrogant.
You were ridiculing someone elses understanding remember?

No, I wasn't.

FEOS wrote:
But ur reel smaht n stuf so ah gess yull figger it out.

That wasn't mocking his understanding...it was mocking his down-the-nose, presumptive approach to my understanding of the topic.

Dilbert_X wrote:
If you have faith in anything, then you shouldn't mock those who have faith in something else. Otherwise, you are mocking yourself.
I have faith that when I open the fridge there will be a beer there. Doesn't mean I can't mock you.

But you can't mock me for having faith there will be soda in my fridge without mocking yourself in the process.

Dilbert_X wrote:
Spark wrote:
Something about this isn't clicking for me. Sorry but I don't like it. Doesn't a vacuum carry with it notion of space?
Correct - Vacuum and nothing are two different things. Vacuum exists, nothing does not.

That is not something you can prove, nor does it mean that it didn't exist at some point immediately prior to the BB, which is a basic requirement for the BB theory to work.

Dilbert_X wrote:
The universe may not have an edge, it may fade out into nothing, or space-time may be distorted so there may be an edge but it can never be observed.

The fact that it can't be observed doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

2009-09-30 04:34:08

#141

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6864|Canberra, AUS

Eh... Dilbert, I think you're too hooked to the idea of a 'flat' universe. Who said the geometry of the universe was Euclidean? There could be an edge and there probably is, just one we can never detect due to the geometry of the universe never allowing us. In any case there was another argument - a relativistic one - as to why there must be an edge that we can never see, but I've forgotten it - assuming it exists, which could also be questionable.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-09-30 05:07:17

#142

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6601|'Murka

And whether there is an edge or not is ultimately irrelevant to the discussion, tbh.

2009-09-30 05:15:10

#143

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6864|Canberra, AUS

True. Why did we start talking about one anyway?

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-09-30 05:55:33

#144

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6296|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
But you can't mock me for having faith there will be soda in my fridge without mocking yourself in the process.

After a few beers it doesn't matter TBH

I'll continue with whatever quantum space-time thing I've half understood.

You continue with your mumbo-jumbo translated into english from latin from aramaic and sub-edited by the frigging catholics.

Just don't start any wars on the basis of the above and we'll keep the LHC at a power level below which the universe won't fold in on itself.

Deal?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-09-30 05:59:56)

Fuck Israel

2009-10-01 03:11:55

#145

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6601|'Murka

Spark wrote:
True. Why did we start talking about one anyway?

Someone else thought it was absolutely critical to the discussion for some reason when it really is irrelevant.

2009-10-01 03:17:05

#146

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6601|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
But you can't mock me for having faith there will be soda in my fridge without mocking yourself in the process.
After a few beers it doesn't matter TBH

I'll continue with whatever quantum space-time thing I've half understood.

You continue with your mumbo-jumbo translated into english from latin from aramaic and sub-edited by the frigging catholics.

Just don't start any wars on the basis of the above and we'll keep the LHC at a power level below which the universe won't fold in on itself.

Deal?

The problem is that your understanding of your quantum space-time mumbo-jumbo is about as in-depth as your understanding of another's translated mumbo-jumbo. The point I was making was that there is a researcher who has theorized that the creation theories of the two may actually not be as mutually exclusive as once thought...and he came to that conclusion using the ruleset established by the ones who reject the translated mumbo-jumbo.

It's not about saying one is better or worse than the other. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

It's not about starting wars or trying to make a black hole to destroy the earth for shits and giggles.

Spoiler (highlight to read):
btw, wars are generally started over resources, not religion

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

Ty wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Spark wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Board footer