Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ

theFyn, Smarter than all the scientist. The end all be all of logic.

Now religion is better than science for not paying taxes. The Big Bang never happen because he said so. It's all just theory and all atheist are in a religion and have faith in science.

Who knows where he stands on evolution.

:heh:

1238343915268.jpg
 
theFyn, Smarter than all the scientist. The end all be all of logic.

Now religion is better than science for not paying taxes. The Big Bang never happen because he said so. It's all just theory and all atheist are in a religion and have faith in science.

Who knows where he stands on evolution.

:heh:

1238343915268.jpg

Maybe if we just stop believing in theFyn he will disappear? Guess Im a faggot? LOL
 
theFyn, it is great to be skeptical however to make your argument valid your have to imply the scientific method. Look up the Baloney Detection Kit. I agree that Dark Matter appears to be the "invisible dragon in my garage, Sagan reference". However, the universe still expands and entropy increases.
 
So I wasted perhaps an hour of my day on this thread. I will not make that mistake again after this post:

thefyn: this reminded me of you...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
;)


Dark matter detector. Show me one that works and we can talk.

Invisible cosmic "thing" binding everything together is IMO up there with the holy spirit.

Actually, religion trumps BBT science because they don't pay taxes and at least people who believe have the COMFORT of faith. :)

Not 80 years of red faced failure after billions spent trying to take a picture of a ghost.

Before you start making statements about science, learn about it, learn about it's philosophy, learn the details of the theories you're saying are untrue/unlikely. Most crucially though, you need to look at the history of science and technology.

The computer you are using right now only exists because of (amongst many other things) research into lasers and quantum physics.
Many of the greatest thinkers of the early 20th century (Einstein for example) disagreed with many of the basic premises of quantum physics on the grounds that it simply defied any common sense whatsoever. However, they were wrong and you're computer is the next best thing to proof.

Now what is it that makes you in a better position to say that contemporary theory is wrong than Einstein was all those years ago?
 
Thefyn, you have made an art out of poor reading comprehension.

You have no idea what problems you have, what questions you want answered, or even how science *works*, and if you think that science is about having faith, and not *getting rid of all of the grey areas where one could put faith*, then I'm still at a loss as to how you learned the basics of language.

Now is the time when you should come out with 'haha wasnt that funny i trollzded' as even *that* is saving face compared to what you're doing.

Jeff
 
]theFyn, Smarter than all the scientist. [/B]The end all be all of logic.

Now religion is better than science for not paying taxes. The Big Bang never happen because he said so. It's all just theory and all atheist are in a religion and have faith in science.

Who knows where he stands on evolution.

:heh:

1238343915268.jpg

How much of my posts did you actually read?

I'm the only one claiming that i don't know. Everyone else seems to have the answer to CREATION.

And the religion taxes was a joke (obviously)

And there was a slight clue on my opinion of evolution was when I said I WENT TO INTERNATIONAL DARWIN DAY.

A few weeks ago.

http://www.darwinday.org/
 
theFyn, it is great to be skeptical however to make your argument valid your have to imply the scientific method. Look up the Baloney Detection Kit. I agree that Dark Matter appears to be the "invisible dragon in my garage, Sagan reference". However, the universe still expands and entropy increases.

Sagan, Einstein etc are being mentioned....

I hate to sound like a minge, but ffs are they the only people of ref when someone wheels out a scienze/physicz debate?

Don't tell me...

200px-Stephen_Hawking.StarChild.jpg


The universe still expands eh? Some people say its already ran its course. You mention dark matter. Which kind? warm? Hot? Cold? lets make some other shit up and hope the letters after my name makes it stick. (crosses fingers)
 
Thefyn, you have made an art out of poor reading comprehension.

You have no idea what problems you have, what questions you want answered, or even how science *works*, and if you think that science is about having faith, and not *getting rid of all of the grey areas where one could put faith*, then I'm still at a loss as to how you learned the basics of language.

Now is the time when you should come out with 'haha wasnt that funny i trollzded' as even *that* is saving face compared to what you're doing.

Jeff

There are grey areas yes? Grey (dark) unsee-able/undetectable areas which push and pull correct? Grey areas which is the basis on most peoples BBT yes?

How can you claim I don't understand anything, because I don't believe in something we can not measure, see or detect?

It's been almost a 100 years since the BBT concept was brought forward. And in my opinion dark matter is a funding carrot which is starting to wear very very thin.
 
So I wasted perhaps an hour of my day on this thread. I will not make that mistake again after this post:

thefyn: this reminded me of you...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n677ZbzC24

Good. Because that is my stance on us shaved monkeys thinking we have all the answers.

I've been trying to tell everyone I am stupid.

Maybe I am too cynical. My stance is I don't think people posting on the Andy Sneap forum know the answer to the big question :p
 
Sagan, Einstein etc are being mentioned....

I hate to sound like a minge, but ffs are they the only people of ref when someone wheels out a scienze/physicz debate?

Don't tell me...

200px-Stephen_Hawking.StarChild.jpg


The universe still expands eh? Some people say its already ran its course. You mention dark matter. Which kind? warm? Hot? Cold? lets make some other shit up and hope the letters after my name makes it stick. (crosses fingers)

I also mentioned Hubble and Zwicky didnt I? Would like me to cite more references? Something tells me it wouldn't make a difference. We mention these names because they are a creditable contrast to your "Some people". Tell me who those some people are? Are they creditable?

My stance is I don't think people posting on the Andy Sneap forum know the answer to the big question

You proved that beautifully!
 
I also mentioned Hubble and Zwicky didnt I? Would like me to cite more references? Something tells me it wouldn't make a difference. We mention these names because they are a creditable contrast to your "Some people". Tell me who those some people are? Are they creditable?

You proved that beautifully!

It won't make a difference because all of the refs have different opinions on the matter (nice pun).

So if you have 100,000 brilliant minds, all with varying theories along the same theme, isn't it time to question overall validity after a 100 years with no proof?

Do we do the religion thing of 2000 years with no proof before we go back to the drawing board?

Aaaanyway. I like this discussion. I want dark matter to be real. Just like Mulder wants to believe. Only I don't look as good in speedos.
 
Thefyn, nobody is claiming to have the answers here - but your statements (on faith, for example) are utter rubbish and *the entire point of having science is that you can find any answer to any well-formed question you have*.

Also, simpler statements (Fermat's Last Theorem in mathematics, for example) have gone longer times (centuries) without proof. The problem (in addition to what seems like deliberate misreading, which isn't even worth addressing beyond this) is that you're tossing things out with no indication of having actually spent a little bit of time going beyond the most basic explanations - you can have as many statements, and as much evidence, as you want if you just crack open a physics journal or textbook. Don't like what you see in there? Go to their references and look at their data. Don't like something there? Go to their sources and look at their data. Repeat as necessary - either your questions will be answered, and this will be solved with much less bullshit, or find an inconsistency or unexplained phenomenon and *contribute to science in a way that everyone wants you to do already*. There isn't a massive cabal of black-robed science-priests chanting incantations to bring about worldwide belief in basic physics - science is made of people who want to find problems with what we know about. If you're trying to find problems with science, do it properly and contribute to the world - otherwise, shut your face.

Jeff
 
JBroll;8935740[SIZE="6" said:
]Thefyn, nobody is claiming to have the answers here [/SIZE]- but your statements (on faith, for example) are utter rubbish and *the entire point of having science is that you can find any answer to any well-formed question you have*.

Also, simpler statements (Fermat's Last Theorem in mathematics, for example) have gone longer times (centuries) without proof. The problem (in addition to what seems like deliberate misreading, which isn't even worth addressing beyond this) is that you're tossing things out with no indication of having actually spent a little bit of time going beyond the most basic explanations - you can have as many statements, and as much evidence, as you want if you just crack open a physics journal or textbook. Don't like what you see in there? Go to their references and look at their data. Don't like something there? Go to their sources and look at their data. Repeat as necessary - either your questions will be answered, and this will be solved with much less bullshit, or find an inconsistency or unexplained phenomenon and *contribute to science in a way that everyone wants you to do already*. There isn't a massive cabal of black-robed science-priests chanting incantations to bring about worldwide belief in basic physics - science is made of people who want to find problems with what we know about. If you're trying to find problems with science, do it properly and contribute to the world - otherwise, shut your face.

Jeff

Why do you keep repeating "thefyn hates science". You know full well what aspects I am cynical about. Hypothetical sexy science like God particles, dark matter etc have taken billions away from more feasible scientific study and implementation.

Why are you confused over me being cynical about unproven theories "explaining" how it all began, and turning it into "well then he must hate science" argument?

And the robes are not black. They are white or blue and usually ESD.
 
FOR THE LOVE OF SNEAP!
Stop feeding the troll and just ban him.. srsly, guys, fuck teh what?
 
do you have any idea what the higgs-boson is? I think you're reacting more to sensationalist science journalism than science itself

The only thing sensational is the amount of money spent looking for it.

Even you can not deny so far it has been a black hole of money with pathetic results. 10 billion for the large collider?

10

billion

I has already PROVED to be too ambitious. It can barley run :lol: