like I said earlier....
a lot of "yo momma" this and "yo momma" that... and whole lot more of reactionary "oh no he DIT'N!!"
Curiosity/ Create the universe Stephen Hawking
by jam 153 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
james_woods
Scully filtered a lot of the BS out with that..;.
-
AGuest
I'm not going to get into a scientific debate because I don't have the qualifications to do so, sweets.
Yes, of course, my dear (peace, chile!). Me neither (SMILE!)... but I'm not SO dumb (I think) that I can't ask some basic questions from time to time, y'know? So, please... leave off, if you're a mind to, but I want to respond in case someone else cares to comment, if you don't mind (if you do, please forgive me! LOLOLOL!).
From what I understand though, the theories don't necessarily cancel one another out.
No, no, and I didn't mean that. What I meant was... for example, some of the science used to prove ONE theory... is different from some of the science used to prove another theory. Yes, we know that they all agree down to the fact that there are protons, etc. Got that. But what those DID... and HOW... are different theories... with difference science behind them. Right? ("protons did this, then this"... "no, they didn't do that, they did this... which is called...").
Scientists postulate based on what they know - it's different from a theory like 'I think the universe was originally bubble gum'.
Yes, yes, I get that. But from what I've read (and I do read science from time to time, particulary regarding the cosmos because it IS of interest to me... based on what I hear)... some theories DO cancel others out. Yes?
Credible theories are made based on what has already been proven by others and it's a building block of knowledge, not pulling ideas out of the air.
Yes, but even the first "theory" had to start somewhere, did it not? Someone looked up and decided the earth WAS the center of the universe. At the time... it wasn't proven... yet, it was accepted not as theory, but FACT. Then, someone else looked at, say, an eclipse... or the horizon... or whatever... and said, "Hmmmm... no, I don't think so." New theory is born. And its credible... even if not believed/accepted... because it is TRUE.
Or is nothing TRUE (even if it is)... until it is DEEMED "credible" by consensus of a certain faction (which, at one time, was religion, so...)?
There are plenty of fringe pseudo science ideas and the two should never be confused.
Yes, no. I'm not thinking of these. I'm don't get all atwitter over things like Roswell and Area 51. Well, not unless they're featured in a blockbuster film, anyway...
I'll tell you what's NOT rocket science (and I did get your reference, I was just being cheeky lol) is Bachelor Pad, which I'm getting sucked into again. Please help.
LOLOLOLOL! Sorry, I'm about to sink into "The Closer," so no help from here! I've got my own "stay focused" problems, right now!
Peace, dear Poopsie, truly, and thank you for taking the time... you know?
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
-
talesin
I'll tell you what's NOT rocket science (and I did get your reference, I was just being cheeky lol) is Bachelor Pad, which I'm getting sucked into again. Please help.
NO NO POOPSIE ---- say it isn't so!!!! Save yourself before it's too late ... even Discovery Channel is better than that !!!
What can I do to help? Do you need an intervention? A sponsor? Anything, dahlink, to save you from the vagaries of unreality TV!
Okay, thread derailment over,,, resume verbal jousting ....
-
poopsiecakes
Then, someone else looked at, say, an eclipse... or the horizon... or whatever... and said, "Hmmmm... no, I don't think so." New theory is born. And its credible... even if not believed/accepted... because it is TRUE.
Well, this may be true but I have yet to hear anyone say 'gee, that Galileo, what a piss pot of ignorance' or 'wow, did Copernicus suck or what?' or 'whoa, Einstein sure blew his wad on that one'. Once it's proven, it's proven. So far anyway.
And Shelby, if you're going to talk about crap TV I'm pretty sure The Closer is way (like WAY) more intellectual than Bachelor Pad so, you know, you totally win that one. LOL
Love ya!
-
james_woods
Aguest - (with great respect and human consideration) -
I cannot imagine why you would be continuing to try to post on what is primarily a scientific thread here with your personal mysticism.
I think that you are off in a little trollism of you own, which has nothing to do with science, nothing to do with ex-JW, nothing to do with anything except for posting your own (admitedly kind and somewhat comforting but inexplicable) weird message.
We love you anyway - but none of it makes any kind of logical sense.
Your friend - and keep going, but it will not change the laws of the universe.
James
-
poopsiecakes
Oh Tal - I just feel so delightfully normal (actually, bordering on brilliant) when I watch this crapfest...
sigh...maybe an intervention is the best way to go
-
james_woods
(actually, bordering on brilliant)
First sign of dementia - ( but peace to you, we love you anyway, who cares about the actual facts, etc...)
-
-
AGuest
I think I only need to respond to this part, dear Twitch (again, peace to you!):
You seem to ask questions of Hawkings but direct them to those here familiar with his theories.
Well, yeah, that's what I tried. Since I am not scientifically "learned"... I obviously failed. Miserably. At least, as far as some of the responders apparently believe. I have to say, though, that I don't get why that was such a "bad" thing ("Javold! Ooh are YOU to quvestion das scientists een such a vay!?")... when it happens just as often the other way (i.e., folks asking ME questions about my faith all the time!). But... ah, well.
[And folks wonder why "believers" avoid such discussions - "We invite them to discuss but they always decline, of course." Well, in my case, it truly won't be because I don't want to... or can't... have the discussion. For me, it'll be because, from this and other experiences... folks tend to not WANT to get WHAT you're asking... but only take offense that you (1) had the audacity to asked it, (2) at HOW you asked it, and (3) the perceptions you may have that prompted the asking.
You draw an analogy of part of his theory to the name you call god (don't know if you're gonna ask him that one)
NO, dear Twitch. NO. That is NOT true at ALL. You post that, however, because you THINK you know what I believe... as well as what I'm asking. But that VERY statement shows me that you do NOT... nor do you even WANT to. Rather, you are going with the status quo... what you think we "all" think... which is NOT what we "all" think, at all. Which is to ME exactly what YOU accuse religion of doing: NOT listening... jumping to all kinds of erroneous premises... NOT researching what someone believes/is talking about... and so making all kinds of wrong conclusions.
You discussed this little topic, summarized as scientists are the biggest problems.
Again, no. My statement as to scientists being the biggest problem was SOLELY confined to the days of Aristarchus, Copernicus, and Galileo. Which I stated. That was IT. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with Dr. Hawkings, the program, or today... other than to say that, LIKE RELIGION... scientists can ALSO sometimes be one another's worse enemies... that SCIENTISTS have ALSO stood in the way of science. And so, it has not ALL been the fault of religion. Has religion played a part? You betcha. Never denied that. In fact, will vehemently support that they even more so. One of my favorites movies is "Agora"... which chronicles (with some artistic license) the life and work of Greek mathmetician and astronomer, Hypatia, who was said to be killed by "christians".
But because some of you went immediately on the DEFENSE... one even coming out ridiculing right from the start... you didn't accurately READ what I posted. Which is ALSO a bit reminiscent of the religious, to me. So long as it's less than 20 words, great. Anything longer than 3 sentences, though... and "eyes glaze over" (not meaning you, at all, dear Poosie!). No need to read - we KNOW what she means.
I bother, though, to watch entire shows, read entire articles, books, passages, verses, and comments to me... which is why I often post in response to line-by-line... so that I DON'T misunderstand folks when it can be avoided.
You then mentioned the scientific dissension on the origin of the universe and likening various theories as a religiious "sell'.
Again, no. I mentioned that this show... and many other shows... and articles... do this. And they DO. I also said I didn't know who was behind it (producer, network/station, scientist, etc.). And that I can't see how that is any different from how religion "sells" ITS positions. And I can't.
Again, I didn't see the program but then again, I have no doubt of the angle the producers went with.
Then HOW are you able to take issue with what I presented in the FIRST place? Isn't that replying to a matter before having all of the FACTS? Can you truly come in on the middle of a discussion, take the last thing stated, and conclude as to what was said at the outset? Not ONE person who responded who DID see the show... disputed my perception. Not one. Not all implicitly endorsed it, either, but NO ONE said, "Oh, no, Shelb... it wasn't like that at all. And I've NEVER seen one that was."
That's the only sell here IMO other than your own, and mine.
But if you didn't see the show, dear Twitch... which is what this thread was about... how is YOUR opinion of any true weight? Shouldn't you have at least seen the show in order to say, "Hey, yeah, I can see what you mean, Shelb"... or "Uh-uh, no, you entirely missed this and misunderstood that, Shelb"?
We all do it including the scientists trying their hand at figuring it out.
Yes. That wasn't my issue. My issue is selling a theory as fact... and pretty much promising to produce those facts... when in FACT your argument DOESN'T show your theory to be FACT. Now, maybe that wasn't Dr. Hawking's intention. Maybe that's not his usual M.O. I dunno. But that IS what occurred in the show... which prompted my questions. NONE of which are that hard to address, IMHO. And yet...
You seem to have not liked certain aspects of the show
The sermonizing, no. But surely YOU understand that?
but question others and integrate with some of your ideas.
Er? Whether I liked the show or not is irrelevant. If it ANSWERED some of the questions it RAISED... for ME... I wouldn't have asked questions. Since when did asking questions become a crime?????????
Twitch, dear, dear Twitch, let me be honest with you: what has occurred here, as a result of my ASKING such questions... and stating WHY I had such questions... the "reception" for me putting MY truth out there ("Hey, I saw this show, it was very much like listening to a sermon, here's why... AND it not only didn't answer the questions it said it would, but raised some more)... it SO close to what I received from the WTBTS for similar... that I TRULY cannot see the difference. Truly.
The bottom line, apparently, for some of those HERE who have their faith in science?
1. Do NOT question our methods or beliefs; they have been proven
2. Do NOT question our theorists; they know, YOU don't
3. And DON'T compare us to anything else, even if we sometimes look like something else. We're not perfect and so sometimes we make mistakes. But we're NOT like "them"... in ANY way... and don't you ever say we are
THAT'S what I "hear" here... and, again, it all sounds the SAME... to ME.
Again, peace to you... and I think I'm going to just "let" you all run me off now because there's really no point in continuing. Unless, of course, someone DOES want to take on those questions...
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
