Science Silliness

[Guest]

(although better equipped I think then you [jskains] ) are not well equipped to offer serious arguments for or against.

Now why would you say that?

You can tell yourself that. But the reality it is a modern, "won't get you stuck in prison", method.

[_jskains]

If you want to criticize this area of science it might be better if you take the time to understand the science. This is not your everyday math or physics here. Physicists try to put things into language non-physicists may understand better, but they will still be very short on understanding the science. You, and even I(although better equipped I think then you ) are not well equipped to offer serious arguments for or against.

Call to authority. Nice way to try to shut down an argument.

Even more so the insinuation you are smarter than me. An insult and a shutdown all in one. Well done.

*Eyeroll*

JMS

[_jskains]

(although better equipped I think then you [jskains] ) are not well equipped to offer serious arguments for or against.

Now why would you say that?

You can tell yourself that. But the reality it is a modern, "won't get you stuck in prison", method.

That doesn't make much sense. The comparison is two different issues. But I am sure this post was ultra clever in your mind. So I'll clap and let you feel special. :)

JMS

[_just me]

Did I miss the evidence against evolution posted in this thread?

[_lulu]

So I'll clap and let you feel special. :)JMS

Hold your applause and just explain what these 2 sentences mean.

You can tell yourself that. But the reality it is a modern, "won't get you stuck in prison", method.

.

[_Themis]

If you want to criticize this area of science it might be better if you take the time to understand the science. This is not your everyday math or physics here. Physicists try to put things into language non-physicists may understand better, but they will still be very short on understanding the science. You, and even I(although better equipped I think then you ) are not well equipped to offer serious arguments for or against.

Call to authority. Nice way to try to shut down an argument.

Even more so the insinuation you are smarter than me. An insult and a shutdown all in one. Well done.

*Eyeroll*

JMS

It's obvious from your posts I understand it better then you. It is not a call to authority since I am not saying there theories are correct or not. Only that you don't understand the science enough to offer serious arguments for or against.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

I see that Bro Skains ise assimilating into his Happy Valley neighborhood quite well.

[_sock puppet]

Did I miss the evidence against evolution posted in this thread?

Yes, the evidence against evolution posted in this thread is such Dark Matter, everyone missed it. But be assured, it is in a post by jskains that none of us can observe--but the HG will make you feel warm about it if you click the heels of your ruby slippers together three times and repeat after each clicking, "there's no place like home".

[_Dantana]

Would this be considered evidence, or would I get laughed offa the thread....To point to the fact that there are a few highly intelligent, highly respected physicists who advocate for a consciousness based existence?


Not Deity based, mind you, but consciousness based.


Sir Roger Penrose, "Penrose does not hold to any religious doctrine.[and refers to himself as an atheist. In the film A Brief History of Time. he said, "I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance ... some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along–it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it."


Eugene Wigner, In his collection of essays Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays, he commented "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness."


Also, it appears to me that 'The Copenhagen Interpretation' is the most widely accepted theory for the nature of matter. Maybe I'm mistaken, but doesn't TCI. require an outside observer/consciousness to *collapse the wave*?

[_Doctor Scratch]

See Scratch? Intellectual discussion is impossible here.

This place remains childish and immature.

JMS

No, I don't "see." What I see is you asking dumb questions and then pretending to be surprised when people make fun of you. Hey: while we're at it, maybe we can get Infymus to post that picture of your russett-like cranium juxtaposed with Mr. Potato-head?