DrFishfinder

We could make him watch the TWSS (Tiger Woods Sex Scandal) Channel for a month straight. I know that would kill me.

Too much brandy new in this team. Only a miracle would get us > .500 But miracles happen baybee!

I was gonna say something snarky, but we're being all civil and everything, so.......

I had more of a Green God envisioned, myself. Plastic would be pretty cheesy. But I'm pretty sure God has a sense of humor, so you never know.....

Lost Link on TBD

There are things that fall into the "facts" category, and there are things that fall into the "theories" category. Not everything in science is what I would consider a theory. Now something called, ahem.....the Theory of Relativity....yes, I gotta go with "theory" on that one.

Do you have this thread confused with the "Lost" thread? Just askin....

"Slack-jawed, stunned look"......... You think that everything is the way it always was. Nothing evolves. Not animals, plants, organisms, viruses......nothing.

The fact that there is no current evidence of homo sapiens and dinosaurs existing on the earth at the same time is not the same as proving it could not have happened. Archaeologists keep on discovering things that make them rethink the evolution and migration of mankind (for lack of a better term). I can't keep track of the number of times I have seen articles touting "scientists may have found missing link" Latest Missing Link The scientific community loves to state proven facts until something is discovered that disproves them. I'm reasonably sure that ego and grant money factor in here, somewhere.

That's one helluva big jump for Prof Chang to make about as yet unproven extraterrestrials and their Johnny Appleseed project. Yikes.

Bold: That's my point, I think. It's mathematical. Borrowing from the "faith" posts, I would have to say that (in my case), many things postulated as "scientific fact" have in fact, been accepted thusly, until proven wrong. Which leads me to say that I have a healthy skepticism of science and "scientific fact". A scientific agnostic, if you will (even if you won't). I do not blindly accept scientific facts and findings that are contrary to my mewlingly idiotic perception of what makes sense to me, as mewling idiots are wont to do. I do not atheistically deny their existence or their truth, just reserve the right to say, "I don't know." Much the same as you and the payload for the Big Bang. I read about the double-slit experiment (skimmed at the speed of smell is more like it). I came away with the vague notion that somehow the 2 different sets of observation hardware had something to do with the 2 observed outcomes of the anomaly. Or maybe that's what I read into it. Maybe the Hadron Collider will turn what we think we know, inside out.

Oh I have a lot of issues besides the poor cat.....lemmetellya....... I still think it's bordering on sematicuteness. The cat is either dead or it is not dead, regardless of whether I can see it or not and regardless of whether one believes that one scenario can be some percentagey combination of separate scenarios. Well....I suppose the cat could by dying, but it is still technically alive until death. I hope quantum physics doesn't redefine death as "nothing out of something", or something.

I do understand your point, I guess it's now a matter of semantics. I have issues with the cat.

I meant it in a different way. Like when scientists start spouting off on the origins of man based on what they think they know from some bone fragments they dug up. This became that and that became this and then they left here, moved there and became them. Until they dig up some more bone fragments and then they decide that they have finally found the missing link (pay no attention to the other times we finally found the missing link, those mewling idiots didn't know what the hell they were talking about)." I know, I know.....the basic foundation is pretty solid. I just get a kick out of them tripping over the details, I guess.

I'm still leaning towards replacing "nothing" with "undefinable" or perhaps "unmeasurable". But, I guess if one can accept the idea that "something" always was (had no beginning, has no end) then it's not too far of a slide down the Richter Scale to believe that "nothing" can become "something". Afterthought: Nah....I'm going with "undefinable" or "unmeasureable".

Wow....this is dangerously close to forking off into yet another topic....

Well, you are a couple of Sears Towers over my head, DCT, and no, I'm not being sarcastic. I know when I'm out-noodled. I will give P.A.M. a try, but I gotta tellya, A Brief History of Time is probably more my speed. I don't have the background (i.e. not a chance in hell of any background, whatsoever), to digest quantum and/or relativistic physics. As a layperson, it is pretty difficult to hear someone say, "See, there's nothing. And now it's something. Wait....now it's back to nothing again." It pretty much sounds like a Penn & Teller routine. I'm starting to lean towards replacing "nothing" with "undefinable" and "something" with "definable".

Well, I hope in about 2 weeks you start waking up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat and start........just kidding. Worry about it?...okay, no. But no wondering about it? I sort of look at it as the ultimate, unsolvable riddle. But still, I can't help but poke at the wrapper every once in awhile. Of course, I'm no closer to solving it and the Bills OL and QB will be a wreck this year and see......I turned this into a football post! ME ME ME

Man I love these discussions! Simply because physical laws didn't exist to define it (i.e. our so-called "laws" of physics), doesn't mean that the "something" that banged was "nothing". Nor does it mean that "nothing" becomes a particle, for the same reason. "Undefinable" I'm okay with. BTW, as an aside....I always chuckle when I hear scientists spouting off about how things must be so and so in some other part of the universe, based on what they think they know about our little corner of the yard.

Okay....going along with that theory, where & what did all of that matter and energy, enough matter and energy to create the entire universe (known and yet to be known), come from? Please bear in mind the staggering magnitude of the known and yet to be know universe.

Okay.....I'm fine with "outside the observable universe and therefore scientifically unknowable." What I'm interested in..... .... is what theories people have about exactly what it was that banged. It's one thing to be forthright enough to define it as scientifically unknowable. But you sir, must have an opinion or a theory, no?

Um..... I gotta ask the obvious dumbass question here....I guess somebody has to do it and since I seem to be heading toward quasi-leadership of the "Mewling Idiots" club........ ahem.....cough.....cough.... Why in the world would you be on such a stunningly ignorant message board? For crying out loud, isn't this one enough for you?

Ahhhh... You bring up, I think, one of the thorniest issues. The concept that "something" has always been. Humans are very rooted in beginnings and ends. Birth and death, it's what we are. Trying to understand the possibility that something did not have a beginning, nor will come to an end, is certainly beyond me. I'm not saying it's true or not true, just saying that that concept is THE most foreign concept of all, to me. And if there was nothing before the Big Bang, then exactly what was it that Banged?

....and if the Bills take Tebow and the team starts winning when he plays.....? Just askin'.....

Welcome to the Mewling Idiots club. We meet the 5th Wednesday of every month.