Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[The Angel Raliel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHhRUF5Vzos&feature=related
Sorry this guy is a moron
but if anyone wants to discuss these things properly
or leave interesting answers to his questions
post here

[JennieJ]

What the fuck is wrong with people? The sad part is there are a bunch of rednecks cheering this crap on. UGH

[imaginary friend]

 

...oh shit! What a maroon!

jdfu!

[CeeGBee]

1. What a f'in idiot, what a moron...

2. His questions are all easily answered within relatively straightforward accepted scientific theory...


However (and I was kinda hoping he'd be clever enough to throw this one out there...)
That "big-bang" thing...  Who lit the fuse?  Where's the "prime mover"?  What started it all?

The obvious flaw in the "pure" scientific theory of the Big Bang is that scientists want a starting
point, but they don't want to concede that for there to be a moment at which everything started,
someone/something had to have started it.  As accepted scientific law clearly states, and experimental
observation can easily demonstrate, an object at rest tends to remain at rest unless/until acted
upon by an outside force.  If everything in the entire universe was compacted together in a single
space, what was the "outside force"?

My follow-up question is "what happened the day before the Big Bang?"

[If anyone's interested, I don't accept the BB as anything more than our farthest theoretical observation
of a rhythmic expansion/contraction of the space near us in a physically infinite existence.  A compression
in The Great Cosmic Slinky...]

[Johnny]

dumbass alert!

 

[yosmark]

Where to start... damn isn´t this a parody video?... can someone be that idiot?

1.- Planets are not perfectly round, movement and according to general Relativity the "space" could shape them kinda-round because of the movement.

2.- Evolution... there are certain limits idiot... and well you there is also caco-evolution (as i like to call it, there is not such a word as caco-evolution, I just try to mean bad-evolution/wrong-evolution) like you ... look at yourself dude.

I didn´t even listened to his 3rd question.

CeeGBee, there are certain theories, Dr. Hawking say we are a singularity following certain "way" and when we reach the "limit" it will start backwards, back to a little piece of the size of a bean... then boom once again.  It is just a theory so don´t get bitchy, there is also something related to imaginary time and pre-bigbang things... but I don´t remember them.

[CeeGBee]

Surprise!  Me and the smartest frickin' guy in a wheelchair in the world agree...  It expands,
then it contracts, then it expands again..... and so on.

And since there's no friction to speak of in (pretty much-) empty space, that wouldn't cause
planets to become rounded, but since they were first gaseous, then liquid, slowly cooling to a
solid (keep in mind that most of this "rock" we live on is actually quite molten), the gravitational
tendency is to form a sphere, and when that sphere develops a magnetic polarity about which
it rotates in a steady pattern, centrifugal force causes it to bulge slightly around the middle...

What was dimwit's third question...?

[yosmark]

Surprise!  Me and the smartest frickin' guy in a wheelchair in the world agree...  It expands,
then it contracts, then it expands again..... and so on.

And since there's no friction to speak of in (pretty much-) empty space, that wouldn't cause
planets to become rounded, but since they were first gaseous, then liquid, slowly cooling to a
solid (keep in mind that most of this "rock" we live on is actually quite molten), the gravitational
tendency is to form a sphere, and when that sphere develops a magnetic polarity about which
it rotates in a steady pattern, centrifugal force causes it to bulge slightly around the middle...

What was dimwit's third question...?

Well, ... language barriers appear again... I was trying to mean that but well... spanish !! english so... meh.

Dude, I don´t want to be physics nazi but... there is not such thing as centrifugal force, there is... an adjective commonly used "centripetal"... the tendency of keep on moving is what people know as centrifugal force... but there is no force so it is centripetal movement (again maybe language barriers will appear when you read this but trust me if we were talking in spanish you would understand me).

[CeeGBee]

Surprise!  Me and the smartest frickin' guy in a wheelchair in the world agree...  It expands,
then it contracts, then it expands again..... and so on.

And since there's no friction to speak of in (pretty much-) empty space, that wouldn't cause
planets to become rounded, but since they were first gaseous, then liquid, slowly cooling to a
solid (keep in mind that most of this "rock" we live on is actually quite molten), the gravitational
tendency is to form a sphere, and when that sphere develops a magnetic polarity about which
it rotates in a steady pattern, centrifugal force causes it to bulge slightly around the middle...

What was dimwit's third question...?

Well, ... language barriers appear again... I was trying to mean that but well... spanish !! english so... meh.

Dude, I don´t want to be physics nazi but... there is not such thing as centrifugal force, there is... an adjective commonly used "centripetal"... the tendency of keep on moving is what people know as centrifugal force... but there is no force so it is centripetal movement (again maybe language barriers will appear when you read this but trust me if we were talking in spanish you would understand me).

I forget which one the hardcore physicists say is imaginary...   In any case, the matter at the "equator" of a
rotating sphere are moving faster than that closer to the "poles", and it pulls harder against the gravity holding
the whole mass together, creating a bulge in the moddle of the sphere.

[hihififi2003]

That guy in the video can't be for real..


Anyway, what existed before the Big Bang? What caused it? Anything? God?
We can see how life arises in the absence of God, but what about the universe?

[Edicius]

1. What a f'in idiot, what a moron...

2. His questions are all easily answered within relatively straightforward accepted scientific theory...


However (and I was kinda hoping he'd be clever enough to throw this one out there...)
That "big-bang" thing...  Who lit the fuse?  Where's the "prime mover"?  What started it all?

The obvious flaw in the "pure" scientific theory of the Big Bang is that scientists want a starting
point, but they don't want to concede that for there to be a moment at which everything started,
someone/something had to have started it.  As accepted scientific law clearly states, and experimental
observation can easily demonstrate, an object at rest tends to remain at rest unless/until acted
upon by an outside force.  If everything in the entire universe was compacted together in a single
space, what was the "outside force"?

My follow-up question is "what happened the day before the Big Bang?"

[If anyone's interested, I don't accept the BB as anything more than our farthest theoretical observation
of a rhythmic expansion/contraction of the space near us in a physically infinite existence.  A compression
in The Great Cosmic Slinky...]

Your speculations are nullified as nullifiers by the fact that it is, indeed, called the Big Bang !!!Theory!!!; no proof necessary, as it isn't definitely definite. Also, I'd expect you to know they do have theories about that which caused the big bang.

You specifically stated that an object at rest stays at rest unless acted upon, or something like that, as a possible flaw of this theory. That is a law of physics - physics being laws of the universe - the universe being this thing in which we exist. I do not believe good scientists claim that anything notwithin this universe is necessarily affected by laws within this universe. And this universe was definitely created by something not within itself, since it possessed no self until the act of creation was acted.
To clarify something, space is everything that this universe is. The universe does have boundaries, the parts outside of which I would not call space, since there's nothing to prove that, and no one claims to be capable of proving what exists. If there were ever words created in any language to describe that which is not here and probably not anywhere, even as a concept, I would use them to tell you what caused this universe to be.

Lastly, and now I'm just being nice, days are arbitrary measurements that roughly calculate the time taken for the earth to rotate around it's axis 360 degrees. Nothing happened the day before the Big Bang, because days did not exist then.

I'm not an expert on this subject. Please tell me I'm wrong.

[Edicius]

ps

I should have elaborated. A day is not actually a measurement of time, or else time does not really exist in a relevant form. If time is a measure of change, then no event could accurately be measured relative to another event, since no two actions can be exactly the same by the nature of the universe. That would mean nothing can be correctly measured by the same time used to measure something else, and so it would be incorrect to use time as a factor in any equation. But then again, humans are chronically incompetent, and incapable.

[yosmark]

As most of the units regularly used they are just "references" they only exist because some guy say ... ehm lets call this a day so.. it is a day.  Time...
String Theory FTW

[Edicius]

Time should not have so many definitions. The word is so ambiguous that it's practically useless. Also, its best definition is useless. Someone should reinvent language, right?

[yosmark]

The word is ambiguous... well in many different points of view.

[CeeGBee]

1. What a f'in idiot, what a moron...

2. His questions are all easily answered within relatively straightforward accepted scientific theory...


However (and I was kinda hoping he'd be clever enough to throw this one out there...)
That "big-bang" thing...  Who lit the fuse?  Where's the "prime mover"?  What started it all?

The obvious flaw in the "pure" scientific theory of the Big Bang is that scientists want a starting
point, but they don't want to concede that for there to be a moment at which everything started,
someone/something had to have started it.  As accepted scientific law clearly states, and experimental
observation can easily demonstrate, an object at rest tends to remain at rest unless/until acted
upon by an outside force.  If everything in the entire universe was compacted together in a single
space, what was the "outside force"?

My follow-up question is "what happened the day before the Big Bang?"

[If anyone's interested, I don't accept the BB as anything more than our farthest theoretical observation
of a rhythmic expansion/contraction of the space near us in a physically infinite existence.  A compression
in The Great Cosmic Slinky...]

Your speculations are nullified as nullifiers by the fact that it is, indeed, called the Big Bang !!!Theory!!!; no proof necessary, as it isn't definitely definite. Also, I'd expect you to know they do have theories about that which caused the big bang.

You specifically stated that an object at rest stays at rest unless acted upon, or something like that, as a possible flaw of this theory. That is a law of physics - physics being laws of the universe - the universe being this thing in which we exist. I do not believe good scientists claim that anything notwithin this universe is necessarily affected by laws within this universe. And this universe was definitely created by something not within itself, since it possessed no self until the act of creation was acted.
To clarify something, space is everything that this universe is. The universe does have boundaries, the parts outside of which I would not call space, since there's nothing to prove that, and no one claims to be capable of proving what exists. If there were ever words created in any language to describe that which is not here and probably not anywhere, even as a concept, I would use them to tell you what caused this universe to be.

(Warning: the following may be seen as paradoxical)
I both agree and disagree.  I believe the "beyond" you describe exists, if "exist" is the right word for something that
doesn't actually exist in any place.  Space is infinite, but there is something that is not part of space.  However, I
believe (and I think someone suggested that S. Hawking, whose mind I quite respect, believes likewise) that the
"big bang" was simply the point at which the relatively near portion of the physical universe reached one extreme
of an infinite compression wave, being squashed as tightly together as it could get, and began re-expanding.  At
some point in time (really, in time), mutual gravitational attraction will reverse the current expanding tendency, and
it will begin to collapse upon itself again...  and so it has been, and so it will be again...  maybe never exactly the
same, but the general pattern repeats.....   Didja ever play with a spirograph?  Do they even still make 'em?
                                                           How 'bout a slinky?
                                                           Those two toys contain the secret of the physical universe....

Lastly, and now I'm just being nice, days are arbitrary measurements that roughly calculate the time taken for the earth to rotate around it's axis 360 degrees. Nothing happened the day before the Big Bang, because days did not exist then.

I'm not an expert on this subject. Please tell me I'm wrong.

Time and distance all being relative, I used the term "day" simply to refer to some amount of time prior to  that "Bang" thing.

I don't really think the best scientific minds among humanity are competent to claim "expertise" here, so even if I did disagree
utterly with something you said, I wouldn't say you were wrong.

[Edicius]

1. What a f'in idiot, what a moron...

2. His questions are all easily answered within relatively straightforward accepted scientific theory...


However (and I was kinda hoping he'd be clever enough to throw this one out there...)
That "big-bang" thing...  Who lit the fuse?  Where's the "prime mover"?  What started it all?

The obvious flaw in the "pure" scientific theory of the Big Bang is that scientists want a starting
point, but they don't want to concede that for there to be a moment at which everything started,
someone/something had to have started it.  As accepted scientific law clearly states, and experimental
observation can easily demonstrate, an object at rest tends to remain at rest unless/until acted
upon by an outside force.  If everything in the entire universe was compacted together in a single
space, what was the "outside force"?

My follow-up question is "what happened the day before the Big Bang?"

[If anyone's interested, I don't accept the BB as anything more than our farthest theoretical observation
of a rhythmic expansion/contraction of the space near us in a physically infinite existence.  A compression
in The Great Cosmic Slinky...]

Your speculations are nullified as nullifiers by the fact that it is, indeed, called the Big Bang !!!Theory!!!; no proof necessary, as it isn't definitely definite. Also, I'd expect you to know they do have theories about that which caused the big bang.

You specifically stated that an object at rest stays at rest unless acted upon, or something like that, as a possible flaw of this theory. That is a law of physics - physics being laws of the universe - the universe being this thing in which we exist. I do not believe good scientists claim that anything notwithin this universe is necessarily affected by laws within this universe. And this universe was definitely created by something not within itself, since it possessed no self until the act of creation was acted.
To clarify something, space is everything that this universe is. The universe does have boundaries, the parts outside of which I would not call space, since there's nothing to prove that, and no one claims to be capable of proving what exists. If there were ever words created in any language to describe that which is not here and probably not anywhere, even as a concept, I would use them to tell you what caused this universe to be.

(Warning: the following may be seen as paradoxical)
I both agree and disagree.  I believe the "beyond" you describe exists, if "exist" is the right word for something that
doesn't actually exist in any place.  Space is infinite, but there is something that is not part of space.  However, I
believe (and I think someone suggested that S. Hawking, whose mind I quite respect, believes likewise) that the
"big bang" was simply the point at which the relatively near portion of the physical universe reached one extreme
of an infinite compression wave, being squashed as tightly together as it could get, and began re-expanding.  At
some point in time (really, in time), mutual gravitational attraction will reverse the current expanding tendency, and
it will begin to collapse upon itself again...  and so it has been, and so it will be again...  maybe never exactly the
same, but the general pattern repeats.....   Didja ever play with a spirograph?  Do they even still make 'em?
                                                           How 'bout a slinky?
                                                           Those two toys contain the secret of the physical universe....

Lastly, and now I'm just being nice, days are arbitrary measurements that roughly calculate the time taken for the earth to rotate around it's axis 360 degrees. Nothing happened the day before the Big Bang, because days did not exist then.

I'm not an expert on this subject. Please tell me I'm wrong.

Time and distance all being relative, I used the term "day" simply to refer to some amount of time prior to  that "Bang" thing.

I don't really think the best scientific minds among humanity are competent to claim "expertise" here, so even if I did disagree
utterly with something you said, I wouldn't say you were wrong.

I was just being silly at the end place of my speech.

Why do you believe space is infinite? How do you define space? I've only studied quantum physics, and have not been following modern cosmic theory at all.

Also, I believe the universe has been shown to be accelerating in it's expansion. Has it not yet reached the point of expansion at which it will begin to compress, or is there a theory of which I'm unaware?

I have played with a slinky, but a spirograph must be some ancient mechanism used by savages for entertainment, because I haven't heard of it.

[CeeGBee]

SPIROGRAPH...  Note that the drawn line goes around in circles,but since the circles are nested off-center within one another,
the line crosses itself rather than following the exact same path each time it goes around. I suspect it could easily be replicated
on a computer, and then some.  The point being that things move in cycles, but don't exactly replicate the previous turn.

I don't know jack about "modern cosmic theory", but I feel reasonably certain that "finite space" is analogous to "flat Earth."

However far you go in any given direction, you could always go farther.

Look at your slinky.  Shake it so that a wave moves along it.  Where the coils are compressed together is similar to the matter
near us at the time of the BB.  Now our corner of space is expanding (and I assume, elsewhere it's contracting again, too far
away for us to study, or maybe just far enough that we don't recognize it), like the Slinky coils away from the compression.

Dig?

[Edicius]

SPIROGRAPH...  Note that the drawn line goes around in circles,but since the circles are nested off-center within one another,
the line crosses itself rather than following the exact same path each time it goes around. I suspect it could easily be replicated
on a computer, and then some.  The point being that things move in cycles, but don't exactly replicate the previous turn.

I don't know jack about "modern cosmic theory", but I feel reasonably certain that "finite space" is analogous to "flat Earth."

However far you go in any given direction, you could always go farther.

Look at your slinky.  Shake it so that a wave moves along it.  Where the coils are compressed together is similar to the matter
near us at the time of the BB.  Now our corner of space is expanding (and I assume, elsewhere it's contracting again, too far
away for us to study, or maybe just far enough that we don't recognize it), like the Slinky coils away from the compression.

Dig?

If you're suggesting that our universe is infinite, that has already been proven wrong. I'm not concerned with what happens outside of this cosmos; space may be infinite in all existence that is. But if that's true, that would make some fundamental assumptions about reality false. The fundamental particles that exist here, could not be infinite anywhere. If anything is finite, I'd say everything is finite. But that's a matter of philosophy, and scientists are rarely competent in that field. Or science. My standards are extreme though, approaching perfection.

Direction is also relative. If you believe however far one goes in a direction, one could go farther, I believe you must be implying that there must be a starting point, and if there is a starting point, how can there exist no end? Any expansion would require time, one would assume, and time is very finite - as finite as speed, actually. So anything that starts could only expand so fast, and thus could only go so far. I don't know how well developed your concept of everything is, but I don't understand that. And of course, if something expands, in what space does it expand, and by what means? Must something fill empty space to be created, or is space itself created? What is the absence of space?

It would be better to spend this time conversing about things more relevant to ourselves, though my purpose is to analyze humans, and I've been successful in that venture.

[The Angel Raliel]

One could describe the universe as practically infinite, as the bubble of space/time that it is bound by curves in on itself and is the only way that the universe can be percieved and encountered.....it is however expanding at a particular rate, as it does so space/time itself stretches so that distance and time happen slower than they did at the moment of the big bang. There is every possibility that there are other universes in existence but we have no real way of finding out.

[Edicius]

I think there are varying definitions of space, here. I still don't know what space is, or how to define it. The dictionary doesn't help.

[The Angel Raliel]

space/time is the dimensions of reality that we percieve and give the universe form

[Edicius]

What is form?

[Cheddars Cousin]

You, for instence, take the form of a douche nozzle.

[CeeGBee]

If you're suggesting that our universe is infinite, that has already been proven wrong.

I think Col. Sherman Potter, U.S. Army may have said it best:  Horse Hockey! 
No one's proved any such thing, any more than the ancients proved that the other planets moved in a
corkscrew pattern ("epicycles") as they, along with the rest of the universe, revolved around us.

[The Angel Raliel]

form is organisation and definition..... formless matter is ancient idea that is still incredibly hard to visualise as we live in aformed universe, I personally believe and can be very wrong in thinking that, our perception of form and linear time are merely illusions  defined by our limited experience                     

[dangerpants]

If anything is finite, I'd say everything is finite.

You failed Introduction to Logic, didn't you?

[The Angel Raliel]

The problem with this thread is that it is on the internet, where it takes ages to follow a conversation and it is not in logical order...... Think of reality as being kind of like an ocean...... matter and energy are all the same thing, but have distintive qualities, like different currents or flows..... all things interconnect and interweave..... conciousness is like being an ice-cube in the ocean.... made of the same stuff, but distinct, but re-entering the flow of everything else at any given moment... now think the same thing, but remove the idea of linear time

[Edicius]

I dislike metaphors. I'll respond later.

[The Angel Raliel]

Please just get into the discussion ( you started it ) explain why you dislike metaphors........ explain why you agree/disagree with what we are saying..... describe anything without using metaphors!

[CeeGBee]

Please just get into the discussion ( you started it ) explain why you dislike metaphors........ explain why you agree/disagree with what we are saying..... describe anything without using metaphors!

I'm curious how one could possibly address an issue of this scope without resorting to metaphors.....

[Edicius]

My brain is tired and I think it would be unjust for me to answer you without being able to consider your words as well as I am capable. I don't want to respond incorrectly.

I can tell you why I dislike metaphors, maybe. They're difficult to understand. But I think they're used because more accurate communication of a belief is also difficult. I understand specific descriptions better than comparisons of similar things.
I would be able to understand your metaphors if I was not as tired as I am, and I may attempt to later. I said that I dislike them because I was dissapointed that I couldn't fully understand your message in this state (my state). You don't need to try not to use them; I'll interpret them when I'm ready.

[The Angel Raliel]

............ that was kind of the point...... ( I may be cross threading here ) symbolic thought requires us to enterpret all information in symbolic form......we are very bad at direct thought and rely on formal language as the only way we can communicate information

[Edicius]

Please just get into the discussion ( you started it ) explain why you dislike metaphors........ explain why you agree/disagree with what we are saying..... describe anything without using metaphors!

I'm curious how one could possibly address an issue of this scope without resorting to metaphors.....

I don't believe it's possible. Words do not exist for everything, but examples of similar objects and processes do.

[dangerpants]

Please just get into the discussion ( you started it ) explain why you dislike metaphors........ explain why you agree/disagree with what we are saying..... describe anything without using metaphors!

I'm curious how one could possibly address an issue of this scope without resorting to metaphors.....

I don't believe it's possible. Words do not exist for everything, but examples of similar objects and processes do.

Hence the use of metaphors, verdad?

[Cheddars Cousin]

Discussions without metaphores like Apple pie without cheese.

How do you feel about similies?

[yosmark]

Please just get into the discussion ( you started it ) explain why you dislike metaphors........ explain why you agree/disagree with what we are saying..... describe anything without using metaphors!

I'm curious how one could possibly address an issue of this scope without resorting to metaphors.....

I don't believe it's possible. Words do not exist for everything, but examples of similar objects and processes do.

Words need to exist?, we can´t expect for our little minds to understand the universe can we? but we can make theories... and a good concept to bring in here is "Big Crunch"

If anything is finite, I'd say everything is finite.

You failed Introduction to Logic, didn't you?

Are you trying to make an analogy with the "Hotel" paradox??

[dangerpants]

If anything is finite, I'd say everything is finite.

You failed Introduction to Logic, didn't you?

Are you trying to make an analogy with the "Hotel" paradox??

Me? I only took intro to logic, so we didn't cover all the more famous paradoxes etc, just some of them. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the hotel paradox.  Do elaborate, please.
(We did, however, discuss arguments and such. And I was one of only three that passed the class (we started out with thirty people)...  )

[yosmark]

^ Not you, I was talking to edicius, I just realized I read that sentence all wrong so ignore the paradox thing 

Still hotel paradox: "A hotel with an infinite number of rooms can take more people even if it´s full".

[dangerpants]

Still hotel paradox: "A hotel with an infinite number of rooms can take more people even if it´s full".

Ah! Because even if it's full, they can always move their current renters? Is that right? I think I remember hearing about that when I was very small (my grandfather was a logic professor)...

[yosmark]

^ Yep, smart and cute, the whole package 

[Edicius]

I don't know if I was using an analogy.

There can be no dividing of infinity. So if there is such thing as a finite space, then space is finite. Anything quantifiable denotes a quantity. Infinity is not a quantity, but the absence of that.

[dangerpants]

I don't know if I was using an analogy.

There can be no dividing of infinity. So if there is such thing as a finite space, then space is finite. Anything quantifiable denotes a quantity. Infinity is not a quantity, but the absence of that.

If you have an infinite bag of holding, and you put yourself into it, you will still be the same mass as when you're out of the bag. You are one person, and you'll be the same measurement (read: just as finite) whether you're in an eight by eight universe or an infinite universe.

Simply because the container is huge doesn't make the things inside it just as big. It means that there's a bunch of stuff floating in a vast sea of forever.

[dangerpants]

^ Yep, smart and cute, the whole package 

  Aww thankies, yosmark.

[CeeGBee]

I don't know if I was using an analogy.

There can be no dividing of infinity. So if there is such thing as a finite space, then space is finite. Anything quantifiable denotes a quantity. Infinity is not a quantity, but the absence of that.

How many numbers are there?  The quantity is infinite.
How many whole numbers are there?  Infinitely fewer than there are of numbers in general, but the set is still infinite.
How many whole numbers are there that are evenly divisible by 37?  Fewer still by a factor of 37, but still an infinite number.

^ Yep, smart and cute, the whole package 

True dat.

[dangerpants]

^ Yep, smart and cute, the whole package 

True dat.

I'm surprised you didn't also quote my obvious DnD reference as well, and add "nerdy" to that list of adjectives.
Thanks muchly, though. 

[LaryB]

Where to start... damn isn´t this a parody video?... can someone be that idiot?

Yes, there are people take those kind of arguments seriously but this could just be another example of Poe's law. There's not really any way to tell just from the video. One thing for sure is that he doesn't show any sign of understanding the smallest thing about the theories he is try to rebuke.

Poe's Law — Without a blatant display of humour, it is impossible to tell the difference between religious Fundamentalism and a parody thereof.

My follow-up question is "what happened the day before the Big Bang?"

This question is interesting but it can't be answered scientifically yet. In fact, we can't say with any confidence what happened at the instant of the start of the big band or for a short time after(about the first 10^-43 seconds).  Our current scientific theories don't work in the conditions thought to exist at that time. A big part of the reasoning behind building the LHC was to try to get more data about the those conditions. Hopefully that data will help the scientists improve the theories and fill that gap. Maybe then we'll be in a better position to ask what happened before.

[preferpencil]

I couldn't even take more than ten or so seconds with this man -- so sorry to all who viewed all of it.

The Big Band Theory has nothing to do with a "rock" you idiot.
Further, not all of the planets are round you numbskull.

Discuss religion when you actually understand more about science first.

religions are faith-based, and that requires a different way of viewing the world around you...but FAITH is different than science. Science can explain the Big Bang Theory as well as evolution (look down at your pinky toe and say goodbye if we last a few more generations)in confirmed studies that are accepted due to hypothesis' being checked and checked again and again and again...

You Can be a scientist and still be religious. It happens with some frequency. You just have to delete some rather small, arcane, and fictional mythology that's been passed down...

and furthermore. i don't think i have Ever disagreed with anything that Raliel has said..."moron" fits.