http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=gmNz2-IS7gY#t=160s

Heh heh heh.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=gmNz2-IS7gY#t=160s


humor is always a sure bet against nutjobs.

Post a reply to this message

On 20/08/2012 12:40 AM, nemesis wrote:
> humor is always a sure bet against nutjobs.

But how do you tell the jokers from the ones who are serious?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=gmNz2-IS7gY#t=160s

There are many, many arguments that can be used against the conspiracy
theory (eg. just the sheer *size* of the six lunar landing projects is
so enormous, with so many people involved from within and outside NASA
and the government, that it's quite a stretch of the imagination to think
that nobody has leaked out any evidence or claims during the last 40 years),
but I think these are the clearest and most convincing arguments:

1) If they never went to the Moon and at most only stayed at low Earth
orbit at all times, how did they manage to send radio signals always from
the correct direction?

Almost nobody understands the difficulty of this. I once asked this to
a conspiracy theorist (in real life), and he couldn't understand what the
problem is, even after I explained. He couldn't answer the question either.
For some reason most people think this is a completely trivial question,
even though it isn't.

You can't send the signals from a low orbit because the source of the
signal would be moving at about 5 km/s and hence would be sending signals
from the wrong location in the sky most of the time. Also the location would
be changing very rapidly (now it's directly above you, a minute later it has
moved over 300 kilometers to the side; that's like 45 degrees of change for
a typical low-orbiting satellite).

In fact, you can't send the signals from any orbit around the Earth because
you cannot possibly send them always from the correct direction all the time.

Trying to send signals from multiple satellites at the same time would mean
that many signals would be coming from wrong directions. Also, no matter
how many satellites you have, the signals would still be coming from the
wrong direction when measured from different parts of the Earth.

The only way to always send the signals from the proper direction is to
actually send a probe in the exact planned trajectory around the Earth and
from there to the Moon, then orbiting the Moon, and then back.

Well, you know what? They already had a probe like that: The lunar module.
And with people inside, so they could react to anything that was being said.

2) It's unquestionable that there's a corner-box reflector on the surface
of the Moon. How did they get it there without anybody noticing? Missions
are not exactly covert. It's not like you can just launch a rocket and
nobody will notice (especially the Soviets). Also, if you have followed
the Mars rover projects, you'll see that landing a delicate instrument is
far from trivial.

Well, you know what? They already had a perfect lander to place the
reflector on the Moon: The lunar lander. And since it was already orbiting
the Moon, what better way than to use it. (And while you are at it, why
not put people in the lander?)

3) Geologists from all around the world have been studying the lunar rocks
brought back by the lunar missions for the last 40 years. There's no question
that they are from the Moon. Nobody has given any demonstration of how you
could fake them here. (Sure, many conspiracy theorists claim that they can
be faked, but nobody has yet presented a viable method for this.)

Or perhaps all the geologists in the world are also in the conspiracy.

Of course there's an easier solution: Since we already have a lander on the
Moon, why not bring some rocks back with it?

4) Perhaps the most decisive argument of all:

The Japanese SELENE project took detailed height map data from the surface
of the moon in 2007. If you take this height map data and render the
landscape from the places where the photos have been taken, looking in the
same directions, the shape of the landscapes are identical.

There are hundreds and hundreds of photographs, taken from six different
locations, and from varying places within those locations. They all match.
Every hill, every valley... All match, and from all the places where the
photos were taken.

Exactly how was NASA able to fake the photos so perfectly? Did they send
six rovers to the surface of the Moon to take photos from different
locations? In the 1960's? And without telling anybody? And they all worked
perfectly, without failure? And nobody noticed? And they kept all this data
secret?

Or perhaps also the Japanese space program is also in the hoax?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 20/08/2012 2:34 PM, Warp wrote:
> There are many, many arguments that can be used against the conspiracy
> theory

IMO there is only one:
F' off you idiot.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 20.08.2012 21:07, schrieb Stephen:
> On 20/08/2012 2:34 PM, Warp wrote:
>> There are many, many arguments that can be used against the conspiracy
>> theory
>
> IMO there is only one:
> F' off you idiot.

Well, it seems to be the only /effective/ at least.

Post a reply to this message

On 20/08/2012 8:59 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 20.08.2012 21:07, schrieb Stephen:
>> On 20/08/2012 2:34 PM, Warp wrote:
>>> There are many, many arguments that can be used against the conspiracy
>>> theory
>>
>> IMO there is only one:
>> F' off you idiot.
>
> Well, it seems to be the only /effective/ at least.
>

Doing anything other than that only encourages them. IME

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 20/08/2012 09:34 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/08/2012 8:59 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 20.08.2012 21:07, schrieb Stephen:
>>> On 20/08/2012 2:34 PM, Warp wrote:
>>>> There are many, many arguments that can be used against the conspiracy
>>>> theory
>>>
>>> IMO there is only one:
>>> F' off you idiot.
>>
>> Well, it seems to be the only /effective/ at least.
>>
>
> Doing anything other than that only encourages them. IME

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.

Seriously. Anybody stupid enough to believe this in the first place 
clearly /wants/ to believe it. quod enim mavult homo verum esse, id 
potius credit. If somebody /wants/ something to be true, it is pointless 
to try to prove that it is false.

(Alternatively, some probably don't /believe/ it to be true, but pretend 
they do just so they can argue about it on Internet forums... It is 
equally pointless to try to win that argument.)

Post a reply to this message

On 8/21/2012 1:05 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 20/08/2012 09:34 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 20/08/2012 8:59 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> Am 20.08.2012 21:07, schrieb Stephen:
>>>> On 20/08/2012 2:34 PM, Warp wrote:
>>>>> There are many, many arguments that can be used against the conspiracy
>>>>> theory
>>>>
>>>> IMO there is only one:
>>>> F' off you idiot.
>>>
>>> Well, it seems to be the only /effective/ at least.
>>>
>>
>> Doing anything other than that only encourages them. IME
>
> DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.
>
> Seriously. Anybody stupid enough to believe this in the first place
> clearly /wants/ to believe it. quod enim mavult homo verum esse, id
> potius credit. If somebody /wants/ something to be true, it is pointless
> to try to prove that it is false.
>
> (Alternatively, some probably don't /believe/ it to be true, but pretend
> they do just so they can argue about it on Internet forums... It is
> equally pointless to try to win that argument.)
>
Actually, it depends on the moron. Some people don't change their 
opinion, and/or look for real facts, until ***after*** they realize 
that, "Yeah, I guess a lot of people don't agree with my, I wonder why 
that is?" But, its hard to tell the difference between a sheltered fool, 
and an internet troll, since they both tend to babble the same BS, often 
even persistently. Its not until weeks, months, or even years, later, 
when one comes back and says, "You people where the first ones to really 
challenge me, and come right out as say I was being an idiot.", that you 
can tell which is which some times.

And, no, this isn't just anecdotal. There are people that have admitted 
it was being so challenged that led to them to really looking at why 
people disagreed with them. Its often the first nail, or the last, in 
the coffin, of their "assumption" that, since everyone is being so nice 
every place else, some subject is an matter of opinion, not fact, and 
that their side of it might actually be right. As some have described 
it, "Not everyone can be reached the same way." Some, I would argue, 
have been so sheltered in their own, and semi-related, communities, that 
the mere fact that someone not only doesn't agree, but flat out denies 
the reality of their position, and doesn't take it seriously at all, is 
a complete shock to them.

This is hardly a surprise, when everyone from the news media, to most 
"discussion forums" try to be fair, and "balanced" to the point of never 
calling anything what it really is, and treating every assertion as 
something they either can't have an opinion on, as moderator, to 
actually serious enough to bother talking about.

Its like the moron recently, Akin, and his nonsense about rape. The 
utlra-liberal magazine Huffington Post slapped "sparks controversy" in 
the title of their article, at least in the Email blurb for it. As 
though, somehow, the fact that some high ranking theocrat said it made 
it "possibly true, therefor its worth reporting it as a possible 
argument, not as the pure third hand bullshit, that came out of yet one 
more 'family first' religious group, who are promoting an idea that has 
been both argued, and refuted, over and over again, since some moron 
first proposed it, two centuries ago."

No, have the guts to say what is the truth in such case, "You are 
talking bullshit, and an idiot for believing it." Give them links, 
evidence, facts, etc. to back it up, but don't pull the BS position of, 
"Lets sit and chat about it." Because, if you are dealing with someone 
that has any hope of being swayed by evidence, pretending that their own 
arguments are worth examining and you are merely sharing a different 
"opinion" of reality, will only leave them walking away with the false 
sense that either a) they won points, or b) you are the one with the 
inability to see reality. Any chance you had to present them with the 
uncompromising reality that you don't think their opinion is worth 
squat, and that their sources are either wrong, misinformed, delusional, 
or lying, just walked out the door (or went to find some other 
blog/discussion group, where they can be, again, treated like their 
opinion is worthy of standing toe to toe with reality).

And, it does work. But it doesn't work with everyone, which is why you 
also need to people willing to sit down and, (shudder!) treat some of 
them like they have something worth arguing against. It all depends on 
who you are dealing with.

Post a reply to this message

On 21/08/2012 08:35 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Some, I would argue,
> have been so sheltered in their own, and semi-related, communities, that
> the mere fact that someone not only doesn't agree, but flat out denies
> the reality of their position, and doesn't take it seriously at all, is
> a complete shock to them.

I still remember reading "Darwin's Black Box" for the first time, and 
being all like "WTF? How can you print such /obviously/ false statements 
and claim it to be fact? OMG!"

If you reflect on this for a moment, you will realise that actually 
anyone can print anything they like. But /usually/ any book which 
purports to contain scientific fact actually /does/. It was rather 
shocking (to me) to find one containing such utter gibberish.

I don't mean the fact that the book questions evolution; there are 
several /valid/ objections that might be voiced. I mean the way the book 
holds up a few examples which fail to demonstrate that evolution doesn't 
work, and then says "now that we have PROVED that evolution is false, 
and therefore ID is clearly true" - wait, WTF? Are you mental? You 
haven't PROVED anything yet! And even if you had, the conclusion does 
not follow.

The bit that really gets me is where he points to the definition of the 
scientific method and starts complaining that it's "unnecessarily 
restrictive" because it doesn't admit magic, supernatural forces, and 
deities. Um, yeah, that's /precisely/ what separates science (the thing 
that allows the book you wrote to be printed in the first place) from 
folklore and myth (which brought with them no process at all).

But I digress...

> No, have the guts to say what is the truth in such case, "You are
> talking bullshit, and an idiot for believing it." Give them links,
> evidence, facts, etc. to back it up, but don't pull the BS position of,
> "Lets sit and chat about it."

Because if you do that, you add legitimacy to their insane claims.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:35:52 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Actually, it depends on the moron. Some people don't change their
> opinion,
> and/or look for real facts, until ***after*** they realize that, "Yeah,
> I guess a lot of people don't agree with my, I wonder why that is?" But,
> its hard to tell the difference between a sheltered fool, and an
> internet troll, since they both tend to babble the same BS, often even
> persistently. Its not until weeks, months, or even years, later, when
> one comes back and says, "You people where the first ones to really
> challenge me, and come right out as say I was being an idiot.", that you
> can tell which is which some times.

Another circumstance in which to have a debate like this is when there's 
actually an audience.  There may be some in the audience who think "this 
guy's got a point" but who haven't spoken up.  By debating it publicly, 
you point out the errors not necessarily for the benefit of the fool 
taking the absurdist position, but for those who might be thinking that 
the fool has a valid point.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Seriously. Anybody stupid enough to believe this in the first place 
> clearly /wants/ to believe it.

Not all believers are stupid. Some of them are quite intelligent and
educated. It can simply be that they have been first lured into believing
it, they have become enamored with the feeling of being "in the loop", of
knowing something that the average person does not, and on top of that are
too stubborn to admit that they might be wrong about it (especially if
they have been holding the belief for a long time).

It's also a form of pseudo-intellectualism: They feel really smart and
intelligent when they think that they cannot be fooled by such a
conspiracy, and that they can spot everything that they are trying to
hide but missed.

The big irony in this is, of course, that they don't realize that they
are actually themselves being deluded and fooled by some clever conspiracy
theorists who have carefully and masterfully built an enormous amount of
material that makes it look like there's something going on, using all
the tricks in the book, plus talented presentation, expression skills and
charisma. They don't realize that they are actually being fed a carefully
cherry-picked selection of all available material, filtered through heavy
doses of plausible-sounding explanations, but which are ultimately just a
diversion.

It's like a magic trick: The magician makes you think you are seeing
something when in fact it's something else completely. You might think
that something just disappeared or appeared in front of your eyes, but
it's just deception. The magician skillfully fools you. He makes you look
somewhere else and abuses all the assumptions you make in order to make
the trick work.

In the case of conspiracy theories, sometimes the theorists deliberately
and maliciously do the fooling with full knowledge and intent, but probably
at least as often it's actually unintentional. They make their own
(mistaken) interpretation of something, they add it to their repertoire,
and then their audience believes the same interpretation. There might not
have been deceitful malice behind the interpretation, but the effect still
ends up being the same: Both the conspiracy theorists and his audience get
fooled.

What separates a true, experienced skeptic from a pseudo-intellectual is
that the former has trained himself to doubt hasty assumptions and alleged
explanations without further evidence and study. The true skeptic thinks
like "ok, that sounds interesting and even plausible, but am I just being
fooled by a cherry-picked red herring? Is there another explanation? Is
there perhaps something I don't know about the technology behind this
that's just deceiving me? Has someone else made a better analysis of this?"

Also, a true skeptic is always ready to admit having been wrong. If a
true skeptic was at some point deluded into believing a conspiracy theory,
but then they study the subject and find out that there's nothing to it,
they do not stubborningly hold to it because they fear admitting being
wrong (even to themselves).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 8/21/2012 2:55 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:35:52 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Actually, it depends on the moron. Some people don't change their
>> opinion,
>> and/or look for real facts, until ***after*** they realize that, "Yeah,
>> I guess a lot of people don't agree with my, I wonder why that is?" But,
>> its hard to tell the difference between a sheltered fool, and an
>> internet troll, since they both tend to babble the same BS, often even
>> persistently. Its not until weeks, months, or even years, later, when
>> one comes back and says, "You people where the first ones to really
>> challenge me, and come right out as say I was being an idiot.", that you
>> can tell which is which some times.
>
> Another circumstance in which to have a debate like this is when there's
> actually an audience.  There may be some in the audience who think "this
> guy's got a point" but who haven't spoken up.  By debating it publicly,
> you point out the errors not necessarily for the benefit of the fool
> taking the absurdist position, but for those who might be thinking that
> the fool has a valid point.
>
> Jim
>
Actually, most people who are serious about something that religion 
apposes avoid public "debates" like the plague. Why? Because they can 
trot out 500 bits of nonsense, and you have either a) no time to address 
them all, or b) to pick one, which you think is the most important, to 
address. After which, they can just declare that you failed to address 
the other 499 bullshit statements they made. There is no such thing as a 
"public debate" in such contexts, its virtually always a trap, to allow 
creationists, or the like to promote a long laundry list of gibberish 
statements and positions, and then claim victory, because, instead of an 
entire day to address everything that is wrong with everything they 
claimed, they only have the same 15 minutes the ass making the claims did.

That is the advantage to forums, instead of live debates. As long as the 
moderator is honest, and not deleting comments, etc., there is no time 
limits on how long someone has to spend refuting all claims, and people 
making them. In a public debate, everything from the time limits, to the 
audience, are often intentionally stacked against you, and the number of 
claim that must be dealt with, may as well be infinite.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 19:52:08 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Actually, most people who are serious about something that religion
> apposes avoid public "debates" like the plague. Why? Because they can
> trot out 500 bits of nonsense, and you have either a) no time to address
> them all, or b) to pick one, which you think is the most important, to
> address.

Of course, that's the reason Richard Dawkins doesn't debate 
creationists.  Well, that and he thinks they're idiots not worth his 
time.  He once said a friend of his said, in response to a request from a 
creationist for a debate, "well, that'd look good on your CV, not so good 
on mine."  His friend declined as well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/22/2012 10:23 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 19:52:08 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Actually, most people who are serious about something that religion
>> apposes avoid public "debates" like the plague. Why? Because they can
>> trot out 500 bits of nonsense, and you have either a) no time to address
>> them all, or b) to pick one, which you think is the most important, to
>> address.
>
> Of course, that's the reason Richard Dawkins doesn't debate
> creationists.  Well, that and he thinks they're idiots not worth his
> time.  He once said a friend of his said, in response to a request from a
> creationist for a debate, "well, that'd look good on your CV, not so good
> on mine."  His friend declined as well.
>
> Jim
>
Funny thing is, a blog post I was reading involving some morons 
questions to the president and Mr. Etcha-sketch about faith brought up 
the comment of which passages, if any, the atheists that posted there 
liked. One involved the smell of asses, and the amount of ejaculate a 
horse produced, as being comparable to some woman's lovers. lol But the 
one that is most appropriate to this, especially given the irony, is:

Proverbs 72:3 -  “A fool may ask more questions in an hour than the wise 
can answer in seven years.”

I really need to try to remember that one. lol

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:05:27 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Proverbs 72:3 -  “A fool may ask more questions in an hour than the wise
> can answer in seven years.”
> 
> I really need to try to remember that one. lol

That is a good one, yes.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 23/08/2012 7:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:05:27 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Proverbs 72:3 -  “A fool may ask more questions in an hour than the wise
>> can answer in seven years.”
>>
>> I really need to try to remember that one. lol
>
> That is a good one, yes.
>
How about:
If women's tongues can cease for an answer
Macheath, The Beggar's Opera Act II

I've not been brave enough to use it myself.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:45:54 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 23/08/2012 7:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:05:27 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> Proverbs 72:3 -  “A fool may ask more questions in an hour than the
>>> wise can answer in seven years.”
>>>
>>> I really need to try to remember that one. lol
>>
>> That is a good one, yes.
>>
> How about:
> If women's tongues can cease for an answer Macheath, The Beggar's Opera
> Act II
> 
> I've not been brave enough to use it myself.

Heh, I wouldn't be either.  I might wake up next week. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 23/08/2012 9:31 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:45:54 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> I've not been brave enough to use it myself.
>
> Heh, I wouldn't be either.  I might wake up next week. ;)
>

If at all :-)
But you can say it in your head or say it out loud with a challenging 
look. So that they know you are winding them up. ;-)

I take no responsibility for any actions that are not my own.
BTW This product may contain nuts.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 10:13:40 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 23/08/2012 9:31 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:45:54 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> I've not been brave enough to use it myself.
>>
>> Heh, I wouldn't be either.  I might wake up next week. ;)
>>
>>
> If at all :-)

Oh, no, there would be a wake-up period.  Otherwise there's no point to 
the exercise. ;)

> But you can say it in your head or say it out loud with a challenging
> look. So that they know you are winding them up. ;-)

Now *that* I have been known to do.  Usually a smirk does it.

> I take no responsibility for any actions that are not my own.
> BTW This product may contain nuts.

*may*? ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/20/2012 12:07, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/08/2012 2:34 PM, Warp wrote:
>> There are many, many arguments that can be used against the conspiracy
>> theory
>
> IMO there is only one:
> F' off you idiot.

That and this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 8/21/2012 13:55, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> The bit that really gets me is where he points to the definition of the
> scientific method and starts complaining that it's "unnecessarily
> restrictive" because it doesn't admit magic, supernatural forces, and
> deities.

Funny thing is, no, it doesn't. It only doesn't admit those things without 
evidence.


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 26/08/2012 4:20 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 8/20/2012 12:07, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> IMO there is only one:
>> F' off you idiot.
>
> That and this one.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU
>
That works for me, too.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 25/08/2012 7:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I take no responsibility for any actions that are not my own.
>> >BTW This product may contain nuts.
> *may*?;)

Okay, this nut may contain products.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> IMO there is only one:
>> F' off you idiot.
>
> That and this one.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU

0wn3d.

(Que inevitable string of YouTube comments seriously claiming the moon 
landings were fake. Some faggots really crave attention...)

Post a reply to this message

On 26/08/2012 04:22 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 8/21/2012 13:55, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> The bit that really gets me is where he points to the definition of the
>> scientific method and starts complaining that it's "unnecessarily
>> restrictive" because it doesn't admit magic, supernatural forces, and
>> deities.
>
> Funny thing is, no, it doesn't. It only doesn't admit those things
> without evidence.

The trouble is, if you get an experimental result and say "it must have 
been caused by magic"... that explains EVERY POSSIBLE RESULT. Which is 
to say, it's in irrefutable claim.

A lot of people don't seem to understand this. Science is not the study 
of things which are TRUE, only things which are PROVABLE. So even if God 
DID create the universe, we can never prove nor disprove this, so EVEN 
IF IT IS TRUE, it's not science. And never will be.

Behe basically argued that limiting science to things which can be 
explained rationally is "too limiting". By which he means "doesn't allow 
me to claim that the Christian Holy Bible is science". :-P

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 08:35:15 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 25/08/2012 7:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I take no responsibility for any actions that are not my own.
>>> >BTW This product may contain nuts.
>> *may*?;)
> 
> Okay, this nut may contain products.

LOL

Is it a peanut?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/26/2012 1:06, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> The trouble is, if you get an experimental result and say "it must have been
> caused by magic"... that explains EVERY POSSIBLE RESULT.

Only if you don't further refine magic. What science would actually say is 
"this is how magic works. Do this and it happens, do that and it doesn't."

> A lot of people don't seem to understand this. Science is not the study of
> things which are TRUE, only things which are PROVABLE. So even if God DID
> create the universe, we can never prove nor disprove this,

Depends on the details. Certainly one can imagine scientific evidence for 
the existence of someone having created the universe.

Read "Calculating God" by Robert Sawyer for a fun sci-fi take on the question.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 26/08/2012 5:42 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 08:35:15 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 25/08/2012 7:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> I take no responsibility for any actions that are not my own.
>>>>> BTW This product may contain nuts.
>>> *may*?;)
>>
>> Okay, this nut may contain products.
>
> LOL
>
> Is it a peanut?
>
No it's a COCONUT!

Boom! Boom!

Cue music!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9ItOS3lhmo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wg_L0wGTyA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0AOGeqOnFY


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:06:55 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>> Okay, this nut may contain products.
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> Is it a peanut?
>>
> No it's a COCONUT!

Ah, well, that is a nut IIRC.  Unlike a peanut.

> Boom! Boom!
> 
> Cue music!

LOL

Post a reply to this message

On 26/08/2012 8:33 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Ah, well, that is a nut IIRC.  Unlike a peanut.

Ah! You did not listen to the third clip. The coconut is a fruit not a nut.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 21:06:56 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 26/08/2012 8:33 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Ah, well, that is a nut IIRC.  Unlike a peanut.
> 
> Ah! You did not listen to the third clip. The coconut is a fruit not a
> nut.

I listened to bits of all the clips, but had recently read something 
about this from The Book of General Ignorance (Volume 1), so I may have 
misremembered. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 26/08/2012 04:20 AM, Darren New wrote:
> That and this one.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU

In other news: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Armstrong

Post a reply to this message

Read elsewhere on the internet:

Armstrong died.

Now we'll never know if he was doping.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com

Post a reply to this message

On 27/08/2012 10:33 AM, Tim Cook wrote:
> Read elsewhere on the internet:
>
> Armstrong died.

That was kind-of my point, yes.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU

As I have commented elsethread, I'm a strong believer in order and justice,
and firmly against personal revenge, vigilantism and taking matters into
your own hands, when we have a legal judiciary system that upholds basic
human rights. Punching someone in the face because you don't like them,
or because they are acting like an asshole, is not something I approve of.

*However*, in this particular case I'm *really* tempted to make an
exception to these principles, even if it makes me a hypocrite. Man,
did that asshole deserve the punch in the face.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 27/08/2012 2:01 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 21:06:56 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 26/08/2012 8:33 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Ah, well, that is a nut IIRC.  Unlike a peanut.
>>
>> Ah! You did not listen to the third clip. The coconut is a fruit not a
>> nut.
>
> I listened to bits of all the clips, but had recently read something
> about this from The Book of General Ignorance (Volume 1), so I may have
> misremembered. :)
>
You are forgiven. ;-)


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 2012-08-27 05:10, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 27/08/2012 10:33 AM, Tim Cook wrote:
>> Read elsewhere on the internet:
>>
>> Armstrong died.
>
> That was kind-of my point, yes.

You missed the punchline.

There's another Armstrong in the news, an athlete involved in a doping 
scandal.

See also:  http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DontExplainTheJoke

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 14:01:24 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 27/08/2012 2:01 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 21:06:56 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/08/2012 8:33 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Ah, well, that is a nut IIRC.  Unlike a peanut.
>>>
>>> Ah! You did not listen to the third clip. The coconut is a fruit not a
>>> nut.
>>
>> I listened to bits of all the clips, but had recently read something
>> about this from The Book of General Ignorance (Volume 1), so I may have
>> misremembered. :)
>>
> You are forgiven. ;-)

Oh, good. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 27/08/2012 4:04 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> You are forgiven.;-)
> Oh, good.;)

I  know that you will sleep well tonight, now. ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 16:12:08 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 27/08/2012 4:04 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> You are forgiven.;-)
>> Oh, good.;)
> 
> I  know that you will sleep well tonight, now. ;-)

Tonight?  I might sleep well today. <yawn> ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 27/08/2012 4:37 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Tonight?  I might sleep well today. <yawn>;)

Tell me about it. I get up at 05:30 during the week and with this being 
a bank holiday weekend I thought I could have a lie in. But I've woken 
up at 5 am every day.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 17:13:24 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 27/08/2012 4:37 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Tonight?  I might sleep well today. <yawn>;)
> 
> Tell me about it. I get up at 05:30 during the week and with this being
> a bank holiday weekend I thought I could have a lie in. But I've woken
> up at 5 am every day.

Hate when that sort of thing happens.

But last night was the first Sunday night I've gotten a decent night's 
sleep in in quite a while.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 26/08/2012 05:47 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 8/26/2012 1:06, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> The trouble is, if you get an experimental result and say "it must
>> have been caused by magic"... that explains EVERY POSSIBLE RESULT.
>
> Only if you don't further refine magic.

Well, see, this is the thing. Before science came along, every time 
somebody saw something they couldn't explain, they said "it must be 
magic". And then people would pluck theories out of thin air for how 
this "magic" actually works. Which theory is "correct" depends on who is 
the biggest authority figure, or who is the best at arguing.

The central, *central* tenement of science is that you *test* these 
theories. Any theory that fails testing is wrong. Any theory, no matter 
how crazy it sounds, that passes testing is deemed correct (until we 
find out otherwise). Most particularly, it does not *matter* who thought 
of the theory; it only matters whether it passes reasonable tests or not.

Of course, what ID does is say "Look at this stuff. It's so amazing, it 
was *obviously* made by a God!" That's not really science. At all.

>> A lot of people don't seem to understand this. Science is not the
>> study of
>> things which are TRUE, only things which are PROVABLE. So even if God DID
>> create the universe, we can never prove nor disprove this,
>
> Depends on the details. Certainly one can imagine scientific evidence
> for the existence of someone having created the universe.

Sure. If you found a row of galaxies arranged in such a way that, when 
viewed from Earth, it happens to spell out intelligible English text, 
that would be a pretty big clue. But it's hard to imagine anything that 
could prove that /nobody/ created the universe.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/28/2012 0:54, Invisible wrote:
> Sure. If you found a row of galaxies arranged in such a way that, when
> viewed from Earth, it happens to spell out intelligible English text, that
> would be a pretty big clue. But it's hard to imagine anything that could
> prove that /nobody/ created the universe.

You should definitely read Calculating God.  People find evidence that 
implies the evidence we already have (e.g., fossils) is evidence of the 
existence of God.  (I'm not spoiling anything - this is all pretty much in 
the first chapter, IIRC.)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 27/08/2012 6:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> But last night was the first Sunday night I've gotten a decent night's
> sleep in in quite a while.

Lordy, tell me which God you sacrifice to? ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 21:35:59 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 27/08/2012 6:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> But last night was the first Sunday night I've gotten a decent night's
>> sleep in in quite a while.
> 
> Lordy, tell me which God you sacrifice to? ;-)

None. ;)

Sometimes it's Advil PM, but as the weather has somewhat cooled down 
that's helped a lot.

Jim

Post a reply to this message