- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by tomtom232http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar
Shut the hell up man and get off my back. Nobody likes you.
What do you believe is wrong with what I stated? That black holes look like nothing? My use of the word spits? That black holes emit quasars?
What are you whatting?
Black holes do not 'spit out' or 'emit', quasars.
Black holes also don't really look like nothing, they don't emit light it is true, but they do
bend it, thus having a significant effect on their visual surroundings, even if they are not
chewing up matter swirling around it in an accretion disk.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI really don't see your point, I think you might be misunderstanding my meaning, but I don't
When put in terms of giving, you are placing it on a pedestal: as though science is somehow bestowing on us some form of its generosity. The fact that it is a man-derived, man-dependent discipline automatically disqualifies it from the wholly objective truth category.
understand your criticism to be sure....
maybe if you could elaborate on precisely what it is you disagree with?
As for your last statement.... I don't see what your problem is, nobody is claiming (and I
certainly am not) that science is perfect or always right, the scientific method is designed around
the fact that it isn't perfect (and neither are the people following it) and isn't always right.
So, what's your problem? (tone, quizzical not aggressive.)
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsIf god existed forever and that is how you get around having a first cause then having
God is something. 😀
the universe exist forever is simpler.
If god has a beginning then you have to explain how god came into being which you
can't do so simply having the universe come into being for an unknown reason is simpler.
Either way, god is not needed and only makes things more complicated.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by sumydidNo that isn't what I said, there is a difference between not knowing something, and not
Originally posted by googlefudge
[b]Science doesn't claim everything came form nothing
Excellent! Then we agree, science doesn't have a clue how it all began. And that's ok. Science should stick to what it's supposed to be doing, and that is observing facts and drawing conclusions from them.[/b]
having a clue about something.
While we don't 'know' how the universe came to be (assuming it hasn't existed forever in
one form or another) that doesn't mean we don't have a clue.
And science does do what it does best.
Originally posted by googlefudgeOk I was mixed up with my words. Astonomy isn't my main subject but they do emit or "spit out" gas jets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar
Black holes do not 'spit out' or 'emit', quasars.
Black holes also don't really look like nothing, they don't emit light it is true, but they do
bend it, thus having a significant effect on their visual surroundings, even if they are not
chewing up matter swirling around it in an accretion disk.
They do "look like nothing."
I am invisible but I move things around me, am I still invisible even though you can detect that I am there? Yes, I am.
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobOk, so I overreacted because I am in a foul mood but how did you know that my name isn't Nobody and that I wasn't referencing myself in the third person? 😀
[b]Nobody likes you.
How did you come to that conclusion?[/b]
@googlefudge:
My apologies but for future reference can you at least state what you are arguing? It may be a misunderstanding or a mix up of terms.
I(nobody) do not like to be responded to with "what?" when the words are there for you to read as many times as you like.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by tomtom232True, but however many times I read them they still didn't make any sense.
Ok, so I overreacted because I am in a foul mood but how did you know that my name isn't Nobody and that I wasn't referencing myself in the third person? 😀
@googlefudge:
My apologies but for future reference can you at least state what you are arguing? It may be a misunderstanding or a mix up of terms.
I(nobody) do not like to be responded to with "what?" when the words are there for you to read as many times as you like.
It was also late and I was getting punchy but I should probably have put more.
At the time I thought you must have typed something without really paying attention and
you would simply read my post, look again and realised you had made a typo.
However, I did not intend to offend, and I promise to fully word my responses from now on.
Originally posted by googlefudgeIt wasn't really offensive so much as annoying and it wouldn't have been a problem except for my foul mood. Basically, just add enough so that I know what you are whatting.
True, but however many times I read them they still didn't make any sense.
It was also late and I was getting punchy but I should probably have put more.
At the time I thought you must have typed something without really paying attention and
you would simply read my post, look again and realised you had made a typo.
However, I did not intend to offend, and I promise to fully word my responses from now on.
Ex: "umm,What? spit out a quasar?"
Make a joke if you can, too.... I like being the "butt of jokes." 😀
Originally posted by googlefudgeWe also have the Holy Bible to tell us how the universe came to be.
No that isn't what I said, there is a difference between not knowing something, and not
having a clue about something.
While we don't 'know' how the universe came to be (assuming it hasn't existed forever in
one form or another) that doesn't mean we don't have a clue.
And science does do what it does best.