[Bobblehead Bob the Boob]

Re: Physics Rules

I am appalled at the lack of love displayed by you so-called "true christians". I just read that part of Highway 1 in California fell into the ocean. You psycho nuts would probably claim it was the wrath of god. I claim it was simple physics. Too much water and loose soil caused it to happen. I am so smart I could beat you guys with half my brain tied behind my back! I still contend that maybe you folks need to be taking some medications to stabilize your brains from this line of irrational thinking. ECT is also an option for those of you with severe OCD.

I'm still waiting for your evidence that this so-called god of yours exists. I haven't seen him today. Where is he? Didn't one of you goons summon him to appear this morning?

This other guy on your website "bobtheatheistphd" seems to be the only other person with any common sense.

Dear supergeek,

I applaud your insight on this issue. here is a post I just wrote an hour ago:

Yet you still claim I am going to hell. One of my co-workers at the lab plays this insidious music, which unfortunately company policy says he is permitted to play it at a low level. One of the songs says something like "you are the only jesus I see" or somthing like that. At least that is true enough. Unlike Oral Roberts, I've never seen an 800 foot vision of jesus so you christians are all I see. If you want me to believe then you need to show me something different. So far most of what you preach I believe already, although not because of the bible but because of evolution.

I am waiting for these christians to show us one ounce of what they say they believe. They keep backing up my point about survival of the fittest. I feel these folks would make great evolutionists because they draw the same conclusions from the Bible that I draw from evolution. All they need do is shed this irrational talk about the bible and we can call them compatriots!

[SuperGeekPhysicist]

Re: Physics Rules

Greetings bobtheatheistphd!

Who are you and where did you come from? I thought I was the only smart person on this forum, but it appears I now have some company to come to my defense.

Where did you get your PhD and what domain was your thesis? I got mine in physics at MIT. Dual degrees in electrical engineering and physics. I did my thesis in the field of "smartology". Seriously though, it was in the field of electromagnetics.

The people on this forum appear to have degress in "dumbology". With your assistance, we might be able to convert a few of them to the truth through science.

Praise be to quantum mechanics!

[Zechariah Smyth]

Re: Physics Rules

I love you.

I love you, too.

Get a room, you sodomites!



(Leviticus 18:22) "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

YiC,

Z. Smyth

[Bobblehead Bob the Boob]

Re: Physics Rules

Greetings bobtheatheistphd!

Who are you and where did you come from? I thought I was the only smart person on this forum, but it appears I now have some company to come to my defense.

Where did you get your PhD and what domain was your thesis? I got mine in physics at MIT. Dual degrees in electrical engineering and physics. I did my thesis in the field of "smartology". Seriously though, it was in the field of electromagnetics.

The people on this forum appear to have degress in "dumbology". With your assistance, we might be able to convert a few of them to the truth through science.

Praise be to quantum mechanics!

Supergeek,

Thank you for the compliment. I am curious what your recorded IQ is. Mine is 57.

My PhD is in the field of Microbiology. I work in a federally funded lab where we are researching the origins of life. Solving this has been a thorn in our side for years but I am confident that we will triumph in the end. I earned my degree at Stanford.

Although the bible thumping on this site gives me a migraine there is more hope here than I have seen among my co-workers who cling to some outdated view of morality. At least the folks on this site agree with us about not wasting our resources on the handicapped and survival of the fittest. They call it by different names like, "god hates cripples" or "the bible supports slavery" but in the end we are on the same page. You and I beleive we should do genetic testing and nuke the handicap in the womb. We believe that the strong should survive to pass their genes and slavery is certainly a form of survival of the fittest. One day John Lennon's dream espoused in "Imagine" will come true. Who knows, maybe these are the beginnings? Let's work together to achieve Lennon's utopian dream!

[Bobblehead Bob the Boob]

Re: Physics Rules

Get a room, you sodomites!



(Leviticus 18:22) "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

YiC,

Z. Smyth

Zechariah, there seems to be confusion as to my orientation. I am not gay, although if I were, so what? From an evolutionary perspective homosexuality cannot survive in the long run but why should I care? My genes and my 57 IQ has already been passed to many offspring. I have made my contribution to continued survival of humanity. In any case I reserve the right to be be labeled as gay in the future if I so choose but for now your allegations are unfounded.

[Wide-Open]

Re: Physics Rules

They keep backing up my point about survival of the fittest.

You obviously lack any knowledge of the evolution theory. It's one thing to believe in a fairy tale, but it's even worse when you don't actually understand it.

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Physics Rules

I worship science and not an imaginary sky daddy for which there is no scientific evidence of his/her/its existence. My purpose is to witness to you and try to convert you to science. You guys obviously need some serious psychiatric help and maybe even some medications or ECT treatments. It is not possible for my post to "prove' that you are right since "proofs" are reserved for the field of mathematics only. Shows how much you know.

By what factor am I multiplying your blessings in heaven? Is it an order of magnitude per persecuting statement? Oh wait, you small brained non-scientific carbon-based units probably don't even know what I mean by that do you?

I can teach you! There is much for you to learn grasshopper!

Praise be to physics!

Well you have come here for a reason, and I will overlook some of your flippant remarks & try to make you.. (well I'm not sure what exactly, but I'll try anyway).

Perhaps you could help me with a small question? Here is a Bible verse:

Isaiah 40:22 It is He that sitteth vpon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grashoppers; that stretcheth out the heauens as a curtaine, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwel in:

I have made a picture of a carbon based whatever-you-said, and a grasshopper adjusted to relative sizes. The grasshopper is arrowed (it's a bit small so here is a larger picture for reference).

Here's my picture

The grasshopper is about 1¾ inches, so using some sort of perspective calculation, would you be able to estimate tha altitude of God, please? (Or the sky He is seated upon?)

Is that possible?

[Bobblehead Bob the Boob]

Re: Physics Rules

You obviously lack any knowledge of the evolution theory. It's one thing to believe in a fairy tale, but it's even worse when you don't actually understand it.

Dear wide-open,

I am open to your arguments. Please explain my misunderstanding of the theory of evolution.

[Zechariah Smyth]

Re: Physics Rules

Zechariah, there seems to be confusion as to my orientation. I am not gay, although if I were, so what? From an evolutionary perspective homosexuality cannot survive in the long run but why should I care? My genes and my 57 IQ has already been passed to many offspring. I have made my contribution to continued survival of humanity. In any case I reserve the right to be be labeled as gay in the future if I so choose but for now your allegations are unfounded.

Finally, an objective look at yourself.

Z. Smyth

[Bobblehead Bob the Boob]

Re: Physics Rules

Finally, an objective look at yourself.

Z. Smyth

Zechariah, good one. Ha you got me on that one! Even atheists have a sense of humor. That was obviously a typo. My recorded IQ is 157 but I can laugh at myself too. Some think we atheists have no sense of humor but we do.

[Zechariah Smyth]

Re: Physics Rules

Zechariah, good one. Ha you got me on that one! Even atheists have a sense of humor. That was obviously a typo. My recorded IQ is 157 but I can laugh at myself too. Some think we atheists have no sense of humor but we do.

God frowns on braggarts, "doctor."

(Jeremiah 9:23) "Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches."



YiC,

Z. Smyth

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Physics Rules

I see Mr. Physicist disappeared again while I was doing the grasshopper post, but anyway, there is a thread about the sky HERE which I meant to link to. As I understand it, the sun is not as high up as the top of the sky, about the same height as the stars.

When God looks down (from the sky) He can see us (all of us): He is seated just above it.
We know that it is strong and made of either metal or glass
JOB 37:18
and that it can be bent or bowed
PSALM 18:9 —> historical records confirm the Psalmist's retrospective —> II SAMUEL 22:7-11
PSALM 144:5
and the altitude I am interested in would be its height above the centre of the earth.

[Alvin]

Re: Physics Rules

Mr. Remy Lebeau. The scientific evidence for the existence of science is simple. I make a hypothesis that an apple will hit the ground when I let go of it. I can test this hypothesis by dropping an apple to see if it hits the ground. Go try it and let me know the results later today. If it hits the ground then I have tested and verified the hypothesis. I know this is a difficult concept for a pea-brained person like you, but please give it a try.

Hmm... yet another physististician who lacks basic understanding of his own discipline but claims to enlighten us. You not have "verified" your hypothesis, you would only have failed to falsify it. That. One. Time. Read up on Popper, Logik der Forschung, 1934. (The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1959)... even a backwater college like MIT should have a copy. If you can't be bothered with reading all these complicated words, here's something a bit easier to digest: Richard Feynman on the scientific method

Also - why do we have to keep explaining basics of the scientific method to self-described scientists?? Especially when the Bible provides a beautiful, poetic and elegant explanation of what happens with your hypothetical apple: It would not fall to the ground because it plucked by by Eve!

Genesis 3:6-9
[6] And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
[7] And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
[8] And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
[9] And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

QED! GLORY!


But hold on: The challenge was for you to tell us how you know "science exists..." answering that with a silly hypothesis about the falling of an apple tells us something about intelligent falling/pulling but nothing about the existence of science or why you would want to worship it!

You claim there is a god. I hypothesize that if there is a god, then he must be visible at some point and seen by someone and can perform magic tricks on request. Test this hyothesis for me later today, and let me know the results.

Praise be to the scientific method!

Aehm.

1. We do not "claim" there is a God, we KNOW there is a God because it says so in the KJV of the Bible which he wrote. QED!

2. If you claim that if there is a God, "then he must be visible at some point and seen by someone and can perform magic tricks on request", you have just invented 3 additional, completely arbitrary hypotheses in addition to the existence of God:

a) he must be visible at some point (non sequitur)
b) seen by someone (non sequitur - although of course we know that Moses has seen God)
Both these arbitrary hypotheses also are not indicative of existence or non-existence: by your own reasoning, for something to exist, it is not necessary for it to be visible or seen by someone. E.g. a teapot buried together with fake dinosaur fossils by Satan 6000 years ago 2000 feet underground may not be visible but may still exist.

c) can perform magic tricks on request (non-predictive: he is God, so while he CAN of course do whatever he wants, including magic tricks, he may not ever feel like it, so this has no predictive quality and thus cannot be part of a scientific theory)

Sigh... my head hurts from trying to think along the weird "logic" of Scientisticians, even if it's just to show them they don't follow their own rules.

These hypotheses are superfluous, do not have any predictive value and therefore, according to your own Occam's Razor, they are to be disregarded, leaving only the beautiful and simple certainty about about the existence of God who created everything

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

PRAISE!

YiC,



Alvin

[Remy Lebeau]

Re: Physics Rules

Mr. Remy Lebeau. The scientific evidence for the existence of science is simple. I make a hypothesis that an apple will hit the ground when I let go of it. I can test this hypothesis by dropping an apple to see if it hits the ground. Go try it and let me know the results later today. If it hits the ground then I have tested and verified the hypothesis. I know this is a difficult concept for a pea-brained person like you, but please give it a try.

Question: On what basis do you make such a "hypothesis" that an apple, or any other solid object, will fall? Do you just make random guesses? Based on what prior evidence was any hypothesis formulated?

The Answer: None whatsoever, because there is no legitimate hypothesis. Only observation and faith in the continuity of God's physical laws. A hypothesis is a prediction on an unknown outcome based on a collection of tangential evidence. Throughout your life you have already observed that solid objects fall to the ground; therefore, your so-called "hypothesis" is a shame. You cannot make a hypothesis about the very existence of a known phenomenon. You're trying to make something more out of a simple observation and you have failed epically.

That's like me saying that physics, and not Jesus, are responsible for ice melting because I "hypothesis" that leaving an ice cube out overnight will result in a puddle of water on my kitchen counter the next morning.

So now the very fact that something happens is "scientific evidence" that physics did it? How utterly absurd given the fact that you can't explain why anything does anything at all, much less consistantly. Oh, let me guess. Your ignorance of the how, when and why dictates that a wizard... er, physics did it. Clearly, God did it since there is obvious purpose and organization behind reality.

You claim there is a god. I hypothesize that if there is a god, then he must be visible at some point and seen by someone and can perform magic tricks on request. Test this hyothesis for me later today, and let me know the results.

On what previously collected evidence do you base your hypothesis on?

How do you even test such a hypothesis?
- How do you test if "something was visible at some point"?
- How do you test if "something was seen by someone"?
- How do you verify if "something has the ability to do something"? Note: you did not say, "will perform magic tricks".
- How do you tie your shoes without being strangled by the laces?


Do you even comprehend what a hypothesis is?

I have to ask once more: Do you or do you not attend a special school where the students wear mittens and padded helmets to protect them from themselves?

I give you this fair warning: My debate record is flawless. Second only to Wash O'Hanley due to the fact that he has had more debates than myself. Do you really think it wise to challenge me if you are a retard. This isn't like the debates you are used to in your special needs classes. You don't get a trophy in spite of your poor performance. I don't know if your kind are capable of coping with defeat when you're so accustomed to the "everyone is a winner" mentality taught to you by normal people who simply pity you.

[Wide-Open]

Re: Physics Rules

If you can't be bothered with reading all these complicated words, here's something a bit easier to digest: Richard Feynman on the scientific method

Brother Alvin, while I most certainly applaud your effort to teach these retards a bit of their own "science", I have to state that Feynman is a filthy Joo. Even Columbia didn't accept him, so he had to make do with MIT. And yes, he did help God to punish the Japanese, but then again God can perfectly well do this without any kike help.

I also think that Feynman himself sabotaged the "Challenger". That, or all his mumbo jumbo about "O-rings" (sounds pretty sexural to me... "rubber"... "blowby" ) was just a hoax to hide the fact that God does NOT want intruders in His Heaven - even if they are American.

That said, I know your heart is in the right place, and I'm sure The Baby Jesus will forgive you.