I've GOT to get to Wal-Mart!

[AV1611VET]

Look at this copy of Scientific American, folks!

Check it out!

Big Bang or Big Bounce?: New Theory on the Universe's Birth

Our universe may have started not with a big bang but with a big bouince - an implosion that triggered an explosion, all driven by exotic quantum-gravitational effects.

By Martin Bojowald

Well, Martin Bojowald, whoever you are, when you know for sure, then I'll consider buying your propaganda.

I'm almost positive that your article will have "other points of view" in it --- embedded way down in the story somewhere.

You scientists get your stories straight --- then come and bore us with the details.

 

[Tomk80]

And once more I come to the conclusion that there are two kinds of people. One kind is interested in the world around them and thus, in science. And then there are the others...

 

[Bombila]

Look at this copy of Scientific American, folks!

Check it out!

Well, Martin Bojowald, whoever you are, when you know for sure, then I'll consider buying your propaganda.

I'm almost positive that your article will have "other points of view" in it --- embedded way down in the story somewhere.

You scientists get your stories straight --- then come and bore us with the details.

AV, I wish you wouldn't try so hard to personify your avatar. It isn't becoming and you get cranky when somebody actually buys it.

Also, Walmart? Are there no bookstores, corner stores, magazine stands? I live in the middle of nowhere and it is still a much shorter drive to a small store that sells magazines then wasting gas to get out into the rock quarries inhabited by Big Box stores like Walmart.

 

[AV1611VET]

Also, Walmart? Are there no bookstores, corner stores, magazine stands? I live in the middle of nowhere and it is still a much shorter drive to a small store that sells magazines then wasting gas to get out into the rock quarries inhabited by Big Box stores like Walmart.

Wal-Mart has a better return policy.

 

[Bombila]

Wal-Mart has a better return policy.

Cheapskate. You're still out the gas money. Twice if you return it.

 

[Washington]

Cheapskate. You're still out the gas money. Twice if you return it.

Not really, AV works at a Wal-Mart. Cashier, I believe.

 

[Bombila]

Oh, well, that's a special circumstance. Job perk

 

[Open]

Washington
'Not really, AV works at a Wal-Mart. Cashier, I believe.'

Oooooooohhhhhhhhh!!!! That hurts.....

As a matter of curiosity, what do you do for a living AV?

I see from your public profile that it is 'Horsing around'. Should have seen that one coming...

 

[thaumaturgy]

Wal-Mart has a better return policy.

It's also possible that AV simply isn't aware that bookstores exist. Book stores carry books in addition to the KJV, and why would they bother? I mean once you get your copy of the KJV, why do you need read anything else????

 

[TeddyKGB]

You scientists get your stories straight --- then come and bore us with the details.

You are not right in the head.

 

[AV1611VET]

Cheapskate. You're still out the gas money. Twice if you return it.

LOL ---

 

[AV1611VET]

As a matter of curiosity, what do you do for a living AV?

Let's just say I'm "disabled" and leave it at that ---

 

[thaumaturgy]

You are not right in the head.

Nah, he's just unable to understand the value of science. He thinks it's like going to his minister and someone tells him "The TRUTH IMMOVABLE" and then he can go on.

It's a simple view of life, and one I am occasionally lured by. On occasion I sure would like it I could come into work and not have to learn anythign new or question my assumptions. Sadly for us grown ups and scientists life isn't that simple.

Sometimes as a scientist, in fact, that's part of the fun. But it is hard work.

AV isn't somehow "wrong in the head", he's just like most people; too lazy. We all are tempted by the easy road. It's wide and easy to navigate.

What is frustrating is that some folks seem downright proud of their intellectual laziness and taking the easy route.

If only they knew that "narrow is the way" but the payoff once you get there is much more exciting than driving the big broad road of the "Incurious".

 

[AV1611VET]

AV isn't somehow "wrong in the head", he's just like most people; too lazy.

As I have said before, I wasn't called to be a scientist. God didn't gift me here for that purpose, like he evidently did you, Arunma, Lucaspa, et.al.

And as you guys so plainly make it: whether a person is technologically-challenged like I am, or scientifically-educated like [the late] Dr Henry Morris, it [really] means nothing to you guys.

The only thing that matters to you guys is Who we stand for.

Would you pay more attention to a point shot down by Dispensation Theology, if the Dispensationalist was a holder of a Ph.D. in Geology, and a Ph.D. in Chemistry?

Would you pay less attention to a point shot down by Dispensation Theology, if the Dispensationalist was a holder of an AA in Business Administration and an International Grandmaster? (Which I'm not.)

 

[TeddyKGB]

The only thing that matters to you guys is Who we stand for.

A lie. A lie you tell yourself because you think in black and white, and a gray world is threatening to you.

 

[Psudopod]

Well, Martin Bojowald, whoever you are, when you know for sure, then I'll consider buying your propaganda.

I'm almost positive that your article will have "other points of view" in it --- embedded way down in the story somewhere.

You scientists get your stories straight --- then come and bore us with the details.

I've not read SciAm, but as I understand it's like an American New Scientist - ie it's not a science journal, it's a science magazine. It's not peer reviewed and the features are often hyped and sensationalised to sell.

Science doesn't work on proof (you should know that, you're always correcting people when they incorrectly use the word), it works on building up evidence and getting as close to the truth as possible. And yes, truth does exist. I don't hold with any relativisitic postmodernest bull. Look at it this way:

The sky appears blue on a clear day. This is an observation.
Why does they sky appear blue? This is a question. Questioning is what good scientists do.
The sky appears blue because the incoming light is scattered towards the blue end of the spectrum by atmostpheric particles. This is an explanation. This is the bit that attempts to address the truth and may be wrong. We can test our explanation by looking at its predictions and seeing how well they tie up with our obervation. For example our explanation might predict that we might recieve the most sunlight in the band between 430 and 450nm. We can then go out an meaure this.

It can also work the other way round. We might measure the most photons being in the 430 and 450nm range and develope an explantion for this. But we can then check that against other observations. Ie, what percentage of photons does our model predict we get in the 700nm range? If we have two competing explanations, which one gives the predictions that tie in closest to what we observe.

The problem with a lot of the very theoritical physics is that while they make predictions, we cannot yet test them, as we do not have instuments sensive or powerful enough yet.

 

[Blayz]

Very glad that particular franchise never made it to my country's shores.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've not read SciAm, but as I understand it's like an American New Scientist - ie it's not a science journal, it's a science magazine. It's not peer reviewed and the features are often hyped and sensationalised to sell.

Best explanation I've gotten yet --- if it's true. What's the difference between a science magazine and a science journal?

Science doesn't work on proof (you should know that, you're always correcting people when they incorrectly use the word), it works on building up evidence and getting as close to the truth as possible. And yes, truth does exist. I don't hold with any relativisitic postmodernest bull.

I'll be watching to see if anyone calls you out on this; but I suspect they won't. You don't have a Christian icon.

Look at it this way:

You don't need to explain it to me, I believe in the T-word, as well as "infallible proofs". You need to explain it to your scientific peers (but then, I have a Christian icon, so I guess I'm a magnet for this sort of stuff).

The sky appears blue on a clear day. This is an observation.

Ya --- it's called the Rayleigh Effect --- or some such thing --- (I think). The Rayleigh Effect = truth?

Why does they sky appear blue? This is a question. Questioning is what good scientists do.

I don't mind you "good scientists" questioning each other, but when you tell us we're wrong on certain issues (the Creation, in my case), I get irritated. Especially when you tell us we're wrong because it doesn't fit some computer program you guys wrote.

The sky appears blue because...

Again, you're preaching to the choir here. Save that for Thaumaturgy or MrGoodBytes or whomever. I'll be waiting to see what they [don't] have to say.

The problem with a lot of the very theoritical physics is that while they make predictions, we cannot yet test them, as we do not have instuments sensive or powerful enough yet.

That's our fault, Psudopod. We Christian don't make enough money to be taxed for your programs; and the ones that do belong in prison, right?

 

[Vene]

Best explanation I've gotten yet --- if it's true. What's the difference between a science magazine and a science journal?

The journal is peer reviewed. The journal also is very dry and reports the results of experiments. Magazines take papers they think are important and write up on it for layman. This is an example of a journal. Read through a few of the articles and you'll see the difference. Even just reading the titles you should see the difference.

I'll be watching to see if anyone calls you out on this; but I suspect they won't. You don't have a Christian icon.

On what? The word "truth," truth exists, but those who claim to have it tend not to. Even in science the best we have a models, they approximate reality, but can always be improved. Like a week ago I was preparing some buffers and had to the use the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation, but I know that it's not perfect. I know it makes certain assumptions. It's not reality, but it is damn close.

I don't mind you "good scientists" questioning each other, but when you tell us we're wrong on certain issues (the Creation, in my case), I get irritated. Especially when you tell us we're wrong because it doesn't fit some computer program you guys wrote.

I bet you really hated Galileo, oh right, your heretical church didn't exist back then. You worship a book, you need to stop jerking to it.

We Christian don't make enough money to be taxed for your programs; and the ones that do belong in prison, right?

AV ignores the fact that our government is de facto ran by Christians.

 

[Tomk80]

On what? The word "truth," truth exists, but those who claim to have it tend not to. Even in science the best we have a models, they approximate reality, but can always be improved. Like a week ago I was preparing some buffers and had to the use the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation, but I know that it's not perfect. I know it makes certain assumptions. It's not reality, but it is damn close.

The truth is out there. (cue x-files music).