The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Started by Red Nemesis3,287 pages
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Getting that fast and seeing the effects. We know the theoretical effects of going the speed of life. What would I be testing? That's a good question. I'd send automated probe first to see if it can withstand the travel. Then I'd send a cow or something when vehicles have light speed capabilities and can withstand the travel.

1. Getting that fast would require either infinite acceleration for a finite period or finite acceleration for an infinite period. You see why it is impossible.
2. Your problem appears to be with the idea that we 'know' what will happen but haven't actually done it yet- that there are conclusions based upon logic rather than direct tests is the cause of your objections. You say that this kind of thinking is no different from religious thinking.

This is settled easily enough. The conclusions we've reached regarding relativity are reached solely by extrapolation of data that we have- we start with evidence and draw conclusions from there. Religious faith is different- there is no starting data. There is nothing to suggest the existence of a god other than the conclusions about that god that we have assumed to exist.

Science: Starts with data, builds models of the world from that
Religion: Starts with an assumption, builds models of the world that agree with assumption

Is it any surprise that scientific conclusions tend to describe the world more accurately than religious ones?

Faunus. I'm sure you understand the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
1. Getting that fast would require either infinite acceleration for a finite period or finite acceleration for an infinite period. You see why it is impossible.
2. Your problem appears to be with the idea that we 'know' what will happen but haven't actually done it yet- that there are conclusions based upon logic rather than direct tests is the cause of your objections. You say that this kind of thinking is no different from religious thinking.

Yup. Logical conclusion.

This is settled easily enough. The conclusions we've reached regarding relativity are reached solely by extrapolation of data that we have- we start with evidence and draw conclusions from there. Religious faith is different- there is no starting data. There is nothing to suggest the existence of a god other than the conclusions about that god that we have assumed to exist.

And what happens if all of these theories get disproved next year? Then what we know now is irrelevant isn't it.

Is it any surprise that scientific conclusions tend to describe the world more accurately than religious ones?

Yes, because science can't explain a great deal of things, and science and religion don't ever contradict each other, which is why they coexist, and which is why religious people have to believe in science if it's true.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
When did i say it was?
Red Nemesis
Is there an objective, universal, infallible source dictating human rights?
You
The bible or us.
You said it at least a dozen times before that, too.

I gave you a very good lecture to listen to by someone who is more credible than myself. Refusing to listen to it is ignorance.
Can I get a transcript? I can't download videos on this thing.

And I notice how you ONLY take the bible literally.
... Why wouldn't I take it literally?

Everything else you seem to be able to understand with alternate meanings.
What's your point? I shouldn't take the Bible literally, so I should ignore everything it says and follow... whose interpretation of it again?

As opposed to an essay sent from MC? So much for being objective.
His link doesn't work for me. He also doesn't have a history of citing user-generated content that doesn't assist his argument.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
science and religion don't ever contradict each other [...].
The Flood? God creating the universe in seven days?

Oh wait. I can't take it literally.

Faunus. I'm sure you understand the 1st law of thermodynamics.
If I didn't, I'd Wiki it.

Point?

Originally posted by Eminence
You said it at least a dozen times before that, too.

The bible, or us, or society. I'm sorry you misinterpreted that as just "the Bible". I was giving you options to choose from.

Can I get a transcript? I can't download videos on this thing.

What are you, on a mac?

... Why wouldn't I take it literally?
You don't take anything else literally, but the bible you can because it doesn't agree with your views?

[quote]What's your point? I shouldn't take the Bible literally, so I should ignore everything it says and follow... whose interpretation of it again?


The sages who wrote the rabbinical laws and translated the torah.

His link doesn't work for me. He also doesn't have a history of citing user-generated content that doesn't assist his argument.

Actually he does. And I've called you out on calling me out for doing what he does, in which you stopped responding.

Originally posted by Eminence
The Flood? God creating the universe in seven days?

Oh wait. I can't take it literally.
If I didn't, I'd Wiki it.

Point?


Point is the universe can't be created from nothing, since you love to follow science so adamantly. There had to be a creator, whether it was G-d, my genitals, etc.

Also, you have yet to answer my question as to how science and the Bible contradict one another. So until you do, there's no reason for me to believe 1 and not the other, so I believe in both.

(1) A Variety of Flood Traditions

The generally accepted explanation of the story of the Flood is that it told of a local event experienced by ancient Sumerians who spread the tale by diffusion to the surrounding cultures.

"In 1929, the English archaeologist Sir Charles Woolley reported finding water-deposited layers as much as ten feet thick in excavations near the Euphrates..."
- Isaac Asimov, In The Beginning, (1981) pp. 153-154

"...Evidence of a major flood just over 6,000 years ago has been found around Ur, where a layer of water-laid clay two and a half meters deep covers an area of more than 100,000 square kilometers. This amounts to a spread across the entire width of the Tigris-Euphrates valley from north of modern Baghdad to the coast of the Persian Gulf in what now includes parts of Iraq, Iran and Kuwait."
- Christopher Knight & Robert Lomas, The Hiram Key: Pharaohs, Freemasons and the Discovery of the Secret Scrolls of Jesus

"...Sumerian records speak of events as happening 'before the Flood' and 'since the Flood.' [This was later dated to about 2800 B.C.]
"Naturally, a particularly bad flood would destroy records, especially in a primitive situation where writing had, at best, barely come into use. For that reason, events 'before the Flood' would quickly take on a legendary and, very likely, highly exaggerated nature. The Sumerians listed kings who reigned for tens of thousands of years before the Flood; they made no such reports of kings who reigned after the Flood. And, of course, this reflected itself in the ages given of the antediluvian patriarchs in the Bible."
- Isaac Asimov, In The Beginning, (1981) pp. 153-154

"All in all, then, from the purely geologic point of view we should expect independent flood traditions to have arisen almost anywhere in the world at almost any time, engendered by flood catastrophes stemming from perfectly natural causes, and of all the possible causes of floods, only tsunamis are capable of giving rise to flood legends in widely separated places at the same time."
- Dorothy B. Vitaliano, Legends of the Earth (1976) p. 150

For example the Greek myth of Deukalion's flood most likely originated in the tsunami created by the eruption of Thera in the 17th c. B.C.E.

"Later versions of the Deukalion story include details that closely parallel the Hebrew-Babylonian flood story. In the course of time the sea flood became nine days and nights of rain, the chest became an ark, animals were included in the passenger list, and Deukalion sent out a dove on successive occasions to see if the waters had receded.... Thus the traditions of two different places, based on floods centuries apart, merged into what is essentially the same story.... There is considerable lack of agreement concerning Deukalion and the characters associated with other Greek flood traditions."
- Dorothy B. Vitaliano, Legends of the Earth (1976) p. 160

Parallels with the Hebrew-Babylonian flood story in legends told by South Sea Islanders or North American Indians may be attributed to contact with Christian missionaries.

".... there is no sign of.... a universal deluge in the third millennium B.C. Egyptian history, for instance, carries right through the entire third millennium B.C. without any sign of a break or any mention of a flood."
- Isaac Asimov, In The Beginning, (1981) p. 165

"Flood traditions are lacking in semi-arid Central Asia, which is hardly surprising...."
"The only legend from southern Africa involving any sort of inundation is not a typical deluge tradition at all, but one which seeks to explain the origin of a particular lake.... This tale was collected by Livingstone, and was the only one he encountered in all his years of missionary work which had any resemblance to a flood tradition."
- Dorothy B. Vitaliano, Legends of the Earth (1976) pp. 163-164

Was the Flood story based a local inundation in Sumer or was there another source that may have more global implications? The most likely candidates are rising sea levels and catastrophic local flooding at the end of the last glacial period.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
The bible, or us, or society. I'm sorry you misinterpreted that as just "the Bible". I was giving you options to choose from.
You presented each of them as options, meaning that each would be able to stand on its own. If the Bible isn't a universal authority on morality, don't cite it as being one.

What are you, on a mac?
Switching between a 2001 iBook [lol] and a three and a half year-old Dell Inspiron 9300, depending on what's available. The former is retarded, the latter is simply incapable of not getting viruses; every protection program I've installed slows it to the point of uselessness.

It's also on its second battery, second hard drive, and fourth charger.

You don't take anything else literally, but the bible you can because it doesn't agree with your views?
...

What don't I take literally?

The sages who wrote the rabbinical laws and translated the torah.
If I'm not supposed to take the Bible literally, why would I take the word of random sages literally?

Actually he does.
Not as far as I've seen. And if he does, it isn't remotely comparable to yours.

But in the interest of keeping this somewhat on-topic, we can drop this one. It isn't relevant.

And I've called you out on calling me out for doing what he does, in which you stopped responding.
Sure.

Originally posted by Eminence
[B]You presented each of them as options, meaning that each would be able to stand on its own. If the Bible isn't a universal authority on morality, don't cite it as being one.

I didn't say it was, nor that it wasn't. I said it was for me, which is why I gave you options for yourself.

Switching between a 2001 iBook [lol] and a three and a half year-old Dell Inspiron 9300, depending on what's available. The former is retarded, the latter is simply incapable of not getting viruses; every protection program I've installed slows it to the point of uselessness.

It's also on its second battery, second hard drive, and fourth charger.


I know our economy is bad but damn.

If I'm not supposed to take the Bible literally, why would I take the word of random sages literally?

You don't. Welcome to explanations.

Not as far as I've seen. And if he does, it isn't remotely comparable to yours.

sure

Originally posted by Nephthys

That about sums it up.

Don't be ridiculous. There is no right or wrong. Everything is subjective.

He learns.

I'll get back to you on the other stuff tomorrow, noobcake.

And regarding the laptops; my father bought himself a very expensive Mac last year, but he hogs it ['tis his job]. I'm getting a computer of some sort as soon as I'm done with college decisions. Then, I can kick your holy ass with IM speed!

Originally posted by Eminence
He learns.

I'll get back to you on the other stuff tomorrow, noobcake.

And regarding the laptops; my father bought himself a very expensive Mac last year, but he hogs it ['tis his job]. I'm getting a computer of some sort as soon as I'm done with college decisions. Then, I can kick your holy ass with IM speed!


Great, but how is that going to compensate for your 56gay?

I can't wait for you to show me where the Bible and science contradict on your new l337 computer.

There is no science. Only the Lord.

LIIIIIIIGHTSNAAAAAAAAKE!!!

I can't quite make that out. Seems like an obsolete piece of machinery typed that up.

Your brain's an obsolete piece of machinery.

.

That may be true (debatable), but as I told Gideon, I have my thinkin boxers on.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Because we have ancient texts explaining certain things, and we have scientists explaining religious phenomena in scientific contexts. There is absolutely nothing detailing what you stated. Of course it's possible, but I'll go with a 4,000 year old book that has been unchanged since that time, and has every logical answer to every logical question.

Ask me any question regarding my theory of the super computer programming. Go on. I'll have an answer to every question. The problem is, there would be nothing indicating these answers are correct.

Similarly, the Bible is just a book. That's it. A ****ing book. A 4000 year old one at that (and thus having nothing to do with modern science or logic). If you disagree, you have to prove it.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Like what? That the universe was created from nothing?

So how did God come to be, what was he doing before he created the universe, and for what purpose did he do so?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
This paper doesn't explain how something finite could come out of nothing, or something else that's finite. That's a scientific impossibility.

I really don't think you have the right to tell what is a 'scientific impossibility' to a professor of theoretic physics and natural philosophy, who is basing his essay on ideas proposed by Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein (both of whom you said are 'smarter than you or I' will ever be).

Now, the human brain is incapable of grasping the concept of a genuine 'nothing', and similarly, that paper poses some very abstract scientific and physical concepts that are, in detail, most beyond the comprehension of anyone who didn't extensively study these ideas. However, the paper does provide an answer (or something of it): quantum physics, in which he insinuated that 'the commonsense rules of cause and effect are suspended'.