1 2 3 4
It's not Dawkins' theory, moron.
8/9/2007 4:44:04 PM
"Common sense tells us that to cause an explosion there needs to be at least three constituents, the explosive material and a match to light the fuse..."
Common sense tells us that when you can't even count to three properly, you're 100% worth ignoring.
8/9/2007 4:45:11 PM
If the universe didn't exist before the big bang, there could not be explosives.
What a fuckwit.
8/9/2007 5:01:40 PM
Georges Lemaitre came up with the theory, you moron.
8/9/2007 5:08:58 PM
"Dawkins' big bang theory is laughable *hic*...imagine being in the local having a pint (which I was when I wrote this shit) *hic* with my...No I'm not drunk!! *hic*.."
Bryan Phillips wrote this just before he booted out of the pub and landed in the gutter.
8/9/2007 5:11:28 PM
Okay, you don't have your head burried in a bible now Mr. Phillips. You don't have to take EVERYTHING literally when you're out and about including a graphic description of the Big Bang Theory. Something I might add that appears to be far enough above your level of intellect to cause you to make really stupid assertions such as those above.
8/9/2007 5:14:15 PM
This is probably a pointless endeavor, but here goes.
With a bare minimum of googling "big bang" I found this.
Try doing some actual research before making a claim. It's not that hard.
8/9/2007 5:15:20 PM
MK: there are 3 different objects: the explosive, the fuse and the match ; )
8/9/2007 5:19:18 PM
Common sense also tells us the "Bang" in Big Bang is metaphorical, and alludes to how the universe "explosively" expanded in those first few seconds of Existing.
Common sense also tells us common sense itself is at a premium, these days.
8/9/2007 5:20:06 PM
Okay, so between Dawkins, a world-renowned genious, and Bryan Phillips, and apparent moron, whom do we turn to for an explanation of the origins of the Universe?
8/9/2007 5:20:32 PM
There are many alternative cosmological theories, given the preliminary nature of out knowledge of the universe. They each have their strengths and weaknesses, make some predictions correctly and are challenged by other observations. One should note, however, that Genesis is not amongst them, nor would any theory that postulates an Earth older than the rest of the universe.
8/9/2007 5:22:44 PM
Oh brain, oh brain, wherefore art thou brain?
8/9/2007 5:26:35 PM
Lamb of the invisible pink unicorn
Will someone please tell these idiots that the big bang wasn't an explosion?
is the first million years of the universe compressed as five seconds of radiowaves (200,000yrs/1sec)
8/9/2007 5:34:02 PM
But when someone with the 'pedigree' of Dawkins says it the world gasps and accepts this crazy theory as being right.
Some people, especially in the mass media (who should really know better by know, they've been burned by it enough times), do accept assertions based mainly or entirely on the authority of the speaker, the "pedigree" as you put it. (Oh, and practically all known religions, of course. Do you need a paramedic for that bullet wound in your foot?)
Genuinely rational people, scientists, etc, do not do this. They follow the derivation of the argument from the evidence and axioms, and satisfy themselves of its validity. I rather feel that scientific papers should really all be anonymous precisely to encourage such proper analysis, were it not for the fact that it'd make it too damn difficult to ensure the right person got paid to do their research, and cause countless other cataloguing and administrative nightmares.
8/9/2007 5:39:37 PM
Next they're going to tell us he created M-Theory too.
8/9/2007 5:42:27 PM
The Biblical-literalist theory is laughable...imagine being in the local having a pint with friends when one of them says, 'Hey, I've discovered the origin of the universe. God spent from all eternity until 4004 B.C. doing nothing, and then He decided to create everything,. But He kept getting it wrong, so He had to expel Adam and Eve from the garden, drown the entire world except the passengers on the ark, issue a bunch of laws of which He later rescinded some, and sacrifice Himself to Himself to save us from the hell that He had prepared for us.' I don't know about you but I would say, 'Yeah, right, is it my round?' But when someone with the 'pedigree' of the Biblical literalists says it the world gasps and accepts this crazy theory as being right. Common sense tells us that an omni-everything deity should be able to get it right the first time so my question to the Biblical literalists is what was their deity smoking?
8/9/2007 5:43:50 PM
No one, including Dawkins, knows the cause of the "big bang". If someone wants to assume a god of some sort, there is no proof that they're wrong. Like all teleological arguments, it doesn't show that god still exists, that there was only one god, that god has any interest in humanity, etc. That's why theologians have mostly ignored the argument for the last few centuries.
8/9/2007 5:59:10 PM
The stupidity hurts!Dawkins?!
8/9/2007 6:03:05 PM
"so my question to Dawkins is who was holding the match?"
Let's dive into this one and say 'God', just for the sake of it. Then let's watch Mr Phillips' rhetoric dry up once we pose the same question with regards to his mysterious creator, who, of course, is exempt from the two/three/whatever elements required to 'start' his existence.
Daily Mail readers: the UK version of the Religious Right.
Except that everything that is wrong in the world is the fault of illegal immigrants, not homosexuals.
8/9/2007 6:04:29 PM
Common sense tells us that to cause an explosion there needs to be at least three constituents, the explosive material and a match to light the fuse
1. true, if it was called the big FIRE theory, the third "constituent" you're looking for is oxygen, not fuse.
2. common sense don't tell you that, science does
3. A constituent is someone who can or does appoint or elect another as his or her agent or representative OR a linguistic term for a word or a group of words that functions as a single unit within a hierarchical structure.
4. god does not forgive you.
hey all, I just found this site and my faith in humanity is seriously damaged.
8/9/2007 6:07:00 PM
Ah yes, certainly all explosions need a match. Wait, no.
8/9/2007 6:21:34 PM
The idiocy you'd expect from the readers of a trash paper like that.
8/9/2007 6:26:10 PM
Ignorance is Fucking Bliss Award!
8/9/2007 6:44:55 PM
Some people are just not afraid to show their ignorance.
8/9/2007 6:49:42 PM
Bryan, baby, listen: Dawkins is a biologist, not a cosmologist or astrophysicist. And the Big Bang was not actually an explosion. The term is a metaphorical attempt to explain an instantaneous expansion. Expansion of what? I'm not enough of a scientist to explain it clearly. But the question has been answered. You could look it up. If you're interested in more than running your mouth.
8/9/2007 6:52:40 PM
1 2 3 4