>> ^Deano:

>> ^Quboid:
>> ^Yogi:
Dude Famous audience members...so far I've seen Jonathan Ross, Charlie Brooker with his wife Konnie Huq.

Peter Snow and his son Dan too, not that we're getting caught up in the celebrity aspect (hasn't Brooker done well for himself, Konnie Huq is yummy!).
Jim Al-Khalili is probably the smartest person there, I've seen a few of his documentaries on the BBC. He's Iraqi I think, and he's nuclear physicist with an Arabic name so he's probably never got on a flight without getting a cavity search before

Jim Al-Khalili's shows are better than Cox's big budget, smiley, standing on a mountain while a helicopter flies around style of pop science programming.


IS THERE ANYTHING YOU FUCKING LIKE!??! Jesus Christ I thought I was a Cynic. Get the fuck out with your self loathing over critical bullshit you fucking faggot!

>> ^Quboid:

>> ^Yogi:
Dude Famous audience members...so far I've seen Jonathan Ross, Charlie Brooker with his wife Konnie Huq.

Peter Snow and his son Dan too, not that we're getting caught up in the celebrity aspect (hasn't Brooker done well for himself, Konnie Huq is yummy!).
Jim Al-Khalili is probably the smartest person there, I've seen a few of his documentaries on the BBC. He's Iraqi I think, and he's nuclear physicist with an Arabic name so he's probably never got on a flight without getting a cavity search before


Jim Al-Khalili's shows are better than Cox's big budget, smiley, standing on a mountain while a helicopter flies around style of pop science programming.

But personally I believe the universe was created, science 'theory' is big bang, there are other science theories that disprove the big bang when you get into string theory and such.


I thought at least you might be just echoing some pop-science "big bang doesn't work with string theory" idea - but after some Googling, I can't find anyone non-crazy to source this pretty big claim to. Disregarding that, to the extent that string theory ideas would go against the general "big bang" idea (which they do not, and - again - I can't even find someone suggesting they do), it would call into question that specific string theory's ideas (and there is lots of variation among different string theory families - it isn't well established doctrine or something), not the other way around.

If I have a new theory of planet composition that "disproves" plate tectonics, that's a problem for my new theory, not for plate tectonics - at least not unless I have very significant evidence.

Suggesting that vague "other science theories" disprove the big bang gives me very good reason to believe you haven't made any effort to understand any of the science here, not even at a "pop science" type level. To the extent that these beliefs about the nature of the universe are important to you, and to the extent that you want to know truth, I suggest doing some basic reading (even if it's just in, literally, "Popular Science").

And even if science had a much more incomplete or contradictory theory for the early moments of universal expansion, that wouldn't mean creationism is right. There's very little chance science (or religion!) will ever answer questions like "why is there something instead of nothing?", but that doesn't mean you should jump for whichever guy can answer "something" with the most confidence. I think it's better to just let some things be "We don't know yet."

You didn't understand my post, and I can't be bothered to explain something that's not simple to someone who doesn't have any desire to learn. Sorry.

Your post was very simplistic..you propose an argument that we will eventually know everything (or rule god out) because science has explained things people use to think God directly inspired..which is false..science has not ruled out a supernatural causation for natural phenomena..we may know some of the ways but not the means

You then further try to say an infinite universe and a supernatural Creator are somehow logically equivilent ideas because they can both solve a particular problem, which is patently false, but of course this is what intellectually dishonest people do when they conduct their argument through ad homs. I advanced the questions I did as being fundemental to understanding life, which they are, and they are ones science knows nothing about. You go on to say I should "read a book". Well, I think that's a great idea and I recommend you do the same..specfically one on antisocial personality disorder.

Read Dawkins, instead of reading people quote-mining (or "summarizing") him. If you have read Dawkins, you haven't understood anything (at all). No way around that, sorry.

I did read dawkins, specifically his abominable God delusion where the idea is postulated that any appearance of design can be explained away by multiple universes. Of course, no word on where all those multiple universes come from, but that's the fun of science. You can postulate any lunatic theorum and cover it under an avalanche of imaginary "data" based entirely on speculation and conjecture. Then of course any ignoramous will buy it because science said it was true.

It will almost certainly happen in our lifetimes (assuming you're under 50) that people create life starting with inorganic chemicals. Will that change your mind at all? Of course not. How could it, when your belief system wasn't founded on reason to begin with? And, as before, there are already interesting ideas for how the first life could have formed. You may not find them credible (and certainly none has compelling evidence yet), but they're not metaphysical. But even if there was credible ideas it wouldn't matter to you, really, would it? Of course not, just move them goalposts.

They are entirely metaphysical, ie taken on faith. Evolution and abiogenesis are not testable theories. The mechanism of natural selection is not proven, and cannot even begin to account for the complexity of life. These theories have been elevated as some sort of unquestionable absolute that dogmatic materialists (and undoubtably secular humanists) take on faith, while pointing to pseudo-scientific research as science fact. As if somehow the methodology of scientific inquiry was respresentitive of the limits of reality itself. As far as abiogenesis is concerned, what was once a marxist wet dream hasn't moved one inch away from the sad experiments conducted in the 60s when they electrocuted pea soup. The theories it was based on have been entirely falsified. Abiogenesis is dead in the water, literally, and just wishing it was true isn't going to make it happen.

I guess add probability and infinity to the list of things you have no idea about. In short, yes those monkeys would - and we could make detailed predictions about how long it would likely take to get a sonnet, a play, or the entire collection. It would take a very, very long time for that last one obviously, but it would happen. Want to dispute that? Don't tell me about it. Again, I can't be bothered to teach you things you aren't interested in learning. Idiot.

lol, your entire post is just riddled with ad homs and childish conclusions with no supporting evidence. You have failed to prove that you know anything what so ever..extended diatribes and assertions of knowledge a counter-argument does not make. The probability of any of that ever happening in the timeline of the Universe is null and void. The odds of anything as complicated as a cell or dna arising from random mutation is expodentially less. The mechanism is completely unproven. Much like your presumption of superior knowledge.

you want a more detailed treatment of all this related stuff, Dawkins has written books that are easy to understand (very "pop science" level) that go over all this very clearly. At least by reading a couple you'd understand the other side (which you clearly, clearly do not at this point).

But if you don't want to know, just keep getting your stupid information and talking points from wherever the hell you're getting them now and go back under your rock.

read dawkins? He may be a passable biologist, but beyond that, its completely amatuer hour. Now that I know where you are getting your information from, I can understand why you think that using personal attacks is a demonstration of intellect. Have you ever had an original thought in your life? Lets see you flex this intellectual muscle you are bragging about...

>> ^jmzero:

If space and time were created in the big bang...

You didn't understand my post, and I can't be bothered to explain something that's not simple to someone who doesn't have any desire to learn. Sorry.
lets just have 13+ dimensions! cant figure out where matter and energy came from? no problem, lets just imagine these gigantic superstructures called branes that crash into eachother!

You don't understand anything of what you're saying - to be fair, very few people do. That doesn't mean it's wrong. There is plenty of science that's very complicated and unintuitive - and yet true and usable. The argument from incredulity is even less compelling when you don't even understand the thing you're arguing against.
even someone like dawkins admits the Universe appears to be designed.

Read Dawkins, instead of reading people quote-mining (or "summarizing") him. If you have read Dawkins, you haven't understood anything (at all). No way around that, sorry.
.abiogenesis is not a credible theory, it is a metaphysical belief.

It will almost certainly happen in our lifetimes (assuming you're under 50) that people create life starting with inorganic chemicals. Will that change your mind at all? Of course not. How could it, when your belief system wasn't founded on reason to begin with? And, as before, there are already interesting ideas for how the first life could have formed. You may not find them credible (and certainly none has compelling evidence yet), but they're not metaphysical. But even if there was credible ideas it wouldn't matter to you, really, would it? Of course not, just move them goalposts.
A billion monkeys on a billion typewriters are never going to write shakesphere.

I guess add probability and infinity to the list of things you have no idea about. In short, yes those monkeys would - and we could make detailed predictions about how long it would likely take to get a sonnet, a play, or the entire collection. It would take a very, very long time for that last one obviously, but it would happen. Want to dispute that? Don't tell me about it. Again, I can't be bothered to teach you things you aren't interested in learning. Idiot.
If you want a more detailed treatment of all this related stuff, Dawkins has written books that are easy to understand (very "pop science" level) that go over all this very clearly. At least by reading a couple you'd understand the other side (which you clearly, clearly do not at this point).
But if you don't want to know, just keep getting your stupid information and talking points from wherever the hell you're getting them now and go back under your rock.


I wish I could vote for this comment more than once : )

If space and time were created in the big bang...


You didn't understand my post, and I can't be bothered to explain something that's not simple to someone who doesn't have any desire to learn. Sorry.

lets just have 13+ dimensions! cant figure out where matter and energy came from? no problem, lets just imagine these gigantic superstructures called branes that crash into eachother!


You don't understand anything of what you're saying - to be fair, very few people do. That doesn't mean it's wrong. There is plenty of science that's very complicated and unintuitive - and yet true and usable. The argument from incredulity is even less compelling when you don't even understand the thing you're arguing against.

even someone like dawkins admits the Universe appears to be designed.


Read Dawkins, instead of reading people quote-mining (or "summarizing") him. If you have read Dawkins, you haven't understood anything (at all). No way around that, sorry.

.abiogenesis is not a credible theory, it is a metaphysical belief.


It will almost certainly happen in our lifetimes (assuming you're under 50) that people create life starting with inorganic chemicals. Will that change your mind at all? Of course not. How could it, when your belief system wasn't founded on reason to begin with? And, as before, there are already interesting ideas for how the first life could have formed. You may not find them credible (and certainly none has compelling evidence yet), but they're not metaphysical. But even if there was credible ideas it wouldn't matter to you, really, would it? Of course not, just move them goalposts.

A billion monkeys on a billion typewriters are never going to write shakesphere.


I guess add probability and infinity to the list of things you have no idea about. In short, yes those monkeys would - and we could make detailed predictions about how long it would likely take to get a sonnet, a play, or the entire collection. It would take a very, very long time for that last one obviously, but it would happen. Want to dispute that? Don't tell me about it. Again, I can't be bothered to teach you things you aren't interested in learning. Idiot.

If you want a more detailed treatment of all this related stuff, Dawkins has written books that are easy to understand (very "pop science" level) that go over all this very clearly. At least by reading a couple you'd understand the other side (which you clearly, clearly do not at this point).

But if you don't want to know, just keep getting your stupid information and talking points from wherever the hell you're getting them now and go back under your rock.

You woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning didn't you - You just may need a fresh glass of OJ to pull out of that stupor I for one, *promote the acceptance of some good natured nerd-humor and enjoy the fun to which he and the audience are having

>> ^jmzero:


So, to do "nerd" humor the plan is to avoid anything actually nerdy. Stick to the most often recycled bits of pop culture and pop science, mix in some clumsy, senseless double entendres so that people know when to laugh, and you're good to go.

I think lots of people believe "high level science" consists of 3 or 4 ideas:

1. In Schrodinger's thought experiment, a cat in a box could be seen as both alive and dead until an observer collapses the waveform
2. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says you can't know both the exact position and momentum of a particle
3. General relativity states time slows and mass increases for objects at relative high velocity
4. Light's behavior exhibits a wave/particle duality, as demonstrated by interference experiments

Know those 4 things? Have you watched Star Wars once? Good, you're now equipped to understand pretty much all "oh wow that guy's a crazy brainiac nerd" humor. Somehow if you reference things like that, you get a pass to do a comedy routine without any jokes. You're stroking people's ego enough that they don't care you're not funny.

I think people would just get pissed off if he left the "nerd humor" script, though. People don't want to be challenged, or hear pop culture references they don't know. Anyone who's the tiniest, tiniest bit interested in Greek mythology knows Pandora opened a jar, not a box - but nobody wants to hear a joke involving Pandora's jar. They want the same reference that 1000 previous pop cultural references have prepared them for. They want affirmation that they're part of the special club that knows about stuff.

So, to do "nerd" humor the plan is to avoid anything actually nerdy. Stick to the most often recycled bits of pop culture and pop science, mix in some clumsy, senseless double entendres so that people know when to laugh, and you're good to go.

I wish there was a few more details on the technical difficulties as really I've heard much of this before in pop science programmes.

As a Colombian, coffee is practically in my blood. But it is hard to find good Colombian coffee in the US, so I occasionally buy micro lots of Colombian coffee online.

>> ^swampgirl:
^rottenseed, I agree with you up there. If you don't have breakfast with coffee, you will crash HARD. Tea delivers the right amount steadily.

As for the milk thing.. I just can't bring myself to try it. I've read that it lowers the benefits of tea's antioxidants too. Pop science..whataya to do


Don't buy into that antioxidants thing, there are currently only a couple of small studies and they even contradict with one another. One says it lowers antioxidants, the other says it doesn't, the other says maybe, and so on.

^rottenseed, I agree with you up there. If you don't have breakfast with coffee, you will crash HARD. Tea delivers the right amount steadily.


As for the milk thing.. I just can't bring myself to try it. I've read that it lowers the benefits of tea's antioxidants too. Pop science..whataya to do

With reference to well known the double slit experiment, where an interference patrern is observed, I quote from the video: "Scientists say that this is only possible if the particle exists in different universes". That's rubbish. This experiment demonstrates the wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics; that matter behaves both as a wave and as particle; two aspects of a singular nature. I'm all for pop-science, but I can't tolerate junk science like this. It's harmful and it's condescending. I can't believe that this is anything other than intentionally misleading.

It's a shame how few documentaries do science justice. I'd recommend a good book: "Quantum Physics: A Beginner's Guide" by Alastair Rae if you can handle a little math, or "Deep Down Things, The Breathtaking Beauty of Particle Physics" by Bruce Schumm, which I'm reading currently and which is nothing short of brilliant.

Oh, and here is a great tip! If you like watching science videos, check out Professor Muller's "Physics for Future Presidents" web-casts (also known as "A Descriptive Introduction to Physics). These are video taped lectures from caltech. The dude rocks, he explains everything very clearly and he's a lot of fun to boot:

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978373

That's because I was bad and misspelled his name!

It's Devin. http://www.podsafeaudio.com/jamroom/bands/3/somnolent_electronic_neo-existentialism.php

In reply to this comment by cheesemoo:
You don't happen to have any links for the artist or the music from your video "Evolution of a Virtual creature", do you? It's a rather tough search since "pop science" floods me with the magazine Popular Science, and "devon anderson" floods me with an actor with the same name, but not seemingly related to this guy. The only site that turned up for "pop science" + "devon anderson" was your video.

Dag, personally I agree with you. The problems I see lie in the toxins, not in the CO2. I support anything that stops the steady poisoning of the planet. That being said, I wonder if we are doing more harm than good supporting "refutable" data such as that behind global warming rather than advocating reductions in mercury, PCBs, pesticides, etc. Science irrefutably supports the harm these are doing and instead we focus our energies arguing about a very, very refutable "problem". Toxins in our food supply have a much more immediate and devastating impact than potential CO2 problems... why can't we focus on this instead?

Dystopian... We can argue the merits of the peer-review process ad nauseum but I don't think that will accomplish anything. Instead I think it is germane to focus on replicated, irrefutable experiments. The trick is to focus on those and ignore "pop" science on EITHER side of the debate.

The last textual book I read in its entirety was a book about probability theory called "Struck by Lightning." It's very accessible and a good introductory "pop-science" read to the subject. The last graphic novel I read was Epileptic by David B, which deals with heavy material (the author's brother's severe epilepsy and all of the ill-fated attempts to cure him of it), but is very well written and has excellent artwork.

Currently, whenever I have a few minutes, I'm reading a couple books about logic, Logic Made Easy by Deborah J Bennett and 101 Philosophy problems by Martin Cohen.