I had never heard of "thatguywithglasses" (and thank fucking goodness) before this, but after seeing this guy utter absolute bullshit while wearing my traditional nerd uniform I finally understand why idiots like "The Big Bang Theory".

This guy isn't a nerd, he's a awkward apologist who is stuck in his own, entirely unproductive world featuring whatever pop culture spectacle coupled with his shallow thoughts.

On the other hand, despite being a psycho hooker murderer, Mr. Plinkett is one of us.

Now I'm worried that when I'm in my 60s I'll want to murder a hooker. Ugh, pop culture confuses me.

Upvote for Big Bang Theory title.

I don't care to get into a pissing contest with you but there are things that just don't fit the evolutionary thought.

If evolution is the order of the day why would we need to have multiple dimensions. Physicists theorize that there are about 10 or 12.

Where does Quantum physic fit into evolution?

We all believe in the big bang theory but where did all the matter come from? What evolutionary reasoning explains this?

There are stuff out there that just make you stop and think otherwise.

I understand King of Queens was a funny show-But hey-Missed the 90s and haven't done TV since 1986-Do enjoy the few Big Bang Theories I've seen but not so much for Parson's character...

He's been great on The Big Bang Theory.

Was this filmed as part of the special features of a Breaking Bad box set or something?

Fox would get ahold of it and would make someone like Ke$ha the host. Nobody would watch it after the first two weeks and it would get canceled.

The only way this would work is if they got like Bill Nye to host it or Neil DeGrasse Tyson or something and even THEN nobody would watch it unless they put it on after Big Bang Theory or something.

So, basically a better version of the Big Bang Theory story where the indian guy falls in love with Siri?

Not defending religion here, but a lot of high horsing going on.

So, did you guys know that a recent discovery has called into question one of the 2 main assumptions underlying the big bang? The cosmological principle to be exact, which means that we have to revisit that assumption and the big bang theory again to account for this.

Now, if after hearing this ur "belief" in the current existing big bang model was not refuted or shaken, IE if u still believe 100% that the big bang created the universe...then technically ur a baby step closer to being like everyone who believes in a religion.

"Well thats a bit of a leap!" you might say, however if when faced with scientific evidence contradicting an assumption needed for the big bang theory u don't adjust or modify ur belief system, ur no different than ANYONE who believes a partial truth or outright falsehood in the face of contradicting evidence.

So the next time ur explaining how much better science is at explaining the world with a religious zealot, before looking down your nose at them remember that sciences current golden child theory for the creation of the universe is being challenged and so maybe YOU shouldn't be so certain about your beliefs.

FYI I'm still fairly certain that a big bang type event created the observable universe.

I'm not sure if the mere presence of Wil Wheaton makes this *geek but the Big Bang Theory seems to think so Also comicon.

At present this concept of design is just castle-in-the-sky nonsense. Empty piffle. A complete non-starter.

This is why the "mere mention" of "design" will get you "banned" from peer-review, because you could just as well have made a "mere mention" of Bigfoot and the loch ness monster in your zoology report, it's a big tell to your peers that you are a nut who fails to understand the nature of evidence and science, and a big sign that you are in for some fuzzy logic and dumb assumptions instead of solid science.

Design is a better hypothesis for the information we find in DNA, and the fine tuning we see in the physical laws. The reason design is a non-starter is because the idea this Universe was created by anyone is anathema to the scientific community:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

S. C. Todd,
Correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.

Richard Lewontin, Harvard
New York Review of Books 1/9/97

No evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism. ...Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it.

Steven Pinker MIT
How the mind works p.182

After essentially nullifying and disproving everything we have learned about biology the last 200 years, you still have all the work ahead of you, I'm afraid. You now have to build a completely new framework and model for every single observation ever made in biology that makes sense of it all and explains why things are the way they are. Shouting that a thing is "complex" is not cutting it, I'm afraid. You need a new theory of DNA, Immunology, Bacterial resistance, adaptation, vestigal organs, animal distobution, mutation, selection, variation, genetics, speciation, taxonomy... well, as Dobzhansky put it: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" That quote is more relevant than ever.

Your error here is conflating micro and macro evolution. Creation scientists believe in micro evolution and speciation. That is part of the creationist model of how the world was repopulated with animals after the flood. Macro evolution, the idea that all life descended from a universal common ancestor, is not proven by immunology, bacterial resistance, adaptation, animal distribution, mutation, seclection, variation, speciation, taxonomy etc. The only way you could prove it is in the fossil record and the evidence isn't there. They've tried to prove it with genetics but it contradicts the fossil record (the way they understand it). So Creationists have no trouble explaining those things..and common genetics points to a common designer.

You dont have to trust scientists, most of the EVIDENCE is RIGHT FUCKING THERE, in front of you, in your pocket, in your hand, around your home, in every school, in every home, in every post office or courtroom, in the streets. ACTUAL REAL EVIDENCE, right there, PROVING, every second, that the universe is billions of years old.

Every scientist since Newton could be a lying sack of shit, all working on the same conspiracy, and it would mean fuck all, because the evidence speaks for itself.

The earth is definately NOT ten thousand years young.

Have you ever heard of the horizon problem? The big bang model suffers from a light travel time problem of its own, but they solve it by postulating cosmic inflation, which is nothing more than a fudge factor to solve the problem. First, it would have to expand at trillions of times the speed of light, violating the law that says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. There is also no theory compatible with physics that could explain the mechanism for how the Universe would start expanding, and then cease expanding a second later. It's poppycock. See what secular scientists have to say about the current state of the Big Bang Theory:

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

As far as how light could reach us in a short amount of time, there are many theories. One theory is that the speed of light has not always been constant, and was faster at the beginning of creation. This is backed up by a number of measurements taken since the 1800s showing the speed of light decreasing. You can see the tables here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v4/n1/velocity-of-light

OK so I went through this as well.
Both my kids are certified Geek.

I started with super heroes and Star Wars but my kids went through all the phases from Transformers, to Mutant Turtles, X-men, Batman, Star Trek, Planet of the Apes, and Buffy and every possible direction.

What I found is you can't force one over the other. Expose kids to everything Geek and let them decide. When you see them heading into a certain direction, just go with it. If they see you are interested in it, then they will be too. There is always something new and geek right around the corner.

Today's kids have a wider range than we did, there is just too much out there. my kids are knowledgeable on most Multi-verses but every time I turn around there's something new - and sometimes it's them introducing it to me (Ben10, Naruto etc.) All you can be expected to do is put it in front of them and be involved.

My kids (now 11 & 15) constantly surprise me. My daughter can correct any of her male peers on the geek of Marvel Comics, Buffy, Dr Who, Dragonlance and so much more. She reads 4-5 new books a week and gets straight As in school for the last 5 years straight.

My son has gone through all the multi-verses (and loves them all.) He wears a Tick T-shirt, loves Big Bang Theory and understand every side-joke. Now he is the one introducing me to stuff. Books in his room include E=Mc2 and the complete biography of Einstine. Loves video games and can beat most of them over a weekend.

Don't hold back, throw it all at them and don't hold back.


Stay away from the ol'time evils: Tomas the train, Dora, Babar, Caillou, Disney's Cars and all that stuff.

Bill Nye is probably the smartest man on TV. Wait I know let's have him and Neil DeGrasse Tyson star in a sitcom it will be like "Big Bang Theory" only you know actually smart.

American and British culture mix so much it is easy to find examples of braggart and self deprecating humor in both. I think Frye is mostly right though. If you want to compare apples to apples, compare The Big Bang Theory and The IT Crowd. The Nerds in the former manage to achieve some success in life and love, because they learn and grow, while the nerds in the latter never learn and grow and the humor is in their constant failure.

Ironically these differences go back a long time. British Charlie Chaplain's "Tramp" bathed in self deprecating humor, while American Buster Keaton's humor came from his ability to calmly cause a lot of mayhem. Personally I love both British and American humor.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Best-Xmas-Gift-EVAR-from-the-Big-Bang-Theory

Best Xmas Gift EVAR - from the Big Bang Theory has been added as a related post - related requested by deathcow.