Watching comedy gives one great insight into what the public likes. The Simpsons have been on for 25 years. That says a heck of a lot.
Theologians Think Theyâre Smarter Than Stephen Hawking
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
Watching comedy gives one great insight into what the public likes. The Simpsons have been on for 25 years. That says a heck of a lot.
Holy smokes! 377 hasn't seen the Simpsons ? It's brilliant so of course he hasn't seen it. That DOES say a lot about him.
One word, dolt.
A mental retard who is clueless not only about current events, but also has the IQ level of a rock. "Dolt" may be the most sophisticated insult in the English language. Dolts commonly populate such stereotypes as jocks, nerds, fruits, bookworms, and dorks.
A person who is stupid and entirely tedious at the same time. Many times they are oblivious to their own mental incapacity.
dolt
A trivial inane person who tends to be elevated or promoted to a higher standing than warranted due to having ridiculous delusions of grandeur. A dolt is right at home in the political arena.
Yes, Ive noticed how you are always abusive first.
You've posted the same vids, how many times now? .... never address the glaring problems with the false conclusions you darw from them but start cussing and name calling, still pretending to be oblivious to the fact Dawkins doesn't say what you want him to.
That's how religious faith works I suppose. You just believe anything you want then convince yourself it's true, denying everything including facts to the contrary. Or in a word, delusion.
And you think it's clever?.......sheesh.
You've posted the same vids, how many times now? .... never address the glaring problems with the false conclusions you darw from them but start cussing and name calling, still pretending to be oblivious to the fact Dawkins doesn't say what you want him to.
That's how religious faith works I suppose. You just believe anything you want then convince yourself it's true, denying everything including facts to the contrary. Or in a word, delusion.
And you think it's clever?.......sheesh.
No, you get an edited version of what a scientist is explaining, then repeat some made up conclusion which the scientist cannot be scientifically saying , then pretend the scientist is saying something he is not and straightaway get abusive should anyone point out your fault.
It's what creationists do.
You are such the troll you do not realize you how ignorant you sound.
If you understood Weinberg or even Dawkins above... you would understand they hold out hope that someday science could explain why those values turn out to be so fine tuned.. but as of now they cannot.
But I will make this simple for you.
Explain why the values turn out the way they are and you become more famous than Einstein.
Why? the Nobel prize... because you will have created the much desired... Theory of Everything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything
In the late 1990s, it was noted that one problem with several of the candidates for theories of everything (but particularly string theory) was that they did not constrain the characteristics of the predicted universe. For example, many theories of quantum gravity can create universes with arbitrary numbers of dimensions or with arbitrary cosmological constants. Even the "standard" ten-dimensional string theory allows the "curled up" dimensions to be compactified in an enormous number of different ways (one estimate is 10500 ) each of which corresponds to a different collection of fundamental particles and low-energy forces. This array of theories is known as the string theory landscape.
A speculative solution is that many or all of these possibilities are realised in one or another of a huge number of universes, but that only a small number of them are habitable, and hence the fundamental constants of the universe are ultimately the result of the anthropic principle rather than a consequence of the theory of everything. This anthropic approach is often criticised[9] in that, because the theory is flexible enough to encompass almost any observation, it cannot make useful (i.e., original, falsifiable, and verifiable) predictions. In this view, string theory would be considered a pseudoscience, where an unfalsifiable theory is constantly adapted to fit the experimental results
I've never seen a full episode either, because I thought it was stupid.
I did however enjoy southpark.