Re: Emergence of Physical Laws

From: Pyriform (nobody_at_nowhere.com)
Date: 08/02/04 

Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 01:28:41 +0100

sam1967@hetnet.nl wrote:
>> Evolution,
>
> zoologists like Dawkins cannot explain how life emerged from non
> organic matter. It is a matter of faith.

The problem of abiogenesis is not Dawkin's area of expertise. He takes
simple living organisms as his starting point. That's not "faith" in any
religious sense; it's building on foundations, just as any scientific
discipline must. Other scientists do study abiogenesis. It's ongoing
research. That's R-E-S-E-A-R-C-H. It's what scientists do. Faith is what
God-botherers do. Try to remember the distinction, and maybe you won't
look so stupid in the future.

>> cosmology,
>
> prove it. there is only an assumption of a big bang. no proof.
> i personally doubt it. with hawkings backtracking on black holes we
> may be seeing the unravelling of the entire BB paradigm.

You personally doubt it? Well, whoopee-do! Seldom have I seen the
argument from personal incredulity expressed in such starkly simplistic
terms. Don't bother with my earlier question: "Are you an idiot?" You've
just given me the answer.

I know I am on completely solid ground in asserting that not only do you
not understand the nature of Hawking's "backtracking"; but you do not
understand the nature of the original problem. In fact, I don't believe
you were even aware that there *was* a problem, before Hawking claimed
to have solved it. That in itself is fine. You would be in the majority.
What makes you a fully paid-up, certified *idiot* is that this level of
ignorance does not prevent you from solemnly declaring that the end is
in sight for the Big Bang paradigm. As if you had a fucking clue about
any of it.

Loading