stryper Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Given that the brain is not a muscle. I find it highly difficult to believe that it's actually spasming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 27, 2012 Author Share Posted March 27, 2012 That proves you're normal Wow, you're the second person to ever call me normal! I moved in with the first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 27, 2012 Author Share Posted March 27, 2012 Given that the brain is not a muscle. I find it highly difficult to believe that it's actually spasming. Wires missing? Over-loaded currents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 27, 2012 Author Share Posted March 27, 2012 Actually, Thurisaz, here is an excerpt from Dawkins' The God Delusion that I just happened to read after you posted that post on black holes: "Another theoretical physicist, Lee Smolin, has developed a tantalizingly Darwinian variant on the multiverse theory, including both serial and parallel elements. Smolin's idea, expounded in The Life of the Cosmos, hinges on the theory that daughter universes are born of parent universes, not in a fully fledged big crunch but more locally in black holes. Smolin adds a form of heredity: the fundamental constants of a daughter universe are slightly 'mutated' versions of the constants of its parent. Heredity is the essential ingredient of Darwinian natural selection, and the rest of Smolin's theory follows naturally. Those universes that have what it takes to 'survive' and 'reproduce' come to predominate in the multiverse. 'What it takes' includes lasting long enough to 'reproduce'. Because the act of reproduction takes place in black holes, successful universes must have what it takes to make black holes. This ability entails various other properties. For example, the tendency for matter to condence into clouds and then stars is a prerequisite to making black holes. Stars also, as we have seen, are the precursors to the development of interesting chemistry, and hence life. So, Smolin suggests, there has been a Darwinian natural selection of universes in the multiverse, directly favouring the evolution of black hole fecundity and indirectly favouring the production of life. Not all physicists are enthusiastic about Smolin's idea, although the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Murray Gell-Mann is quoted as saying: 'Smolin? Is he that young guy with those crazy ideas? He may not be wrong.' "- The God Delusion, pp174-175 This idea of Smolin's is somewhat akin to your idea idea, right, Thurisaz? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 That proves you're normal Wow, you're the second person to ever call me normal! I moved in with the first If I ever come to Australia there might be certain... options then... *grins, ducks and runs* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 This idea of Smolin's is somewhat akin to your idea idea, right, Thurisaz? I'd think so... although I didn't meditate about just what those hypothetical new universes might be like. As we'll never know anyway, all bets are off and we can speculate wildly - and very different universes might be more fun to think about That is, unless we one day find that the story of that goo' ol' Disney movie "the black hole" is very realistic... (for those who aren't such old farts as I am, in the last few minutes of the movie the heros actually cross the black hole and arrive in the new universe on the other side). ^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryper Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 being disney...the bad guys got to hell and the good guy go to heaven.....but yeah. " there are old pilots and bold pilots but very few old bold pilots" Bout the only quote I remember from that movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingLife Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Scintillating scintillating, microscopic asteroid, querying the origins of your inception; distantly elevated above aqueous spherical orb, symbolic, carbonious, composition, compressed via the medium of extraneous heat and pressure heavenly elevated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 28, 2012 Author Share Posted March 28, 2012 That proves you're normal Wow, you're the second person to ever call me normal! I moved in with the first If I ever come to Australia there might be certain... options then... *grins, ducks and runs* LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 28, 2012 Author Share Posted March 28, 2012 This idea of Smolin's is somewhat akin to your idea idea, right, Thurisaz? I'd think so... although I didn't meditate about just what those hypothetical new universes might be like. As we'll never know anyway, all bets are off and we can speculate wildly - and very different universes might be more fun to think about That is, unless we one day find that the story of that goo' ol' Disney movie "the black hole" is very realistic... (for those who aren't such old farts as I am, in the last few minutes of the movie the heros actually cross the black hole and arrive in the new universe on the other side). ^^ I thought so. I literally read your last post, and then picked up the book, and that's the very next thing I read. I thought you'd be interested in it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 28, 2012 Author Share Posted March 28, 2012 Scintillating scintillating, microscopic asteroid, querying the origins of your inception; distantly elevated above aqueous spherical orb, symbolic, carbonious, composition, compressed via the medium of extraneous heat and pressure heavenly elevated ...Did you just write a science poem, LL? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 ...I literally read your last post, and then picked up the book, and that's the very next thing I read. I thought you'd be interested in it Heh. Let me know what you think of it once you're through. I've read it sometime last year and was surprised how close the movie follows the book, aside from the last few moments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingLife Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Scintillating scintillating, microscopic asteroid, querying the origins of your inception; distantly elevated above aqueous spherical orb, symbolic, carbonious, composition, compressed via the medium of extraneous heat and pressure heavenly elevated ...Did you just write a science poem, LL? That is the $15/word version of twinkle twinkle little star. Been tempted all along to post the nursery rhyme on this thread. It sure was simpler back then eh? I think I got it from what if scientists wrote poetry/nursery rhymes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 29, 2012 Author Share Posted March 29, 2012 ...I literally read your last post, and then picked up the book, and that's the very next thing I read. I thought you'd be interested in it Heh. Let me know what you think of it once you're through. I've read it sometime last year and was surprised how close the movie follows the book, aside from the last few moments ...There's a documentary on The God Delusion?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 29, 2012 Author Share Posted March 29, 2012 Scintillating scintillating, microscopic asteroid, querying the origins of your inception; distantly elevated above aqueous spherical orb, symbolic, carbonious, composition, compressed via the medium of extraneous heat and pressure heavenly elevated ...Did you just write a science poem, LL? That is the $15/word version of twinkle twinkle little star. Been tempted all along to post the nursery rhyme on this thread. It sure was simpler back then eh? I think I got it from what if scientists wrote poetry/nursery rhymes. lol yeah, though when I was a kid, being born deaf and no-one realising until I was three years old, my version of "twinkle, twinkle, little star" was "inky, inky, uppa uppa" lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 ...I literally read your last post, and then picked up the book, and that's the very next thing I read. I thought you'd be interested in it Heh. Let me know what you think of it once you're through. I've read it sometime last year and was surprised how close the movie follows the book, aside from the last few moments ...There's a documentary on The God Delusion?! Ah, never mind... I got confused there for a moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 30, 2012 Author Share Posted March 30, 2012 ...I literally read your last post, and then picked up the book, and that's the very next thing I read. I thought you'd be interested in it Heh. Let me know what you think of it once you're through. I've read it sometime last year and was surprised how close the movie follows the book, aside from the last few moments ...There's a documentary on The God Delusion?! Ah, never mind... I got confused there for a moment. Wait a minute, maybe you didn't. You weren't thinking of The Root of all Evil?, were you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryper Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Movie Book Dawkins I could see how you got confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 30, 2012 Author Share Posted March 30, 2012 Movie Book Dawkins I could see how you got confused. ...I don't understand. Though, in my defense, it is 5:48am and I only woke up 20 minutes ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryper Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I was commenting on Thurisaz being confused. The Black Hole was a book then Disney made it into a movie, but he quote your post about Dawkins and stated the movie followed the book, which led you to think they had made the God delusion into a movie. That should clear it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 30, 2012 Author Share Posted March 30, 2012 I was commenting on Thurisaz being confused. The Black Hole was a book then Disney made it into a movie, but he quote your post about Dawkins and stated the movie followed the book, which led you to think they had made the God delusion into a movie. That should clear it up. Ah okay. But The God Delusion does follow on from The Root of all Evil?, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 A dwarf planet is one that is realllllllllllllllllllly realllllllllllllllly small compared to a average planet. That is what pluto became. Correct me if I am wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I was commenting on Thurisaz being confused. The Black Hole was a book then Disney made it into a movie, but he quote your post about Dawkins and stated the movie followed the book, which led you to think they had made the God delusion into a movie. That should clear it up. Ah okay. But The God Delusion does follow on from The Root of all Evil?, right? Same basic principal except dawkins does way less philisophy in the root of all evil. He sort of trys to let religious people bury themselves.I personally liked the Root of all evil way more then the god delusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 30, 2012 Author Share Posted March 30, 2012 Same basic principal except dawkins does way less philisophy in the root of all evil. He sort of trys to let religious people bury themselves. I personally liked the Root of all evil way more then the god delusion. Really? I'm rather enjoying The God Delusion. I'm learning heaps! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Same basic principal except dawkins does way less philisophy in the root of all evil. He sort of trys to let religious people bury themselves. I personally liked the Root of all evil way more then the god delusion. Really? I'm rather enjoying The God Delusion. I'm learning heaps! I rarely ever recommend reading a christian apologetic, but while dawkins makes his points badly and in a way that is hard to believe, alister mcgrath in the dawkins delusion rips him a new one. Another reason I don't like the god delusion, is antony flew. Dawkins wrote flew off as cenial, when discussing flews conversion to deism. According to flew, dawkins never even asked him why flew changed his mind. To me that is the epitome of being close minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts