Bush Administration infiltrating NASA...

[DD]

Well here's something you all should know:

-Most creationist/self-proclaimed scientist who believe in Intelligent Design support the big bang theory. It supports the idea that the universe starts from a single point and revolves around it. This idea of singularity supports the notion of a god.

-The big bang theory has major holes starting from the base. It assumes the explosion was not symmetrical/even for some unknown reasons and assumes there is selveral different forms of dark matter, and all sorts of unproved notions to support why the movement of stars/planets don't add up.

-I believe NASA needs lots of work done to it to improve cost, productivity, and keeping up to date with technology. This appointee may just be the move that starts the dominos, hopefully the reform or removal of NASA.

Basically what this all means to me: The 24 year old douche or whatever his name is believes that support big bang is against intelligent design. He is a dumbass. He is arguing against his own belief in dumbass confusion.

[mawibse]

Heres somthing you should know DD:

The big bang theory has nothing to do with god or ID.

If god created the universe there is no reason not to conjure it in any state god so wished, singularity is not an issue for god, for man perhaps but not god.

That train of thought is like saying evolution supports the notion of god because all life forms start with one type of very simple organism and all others evolves from it.

When it comes to cosmology there is a shitload of "holes" because we currently dont posess the means to validate and experiment on theories on that scale, dont mean its got something to do with god or ID.

[TomWithTheWeather]

http://science.slashdot.org/science/06/ ... 0226.shtml

""George C. Deutsch, who tried to muzzle top NASA climate scientist James Hansen and ordered NASA web designers to add the word 'theory' to every mention of the Big Bang, has resigned. The New York Times reports that NASA declines to discuss the reasons for his resignation, but that it came the same day that Texas A&M University, from which Deutsch claimed on his resume to have graduated, revealed that he had attended the university but did not complete his degree." The New York Times reports it today, but as of yesterday, it was the Times that had unquestioningly passed along the falsehood of Deutsch's graduation, and it was the blog Scientific Activist whose investigation revealed he'd left before graduating to work on the Bush reelection campaign."

[The Postman]

http://science.slashdot.org/science/06/02/08/1240226.shtml

""George C. Deutsch, who tried to muzzle top NASA climate scientist James Hansen and ordered NASA web designers to add the word 'theory' to every mention of the Big Bang, has resigned. The New York Times reports that NASA declines to discuss the reasons for his resignation, but that it came the same day that Texas A&M University, from which Deutsch claimed on his resume to have graduated, revealed that he had attended the university but did not complete his degree." The New York Times reports it today, but as of yesterday, it was the Times that had unquestioningly passed along the falsehood of Deutsch's graduation, and it was the blog Scientific Activist whose investigation revealed he'd left before graduating to work on the Bush reelection campaign."

Muahahahaha. Oh Tom, thank you for this

These two quotes make me giggle like a school girl:

The New York Times reports that NASA declines to discuss the reasons for his resignation, but that it came the same day that Texas A&M University, from which Deutsch claimed on his resume to have graduated, revealed that he had attended the university but did not complete his degree.

...the falsehood of Deutsch's graduation, and it was the blog Scientific Activist whose investigation revealed he'd left before graduating to work on the Bush reelection campaign.

[The Postman]

Well here's something you all should know:

-Most creationist/self-proclaimed scientist who believe in Intelligent Design support the big bang theory. It supports the idea that the universe starts from a single point and revolves around it. This idea of singularity supports the notion of a god.

Actually most of them don't. Where'd you get this wacky idea? Most of them think the big bang, in the words of the infamous bumper sticker I've seen next to a lot of Darwin-eating Jesus-fish, is: "The Big Bang: God said it, bang it happened."

Honestly, they believe that it all spawned instantaneously in a void, like placing a model in a level you're designing. Let there be light, and then god adjusted the values on his point lights.

-The big bang theory has major holes starting from the base. It assumes the explosion was not symmetrical/even for some unknown reasons and assumes there is selveral different forms of dark matter, and all sorts of unproved notions to support why the movement of stars/planets don't add up.

You know that they've been studying dwarf galaxies lately and discovering more about dark matter, right? The lack of full knowledge does not, in any way, mean that something is invalid. That's the wonder of science, it's constantly changing. Unlike the simps from the Religious Right and the Intelligent Design fundies who have no idea what science is and simply mean to jam the words "God did this." into any cracks yet un-filled.

-I believe NASA needs lots of work done to it to improve cost, productivity, and keeping up to date with technology. This appointee may just be the move that starts the dominos, hopefully the reform or removal of NASA.

Removal of NASA? DD, do you have any idea how much technology and research goes on in and because of NASA? Removing them would do one of two things (and perhaps both):

1. Make the public, on the whole, just that much dumber.

2. Sling space exploration firmly into the hands of irresponsible private firms who would exploit space for their own short-sighted ends.

Furthermore, the guy got fired. I doubt his brand of idiocy and being a crony of the Bush administration would've pushed the NASA folks in any good direction.

Basically what this all means to me: The 24 year old douche or whatever his name is believes that support big bang is against intelligent design. He is a dumbass. He is arguing against his own belief in dumbass confusion.

Dumbass yes. Belief defying dumbass? No. Belief injecting dumbass? Yes.

[Scraps]

Well here's something you all should know:

-Most creationist/self-proclaimed scientist who believe in Intelligent Design support the big bang theory. It supports the idea that the universe starts from a single point and revolves around it. This idea of singularity supports the notion of a god.

Wrong. Neither Dembski nor Behe support it. E-mails subpoenaed in Kitzmiller V. Dover prove it.

-The big bang theory has major holes starting from the base. It assumes the explosion was not symmetrical/even for some unknown reasons and assumes there is selveral different forms of dark matter, and all sorts of unproved notions to support why the movement of stars/planets don't add up.

Wrong. This one stems from your ignorance about the Big Bang Theory. The big bang theory wasn't a singularity exploding. The big bang was energy turning into matter. Something big "just didn't explode" into lots of little things. Matter coalesced out of energy. That's why it's not symmetrical, that's why there is no exact center of the universe, that's why we have energy forms we still don't understand.

Wait, wait, there's an equation for this, hang on.

Oh, right. E=MC^2. Energy = Matter times the Speed of Light squared. Ever wonder why we get energy from fusion? The process spits out a positron which combines with an electron, eliminating each other's mass in a huge outpouring of energy.

-I believe NASA needs lots of work done to it to improve cost, productivity, and keeping up to date with technology. This appointee may just be the move that starts the dominos, hopefully the reform or removal of NASA.

NASA was already revamped back in the 90's. Does the mantra "Faster, better, cheaper" mean anything to you?

Basically what this all means to me: The 24 year old douche or whatever his name is believes that support big bang is against intelligent design. He is a dumbass. He is arguing against his own belief in dumbass confusion.

What?

No, seriously, what?

[mawibse]

Thanks very much for rubbing my points in The Postman and Scraps but three against one seems a little unfair don't you think?

These two quotes make me giggle like a school girl:

Glad someone finds humor in it, personally it just want me to cry like a man... yeah! like a man! Got a problem with that?!?

*glares angrily and teary eye*

[Pericolos0]

-The big bang theory has major holes starting from the base. It assumes the explosion was not symmetrical/even for some unknown reasons and assumes there is selveral different forms of dark matter, and all sorts of unproved notions to support why the movement of stars/planets don't add up.

Wrong. This one stems from your ignorance about the Big Bang Theory. The big bang theory wasn't a singularity exploding. The big bang was energy turning into matter. Something big "just didn't explode" into lots of little things. Matter coalesced out of energy. That's why it's not symmetrical, that's why there is no exact center of the universe, that's why we have energy forms we still don't understand.

also it's not really an assumtion because we can see it not being symmetrical in the background radiation