President Ahmadinejad Speaks, at Columbia University and at the United Nations Options

[impala454]

Yes, as long as the sample was completely random

And you obviously don't believe in statistics since using representative samples is part of that discipline.

there you go again, putting words in my mouth. let me ask you something, where do you think they come up with "representative samples" (for these types of polls)?

[THECHICKEN]

Witty quotes won't make you any more educated on the topic.

If you would like to know more about the Big Bang, I would recommend talking to Dr. Anderson or take his Nuclear Engineering course (you're still at Tech right?). Honestly, he has more credibility than anyone on this message board. So if it's between some law student or a pot heat claiming the Big Bang is just theory and him saying it isn't, I think I'm going to believe him. But he must be crazy since Seth knows everything about everything.

Because taking a class on the THEORY of big bang (since we can't ACTUALLY GO BACK AND WATCH), makes your talking about apples and oranges different.

You think questioning scientific THEORY is the same as questioning something that is FACT and not in the abstract. Holocaust is well documented, witnessed, etc.

No matter how well the big bang is theorized (which im sure its all but sure in some eyes) it still is an abstract, non-witnessed, and non-finalized theory. The point of science is to never declare something a fact. Yet the holocaust has nothing to do with the idea of science... it DID happen through well documented WITNESSES

So unless your prof. can dig up some eye witnesses or what not... you really can't compare the two...

im honestly not sure why i had to even explain this

ok, back to my "pot" and law school writing(anyone have any good information on soldiers having their families being deported?)

[The Fanatic]

Because taking a class on the THEORY of big bang (since we can't ACTUALLY GO BACK AND WATCH), makes your talking about apples and oranges different.

You think questioning scientific THEORY is the same as questioning something that is FACT and not in the abstract. Holocaust is well documented, witnessed, etc.

No matter how well the big bang is theorized (which im sure its all but sure in some eyes) it still is an abstract, non-witnessed, and non-finalized theory. The point of science is to never declare something a fact. Yet the holocaust has nothing to do with the idea of science... it DID happen through well documented WITNESSES

So unless your prof. can dig up some eye witnesses or what not... you really can't compare the two...

im honestly not sure why i had to even explain this

ok, back to my "pot" and law school writing(anyone have any good information on soldiers having their families being deported?)

Just going to add to what you said. According to Karl Popper, the purpose in constructing scientific theory is falsifiability. If a theory is designed which can not be falsified, then it is not a scientific theory. Basically, there is no truth in science. Instead, there are only theories which have not yet been falsified. Taking this into account, there is a lot of evidence for the big bang. However at this juncture, there is no way to ever prove that the big bang occurred for one hundred percent. Some people search for truth, while others simply admit that there is no absolute truth. The Big Bang rests on the theory of relativity. Now, while this remains the fundamental paradigm through which the world of physics is viewed and explored, someday it could be replaced by a more relevant theory of "mostly everything". This is the very nature of the "new religion" known as science.

Now the main point is, there may be all these mathematical formulas, theory, and evidence to support that the big bang COULD have happened. And while I believe it is certainly a possibility, I pride myself on admitting that there are some things that we can never possibly comprehend. At least not in our current biological and technological molds. Has the Big Bang been witnessed? No. But pictures speak a thousand words...





VS.



bang...



What other research needs to be conducted?? Scholarly scrutiny could lead to dangerous propositions that the holocaust was a massive international hoax to implant some sort of Zionic world conspiracy. As time flows, memories become dull as the generations march on. In closing, there is no need to do put the holocaust under the same scrutiny as other disciplines because it differs on fundamental principles. It is much closer to the human consciousness and grasp than lofty ideas of universal creation.

This post has been edited by Dr. Gonzo: Sep 25 2007, 10:25 PM

[Billy]

Because taking a class on the THEORY of big bang (since we can't ACTUALLY GO BACK AND WATCH), makes your talking about apples and oranges different.

You think questioning scientific THEORY is the same as questioning something that is FACT and not in the abstract. Holocaust is well documented, witnessed, etc.

No matter how well the big bang is theorized (which im sure its all but sure in some eyes) it still is an abstract, non-witnessed, and non-finalized theory. The point of science is to never declare something a fact. Yet the holocaust has nothing to do with the idea of science... it DID happen through well documented WITNESSES

So unless your prof. can dig up some eye witnesses or what not... you really can't compare the two...

im honestly not sure why i had to even explain this

ok, back to my "pot" and law school writing(anyone have any good information on soldiers having their families being deported?)

So in other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

Surprise, surprise.

And by the way, the Big Bang is usually just refered to as the Big Bang. The 'Theory' was dropped quite a bit of time ago once the mathematical predictions made in the 60's came true.

You seem to be stuck on "witnesses". As in, nothing is proven unless witnessed. Unfortunately, science witnesses very few things, such as the electron. However, the electron is proven to exist via mathematical models and experimentation. Its behavior is predicted, and then that prediction is observed. Because of the observation of the prediction, the electron is considered to be proven to exist, though no one has ever "seen" one.

The Big Bang is the same way. Because it is proven mathematically, and predictions made about the universe based on the original theory behind the Big Bang was observed, it is considered proven that the Big Bang existed.

This is too much for you to understand because A) You do not have a background in science and B) Being wrong on Techsans is worse than death (even if it's about a subject you were completely talking out your ass about anyway).

But please continue. I always welcome the affimation one is an idiot.

[THECHICKEN]

So in other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

Surprise, surprise.

And by the way, the Big Bang is usually just refered to as the Big Bang. The 'Theory' was dropped quite a bit of time ago once the mathematical predictions made in the 60's came true.

You seem to be stuck on "witnesses". As in, nothing is proven unless witnessed. Unfortunately, science witnesses very few things, such as the electron. However, the electron is proven to exist via mathematical models and experimentation. Its behavior is predicted, and then that prediction is observed. Because of the observation of the prediction, the electron is considered to be proven to exist, though no one has ever "seen" one.

The Big Bang is the same way. Because it is proven mathematically, and predictions made about the universe based on the original theory behind the Big Bang was observed, it is considered proven that the Big Bang existed.

This is too much for you to understand because A) You do not have a background in science and Being wrong on Techsans is worse than death (even if it's about a subject you were completely talking out your ass about anyway).

But please continue. I always welcome the affimation one is an idiot.

lol if only being a pompous ass, who thinks he knows it all, equaled being right. You make a completely retarded statement, fail to do anything to show how it REMOTELY makes since except to try and act as though a theory is anything but.

Trying to paint me as someone who doesn't know anything about the big bang (or someone who questions it) is laughable. You trying to say that well established science being questioned shows that it is reasonable to question THE HOLOCAUST for purely RACIST reasons is completely illogical and even more laughable. Well documented history that is simply fact is not the same as a scientific theory that by its very nature should ALWAYS be questioned in comparison with newer thoughts and ideas on HOW it happened (not that it DID happened)

God, why do i keep wasting my time? Here i'll go ahead and prepare your answer to save us the time:
"omg, even though im the only one that is believing this crap , you are wrong because the big bang happened and you don't know about it and smoke pot (which i don't haha)"

So go learn about the big bang, and then you'll see that my position is completely correct and that everything you are saying makes you look like a complete retard. And since your lack of knowledge is creating this problem i suggest you go take a class with... wait, scratch that, go hang with a survivor of the holocaust and then sit back and describe how the Big Bang means that everything that they went through should be questioned by racist idiots...

[The Fanatic]

So in other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

Surprise, surprise.

And by the way, the Big Bang is usually just refered to as the Big Bang. The 'Theory' was dropped quite a bit of time ago once the mathematical predictions made in the 60's came true.

You seem to be stuck on "witnesses". As in, nothing is proven unless witnessed. Unfortunately, science witnesses very few things, such as the electron. However, the electron is proven to exist via mathematical models and experimentation. Its behavior is predicted, and then that prediction is observed. Because of the observation of the prediction, the electron is considered to be proven to exist, though no one has ever "seen" one.

The Big Bang is the same way. Because it is proven mathematically, and predictions made about the universe based on the original theory behind the Big Bang was observed, it is considered proven that the Big Bang existed.

This is too much for you to understand because A) You do not have a background in science and Being wrong on Techsans is worse than death (even if it's about a subject you were completely talking out your ass about anyway).

But please continue. I always welcome the affimation one is an idiot.

Science can not "prove" anything.

[chook]

at least he came and said what he believed, even if its crazy shit.

[FORSAKENR320]

He doesn't deserve to have a thread on this message board, much less speak in an open forum in an American university. These kinds of people need to be removed from power.

when the world defeated germany in wwI these feelings were pretty much the same. we took and denied so much from germany economically and politically that the only way their country COULD break out of the rut was through war.

i'm not claiming that this person shouldn't be taken from power, but there should be limitations to how much harm we wish to inflict. with sentiments like yours prominant, it would just be a repeat of history.

[rabble]

today is the day, I can feel it. The day for what I dunno, but its today.

[Dogmeat]

this guy is seriously the biggest political boner I've ever seen.

I mean seriously, who the FUCK takes this jackass seriously?

He acts like "Oh well the US lies so I can too! YAY!"

But he's TERRIBLE at it so he just looks like a schmuck!

I mean god dude, if you're gonna come over here and spew a bunch of horse shit propaghanda, at least make it SOMEWHAT believable instead of just babbeling on about the lack of gay dick you get in your country.

Fucking idiot! BAH!

[Hartmann]

when the world defeated germany in wwI these feelings were pretty much the same. we took and denied so much from germany economically and politically that the only way their country COULD break out of the rut was through war.

i'm not claiming that this person shouldn't be taken from power, but there should be limitations to how much harm we wish to inflict. with sentiments like yours prominant, it would just be a repeat of history.

You are implying that the U.S. was actively trying to cut Germany off, which is exactly opposite of what happened.

We tried to separate ourselves as much as possible from the proceedings of the Versailles Treaty as we wanted to keep our isolationism and have continued trade with Germany.

Germany was in a rut just like the U.S. was but the difference was that Germany used creation of military machines to break themselves out while the U.S. created an industrial state that did not include purely military purposes.

Hitler wanted war simply because he was power hungry. It had nothing to do with trying to break his country out of a rut. If he wanted to get his country out of a rut he would have surrendered as soon as the British burned Cologne to the ground.

[Hartmann]

Also, Ahmadinejad's speech to the U.N. was pretty appalling. Nothing useful was said, just a diatribe against Israel and the west.

He pretty much said "F-you, we'll continue our nuclear programs till you bomb us"...

[impala454]

i'm not claiming that this person shouldn't be taken from power, but there should be limitations to how much harm we wish to inflict. with sentiments like yours prominant, it would just be a repeat of history.

limitations like what? it's thoughts like this that will be our downfall "well, just because he wants to commit genocide and destroy another country and set the west in flames doesn't mean we should attack him."

[FORSAKENR320]

You are implying that the U.S. was actively trying to cut Germany off, which is exactly opposite of what happened.

We tried to separate ourselves as much as possible from the proceedings of the Versailles Treaty as we wanted to keep our isolationism and have continued trade with Germany.

Germany was in a rut just like the U.S. was but the difference was that Germany used creation of military machines to break themselves out while the U.S. created an industrial state that did not include purely military purposes.

Hitler wanted war simply because he was power hungry. It had nothing to do with trying to break his country out of a rut. If he wanted to get his country out of a rut he would have surrendered as soon as the British burned Cologne to the ground.

sorry, misinterpretation. i ment "we" as "the rest of the world" not just america. my bad.

[Billy]

... and you don't know about it and smoke pot (which i don't haha)"

Being that you've remarked about this twice (me claiming you smoke pot) tells me you don't have the reading comprehension necessary to comment on my posts.