• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

ramseth isn't dead...but going to be soon :(

For the record, it is bias on your part. The religious context wasn't raised by me first... you should be warning the ones who talked about religious or anti-religious stuff in a simple thread of a dying a man.

The right word to use is "prejudice", not "bias".

Prejudice against you and bias towards another.

You don't say bias towards you, if it is against you. You say "prejudice against".
 
Well, try explaining gravity as the attraction force between two objects... but in reality, we cannot "prove it" using earthly experiment. The fundamental question is, why would there be "attraction force", the invisible force, when there is mass? It started with a hypothesis and "proven" with theories.

Simple thing like gravity, is not an easy concept to be proven. It is only on hindsight, we would take that for granted that the attraction force between two masses exist.


Mr Goh,

Do you know that science proceeds by inductive reasoning and bases its theories on empirical evidence?

Do you have any freaking idea what you are talking about????!?!?!?
 
Mr Goh,

Do you know that science proceeds by inductive reasoning and bases its theories on empirical evidence?

Do you have any freaking idea what you are talking about????!?!?!?

This is funny as hell, first it was religion and now Quantum Gravity. Keep it up lol :D
 
You must know which is chicken and which is egg, of course, which comes first! ;)

Are you trying to use a theory to explain a universal phenomenon or trying to use a universal observation to prove your theory?

Your so call empirical evidences can be flawed if you cannot use the fundamental tenets of your theory to replicate the results. That's call proving.

That is why people are spending billions just to prove whether particles can travel beyond the speed of light or not! And that is real proving, dude.


Goh Meng Seng



Mr Goh,

Do you know that science proceeds by inductive reasoning and bases its theories on empirical evidence?

Do you have any freaking idea what you are talking about????!?!?!?
 
Last edited:
You must know which is chicken and which is egg, of course, which comes first! ;)

Are you trying to use a theory to explain a universal phenomenon or trying to use a universal observation to prove your theory?

Your so call empirical evidences can be flawed if you cannot use the fundamental tenets of your theory to replicate the results. That's call proving.

That is why people are spending billions just to prove whether particles can travel beyond the speed of light or not! And that is real proving, dude.


Goh Meng Seng



You see, you don't even know what you're talking about. It should be "Your so call theories can be flawed if their predictions cannot be tested or cannot be repeated." OMG I even have to correct your own sentence.

Please, you are losing face here.
 
That is why people are spending billions just to prove whether particles can travel beyond the speed of light or not! And that is real proving, dude.


Goh Meng Seng


No one has spent billions of dollars investigating whether particles can travel faster than light.

In the CERN experiment, they observed neutrinoes apparently breaking the light barrier. There was a nine month rush to explain the effect, to find out if there was any experimental or equipment error/malfunction. In the end, they came out with a good explanation. No particle had broken the light barrier after all.

Suggest you stick to star wars and stargate universe. Not so heavy going.
 
You see, you don't even know what you're talking about. It should be "Your so call theories can be flawed if their predictions cannot be tested or cannot be repeated." OMG I even have to correct your own sentence.

Please, you are losing face here.

OMG = Oh My God

So bro, you believe in God?
 
Not about testing. It is about whether results can be replicated using your theories main fundamental points. It involves more than testing, it is about consistency in the assertions of the theories.

You still haven't really answer the question... what empirical evidences are you talking about when you can't even replicate the results of such empirical observations? I guess, you also don't really know what is rigorous proving is all about.

Most of the time, people just stop short of trying to "prove" their theories using some observations but this can be flawed. Even in statistical studies, people can come up with lots of funny hypothesis and could actually show "empirical evidences" but basically, these are flawed hypothesis. Not to say some complex scientific theories which from time to time, has to be amended when new evidence or observations or information are made available.

Science can be just a belief when you do not have full information... thus Science can just be a religion to start with.

Goh Meng Seng







You see, you don't even know what you're talking about. It should be "Your so call theories can be flawed if their predictions cannot be tested or cannot be repeated." OMG I even have to correct your own sentence.

Please, you are losing face here.
 
Mr GMS

How you explain why tkl only managed to get 5%? He Is crap or you are crap or both of you are?
 
You can say all you want but the fact still exist that what Science "BELIEVE" in, no mass can travel faster than light, has been false. Science was just a religious belief back then, until new evidence has been found to contradict it.

Thus, now, you say they are trying to find another theory to explain it? Is this "Truth" or just another scientific belief being built to replace the fallen one?

I guess you will have to get your basics right, just don't assume that you know it all by just repeating information.

Goh Meng Seng


No one has spent billions of dollars investigating whether particles can travel faster than light.

In the CERN experiment, they observed neutrinoes apparently breaking the light barrier. There was a nine month rush to explain the effect, to find out if there was any experimental or equipment error/malfunction. In the end, they came out with a good explanation. No particle had broken the light barrier after all.

Suggest you stick to star wars and stargate universe. Not so heavy going.
 
Wah lau, why keep advertising about Shortie's death? Let it go lah.... amen...
 
Wah lau, why keep advertising about Shortie's death? Let it go lah.... amen...

haven't died yet but dying soon.

how many are preparing attending his wake?

maybe after much praying and chanting, his life could be extended.
 
You can say all you want but the fact still exist that what Science "BELIEVE" in, no mass can travel faster than light, has been false. Science was just a religious belief back then, until new evidence has been found to contradict it.

Thus, now, you say they are trying to find another theory to explain it? Is this "Truth" or just another scientific belief being built to replace the fallen one?

I guess you will have to get your basics right, just don't assume that you know it all by just repeating information.

Goh Meng Seng


Still don't understand? Science does not believe. Science observes, then investigates, theorizes, extrapolates, and further investigates. At any stage it stands ready to be proven wrong. Any theory that cannot be proven wrong is not acceptable as a scientific theory.

The theory of general relativity has been tested against a wealth of experimental evidence dating back to the 1920s. The EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE is rock solid. Technologies that we take for granted today rely on the precise calculations of this theory.

Can there be a better theory, one that perhaps incorporates faster than light travel? Sure, no problem. But a better theory will be subject to the same exacting standards of experimental rigour that the original one was subject to.

Suggest you get a good book to read first. The frogs are swimming but the tadpoles have been left behind.
 
Last edited:
You are the one who doesn't understand.

For religion, for those who walked the path of seeking the meaning of life, meaning of death etc, they also investigate, theorizes, extrapolates and further investigate.

But that doesn't mean what they chose as "Truth" is definitely the "Truth"; it is just a belief... a belief that their findings are the Truth. It is the same for Science, though the starting point or intention is slightly different but still, about the seeking for the Truth.

Before you can really get all the necessary information to be "enlightened" about the Truth, whatever you read, believe or theories you profess as the possible explanation, are just BELIEF. Period.

Well, you don't know how much reading I have done for the past decades of my life. :) But enlightenment about things, about Truth, even if it has been said, theorized etc, is totally different from mere reading and understanding. Be it religious, scientific findings or otherwise.

There are books on Science as a Religion. I would suggest you read it yourself.

Nevertheless, I am not running down Science or logical thinking, as compared to some atheist or logic fanatics who think they could possibly have all the answers by their logical deductions or inductions alone. I am basically saying Science and logical thinking have their limitations and in many instances, Science is no different from religious belief as well. The faith and belief in some theories that explain some empirical observations.

And people should not feel "superior" when they are standing on the scientific point of view because if one day, their belief in the theories are being contradicted or debunked, they will collapse totally. The only way forward is for us to continue our seeking path towards the Truth... be enlightened, not just belief.

Goh Meng Seng



Still don't understand? Science does not believe. Science observes, then investigates, theorizes, extrapolates, and further investigates. At any stage it stands ready to be proven wrong. Any theory that cannot be proven wrong is not acceptable as a scientific theory.

The theory of general relativity has been tested against a wealth of experimental evidence dating back to the 1920s. The EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE is rock solid. Technologies that we take for granted today rely on the precise calculations of this theory.

Can there be a better theory, one that perhaps incorporates faster than light travel? Sure, no problem. But a better theory will be subject to the same exacting standards of experimental rigour that the original one was subject to.

Suggest you get a good book to read first. The frogs are swimming but the tadpoles have been left behind.
 
Last edited:
NO answer regarding the 5% from Mr know it all Mr goh? Guess you could put the blame on Mr tan jee say then.
 
I have gone through religious discussions and debate far advanced than you do, dude. I guess when I was debating religious issues on internet forums, you don't even know internet forums exist back then. :)

And yes, I don't think I should waste time on people like you, who always think you are talking sense and logic but in fact, just bigotry to begin with when you can't even get the basics right.

Goh Meng Seng

Wa lan eh! Seng ah! First you belittled the qualifications of your debate opponent, Mr vamjok.
And in this reply to another debate opponent Mr drifter you said you have gone through religious discussions and debate far advanced than Mr drifter. And you guess when you were debating religious issues on internet forums, Mr drifter don't even know internet forums exist back then.
Le wu cert or testimonials boh? Discussion with who? Like that, sibeh beh convincing leh.(Font size 4 only) :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I have gone through religious discussions and debate far advanced than you do, dude. I guess when I was debating religious issues on internet forums, you don't even know internet forums exist back then. :)

And yes, I don't think I should waste time on people like you, who always think you are talking sense and logic but in fact, just bigotry to begin with when you can't even get the basics right.

Goh Meng Seng

Ah seng ... Talk is cheap .. You have been debating about religion ? so why don't you go and become a religious leader instead and see how far you can go instead of hiding behind a politician ? If u are so good in religious debate as you claim .. Then you should take up my challenge and come to religious folder;) talk is cheap , come in religious folder and show me what u have ;)

If you don't want to waste time on me why are you still replying to my post ? For your ego ?;)

You believe in someone invisible that can judge u by your action and you want to talk about logic ? ;)
 
Bro drifter,

Ah Seng had never lost an internet, public or political debate in his life OK (at least this is what he thinks)_........
 
Ah goh still stuck in the chicken or egg question ;) . Science never provide the answer for everything but slowly science will debunk those story like the world is not flat ;)

A supercomputer gave the team from Sheffield and Warwick Universities the answer – the chicken.

Here, a leading member of the team explains how they unscrambled the age-old conundrum.
OUR discovery was a very happy accident.
The original goal of the research was to find out more about how animals make eggshell.
Society underestimates chickens and we don’t realise the amazing process they perform each time they make an egg.
When you crack into your boiled egg in the morning, you are looking at one of the most amazing materials in the world.
Eggshell is incredibly strong yet very lightweight. Humans can’t get close to making anything like it.
A man-made equivalent would revolutionise our time.
But the problem is we just don’t know how chickens make eggshell.
They control this process in exquisite detail, yet we don’t even know where to begin.
Understanding how they build eggs would begin to tell us how we can do it ourselves.
And so we turned to the UK Science Research Council’s super-computer based in Edinburgh called HECToR (High End Computing Terascale Resource).
We wanted it to figure out how eggs are built, by looking at the process in microscopic detail.
First we programmed in the “ingredients” that chickens use to make egg shells. We then said: “Right, this is what chickens use — off you go and see what you can do.”
This computer tinkered away on the problem for weeks and weeks.
A chicken, on the other hand, can do this pretty much overnight.
The funny thing is we weren’t even originally going to use chicken eggs. We only chose them because the protein was simple to study.
It was only when we got our results back that we realised we had solved this timeless riddle. We were pretty amazed.
The results showed that a particular protein in chickens acts as a tireless builder, placing one microscopic section of shell on top of the other.
It initiates this building process before going off to start on another part of the egg.
mpu
Without this builder protein, the eggs would not exist. And yet it is only found in a chicken’s ovaries. This means the bird must have come first.
But where did the chicken come from?
Some theories suggest their ancestors evolved to create hard eggs around the time of the dinosaurs.
Our finding has lots of potential.
Because eggshell is made up of many tiny crystals, we could use this information to find out how to make and destroy other crystal structures.
For example, how to permanently eliminate limescale crystals that fur up kettles and pipes.
And because our bodies use a similar method to make teeth and bones, there could also be many medical implications and we could learn more about how to rebuild human bones.
I’ve got a feeling this work could go off in lots of directions — many of them we probably haven’t even thought of yet.
But the most immediate result is we have solved this riddle — and my email inbox has already been flooded.
I’ve always been a great fan of cooked breakfasts.
But I don’t think I’ll look at those fried eggs in quite the same way again.


Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...en-DID-come-before-the-egg.html#ixzz29LyNDimf
 
Last edited:
Back
Top