Age of Universe Edges Closer to Officer Bert's Prediction!

"Art Deco" wrote in message...
...
Painius wrote:
"Art Deco" wrote in message...
...
Painius wrote:

You picture some of us here in alt.astronomy
as "saucerheads" (not all, i pray, for there
have always herein been a lot who are earthy
down-to-the-ground science types--these help
to keep those of us you call saucerheads from
getting our heads *too* stuck upina clouds!)
and it's easy to see why you deem us so. But
we are not completely and totally unhinged!

Assumes facts not in evidence.

As the "alt" in alt.astronomy means, as you
most assuredly know, "alternative", and as
there is plenty of room in science, especially
in astronomy/cosmology for wonderful and
awesome discovery and learning, those of us
you call saucerheads like to be on the cutting
edge of the discovery process.

More cluelessness.

HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK
HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK
HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK
HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK
HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK
HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK
HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK

Just more honking, Mama Goose!

Another lame post edit.

You are insane, Art Deco.

--
SMILE... just curl up the edges of those awesome lips!

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Painius wrote:

"Art Deco" wrote in message...
...
Painius wrote:
"Art Deco" wrote in message...
...
Painius wrote:
"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote...
in message
news In article
,
"Painius" wrote:

[kookfroth and painsnuh lames snipped]

Your inability to discuss these variables and the nature of the
changes
they would make to EM.

Again, not demonstrated. You need to learn
how to spell "assume".

Lack of discussion noted.

Why should we discuss things with a known
kookstone kopp? It just goes in one of your
ears and out the other. Then when things get
a little ruff, you're off to la-la land, and some
other ignorant gooseling comes in and tries to
ruffle a few feathers. The game's over for me,
Deco. You're a peanut-fart in the wind.

I withdraw my nomination of the esteemed double-doctor Chung for
Clueless Newbie of the Month and instead offer painsnuh for the same
award in recognition of his on-going delusion that Phineas is my
sockpuppet, even after being told how silly the idea is.

Seconds?

But please pretend it never happened - but it did. You're more
Galaxy
Quest then Star Trek anyway!

Tim Allen was hilarious in that one! And
Sigourney Weaver was and is the greatest!

And if really know me you did, more like
Yoda i am you'd say.

Perhaps.

it.

Yup. I'm impressed, Phineas. That's most
insightful. And thanks to Scott and David,
Barry and Zinni, Owen and Odysseus and a
host of others who represent science and
sanity in a.a, we often come back from the
edge to tell all the "alt." that we have seen.

Nothing.

Certainly nothing you're even remotely interested
in trying to comprehend. Give yourself the...

A.U.K. Typical Outcome Award:
The ALAS! I FAILED AGAIN Medal for the most
tries and the least successes.

UV point for Phineas.

Well, there's an honor for you, Mother Goose!

-- painsnuh clueless statement

Let me see now... Phineas T. Puddleduck gets a
UV point

-- painsnuh incorrect assumption

for posing as an astrophysics student

-- painsnuh unsubstantiated claim

and mistaking the great cosmologist, particle
physicist and father of inflation theory Alan Guth
with Brad Guth?

He admitted making an error, something kooks such as yourself are
incapable of doing.

Yes, you are quite clueless.

So much for *your* credibility, coffee boy.

Another baseless saucerhead assertion.

Your lousy attempt at sidestepping fools nobody,
Mother Goose!

It is obvious that logic and critical thinking aren't your strong
suits. I have sidestepped nothing.

Once again, your credibility and
your influence is down the tubes.

As the source of this claim is a laming pseudoscience advocate, it can
be safely discounted without further ado.

Everybody flush twice, it's a long way to Art's place.

Another scat lame.

Keep working on using that second brane cell,
Mother Goose!

--
TIME! spend it like you spend money... wisely!

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

"Art Deco" wrote in message...
...
Painius wrote:
"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote...
in message
news
In article ,
"Painius" wrote:
Art Deco writted...

Another baseless saucerhead assertion.

Your lousy attempt at sidestepping fools nobody,
Mother Goose! Once again, your credibility and
your influence is down the tubes.

I've admitted my mistake. Now admit yours.

At least i had the decency to catch your mistake
and tell you about it. Think how embarrassed you
would be if you made that or a similar error in RL!

Here? WTF difference does it make if you cannot
discern between a Brad and an Alan Guth? All it
means is that you're an idiot and posier. So you
are in good company there with the other coffee
boys.

And besides, i don't make mistakes. OOPS, wait
asec... ah, yes, i thought i'd made a mistake two
years ago, but i was wrong. And i suppose one
*could* call that a "mistake", i suppose.

Of course you won't - because kooks never do.

ko0l, ko0ky

Everybody flush twice, it's a long way to Art's place.

Honest says the Art Deco pipes are quite cold.
Better flush more than twice, then, specially
when number twoing!

Translation from snuh: "Unable to argue for my ideas in a logical,
rational, and cohesive manner, I have to resort to posting scat lames."

I'm surprised the nurses let you use that
computer thingie in the asylum's patient
lounge!

--
TIME! spend it like you spend money... wisely!

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

"Painius" wrote in message
...
"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Painius wrote:

"Art Deco" wrote in message...
...
Painius wrote:
"Art Deco" wrote in message...
...
Painius wrote:
"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote...
in message
news In article
,
"Painius" wrote:

[kookfroth and painsnuh lames snipped]

Your inability to discuss these variables and the nature of the
changes
they would make to EM.

Again, not demonstrated. You need to learn
how to spell "assume".

Lack of discussion noted.

Why should we discuss things with a known
kookstone kopp? It just goes in one of your
ears and out the other. Then when things get
a little ruff, you're off to la-la land, and some
other ignorant gooseling comes in and tries to
ruffle a few feathers. The game's over for me,
Deco. You're a peanut-fart in the wind.

I withdraw my nomination of the esteemed double-doctor Chung for
Clueless Newbie of the Month and instead offer painsnuh for the same
award in recognition of his on-going delusion that Phineas is my
sockpuppet, even after being told how silly the idea is.

Seconds?

But please pretend it never happened - but it did. You're more
Galaxy
Quest then Star Trek anyway!

Tim Allen was hilarious in that one! And
Sigourney Weaver was and is the greatest!

And if really know me you did, more like
Yoda i am you'd say.

Perhaps.

it.

Yup. I'm impressed, Phineas. That's most
insightful. And thanks to Scott and David,
Barry and Zinni, Owen and Odysseus and a
host of others who represent science and
sanity in a.a, we often come back from the
edge to tell all the "alt." that we have seen.

Nothing.

Certainly nothing you're even remotely interested
in trying to comprehend. Give yourself the...

A.U.K. Typical Outcome Award:
The ALAS! I FAILED AGAIN Medal for the most
tries and the least successes.

UV point for Phineas.

Well, there's an honor for you, Mother Goose!

-- painsnuh clueless statement

Let me see now... Phineas T. Puddleduck gets a
UV point

-- painsnuh incorrect assumption

for posing as an astrophysics student

-- painsnuh unsubstantiated claim

and mistaking the great cosmologist, particle
physicist and father of inflation theory Alan Guth
with Brad Guth?

He admitted making an error, something kooks such as yourself are
incapable of doing.

Yes, you are quite clueless.

So much for *your* credibility, coffee boy.

Another baseless saucerhead assertion.

Your lousy attempt at sidestepping fools nobody,
Mother Goose!

It is obvious that logic and critical thinking aren't your strong
suits. I have sidestepped nothing.

Once again, your credibility and
your influence is down the tubes.

As the source of this claim is a laming pseudoscience advocate, it can
be safely discounted without further ado.

Everybody flush twice, it's a long way to Art's place.

Another scat lame.

Keep working on using that second brane cell,
Mother Goose!

Sorry, it died of Old Age.

HJ

In article
,
"Painius" wrote:

What you said was you didn't think we needed
babysitters. Very well, then, Phineas, there is
no known scientifically analyzed piece of evidence
that lends believable weight to alien encounters
for the general public.

Yet there is plenty of evidence to show that we
humans are still in an infant stage of evolution
and will surely blow ourselves up if left to our
own devices!

But there is zero correlation between the two.


Therefore i consider our infancy and the presence
of sheer human aggressiveness to be strong and
compelling evidence for continued influence from
outside our species. I'm fairly convinced that we
would have killed ourselves off many years ago if
this were not true.

No, because after all of this, the inbuilt evolutionary urge to survive
will dominate.


--

Saucerhead lingo #2102 "However, since PTP is in reality NOT a budding
astrophysicist..." ... "Perhaps if we try distraction as a tactic people
will forget we cannot answer simple conflicting issues with our nonsense
theory"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article
,
"Painius" wrote:

Number one, the amount of time it took for the
human brain to increase to its present day size is
unprecedented not only in the human species as
compared with other species, but also in terms of
all other evolutionary change. The process of
evolution is nothing if it isn't very, extremely slow.
And to attribute the very quickly increased brain
size solely to evolution is to ignore this marked
fact about evolution.

And number two is a little harder to explain. My
not being expert means that i may fall short on this
one. However, i shall try. It has to do with "usage"
as causing evolutionary change. Here we all have
between our ears this wonderful and awesome organ
we like to call the "brain". It houses the control
panel for the rest of the body, and while the mind
may like to wander all over creation at times, the
brain still serves as physical home to the mind.


The usage of tools would have driven change.


And yet it appears that science, or more precisely
medicine, has determined that only a very small
percentage of the brain is actually used by each of
us. We study ourselves and other species, and we
find that when any body part is not being used, it
has a tendency to atrophy, not to grow. Humans
have vestigial tails, canine roots. Other animals
have other vestigial this-and-thats. These are all
organs or body parts that are no longer used and
are disappearing in an evolutionary (slow) manner.


That is an urban legend about percentage of the brain.

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm




So do think about it, Phineas. All that sky out there
with all that alien potential. And ask yourself, "Are
we solely the result of the process of evolution? or
is it extremely likely that humans have been the
subjects of advanced experiments.

But then what have caused those advanced aliens to evolve themselves, if
evolution alone cannot produce the necessary changes? Again, its a
turtles argument.


--

Saucerhead lingo #2102 "However, since PTP is in reality NOT a budding
astrophysicist..." ... "Perhaps if we try distraction as a tactic people
will forget we cannot answer simple conflicting issues with our nonsense
theory"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Phineas T Puddleduck" World class penis
inspector and cleaner, squealed:

Again, its a
turtles argument.

Arguing with you is like arguing with a "Turtle-Duck".

Slow responses and a lot of Quacking!

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote...
in message news
In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

What you said was you didn't think we needed
babysitters. Very well, then, Phineas, there is
no known scientifically analyzed piece of evidence
that lends believable weight to alien encounters
for the general public.

Yet there is plenty of evidence to show that we
humans are still in an infant stage of evolution
and will surely blow ourselves up if left to our
own devices!

But there is zero correlation between the two.

Then how do *you* explain our continued
extancy, Phineas? Luck?

Therefore i consider our infancy and the presence
of sheer human aggressiveness to be strong and
compelling evidence for continued influence from
outside our species. I'm fairly convinced that we
would have killed ourselves off many years ago if
this were not true.

No, because after all of this, the inbuilt evolutionary urge to survive
will dominate.

One can only hope. However, this survival
capacity is species-level, that is, an individual
will overcome his or her survival instinct under
certain circumstances, one of them being the
continuation of the society.

And this can be turned around in many ways.
For example, a father killing his family to keep
them from being tortured. It's not such a grand
leap to believe that an individual, if he were to
come by the power, and if he were decidedly
insane, could conceivably do an ample job of
depopulating the planet.

You can stay in denial, or you can ope your
eyes, Phineas. It is highly unlikely that we are
alone in the Universe.

--
SMILE... Everyday in Every Way you're getting Better and Better!

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote...
in message news
In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

Number one, the amount of time it took for the
human brain to increase to its present day size is
unprecedented not only in the human species as
compared with other species, but also in terms of
all other evolutionary change. The process of
evolution is nothing if it isn't very, extremely slow.
And to attribute the very quickly increased brain
size solely to evolution is to ignore this marked
fact about evolution.

And number two is a little harder to explain. My
not being expert means that i may fall short on this
one. However, i shall try. It has to do with "usage"
as causing evolutionary change. Here we all have
between our ears this wonderful and awesome organ
we like to call the "brain". It houses the control
panel for the rest of the body, and while the mind
may like to wander all over creation at times, the
brain still serves as physical home to the mind.

The usage of tools would have driven change.

Of course, but not on the scale our brains
grew. Nothing "evolutionary" has the power
to instigate such blink-of-an-eye quickness as
the time it took for the human brain to grow.

Chimps in the wild use tools. Their brains are
still the size they were, 450cc, that ours were
back when our ancestors were very much like
them.

And yet it appears that science, or more precisely
medicine, has determined that only a very small
percentage of the brain is actually used by each of
us. We study ourselves and other species, and we
find that when any body part is not being used, it
has a tendency to atrophy, not to grow. Humans
have vestigial tails, canine roots. Other animals
have other vestigial this-and-thats. These are all
organs or body parts that are no longer used and
are disappearing in an evolutionary (slow) manner.

That is an urban legend about percentage of the brain.

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm

Thank you for this, Phineas. It's been a long time
since i read up on this. I'd always questioned the
usage of "10 percent of the brain", since i knew
that different sections of the brain are responsible
for different functions. So i'd always gone with the
"10 percent of the mind" thing. The origin of the
myth was particularly interesting!

So do think about it, Phineas. All that sky out there
with all that alien potential. And ask yourself, "Are
we solely the result of the process of evolution? or
is it extremely likely that humans have been the
subjects of advanced experiments.

But then what have caused those advanced aliens to evolve themselves, if
evolution alone cannot produce the necessary changes? Again, its a
turtles argument.

Perhaps evolution alone CAN produce the necessary
changes, but at a much slower pace. Remember...

The Universe had around 10 billion years to evolve
even before our Solar System came to be. And it
had another 4.5 billion years to evolve while we
and other life on Earth evolved. Under different
circumstances in different environments evolution
may go very different directions.

And yet, i still wonder about that very first turtle ;-)

--
SMILE... Everyday in Every Way you're getting Better and Better!

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

In article
,
"Painius" wrote:

But there is zero correlation between the two.

Then how do *you* explain our continued
extancy, Phineas? Luck?

Who says there has to be external factors Painius? Especially since
we've only really had the ability to wipe ourselves out for around 50
years

--

Saucerhead lingo #2102 "However, since PTP is in reality NOT a budding
astrophysicist..." ... "Perhaps if we try distraction as a tactic people
will forget we cannot answer simple conflicting issues with our nonsense
theory"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com