How about outlawing the Big Dipper? It isn’t fair that these stars should hog that much space in the sky all the time. They should allow other stars to move in and form new and innovative constellations. I’m tired of looking at a giant ladle all the time. 
I’ll sleep a lot easier (not to mention lose some weight and eat fewer Tagamet) if they’d only ban the #%@:$@ Big Mac.
If the big bang theory is outlawed, only outlaws will have the big bang theory.
To Atreyu: Despite what appears to be a great feat on your part, you seem to be one of the very, very few posters who see the serious side of this topic. (An aside: What’s an “OP”?)
You wrote, in a moment of (seeming) (enforced) rationality (by which I mean: “between the gales of laughter”), the following:
I recognized the many problematical aspects [sub](Now THERE’S an understatement!)[/sub] of my proposal and so wrote:
There is plenty of precedent as to how such an outlawry would proceed. We are, for example, right in the middle of very active, ongoing efforts to outlaw such things as certain kinds of genetic research, cloning, and, possibly, as has happened in Europe, certain (or all) genetic modifications of food-stuffs.
You, Atreyu, finally write:
I think that in 1800 you would be 100%, totally correct; but that in 2001, you are totally INcorrect. In fact, I’ve been considering starting a new thread (so as not to dilute this one any more than it already has been) devoted to the Constitutionality of such an outlawry. I had thought to name it: The Insanity of it All!
sides splitting, must breath…
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I just did my best to pretend that I hadn’t.
I just suggested that the [sup]“Big Burp Theory”[/sup], which I consider to be a HOAX of monumental proportions, based on just a wimper of a whisper out of “ultimate reality”, be OUTLAWED by the Congress. For the reasons that I gave.
Why on Earth should I want to explain the [sub]“Big Barf Theory”[/sub] to anyone?? It makes me physically ill to read even the popularized tripe that floods the public libraries of the Fifty States (and, presumably, the D.C.).
PLEASE, Mr jab1, senior poster of nearly 4,000 posts, spare me such a question and, thence, allow me to retain my lunch. :eek:
In other words, you can’t define the Big Bang theory. In regard to the OP, if Congress can’t outlaw the theory of evolution, they haven’t a chance in hell of outlawing The Big Bang theory.
Since you have demonstrated no knowledge of the Big Bang theory, cosmology, astronomy, or physics, I assign you the following homework:
Look up these words:
George Le Maitre
Edwin Hubble
expanding universe
Arno Penzias
Robert Wilson
cosmic microwave radiation
COBE
George Smoot
Read Timothy Ferris’s Coming of Age in the Milky Way for a layman-friendly history of the discipline of cosmology.
Oh, and change the aluminum lining in your hat. I think it’s a bit tight.
In other words, you can’t explain the BBT because you know nothing about it. You want to ban something you do not understand in the least.
OP=original post
OP’er=original poster, i.e., the person who started the thread
There is a difference between proposed bans on cloning (I assume you refer to banning human cloning) and genetic modification of foodstuffs and your proposed ban on the Big Bang Theory. Banning human cloning means simply that: no cloning of humans will be considered legal within that jurisdiction. Banning a theory, on the other hand, is somewhat illogical because a theory is simply a framework of ideasor hypotheses developed to explain something. And try not to get mixed up on what the word “theory” means in the scientific sense.
You still haven’t answered my question on what exactly would be banned under your proposal. I’m looking for specifics here.
How am I incorrect? And why would I have been correct two hundred years ago? What’s different between now and the 18th Century that makes this kind of ban practical or impractical? Why would it be practical today to ban the Big Bang Theory, but not practical two hundred years ago?
Outlawry? Is that a word?
Before this sentence gets nitpicked out of its intended context, let me rephrase.
Why would it be practical today to ban a scientific theory, but not practical to do the same two hundred years ago?
gobear, you are using foul, unfair tactics. You write (surely you must feel a little silly!):* “In regard to the OP, if Congress can’t outlaw the theory of evolution…”!* Is it even still called the “THEORY of Evolution”?? How**, and why,** could/would anyone want to try to outlaw something that is so close to unequivocal FACT that I, for one, wouldn’t argue with anyone claiming that.
The “Big Bust Theory”, however, is not only a theory but I, at least, am willing to call it a HOAX, a FRAUD, propagated for who-knows-what-purposes.
Even though I might be the ONLY one willing to say that about the “Big Boof Theory”, who can say such a thing about Evolution??? To try to equate outlawing EVOLUTION, a PILLAR of modern science, with outlawing the “Big Bluf Theory” is next to silly! Bah! :o
OK, I’m fully content that I have contributed enough humour to this thread. (Mmmmm, Alyson Hannigan in a band costume…)
My serious point is that Governments can ban research, and even insist on pursuing the wrong ideas. In the 30’s, the Soviet Union stated that Mendel’s research on genetic transmission in plants was wrong. This put their science back decades.
As previously posted, politicians can make a decision that physically producing something is injurious to society, and prohibit it.
But you can’t do anything about controlling ideas.*
*at least not in a free society. This is an incredibly important point.
So you also don’t know what a theory is. A theory does not mean “a wild guess.” A theory is an intellectual framework to explain observed phenomena. So we have the germ theory of disease; that is, an idea that very small plants and animals we call germs are responsible for diseases, as opposed to the demonic possession theory of disease. So, yes, evolution is both a fact and a theory.
They can have my Big Bang Theory when they pry it from my Cold Dead Hands.
Atreyu: Two hundred years ago, Liberty reigned. Two hundred years of erosion is a lot of erosion. Quick example: Less than a hundred years ago it took a CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT to tell the American people in the 48 States that they couldn’t do something (drink booze). Today it’s done on a whim, almost daily. 
Must go for tonight. Think, tho, that this suffices. Yes?
And…
I advised in one of my earlier posts not to get mixed up on what the word “theory” means in the scientific sense. When the word is used in a scientific context, it does not mean something that is unproven.
At Dictionary.com, I typed in the word theory and got this:
The first definition listed is the relevant one here. Memorize this, and you’ll never have trouble again understanding what the word means in a scientific context. Now you’ll understand why it is accurate to refer to it as the theory of evolution, and the Big Bang Theory.
Here it is, in case you don’t feel like checking the link:
SS: Two hundred years ago, Liberty reigned.
Let’s see, many Americans were slaves, women had no right to vote, there wasn’t even universal white male suffrage…sounds like a bastion of liberty, all right.
Two hundred years of erosion is a lot of erosion. Quick example: Less than a hundred years ago it took a CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT to tell the American people in the 48 States that they couldn’t do something (drink booze). Today it’s done on a whim, almost daily.
Haven’t you ever heard of blue laws and the temperance movement? Plenty of people before the official adoption of Prohibition were very successful in telling the American people that they couldn’t drink booze, not to mention all the other vices that were outlawed by legislatures.
Further aside on Nimrod:
Genesis 10:6-9 (RSV)
The sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan.
The sons of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabteca. The sons of Raamah: Sheba and Dedan.
Cush became the father of Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a mighty man.
He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD.”
No, it doesn’t. You are saying that liberty reigned two hundred years ago in 1800? That would seem inconsistent with the existence of slavery in the U.S. during that time period, and that women could not vote.
**
Yeah, and Prohibition was such a smashing success. :rolleyes:
A whim?
So you have the perception that there is less liberty in America today than two hundred years ago, and are bemoaning that. How then does banning a scientific theory fit in with this? Sounds to me like a further decrease of liberty.
And you still haven’t bothered to describe exactly how a ban on the Big Bang Theory would be put into effect. Do you simply have no idea how this would be done, or are you afraid of answering the question?