Neither. It's anti-uni student. Essentially, a whole truckload of smug, uncompromising chumps gets churned out by the Student's Union in university's all over Australia every year and yes, this rant is very, very necessary. There's nothing worse than walking passed a uni campus dressed smartly (BECAUSE I HAVE TO WORK) and get verbally abused by unwashed hippies for being a Jehovah's Witness (???)

Essentially, Safran's trolling the happily grubby educated-on-dad's-money Working Class Hero (but sneering at the TAFE schoolers) uni punks.

Wow, that's how I spell? I TURN FACE AWAY.

Sounds like good context, but i think the method is not that funny. Also, they should make fun of the amazing-douche-ist. Easy, but much needed target.

Just to clarify.

I'm not saying the Big Bang is as stupid a theory as Genesis (Background space radiation does point to a singularity), I'm simply saying I'm not smart enough to fully understand it, therefor I cannot rationalize it very well.

The Big Bang theory is the best fit we can come up with for the observable evidence. Genesis is a series of legends created by unknown authors which are contradicted by science, archeology, written history and every other pertinent field.

Yes, I could not explain all the evidence against Genesis as if I were an expert. No one could. There's too much of it. So what?

I won't pretend to be an expert on cosmology or astrophysics, but my standard of belief in the Big Bang Theory is two-fold.

First, due to the observable red shift we see in galaxies, and the fact that's it's pretty evident that large objects in space are generally moving away from each other, you can logically conclude that they used to be closer to each other. Go back far enough in time and they would've been so close as to be a single point in space.

Second, we don't live in a static, eternal universe. I say eternal in the sense that it hasn't always been, for all we know it could always be, but it has a definite beginning. If it was, with our understanding of physics, the universe would've uniformly spread it's heat out over time due to entropy, resulting in a universe filled with an even layer of radiation, and no nebulae, plants, stars, or galaxies.

*planets

well, also plants

One-star votes on poeTV are exactly what he wants?

Who, Cena or Safran?

Because I don't think Safran knows about us, Hooker.

OH GOD SHUT UP YOU BABY

Yes, Document. That was my point.

I never understand why people think that things that aren't funny or clever deserve praise, simply if they are DELIBERATELY not funny and clever. That's not better.

Not to engage in the fag dancery or anything, but you don't have to be a physicist to not believe in a magical man in the clouds who made everything with special powers. This point of his is predicated on the idea that you have to believe in _something_, which is itself predicated on the infuriating social notion that "I don't know" is an embarassing and shameful position to hold.

What Hooker said. He tried to pick on an easy target, and misfired badly. Even non-creationists fall into their bad arguments sometimes, including "If you can't fully explain a phenomenon, you must respect any alternate theory, even those that are illogical, unsupported, or contradict known evidence." You can rule out wrong answers, without knowing the right one.