Thoughts on 6ACV09 - A Clockwork Origin - SPOILERS

[Reply #120 on:]

"Bwahaha! Spongebob and Kim Possible! Because he didn't like this episode of Futurama! So he must be a big baby! LOLZ!!11"

If that's your idea of wit, your appreciation of this episode suddenly makes a whole lot of sense.

Kindly keep your arrogant prickitude to yourself. I don't care how long you've been here or how many smug, self-important posts you've made. I'm not impressed, humbled, or amused by it, and will continue to post my opinions on episodes as frequently or infrequently as I choose.

If you feel the need to respond to someone's opinion on a TV show with personal insults, that's your issue. I've got better things to do than waste my time explaining my views to someone who cannot do the same in an objective/adult manner.

[Reply #121 on:]

Woohoo! Turns out my crossed fingers were not in vain; the writers managed to build a plot that doesn't side with either argument completely, thereby making it a more meaningful and interesting episode as a whole.

While I didn't find this eppie particularily funny, I did find it interesting, and that's enough to warrant an 8/10. Dr. Banjo is now my new monkey orangutan idol.

[Reply #122 on:]

Not funny.

I completely disagree. I found it to be not only hilarious, but the funniest episode so far this season.

Rubbish main plot with a predictable conclusion.

Again, I disagree. The main plot was a wonderfully inventive storyline with some lovely science fiction elements. The conclusion was predictable though, but so what. The conclusion to loads of classic episodes of the show are predictable. Who cares?

Dull subplot with a nonsensical conclusion.

The subplot was hysterical and if you can't fill in the gaps then you clearly have absolutely zero imagination. Cubert is annoying. Zoidberg welcomed him into his life, then Cubert clearly got on his nerves and he got sick of him. Just as many people on this forum hate Cubert (I'm not one of them personally, he allows for great things like this subplot).

Bad characterization.

I genuinely have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. At all. Examples please.

No development.

No development of what? Character development? Overall story arcs? What do you mean?

And then there's all the cheap tactics that certain lesser animated shows employ. "Let's go find the missing link!"....yeah, sure. Let's just do that, out of nowhere, because it's convenient to the plot. And let's destroy the dynamic and in-show world we spent 5 seasons creating while we're at it.

1. That was played for laughs.
2. The show has ALWAYS been like that. Remember how the Professor's glow in the dark nose machine just so happened to translate the alien language on that note in Leela's Homeworld for example? It's almost a running gag that the Professor can do anything science-based within an incredibly short time span. Like building that space ship in 2 hours in this very episode.

"Didn't we used to be a delivery company?" Yeah, but that's ok, you've acknowledged that you've flushed the show's premise down the toilet in an ironic fashion so that makes it fine.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. In the show's original run they made roughly 4 deliveries per season. And most of those were throw-away jokes like the crew returning from the mob planet at the start of The Problem with Popplers. Go ahead and count them up. They've made 1 delivery so far this season -I'd argue the case for 2 what with the way Leela gets the Planet Express company running in The Late Philip J. Fry. There are still 17 episodes to go. And who honestly watched the show because they made deliveries?
If anything I'm glad they don't make deliveries too often. If they did it every week, the show would become incredibly formularic and predictable.

There's no interplay between the core characters anymore. They don't feel real. It's all so stilted and forced. There's no 'Leela says this, and then Fry would say that'. It all seems to be 'if Bender says that we can get to that joke, and then the Professor can do that bit of exposition, and then there's a robot dinosaur'. In other words, it's Simpsons syndrome.

There's plenty. Not between EVERY core character in EVERY episode, but plenty all the same. Bender had loads of fantastic interaction with Hermes in Lethal Inspection. The Professor and Fry had loads in The Duh-Vinci Code and so on. Again, not every episode of the original run had every character interact beautifully with every other core character.

And yet you've watched them all. Seriously, if you dislike it, don't watch it. I found myself disliking several episodes of the Simpsons... and I've not watched it for the last few years. Never felt the need to join a Simpsons forum just to announce that, either

To be fair, I waited until every episode of The Simpsons became awful before I stopped watching it. If Futurama ever gets to a point where I dislike more episodes than like (can't see it happening in all honesty, I like almost every episode) then I'll still watch it for the good ones. I'll only stop watching when it looks like they're never going to produce anything good ever again.


I now see that tnuk has already written a post like this but I spent a good few minutes writing my post out so I'm going to post it anyway.

[Reply #123 on:]

If you feel the need to respond to someone's opinion on a TV show with personal insults, that's your issue. I've got better things to do than waste my time explaining my views to someone who cannot do the same in an objective/adult manner.

Yet you continue. I don't feel the need to insult you so much as the compulsion to amuse myself, and as for Spongebob/Kim Possible, and an "adult manner", I'm simply basing that on your decidedly immature response to my original rebuttal of your "review".

"Bwahaha! Spongebob and Kim Possible! Because he didn't like this episode of Futurama! So he must be a big baby! LOLZ!!11"

If that's your idea of wit, your appreciation of this episode suddenly makes a whole lot of sense.

No, not wit. More like me being arrogant and smug, trying to push your buttons a little for my own amusement. Think I may have succeeded somewhat.

Kindly keep your arrogant prickitude to yourself.

No.

I don't care how long you've been here or how many smug, self-important posts you've made. I'm not impressed, humbled, or amused by it, and will continue to post my opinions on episodes as frequently or infrequently as I choose.

Good for you. I'm sure your buddies at the Teletubbies forum will be impressed! (see what I did there?)

But seriously, if you're going to make a habit of posting your opinions that would be great. Because I'm enjoying this, and I sense that you're not the type to take any of my advice, or learn from this. So the next episode's "review" from you should be just as enjoyable to respond to.

Woohoo! Turns out my crossed fingers were not in vain; the writers managed to build a plot that doesn't side with either argument completely, thereby making it a more meaningful and interesting episode as a whole.

While I didn't find this eppie particularily funny, I did find it interesting, and that's enough to warrant an 8/10. Dr. Banjo is now my new monkey orangutan idol.

I disliked him at first. Following a second viewing, I'm actually hoping we see more of him. Although I'm guessing as with almost all the other academic characters, he's a one-shot guy.

I now see that tnuk has already written a post like this but I spent a good few minutes writing my post out so I'm going to post it anyway.

Hey, I'll take any assistance I get in blowing the sand out of this guy's vagina.

[Reply #124 on:]

you two are rapidly degenerating to personal attacks. Please try to stick to arguing the merits of the episode, rather than of each other.

[Reply #125 on:]

the more i watch this episode, the more i like it. that is exactly like the original run. what a great episode. i particularly loved the farnsworth robot. brilliant.

imo, there wasn't ONE thing wrong with this episode. honestly, i'm getting sick of reading a lot of idiots negative comments towards the series. it sickens and appalls me.

also, why would anybody complain about futurama taking on the so called topical issue of science and religion? futurama is a sci-fi show!!! this had a great sci fi plot, with great twists.  as good as 'amazon woman in the mood'. my second favorite of the season (behind tlpjf).

[Reply #126 on:]

Thanks both of you, for your fascinating counter arguments to my points about the episode.

Dude, Svip won't play with you because he doesn't enjoy that kind of thing, but if you're willing to get messed-up in a big way, continue to antagonize tnuk.  Even on Prozac, he is willing and ready to spend entire pages insulting you and never have to repeat a word.

So you don't like the new episodes.  fine.  You're entitled to your opinion.  I hated the Direct-To-DVD's but that doesn't give me the right to tell other people to not like them.

As for the episode, I gave it a 6/10 becasue there just seemed to be something missing.  I can't explain it other than to say that the subpar "B" story may have left the empty spot for me.

But still entertaining enough for me to watch again at a later date.

[Reply #127 on:]

Even on Prozac, he is willing and ready to spend entire pages insulting you and never have to repeat a word.

Y'know I'm not actually on Prozac, right? It's a second generation SSRI with a long name. In the US, I think Lexapro is one of the brand names. Anywho, I have a doctor's appointment coming up. Medication may change, because the anger has been seeping through lately.

Thanks for the vote of confidence though.

[Reply #128 on:]

question in regards to the episode:

when farnsworth presented homo farnsworth (which it shouldn't hae been called. from the infosphere: If filling the gap between "apes" and the Darwinius masillae, the species would not fall under the genus Homo, which appeared much later.), banjo presents, what, a picture drawn of a human with a dinosaur? what the heck does that prove? it wasn't a photograph, like the one taken by the professor later in the episode. that made no sense to me. if i am missing something, please enlighten me. it has bothered me since thursday night.

also, totalnerd uk in teh man. any fool daring to debate him is making a mistake. and yes, i spelled the incorrectly. i am also aware never to start a sentence with 'and'. sue me.

[Reply #129 on:]

He was the curator of the museum and I'm pretty sure it wasn't a picture, but rather some life-size models.

It didn't 'prove' anything but it completely undermined Farnsworth's achievement and was teaching anyone who went into the museum a lie. That's why Farnsworth got upset.

[Reply #130 on:]

An excellent episode.

A surprisingly great plot with some nice sciencey elements. Something I wasn't expecting given that all we knew was it featured a robot-only planet, something about evolution and a courtroom scene.

It was a hilarious episode too. Possibly the funniest so far this season for me. The subplot was especially funny and whilst Zoidberg turning on Cubert was a bit sudden, that just added to the comedy for me. Cubert is annoying, so I can easily fill in the blanks as to why Zoidberg might've gotten sick of him.

I also felt like the episode did a great job of showing both sides of the argument whilst still clearly sitting on the sane side of it.

And it had some nice bits of art-design and animation to top it all.

One of the best episodes so far this season as far as I'm concerned. I'm surprised I enjoyed it so much as this wasn't one I expected to 'wow' me.

this perfectly sums up the episode.

[Reply #131 on:]

An excellent episode.

A surprisingly great plot with some nice sciencey elements. Something I wasn't expecting given that all we knew was it featured a robot-only planet, something about evolution and a courtroom scene.

It was a hilarious episode too. Possibly the funniest so far this season for me. The subplot was especially funny and whilst Zoidberg turning on Cubert was a bit sudden, that just added to the comedy for me. Cubert is annoying, so I can easily fill in the blanks as to why Zoidberg might've gotten sick of him.

I also felt like the episode did a great job of showing both sides of the argument whilst still clearly sitting on the sane side of it.

And it had some nice bits of art-design and animation to top it all.

One of the best episodes so far this season as far as I'm concerned. I'm surprised I enjoyed it so much as this wasn't one I expected to 'wow' me.

this perfectly sums up the episode.

Thank you very much

[Reply #132 on:]

First half of episode: blehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh stoopid
Second half of episode: WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE FUN

Kinda like the exact opposite of Cryonic Woman that way.

[Reply #133 on:]

I liked the episode, for me on par with the original run.

My favorite scene was definetively the reference to Jurassic Bark, when Dr. Zoidberg found the dog and just said that it seems to be another dog of Fry and put it to the "soup". That really made me laugh hard.

That was Hermes. But yeah, I loved it too, especially Fry's innocent, unknowing look

Hmm, I thought it was Bender?

the Zoidberg/Cubert subplot was pretty good (though the ending seemed kind of crass and lazy). I'm liking these new pairings of characters (Hermes/Bender, Amy/Nibbler)

Anyone want to guess at the next new pairing? Kif/Bender would be interesting to justify.

[Reply #134 on:]

Nope, it was Hermes.

[Reply #135 on:]

Yeah, fuck us for bringing the show back.

Do you mind explaining that remark? Isn't it possible to try and bring something back because you love what it used to be, and yet be disappointed if it's return does not live up to expectations? Is it allowed for me to have an opinion different than yours, or are you just so mind-blowingly uptight that you can't allow that to pass?

Contrary to Ralph's remarks, I will take this one up.  Because any expectations can never be fulfilled.  I was not expecting the show to come back as how it was; how could it?  Too high expectations for the return of Futurama have ruined many people's opinions of it.

I am not saying it's actually the best ever of Futurama (it has it downsides), but neither would I label it as 'not funny'.  If I try to watch anything with an expectation of its own ancestors, then yes I will feel it's crappy.  And don't get me wrong, the first 3-4 times I saw new episodes of Futurama it felt really weird.  And it still does a bit.

I posted that remark for a very simple reason; your post seemed only to go in a negative spiral towards the episode (not really labelling why stuff was bad, but more that they were) and I got a sense when I read that you would probably have preferred Futurama to have stayed cancelled.

In short; the show you remembered never existed.

[Reply #136 on:]

I'm just happy its back. Very few shows get that chance. I have been watching the seasons in order lately, and this season is not worse honestly. Par for the course is still par. That's not a bad thing.

[Reply #137 on:]

I'm not liking it as much as seasons 3 or 4 yet, but I think I prefer it to seasons 1 and 2 and the back end of episodes seem to have been a lot better than the first few so if episodes like The Mutants are Revolting and Benderama deliver, then it may eventually become my favourite season. Although that's unlikely because 3 is so damn good.

[Reply #138 on:]

Good episode, best one this season by far.

[Reply #139 on:]

Another strange ep. Probably not quite as good as I was hoping, but it had its moments. Cubert was being a brat again, but I like that. The evolution robot planet thing seemed slightly too weird for me. The robotic dinosaurs were clool though, and the ending was good. 6/10...

[Reply #140 on:]

I was not expecting the show to come back as how it was; how could it?  Too high expectations for the return of Futurama have ruined many people's opinions of it.

Frankly I don't see how, I think the new episodes have been great so far.  Even though I didn't care much for this episode, I still think it's on par with the original.   I think some people just like to complain.  and FYU LorenzoDuke, this comment is not directed at you.  I agree with you that this episode wasn't that good, I'm talking about those people who are complaining that the new Futurama sucks and such.

[Reply #141 on:]

Yeah, fuck us for bringing the show back.

Do you mind explaining that remark? Isn't it possible to try and bring something back because you love what it used to be, and yet be disappointed if it's return does not live up to expectations? Is it allowed for me to have an opinion different than yours, or are you just so mind-blowingly uptight that you can't allow that to pass?

it's Simpsons syndrome.

So far this season I've kinda liked 2 episodes. Poor hit rate for me.

And yet you've watched them all. Seriously, if you dislike it, don't watch it. I found myself disliking several episodes of the Simpsons... and I've not watched it for the last few years. Never felt the need to join a Simpsons forum just to announce that, either

I can't know whether I'll like an episode or not if I don't watch it, smart boy. Based on the proportion of episodes I've liked in the past, I've kept watching. Is that allowed, my liege? Do I have to ask for your permission? And FYI I've been a member of this forum for 7 years and will post my opinions as and when I like.

I'm sick of ridiculous fanboys who can't stomach any criticism of a show, even when it's clearly expressed and explained. Isn't this thread for episode discussion? If some sort of brown-nosing only policy has been employed, I must have missed the PM.

Thanks both of you, for your fascinating counter arguments to my points about the episode.

Lol, dude, you're explaining your criticisms yet they hold no ground whatsoever. Nobody gives a crap how long you've been a member of this forum, your opinion is unpopular and holds very little legitimate complaints. Just nitpicky BS that we've heard far too much of. We're fine with criticism if it actually means something, but when you repeat the same old crappy ass arguments that STILL hold no ground then we're going to flame you for being moronic.

[Reply #142 on:]

Just pretend it never went away and it will all feel much better... there's no reason not to. They didn't drastically change studios, cast or premise.

[Reply #143 on:]

I finally got to this episode! This one I was hoping would be like 'Fear of a Bot Planet' and instead it's gotten my lowest rating. I liked it but I'm hating these 22-minute episodes, everything is so rushed and choppy. While this one ranks in the bottom of this season, I still thought it had its moments. Fry totally stole every line, "What a cool way to die!", I loved it.

[Reply #144 on:]

Nope, it was Hermes.

I only have my wetware memory to go on here, but ... did Bender throw the dog in the soup? He would have been the logical character to, anyway.

[Reply #145 on:]

Nope, it was Hermes.

I only have my wetware memory to go on here, but ... did Bender throw the dog in the soup? He would have been the logical character to, anyway.

Seriously, can't you just check the episode? It was Hermes.

[Reply #146 on:]

Nope, it was Hermes.

I only have my wetware memory to go on here, but ... did Bender throw the dog in the soup? He would have been the logical character to, anyway.

Actually, in the context it makes pretty good sense for Hermes to do it.  Far more than it would for Bender and Zoidberg to have.  Bender is pretty emotionless, so he wouldn't care about Fry's feelings (which is Hermes' motivation) and Zoidberg is not too bright, so he wouldn't be smart enough to realise how to avoid Fry seeing it (which is why Hermes throws it in the soup).

The other two would probably have showed Fry the dog instead.

[Reply #147 on:]

Though Bender could have had the motivation that he knows what happened last time - Fry forgot about him and got a new best friend. Still, Hermes was the best for it, and I loved the joke.

[Reply #148 on:]

This episode was great! I loved that they made fun of both sides of the debate and that, in the end, they agree that both theories have some merit to them rather than say it went one way or the other.

Since when is creationism a theory? I mean I doubt that many (internationally acclaimed) journals would support that kind of stuff. Evolution (in some form) is the scientific canon for now, it drives me nuts how this could even be a point of contention. As far as I'm aware, there isn't a single piece of empirical/experimental/... evidence, which would support a scenario with a creator.  So, yeah I take "offense" that they would portray those theories as equal. (That is not to say that evolution is the final answer, or the like.)

Apart from that, I'd say average but not that funny.

[Reply #149 on:]

There is one massive piece of empirical evidence... the principle law of physics that matter cannot be created or destroyed.  At some point in the history of existence, something HAD to be created from nothing, at least once.  Admittedly whatever made things BE was probably not a bearded man in the sky, but something had to be working outside the laws of physics at least once.  This episode then works in the sense that it shows how one theory might depend on the other. 

[Reply #150 on:]

Puma I take offense that you take offense to that!
Think about all the other things that are theories that we accept as fact only because we cannot disprove it. Gravity, relativity etc...

I simply cannot accept that all of creation stems from cosmic space dust on the premise that the space dust is itself an item other than the nothingness. If you're trying to explain to me how we get something from nothing, then do not bother explaining how we get something from something!

This episode is poking fun at the holes in scientific theory as well as the holes in Creationism. Since its impossible to explain nothing into something couldn't it also be possible that there were some outside influence via an alternate universe or anomaly that we just don't understand yet?

[Reply #151 on:]

i love how you guys analyze a passing joke.

 lately, i have been watching the older episodes to see how they stand with the new ones. imo, they are all on the same level (minus prop infin, in a gadda, and ipod crap ep). some eps are better than others, of course. it really depends on your taste. personally, i don't care in the least bit about all the emotional webs and this emotional continuity that people have been getting their panties in a bundle over.

being a scifi fan, i love the great sci fi plot episodes. episodes that let you learn about different cultures are some of my favorites as well.

for instance, i am a huge fan of 'ymibacil', while 'jb' was not one of my favorites.

[Reply #152 on:]

Nope, it was Hermes.

I only have my wetware memory to go on here, but ... did Bender throw the dog in the soup? He would have been the logical character to, anyway.

Seriously, can't you just check the episode?

No. I watched it on TV; I don't even know where to go online to view it.

[Reply #153 on:]

This episode was great! I loved that they made fun of both sides of the debate and that, in the end, they agree that both theories have some merit to them rather than say it went one way or the other.

Since when is creationism a theory? I mean I doubt that many (internationally acclaimed) journals would support that kind of stuff. Evolution (in some form) is the scientific canon for now, it drives me nuts how this could even be a point of contention. As far as I'm aware, there isn't a single piece of empirical/experimental/... evidence, which would support a scenario with a creator.  So, yeah I take "offense" that they would portray those theories as equal. (That is not to say that evolution is the final answer, or the like.)

Apart from that, I'd say average but not that funny.

Yeah, because I was totally saying that creationism is true because I'm such a religious nutter. Stop getting worked up over semantics.

The point I was trying to make was that, in the end they don't disprove either creationism or evolution, they basically say that evolution's probably right but there could have been some form of creator-type thing involved.

Oh wait, I already said that! But I used the word "theories" and so you got pissed off because if I used the word "theories" then I must be a creationist.

But while we're getting worked up about the use of the word theory, there's a difference between a scientific theory (e.g. evolution) and an insane theory that no one has any evidence for (e.g. young earth creationism)

[Reply #154 on:]

This episode was great! I loved that they made fun of both sides of the debate and that, in the end, they agree that both theories have some merit to them rather than say it went one way or the other.

Since when is creationism a theory? I mean I doubt that many (internationally acclaimed) journals would support that kind of stuff. Evolution (in some form) is the scientific canon for now, it drives me nuts how this could even be a point of contention. As far as I'm aware, there isn't a single piece of empirical/experimental/... evidence, which would support a scenario with a creator.  So, yeah I take "offense" that they would portray those theories as equal. (That is not to say that evolution is the final answer, or the like.)

Apart from that, I'd say average but not that funny.

It's not possible to acquire empirical evidence for the creation of the Universe.

So.... creator God.... or science magic are both reasonable choices for how somebody wants to believe the Universe was created.... not like that actually affects anyone on a day to day basis anyways..... OR DOES IT!?

[Reply #155 on:]

Evolution as I thought relates to how humans came about (simply put), not the universe (that's more like Big Bang, etc.). But I did put the word "offense" under quotation marks because I realise how stupid a word it is, in particular when discussing things that some people feel strongly about.

Personally, I have no problem with the notion that the right conditions (energy, water etc) millions of years ago meant that first forms of life developed (like first cells). I often feel (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the element of chance in the creation of life is something that creationists have a huge problem with. Personally I do not take issues with this, I find it quite weird actually to believe that it might have been something else, like some bigger purpose or something. But that's just me, I know I'm a bit strange.

Please keep in mind that I refer to how life appeard on earth, not the existence of the universe, meaning of life, etceteras.

@winna: I'm not a physicist at all but from what I understood in "Universe in a Nutshell" and the like (go on beat me - I do too with people who read popular books in my area of research) there are mathematical models on the universe that can be empirically tested in one of those particle labratories like CERN.

[Reply #156 on:]

From what I understood in "Universe in a Nutshell" and the like (go on beat me - I do to with people how read popular books in my area of research) there are mathematical models on the universe that can be empirical verified in one of those particle labratories like CERN.

Firstly, that last sentence is a disgrace to English. It's unpossible.

As for empirical verification of the formulation of the universe, that would require something more concrete than a mathematical model. A witness to the creation of the universe would be able to gather empirical data. Somebody working from a model gathers theoretical data.

Winna (as much as he might speak nonsense or post bimf a lot of the time) is right.

So.... creator God.... or science magic

Winna, you're starting to sound like Gene Ray.

[Reply #157 on:]

I liked it but I'm hating these 22-minute episodes, everything is so rushed and choppy.

The episodes have always been 22 Minutes.

[Reply #158 on:]

Firstly, that last sentence is a disgrace to English. It's unpossible.

Let me take this one by one. For some reason I have some difficulty with replying because the scroll bar behaves in a strange and uncontrollable way. Plus I type on a handheld device which makes it that much more challenging. Usually, I edit my posts after a while, to remove the gravest errors – not in this particular case.

By and large, however, while I don't try to mislead people with my typing errors, I can't say that I love it when people go on about it - but I take it that it is satisfactory to point out someone else’s short-comings.

As for empirical verification of the formulation of the universe, that would require something more concrete than a mathematical model. A witness to the creation of the universe would be able to gather empirical data. Somebody working from a model gathers theoretical data.

As I have pointed out, I’m not an expert in physics. But it is mentioned (in Universe in a Nutshell amongst others) that mathematical models on the universe (such as Big Bang, black holes etc.) can be tested. Whether you call it experimental testing or empirical testing is a matter of methodology I suppose, again I do not know how far/how strict this distinction is made in physics and have no useful conclusion to offer. Also I’m not sure how one would gather theoretical data? But maybe that’s just semantics.

Winna (as much as he might speak nonsense or post bimf a lot of the time) is right.

I didn’t mean to imply that he is right/wrong. I simply indicated what I have read in a popular science book.

[Reply #159 on:]

Firstly, that last sentence is a disgrace to English. It's unpossible.

Let me take this one by one. For some reason I have some difficulty with replying because the scroll bar behaves in a strange and uncontrollable way. Plus I type on a handheld device which makes it that much more challenging. Usually, I edit my posts after a while, to remove the gravest errors – not in this particular case.

By and large, however, while I don't try to mislead people with my typing errors, I can't say that I love it when people go on about it - but I take it that it is satisfactory to point out someone else’s short-comings.

Yes, it is. It's also sometimes helpful, as occasionally people genuinely don't realise that they've posted gibberish.

As I have pointed out, I’m not an expert in physics. But it is mentioned (in Universe in a Nutshell amongst others) that mathematical models on the universe (such as Big Bang, black holes etc.) can be tested. Whether you call it experimental testing or empirical testing is a matter of methodology I suppose, again I do not know how far/how strict this distinction is made in physics and have no useful conclusion to offer. Also I’m not sure how one would gather theoretical data? But maybe that’s just semantics.

Theoretical data would be gathered from the mathematical model. Empirical data would be gathered from the real thing.

To test mathematical models, people generally go with testing one small portion with known behaviours, and extrapolate to fill the framework of the model. For example, by using the universal law of gravitation and working from data suppliued by atom-smashers like the LHC on particles approaching lightspeed, it's possible to deduce ("test") models regarding the behaviour of black holes.

I didn’t mean to imply that he is right/wrong. I simply indicated what I have read in a popular science book.

Pshaw. In context, you were arguing with him. Besides which, popularised science is generally misleading.