Thoughts on 6ACV09 - A Clockwork Origin - SPOILERS

[Reply #160 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?

No.

I'm sorry what exactly about this is "No?"

I feel I hit the nail on the head.

Unless you can give me a scientific reason for the cause of existence?

[Reply #161 on:]

I'm sorry what exactly about this is "No?"

I don't think he was asking it, I think he was stating it.

[Reply #162 on:]

I'm asking it, dipshit.

Fine I'll do it your way...

I'm sorry what exactly about this is "No."?

Perfectly proper English

[Reply #163 on:]

The thing about asking winna a question is that you might not get an answer that, strictly speaking, makes much sense.

[Reply #164 on:]

True. I really shouldn't even bother. I get way too worked up over message board trolls.

[Reply #165 on:]

winna is to the average troll what Zeus is to the average lightning bolt.

[Reply #166 on:]

The maker of?

[Reply #167 on:]

Oh my, no. Zeus didn't forge thunderbolts. He just flung them. Hephaestus made them for him.

Winna throws trolls. He's a troll god, and throws trolls like monkeys throw poo.

[Reply #168 on:]

... Besides which, popularised science is generally misleading.

Which I pointed out myself about three times in my last two posts. Apart from that, I never argue, I'm a strong believer of discourse (scientific or otherwise).

Theoretical data I would usually refer to as experimental data or simulation (results). But different disciplines, different methodologies. 

[Reply #169 on:]

I don't see how we could ever realise how the universe was started, how matter formed from thin air- ...sorry, vacuum. It's possible it was started by an enormously powerful entity who either exist in a form other than matter or who "came" from another universe or unseen dimension - a god. Another theory ofcourse is cyclical time, but for reason undiscussable for totalnerduk I don't see it likely.

No matter how or by what the universe started (not who sat down with a WC3 Map Editor but who formed matter before the Big Bang), it is irrelevant for the discussion of creationism v. evolution. The scientific community agrees and there are loads of evidence that all beings of today have evolved from other forms. Another theory ofcourse is that there existed all the "missing links", and for some strange coincidence they died out when a supreming race started showing up from nowhere, and there is no correlation. But on the other hand there is the possibility that I'm really dunking my head into the keyboard and accidentally write all this. It's simply extremely unlikely and we're back with Shakespeare monkeys.

Oh, and we can simulate evolution as performed by the Professor, but not in such detail. Take mutating computer viruses, and we see how they can be shaped to surpass security systems they were not built to surpass, simply because they learned and changed ways. We _could_ simulate how the beings of Earth shaped through millions of years, but we would need a darn good harddrive and googols of variables we can't possibly find.

[Reply #170 on:]

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

Once you realise that "how" was a tpyo and supposed to say "who" it's fine. Far from impossible.

[Reply #171 on:]

Aki you're again assuming the position of creator by facilitating the experiment... as easy as it would be to disregard the existence of god from lack of evidence...

I think it would be just as easy to postulate that all since current science theory states that you can't get something from nothing, that all existence must have started somewhere... and that somewhere is something we don't understand either because its in incomprehensible dimensions and/or we don't have the means to quantify it.

[Reply #172 on:]

I see a creator as an irrelevant addition to the problem of how everything started, which is somewhat irksome for me in the context of the end of the episode we are supposedly discussing (yay! I made my post on topic). Putting him/her/it in at the beginning solves no problems, except for the religious among us who see him/her/it as being self-creating or eternal. But to quote Carl Sagan "why not miss out a step and have the universe be self-creating or eternal?"

(I have no wish to become embroiled in a debate - just thought I'd throw my 2 penneth in).

[Reply #173 on:]

But in that instance our universe would then qualify as god and then everything about it being omnipresent and eternal would still be true, even if you don't call it "god" per say. Many people do not call it god the Jews call it Yahweh and the Arabs call it Allah. Still, an omnipresent self-substantiating proliferating pattern by any other name...

[Reply #174 on:]

Doesn't need praying to or thanking though. Nor is it sentient with the deliberate intention of creating - the essence of a true creator.

[Reply #175 on:]

How can you tell we're not some miniscule part of a greater body? Haven't you ever seen Osmosis Jones?

[Reply #176 on:]

The universe isn't omnipotent either.

And because we don't do thinks to serve the universe. If anything, we're messing the place up.

[Reply #177 on:]

...

And because we don't do thinks to serve the universe. ...

Bwha??

[Reply #178 on:]

I was about to argue that I never said the universe was omnipotent before I realized that it probably is.

Tell me you aren't fated to decompose and die by the whims of this universe and the laws imposed on you therein.

[Reply #179 on:]

I would say less whims, and more needs/functions.

[Reply #180 on:]

Being a guy who has taught Sunday School classes, was the surgical assistant to a Freewill Baptist Minister while working with Doctors Without Borders and holding several science degrees (sadly, my highest are on the BS level), my thoughts of Life, God, The Universe and everything is this:

The universe is both finite and infinite.  It supposenly sprang up from nothing and because of that, this is what we have today.  Dimentions of space, time, mass, elements, etc.

Is the Universe God?  Is God a college student in another form of reality and we're nothing more than a crazy experiment?

Whatever the answers are, we are finite beings trying to understand the infinite.  do I believe in a master creator?  Yes.  do I think it cares whether or not I have a bad case of hemorrhoids?  I don't but I don't begrudge others who think otherwise.

So there.  Anybody willing to donate to the Church of Ralph?

[Reply #181 on:]

I think everyone has better things to worry about than your hemorrhoids, Ralph. Not just the master creator.

[Reply #182 on:]

I think everyone has better things to worry about than your hemorrhoids, Ralph. Not just the master creator.

They're pretty damned important to me!

And that's all that matters.

[Reply #183 on:]

...

And because we don't do thinks to serve the universe. ...

Bwha??

Sorry, typo. "Things", not "thinks".

[Reply #184 on:]

I see a creator as an irrelevant addition to the problem of how everything started, which is somewhat irksome for me in the context of the end of the episode we are supposedly discussing (yay! I made my post on topic). Putting him/her/it in at the beginning solves no problems, except for the religious among us who see him/her/it as being self-creating or eternal. But to quote Carl Sagan "why not miss out a step and have the universe be self-creating or eternal?"

(I have no wish to become embroiled in a debate - just thought I'd throw my 2 penneth in).

Exactly my point, even if I may have made it somewhat unclear. The premise of my post was that we'll probably never know if some god started it all, and being all scientific there is no need to speculate about it since there is no argument that there would be.

[Reply #185 on:]

Can't we all just agree to not get along?


Or not not get along, as the case may be.

[Reply #186 on:]

If I can go back to episode itself, I was pleasently surprised how was the satire handled (much better than Simpson´s "Monkey suit" and such) but I had problem with the concept even in the realm of Futurama - so this robots evolve over night and have one normal day after that? Also I smell a lot of deleted material from the fine Zoidberg/Cubert subplot.
8/10

[Reply #187 on:]

Also I smell a lot of deleted material from the fine Zoidberg/Cubert subplot.

A couple of people have said that but I can't say that I see it. I just thought the abruptness of Zoidberg hating Cubert for reasons we don't see was supposed to be the joke.

[Reply #188 on:]

What happens at the very end of the episode? I DVR'd it, and the last few seconds were lopped off.

[Reply #189 on:]

zoidberg said he hated cubert.

everyone else laughs.

zoidberg then says he's serious, cubert is a terrible person.

[Reply #190 on:]

The universe isn't omnipotent either.

And because we don't do thinks to serve the universe. If anything, we're messing the place up.

or so we think. we might also be doing exactly what we are supposed to be doing, even if that doesn't benefit the earth clan.

jeezem: agreed; and a damn good joke at that.


look, i no longer double posted!

[Reply #191 on:]

 

[Reply #192 on:]

I'm still waiting for the answer to the question, Why did the professor hire an absolutely crabby doctor like Zoidberg?
But this episode was solid and enjoyable especially Leela and Amy in shredded clothing.

8/10

Easy. He's cheap!

[Reply #193 on:]

Not funny.
Rubbish main plot with a predictable conclusion.
Dull subplot with a nonsensical conclusion.
Bad characterization.
No development.

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.

"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.

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.

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

I quite agree with your sentiments.  I think that you're right on the mark.  I think that some people are simply blinded by their happiness that the show is back.  To them the show can do no wrong.  However, you and I both know that if there are no criticisms, the show will succumb to what you so cleverly stated as "Simpsons Syndrome"... brilliant!

[Reply #194 on:]

Right, all you hear from the rest of us is uninterrupted praise.

[Reply #195 on:]

Not funny.
Rubbish main plot with a predictable conclusion.
Dull subplot with a nonsensical conclusion.
Bad characterization.
No development.

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.

"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.

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.

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

I quite agree with your sentiments.  I think that you're right on the mark.  I think that some people are simply blinded by their happiness that the show is back.  To them the show can do no wrong.  However, you and I both know that if there are no criticisms, the show will succumb to what you so cleverly stated as "Simpsons Syndrome"... brilliant!

I truly truly hope that this post was sarcasm. If it was, that's a brilliant piece of biting satire. If it's not, then we're slowly being overrun by the Internet Retard Sqaud.

[Reply #196 on:]

Not funny.
Rubbish main plot with a predictable conclusion.
Dull subplot with a nonsensical conclusion.
Bad characterization.
No development.

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.

"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.

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.

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

I quite agree with your sentiments.  I think that you're right on the mark.  I think that some people are simply blinded by their happiness that the show is back.  To them the show can do no wrong.  However, you and I both know that if there are no criticisms, the show will succumb to what you so cleverly stated as "Simpsons Syndrome"... brilliant!

I've already explained why those points are bunk. This episode was awesome and that's coming from somebody who considers the worst episode of all time to be Attack of the Killer App. I'm not blinded by anything.

[Reply #197 on:]

This episode was very funny and very nerdy at the same time.  Classic Futurama.  I'm digging this new season.  I was sort of scared after Rebirth and some disasters like the Duhvinci Code but these past 3 or 4 episodes have been 10 out of 10s.

[Reply #198 on:]

The reason I didn't like this episode is two-fold;

First and foremost is the fact that there was so much potential that to me it fell flat. Futurama has done a fantastic job for the most part with 'controversial' topics but this one felt extremely disjointed, not much humour and not the witty or emotional plot usually associated with an episode. They could have done a lot with evolution and it simply didn't work in this case. I didn't like many of the jokes (the whole quarry scene was wasted potential as well) and...it was what it was.

Secondly, the subplot with Zoidberg and Cubert was simply putting it a waste of time. The only laugh I got at the end was Zoidberg saying Cubert was a terrible person. But again there was a lot of potential there that simply didn't go anywhere. And they could have done so much.

So that's why I'm not a big fan of this episode. Huge potential, but fell very far from the mark.

[Reply #199 on:]

Finally got around to watching it, I loved the robo dinosaur fights. Awesome. Awesome to the max.