Rather than get caught up in either post- modern angst about the unprovability of anything or religious hysteria about aliens landing, maybe scientists could perform feats of derring-do on things like the trampoline or flying trapeeze and call it Scientastics.
-- JesusHChrist, Dec 21 2005

The Straight Dope on Jesus H Christ. http://www.straight...lassics/a1_033.html
Doesn't actually give an answer! [DrBob, Dec 22 2005]

This seems to be more Naming than an actual idea.
-- DrCurry, Dec 21 2005


Unless you can prove that it's a naming system, [marked-for-deletion] Naming.

œ naming - specific names to give to people, pets, restaurants, top level domains, etc. are out of scope for the halfbakery. Whole naming schemes, tools to help with naming or exchange names, and specific names accompanying actual inventions are okay.

By the way, what's the 'H' for in [JesusHChrist]? Or is it meant to be read as 'haich' which could sound like 'hates' so that you get the poorly humerous 'Jesus hates Christ'?
-- dbmag9, Dec 21 2005


If there were already troupes of acrobatic scientists who hadn't named what they did, then it would be naming. There aren't so it's an invention. Albeit a rather silly one.
-- wagster, Dec 21 2005


>>'H' for in [JesusHChrist]

That's not an 'H' it's a capital 'A' that is so tall that you can't see the top of it. It stands for Anti-.
-- JesusHChrist, Dec 22 2005


C'mon [dbmag9] you've never heard the phrase Jesus H Christ, its kinda like Jesus Tapdancing Christ. I also heard Jesus H Tapdancing Christ once.
-- MikeOxbig, Dec 22 2005


Sorry, I'm only 14. I haven't had time to find out all these things.
-- dbmag9, Dec 22 2005


Jesus Herbert Christ.
-- notmarkflynn, Dec 22 2005


Jesus Herbert Walker Christ.
-- roleohibachi, Dec 22 2005


Jesus Herbert Walker Texas Ranger Christ.
-- notmarkflynn, Dec 22 2005


Science is out to prove it, while religion is out to simply believe in something. They are in completely different categories so I don't think they are competing. Religion is to simply believe, science is to prove. Making any arguement on how 'god could not possibly exist because it is impossible' is a contradiction of logic. The Logic being that you must believe, where as if you say it's not scientifically possible, you're not believing now are you, no you're not you're trying to prove, where the point is to believe.

I love argueguing. Even if I am argueing with myself :P . I think I'm having a grammar relapse guys...
-- EvilPickels, Dec 22 2005


Seeing as how you yourself did not perform every single experiment, it could be argued that science relies on a measure of beliving too.

And I've never heard a religious person who didn't think (insert holy text) wasn't more than enough proof.
-- notmarkflynn, Dec 22 2005



random, halfbakery