Slashdot Mirror
Coldest Place in the Universe
Chris Gondek writes "The Sydney Morning Herald has an article on how NASA has released a high-quality image of the coldest place found in the universe. Five thousand light years from Earth in the constellation of Centaurus, the nebula, a gas cloud formed from a dying star, has a temperature of minus 272 degrees.
It is only one degree warmer than absolute zero, the coldest possible temperature, when atoms cease to vibrate and radiate no heat whatsoever.
This radiation is the remnant of the Big Bang, the explosion which forged the universe in trillion-degree temperatures. More than 11 billion years later, this heat has cooled to minus 270 degrees, but is still detectable."
No - my Windows PC after a crash. No signs of life whatsoever.
.....jkrise
God is an Anonymous Coward
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Because a one that is not cold, is hardly a one at all.
Peace and love, y'all
How can you 'justify' religion based on evolution? There is no "theory behind religion". You're mixing up terminology - theory is a scientific term, and a very strict one at that. It's just nonsensical to attempt to use science to 'justify' or 'support' religion. Religion is based on faith, that's what defines it. Once you start having to 'justify' your beliefs, you have lost faith, and most religions (esp. Judeo-Christian ones) would not consider you a member based on your 'lack of faith'. No one gets into heaven (if your religion happens to have one) if they don't have complete faith.
(I'm a strict scientist, but I study theology as a hobby, so I do know a good deal about this sort of thing.)
GL
I don't really think it's fair to mod a post as flamebait just because it's on a topic that always generates flamewars. Sure, flames will result, but it's not the same as a rude or dogmatic post that doesn't say anything interesting.
:). We understand radioactivity, and potassium-argon dating has shown pockets of gas in rocks to be millions of years old. Last time I looked at this stuff, it sounded good to me, and I'm not going to go research it again this late at night. Sorry for the hand-waving, but there you go.
:). The book is much deeper than the movie. The movie leaves out all the interesting ideas, and leaving just the action, drama, and weird trip. Read the book if you like to think about things.
Some parts of the general public seem to not understand science, and say things like "they told us this, and now they're telling us that, there's no point listening to them". Over-credulous science journalists that seem to be so eager to get the scoop on the next big breakthrough that they make everything sound like said breakthrough, whether there's much evidence for the theories or not, are part of the problem. Maybe it would be good if science stories were more careful about reporting confidence levels in theories. Of course, headlines saying that there's a 51% chance that drinking alcohol is beneficial might not be so exciting. (That's a good thing, IMHO. Every time anyone has anything to say about alcohol, it makes a headline. There seems to be some obsession with wishful thinking about alcohol.)
This cuts both ways, of course. When reading about well established theories with high confidence levels, people would learn which theories are very well-trusted, and which aren't. Some people like to argue "they were wrong about that, so they're probably wrong about this, too". If people knew that most of the incorrect theories were just speculation, and that the one being argued against is very solid, they would not be swayed by bullshit as easily.
Evolution is extremely plausible. If it isn't true, then the most likely alternative is that either the Universe was just created just now, with everything in the state it's currently in. There's no way to distinguish that from time moving normally, so it's really a philosophical point. Otherwise, whatever created the universe and/or the Earth planted fossils to deceive us. Those are both pretty far-fetched compared to mutation and natural selection. The big bang seems to be pretty well established, or at least widely accepted, but not much after that is really settled. Expansion seems to be accelerating, so there's something going on besides strong and weak nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces combined with the kinds of matter we know about. We don't know about early inflation, or what the heck is going on. The evidence for pre-history on earth is much more solid (literally
As for science, religion, and God, read Calculating God by Robert Sawyer. He writes science fiction novels packed full of ideas. Calculating God is a good one: Aliens land on earth, and it turns out that three worlds where civilization evolved had mass-extinction events (like the one that killed the dinosaurs) at similar times. Therefore, God exists, and sometimes throws hissy fits. The characters sometimes talk about their ideas about God, for example: There's no reason to assume God is omnipotent. Any sort of life form that figured out how to survive a big crunch followed by a big bang, and that could influence the physical constants which have to have just the right values for life to exist in the new universe, would be the creator. A non-omnipotent being seems more plausible. (In fact, there's no reason to assume God is benevolent or that we should worship him/her/it, other than setting up the universe so that life could evolve, but Sawyer doesn't touch on that.)
Contact, by Carl Sagan, is another great one. (Sawyer acknowleges Sagan, and others, in Calculating God
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes ,
sorry if it comes as a "flamebait", but why should a perfect-by-definition, omnipotent, omniscient, an omnipresent entity use by design imperfect tools, to make imperfect entity, not very much "potent", not much sense, and limited temporal/physical presence ? Oh , yeah, I forgot. "the way of God are obscure".
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
By definition, a theory must be testable and falsifiable. Religion/faith fall outside these limits, and therefore cannot be called theories. Your reference to "a theory behind religion" would be more correctly stated if you substitude the informal 'idea' in place of the very specific and limited 'theory'.
"it is the direct outcome of socio-economic situations."
Religion had nothing to do with money or social status in its earliest days. Most early religions were centered around explaining things which were otherwise inexplicable. Most early deities were related to the harvest (which lacked any social or economic significance), typically in the form of the sun or rain.
"theory behind religion "
This wording would indicate that the religion came from a theory, which obviously is not the case. No one plotted out early religions, they just sort of fell together.
"Religion is based on a set of actions which are believed to constitute faith. That some people have faith is in itself besides the point."
To quote the American Heritage Dictionary, religious faith is defined as "The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will." Religion is "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe." or "A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship." There is "no set of actions" neccessitated. Religion is typically a personal thing, though rituals and actions are sometimes considered consistant or contrary to those beliefs.
"justification of a faith need not necessiate the lack of any"
Be careful with that one. Many religions (esp. more conservative or fundamental ones) would not agree with you. Classic Christian myths like the legends of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round table are excellent examples of this.
When I said heaven, I was still referring to Judeo-Christian religions.
Anyway, don't want to get into a big debate here on Slashdot, so I hope you don't take any of this personally or as an attack on religion. It just happens that this is my area of expertise (well, after cognitive psychology, at least).
GL