LHC Spies Hints of Infant Universe

techbeat writes "The big bang machine may already be living up to its nickname, writes New Scientist. Researchers on the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) experiment at CERN's Large Hadron Collider near Geneva, Switzerland, have seen hints of what may be the hot, dense state of matter thought to have filled the universe in its first nanoseconds."

Comments

This is why science rocks.

[grub]

have seen hints of what may be the hot, dense state of matter thought to have filled the universe in its first nanoseconds.

It's truly remarkable that they can see how the universe was 5999 years, 11 months, 30 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59.9999999... seconds ago!

Re:This is why science rocks.

[binarylarry]

It truly is my brother.

Praise Jebus!

Re:This is why science rocks.

[IndustrialComplex]

It's truly remarkable that they can see how the universe was 5999 years, 11 months, 30 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59.9999999... seconds ago!

It's older than that.

Didn't they tally up the numbers in 1650. So it's at LEAST 6360 years old now.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[jpapon]

I don't know about your universe, but mine is always exactly 6000 years old.

If it got older that implies it might die, and that gives me the heebie-jeebies.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Samalie]

If I had to guess, its that a Christian mod took offense to "Jebus".

Posting not-AC, so that I'm not mistaken for the Christian mod who doesn't find the Jebus joke funny.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Z00L00K]

No it's getting reborn through the LHC when it becomes 6000 years old.

How else did you think that our universe was created? Our universe was of course created through someone else's LHC.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[JoshuaZ]

Didn't they tally up the numbers in 1650. So it's at LEAST 6360 years old now.

Usher published his calculation the late 1648. Note that he gives the initial date of creation as 4004 BC, Sunday October 23rd. That makes the current year 6014. However, he's not the first person to make such a calculation. The traditional Jewish calendar which has been used for about 1500 years at minimum, puts the current year as 5771 since creation. Some Christian denominations with literalist leanings have gotten other numbers as well. In general, a literal reading of the Bible gets you an age somewhere between 5400 and 7000 or so but the exact time span is complicated. For example, the book of Judges has irregularities and vague parts so working out how much time it is supposed to be is difficult (most likely Judges is a compilation of different stories from each of the tribes in the pre-monarchical period that then became ascribed to leaders of the united tribes. Some of the stories in Judges explicitly have leaders who only control a handful of the Twelve tribes). There are other issues. For example, the sections in Kings and Chronicles have different chronologies, giving different lengths of reign for some kings. Also, working out the chronology from the end of the First Kingdom to the middle of the Second Kingdom is frat with difficulties, including serious contradictions between the Biblical text and other extant texts from that time period. This is annoying to not just Biblical literalists but also historians and archaeologists.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[captaindomon]

Thank you for this post. Although we can argue the validity of creation theory, I think it is important to give kudos and respect to serious historians, who have spent a lot of time and effort researching historical time lines. I think we can object to a certain theory without belittling the effort of people involved in the research of any certain subject.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[WeatherGod]

Dammit, where is the 'hurts brain' moderation?

Re:This is why science rocks.

[feidaykin]

While it can be funny to poke fun at Creationists, part of me doesn't find them funny at all. I've met some and they really, truly believe they are right, and that modern science is some evil hegemony determined to discredit religion. They believe it as strongly as say, extremists that believe they will meet 72 virgins if they die in a suicide bombing. I find that more frightening than amusing, especially since some of the Creationist folks have ventured into politics, like Christine O'Donnell, with her dismissal of evolution by calling it "only a theory." Gravity is also "only a theory" but that doesn't mean you can fly if you don't "believe" in it. I don't like the idea of people who have a fundamental flaw in their understanding of the universe making decisions that impact millions of people. That's more frightening than funny, so while I can still laugh at a Creationist joke like this, it's kind of a nervous laugh since there is this constant reminder that people exist who want to turn the clock on human knowledge back hundreds of years.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Mogster]

Didn't they tally up the numbers in 1650. So it's at LEAST 6360 years old now.

Given all the monkeying around with the calendar over the years, taking into account leap second adjustments every-so-often and the uncertainty of when the year 0 was based on Jebus' actual DOB, etc

It's now roughly 6314.15926535897932384626433832795 years old

Re:This is why science rocks.

[TheRaven64]

There was quite an appropriate SMBC a couple of days ago.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Z00L00K]

Recursion: See Recursion

Re:This is why science rocks.

[allusionist]

What's remarkable is how you've found a way to feel superior to both.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[an unsound mind]

+1 Recursive

Re:This is why science rocks.

[al0ha]

Kudos to a really informative reply.

What is really beginning to blow my mind is the theory that the Universe is the result of an experiment, and God is potentially our future selves who began it all; perhaps even with the LHC.

Especially if one expands on that theory with the theory that the future LHC is effecting the past in order to prevent us from finding the Higgs Boson, which perhaps would trigger a reoccurence of the ultimate result.

Even if that theory is hogwash, what is the first is true and we will eventually start the next instance of a never ending creation of universes.

W-w-w-w-wh-h-h-e-e-e-e!!!!!

Re:This is why science rocks.

[nitehawk214]

Don't moderate this -1 Redundant, moderate it +1 Recursive.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[kesuki]

i believe we were created. i am considered 'smart' by some. i know that i am important. i believe i am made immortal by jesus. i still believe in laws however, just as long as i don't make them and they aren't hundreds of lines of worthless text. i know a lot more now than i did before. i am having fun here again. and what is wrong living like the world hasn't moved on if you can afford it? the power bill? your children repeating mistakes?

i like technology. hackers were finding me anyways, so posting to /. is not as bad as it seems. i know now how hard the fight for freedom really is.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[BJ_Covert_Action]

I need to clarify something for my own purposes. When folks talk about creationists here on Slashdot (or maybe in general, I don't know), is it automatically taken to mean young Earth creationists? I always thought creationist was a blanket term for someone who believes the the universe was created rather than having come into existence through chance, or Big Bang, or what have you. Nonetheless, on Slashdot I see it constantly referring to Young Earthers only...

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Randy Jian]

But belittling the efforts of some people and their research is just one style of peer review... and insults are but another test to the validity of a theory...

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Bootsy Collins]

As soon as you say "Until _(insert any scientific theory at all here)_ can be proven . . .," you've demonstrated that you don't understand even the tiniest little bit of how science is done or what scientific understanding is.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[McGiraf]

To fly is not a question of believing in gravity at all.

To fly you have to fall and miss the ground.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[treeves]

I heard a joke about ascribing unwarranted precision to numbers.

A museum guide is showing people a dinosaur exhibit and when he gets to their largest specimen he stops and tells the group, "This specimen is sixty-five million and thirty eight years old." A young man raises his hand and asks, "How do you know that?"
The guide explains, "When I started working here, the staff scientist informed me that this dinosaur was sixty-five million years old. I started working here thirty eight years ago...you do the math!"

Re:This is why science rocks.

[geekoid]

People who use the bible as a serious specific factual research book should be belittled.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[John Hasler]

The Last Question

Re:This is why science rocks.

[sayfawa]

Funny but.. also interesting. I mean, what with all the hoopla over Hawking's recent comments, and the predictable "rebuttals" by the religious folks, about how someone must have started the universe in the first place, therefore there's a god. What if the person/people who started our universe were just a bunch of scientists in their universe?

What would the zealots hate more, the idea that our universe sprang out of nothing, or that our "god(s)" were just some nerds performing an experiment?

Re:This is why science rocks.

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

Interestingly contrary to what you've posted, the more I read the Bible, and the more I learn from science and history, the more they seem to join and support the other. The commonly joked "6000 year old Earth", for instance, isn't supported by well translated Bibles(I use one is called the "recovery version"). The KJV used to(I'm not sure, it may still) say, in Genesis 1:1-2, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was formless and empty..."

That wouldn't make sense though - the Hebrew there translated as "was" is later in Genesis translated as "became". Besides, in Job it says explicitly that God didn't create the earth as a formless ball. Obviously, that "was" should be a "became". Now it reads, "Now the earth became formless and empty..." . So, after the first verse of the Bible, and before the second, something monumental has happened, and now the earth is a wasteland. It explains in Job, I can't remember the chapter, but even if I could I wouldn't try to post the whole chapter, so I'll find it later and post it for curious minds. In any case, time would seem to have passed between God's creating the earth, and His restoration of it(which is described in the first chapter of Genesis), along with the creation of men. And a lot of it.

You'll find a lot of discrepancies between the common beliefs of the Bible, and the actual text. Even then you'll find discrepancies between what the text was intended to communicate, and what the translators didn't understand and decided to substitute(I believe the KJV also sometimes mentions unicorns, where the Bible reads "ox"). If you wanted to find the difference between the two(though you don't sound like the fellow who would decide to), I'd advise finding a Bible translated as directly as possible. The recovery version I mentioned above is very handy for that, and has excellent footnotes for when one is lost.

With that said - I believe into the Lord Jesus Christ, and His eternal spiritual capacities. I also believe the earth is however old carbon dating states it to be(though the technique isn't always reliable, I hear).

Re:This is why science rocks.

[physburn]

Let canonise Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh and reset the definition of the second, so that the world was created exactly 4004 BC! Then, One Ussher second is equal to 2.27 million SI seconds, or a 2 days and 15 hours.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[phantomfive]

In a way she's right, though. You can divide the theory of evolution up into two theories, one of which is almost certainly correct, and one which is a weak theory with a lot of missing pieces. For example, after the evidence compiled in Origin of Species, it is hard for anyone to credibly claim that creatures don't evolve into other creatures. With the discovery of DNA, and a number of other discoveries since then, you have to be insane to not accept it (if you understand it).

On the other hand, the theory of where life comes from abiogenesis, is often lumped in under the same name as evolution, and yet it doesn't have nearly the support that natural selection does. We have vague ideas, that's all; we don't know how it happened. So she's right in calling that 'just a theory.'

I've noticed a lot of times people arguing the evolution/creation debate are arguing two different things; the one in favor is arguing about natural selection, and the one opposed is arguing about abiogenesis. So when one says it's a strong theory, and the other says it's a weak theory, they are both right. It's sad.

Actually I've noticed that usually when people argue about evolution usually neither of them has investigated it deeply, they are just parroting things they've heard. Which is even more sad, and explains why it usually ends up in a pointless debate no one wins.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[bill_mcgonigle]

This is annoying to not just Biblical literalists but also historians and archaeologists.

Do the literalists invoke the multiverse theory?

Re:This is why science rocks.

[haruchai]

That's right - it's LHC's all the way down

Re:This is why science rocks.

[bill_mcgonigle]

A prime example of this is the old thought that the world is flat and one can fall off of it by walking too far.

Pretty much nobody who gave the matter any serious inquiry ever thought this. It's a story made up by a novelist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Sulphur]

Jerusalem (formerly known as Jebus see Jebusite) is your brother?

Re:This is why science rocks.

[WalksOnDirt]

I also believe the earth is however old carbon dating states it to be (though the technique isn't always reliable, I hear).

Yeah, C-14 dating is only good back around 60,000 years. You need to use uranium or other long lived isotopes for the age of the earth.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Iamthecheese]

I suppose you have a more complete collection of the oral history of ancient Iran as told by the storytellers of their day?

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Raenex]

Capital letters are your friends.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[MichaelSmith]

I thought you meant The Gods Themselves.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

I've studied the Bible. The cosmology is wrong. It requires a very "liberal" interpretation to wring out something approximating the truth. The morality is repulsive. The theology is degrading. Frankly, the good you can take from the "Good Book" could be summarized in a very short pamphlet. Not sure why anyone takes it seriously, aside from cultural indoctrination.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

Shows how stupid I can be. Thanks for the heads up.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Raenex]

Interestingly contrary to what you've posted, the more I read the Bible, and the more I learn from science and history, the more they seem to join and support the other.

I suppose you also believe that Eve was created from a rib of Adam? How about Noah's Ark? How's that Bible and science combination working now?

I'd advise finding a Bible translated as directly as possible.

Why doesn't God just give everybody the straight dope without all this prophet bullshit? Why do major religions rest their authority on texts hundreds or thousands of years old that suffer from translation and historical context problems?

I'd advise dropping the Bible as a source of useful information when it comes to science or pretty much anything except for whatever verifiable bits of history that can be gleaned from it.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

[citation needed]

That was pretty vague, unfortunately. Toss me an example or two to illustrate.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

Abiogenesis is a fact, even within Creationist ideologies. The only question is the mechanism. No matter what, suggesting an untestable, ad hoc explanation like a deity is not a scientific explanation. It is quite sad, since when you boil it down, you have one side researching likely mechanisms and furthering our understanding, and the other intoning "goddidit" with not a shred of empirical data to back it up.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Raenex]

On the other hand, the theory of where life comes from abiogenesis, is often lumped in under the same name as evolution, and yet it doesn't have nearly the support that natural selection does. We have vague ideas, that's all; we don't know how it happened. So she's right in calling that 'just a theory.'

First, all of science is "just a theory". The usage is taking a scientific term and twisting it into a scare term. Second, the vast majority of religious people who question evolution are NOT talking about abiogenesis, they are talking about evolution from simple life forms leading to humans. Evolution directly contradicts the Bible genesis story, and it doesn't leave much room for God (also known as God of the Gaps).

Re:This is why science rocks.

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

Ah, Raenex. We meet again.

First of all, I don't see why an entity that created a universe can't grow a human from a rib. It's strange that you questioned that particular episode in the Bible; was there a particular reason behind that, by the way? As for the Ark, the conceptual build is apparently seaworthy. So far, no problems. Though I'll understand if you reject my first answer out of hand.

The Bible is the "straight dope". I don't see where you're coming from on that point - clarify for me please? As for the translation issues, that's a moot point. You and I know full well that English had no presence at the time of writing, and wouldn't have been worth much to the people of the time. If it's communication errors/mistranslations/lost or dropped meanings and texts thing you're worried about, I think God, being who He is, will be(has been) able to get His point across and steer His letter to humans clear of destruction. He's pretty good at that. You'll notice that, despite the many attempts to rid the world of Bibles, it always seems to reappear(much like Israel - I believe it's the only country to be destroyed/dissolved and reform, ever). Alright, questions answered, and more besides. Have you more?

Re:This is why science rocks.

[CODiNE]

Well, if you get stuck talking about that with one of them, try this sometime.

"I read in the Bible that it was all made in ONE day"

Show them Genesis 2:4 which sums up the first chapter of Genesis with "In the day that God created the heavens and the earth". Then with an honest request say to them.

"I'm confused, which one is it... can you explain it to me?"

Either...
1) They'll have to say that "day" is not a literal term... and it is an unspecified unit of time as used in Genesis...
2) That they just don't know and it seems to be a contradiction. (Which kills their blind faith in a literal 6 day creation)
3) "Hold on let me ask my pastor" (Conversation ends quickly)
4) ???

Okay lets say they stick around after that one. Try this Genesis 2:17 God tells Adam that if he eats from the tree of knowledge of good and bad he will day "on that day". Now Genesis 4 shows that after being kicked out of the garden Adam and Eve conceived and bore children... that takes more than a single day. Genesis 5:5 says that Adam lived 930 years which is interesting because it's less than 1,000 years. Now 2 Peter 3:8 says that a thousand years is to God "as one day" which would mean that Adam did indeed die "in that day" figuratively.

So again it's one of:
1) Day is not literal, and sometimes is used to refer to periods of 1,000 years.
2) God was wrong and Adam didn't die in a 24 hour day.
3) "I'm never wrong so the Bible must be wrong instead"
4) ???

Hey if they just flat out ignore scientific reasoning (like a positivist flat out ignores any discussion of spiritual things) then try arguing on their terms, because they don't have any support at all for their claims, not in the scriptures for sure. Hey maybe they'll listen to the Bible itself when shown that and learn to look into their beliefs and maybe start to question why they have them. Or they just leave you alone...

or shoot you. ;)

Re:This is why science rocks.

[YoshiDan]

There are still people who believe that the earth is flat. They think that the world being a globe is a big conspiracy by NASA and the world governments. It's quite humourous.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[jackbird]

It's the young earthers who are trying to pack school boards and screw up primary education in the US. Someone whose religious views and organized actions aren't antithetical to the teaching and practice of science is much less interesting/threatening. Granted, many in the latter category are involved in pushing anti-AGW agendas, but that's another thing altogether.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[dryeo]

For myself and I guess most of us, it is not so much the creationists. It's the anti-science young-earthers who seem to be the most vocal.
Unluckily being the most vocal and calling themselves creationists they have coloured all the creationists with their brush and now when I hear someone calling themselves a creationist I think anti-science.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[msparker]

Come on moderators, that was funny. Even if it was a rip-off...wait that makes it funnier.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

Show them Genesis 2:4 which sums up the first chapter of Genesis with "In the day that God created the heavens and the earth". Then with an honest request say to them.

That looks to me like a confusing way of wording it, for the exact reason that people will confusedly(if that's a word) ask that same question you proposed. In the NIV, it says "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created" instead of the phrasing you presented. Reading both these, it seems that "in the day" is used the same way Gramps says "back in the day, there was $different_condition...".

The explanation for the second question is both simple and obvious to someone who believes into the Lord. For someone who doesn't it's bogus, unheard of malarkey. Here it goes anyway.

He did die. And yes, before evening came. And then he lived on for 900+ years. Confused?
He died spiritually. The Bible tells that man is made of three parts("made in the image of God", ever wonder if that meant God looked like a human?); body, soul(made up itself of three parts - mind, emotion, will), and spirit(in that order, outermost layer to innermost - think of three rings, one inside the other - body is outermost, soul is middle, spirit, the core). The first two were corrupted(also dead, in a sense) when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, and the last flat-out died. Humans were dead spiritually, and so had no link or business with God anymore - God, being holy, couldn't interact with us without a proxy anymore. That was the meat of Christ's job - restore that link, and on top of that, make it better. Besides a number of other things just as important that I'm too lazy to post, but there, you have the main idea.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Anonymous Coward]

i know that i am important.

We're talking about the Universe here. You are NOT important on any scale other than your mom loves you.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

Sure.

First, the two versions of the creation myth don't match. The origin of man is placed last in the first version, and before the creation of other life forms in the second. There is no mention of forbidden fruit in the first. And there is no separation between the creation of man and woman. There was no point at which there was just one man and one woman. Furthermore, even taking the first version as an extremely attenuated account of the actual development of life, it gets the order wrong. Plants are created before the sun, moon and stars. The seas were populated after the land. It's just a hodge podge of mythical explanations which bear no resemblance to actual events or the actual structure of the universe. That's without going into the concepts of Sheol, the Firmament and other such physical explanations. It's myth, not science.

The morality of the Bible is repulsive. Women and children are treated little better than chattle. Blind obedience is exalted(Abraham and Isaac). Genocide is a commandment from God. Ritual vicarious atonement is practiced as blood sacrifices, which the Christians later claim as a precursor to Jesus' sacrifice. The New Testament would seem better if it didn't add in the concept of Hell, reinforced the earlier misogyny and make claims which can be empirically proven false about the efficacy of Christian prayer.

The theology is degrading. It starts with a concept of man as a deviant, broken being in need of salvation. The supposedly omnimax deity which created him deems it sufficient to only enable that salvation through the bloody, ritualistic murder of his son/self. The acquisition of knowledge is viewed as a sin, while blind obedience to dogmatic creeds is exalted. I could spend hours talking about the nastiness of the lesson of Job, or the concept of infinite punishment inflicted on a finite being for finite offenses in a finite frame of reference or any of the other myriad things which make it so hideous.

Sure, the ethic of reciprocity is good. The story of the Good Samaritan is laudable. But none of it makes up for the loads of ignorance and degradation you have to wade through to find such nuggets. I assume that if you are the Bible devotee that you claim, my descriptions are sufficient for you to place what I am talking about.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

First of all, I don't see why an entity that created a universe can't grow a human from a rib. It's strange that you questioned that particular episode in the Bible; was there a particular reason behind that, by the way?

Doesn't match the evidence. That's why it's a silly notion.

As for the Ark, the conceptual build is apparently seaworthy. So far, no problems.

Congratulations. You proven that, given a steel hull, Noah could have built an ark which could float. Oh, and is still far too small to contain even a decent fraction of the land creatures of the Earth, even ignoring the food problem. Oh, and which supposedly floated around on a worldwide flood which mysteriously left no worldwide evidence behind. Truly, an awe inspiring feat.

Though I'll understand if you reject my first answer out of hand.

The Bible is the "straight dope". I don't see where you're coming from on that point - clarify for me please?

Isn't it obvious? He's asking why God couldn't give a straight account of creation, instead choosing to inspire convoluted myth structures with no analog to the actual events of history.

As for the translation issues, that's a moot point. You and I know full well that English had no presence at the time of writing, and wouldn't have been worth much to the people of the time. If it's communication errors/mistranslations/lost or dropped meanings and texts thing you're worried about, I think God, being who He is, will be(has been) able to get His point across and steer His letter to humans clear of destruction. He's pretty good at that. You'll notice that, despite the many attempts to rid the world of Bibles, it always seems to reappear(much like Israel - I believe it's the only country to be destroyed/dissolved and reform, ever). Alright, questions answered, and more besides. Have you more?

I also notice that we have religious writings from other cultures of that age. We even have pornography from way back then. God must be protecting all of that, too. Or maybe the explanation is simply that we have a fair amount of documents from then, and that, given the historical position of the Jewish people, it is relatively unsurprising that their writings survive until the present day.

Surely, this is not the best you can do.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

He did die. And yes, before evening came. And then he lived on for 900+ years. Confused? He died spiritually. The Bible tells that man is made of three parts("made in the image of God", ever wonder if that meant God looked like a human?); body, soul(made up itself of three parts - mind, emotion, will), and spirit(in that order, outermost layer to innermost - think of three rings, one inside the other - body is outermost, soul is middle, spirit, the core). The first two were corrupted(also dead, in a sense) when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, and the last flat-out died. Humans were dead spiritually, and so had no link or business with God anymore - God, being holy, couldn't interact with us without a proxy anymore. That was the meat of Christ's job - restore that link, and on top of that, make it better. Besides a number of other things just as important that I'm too lazy to post, but there, you have the main idea.

Hilarious! For someone who asked me for a citation, you sure are good at tossing out unsubstantiated crap! How about backing up any of that ad hoc tripe with some empirical evidence? Can you do anything aside from quote your single source?

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

You'll notice that, despite the many attempts to rid the world of Bibles, it always seems to reappear(much like Israel - I believe it's the only country to be destroyed/dissolved and reform, ever).

Oh, and just for the record: Poland. And, depending on how you define dissolution and reformation, virtually all of the rest of the European countries.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[fyrewulff]

The rib thing is already wrong, because it insinuates that women can be created from men, when it's been proven that the natural default gender of a human is female, and you become male later.

The passage is mostly used to 'justify' that women are 'inferior' to men.

An accurate Bible would state that Adam was created from Eve's rib, since she would have all the genes needed. Adam would not have the genes to create Eve.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Canazza]

I always give a little chuckle when I hear the word "Cosmeg"...

hehe, smeg.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[wrook]

It is an insightful comment, but it lacks enough information for some people to share the insight. Personally, I don't specifically blame people for an ignorance of scientific methods. It is extremely poorly taught (and very widely misunderstood by the majority of the population).

To be succinct, a scientific "theory" can't be proven at all. We can observe the universe, but there is no way of knowing whether or not the universe is *actually* behaving in the same way we observe it. The Flying Spaghetti Monster may be altering our perception of the universe so it only *seems* be be working that way. Or something more subtle.

Science makes observations. It then makes a model based on the observations. It then makes predictions based on the model. Finally it makes more observations and if they follow the predictions of the model, then we say the model is a good one. This is a scientific "theory". It's not the same as somebody's "theory" that rocks taste like marshmallows. It's something that has a simple model that is consistent with ongoing observations. Note that it is important that a scientific model makes predictions that can be observed. Without such observable predictions it is not a scientific theory. This is why many people object to calling String Theory a "theory". It currently has no predictions that we are in a position to observe.

If a scientific model remains useful (i.e., it's predictions are still consistent with observation) for a very long period of time, we upgrade the "theory" to a "law". Does this mean it's proved at this point? No. For example, Newton's "laws" of gravitation are almost certainly wrong in certain situations. But they have been and remain extremely useful in other situations. Whether a "theory" or "law" of science is truth is not a topic that science tackles. We are only interested in consistent observable results.

Before I conclude I want to quickly talk about the so called Occam's razor. If you have two equivalent models and one is more complex than the other, you should choose the simpler one. In other words, if you have two different models that explain the same observations and make the same observable predictions, then you should use the simpler one. Is that because it is more likely to be true? No. It's because it is simpler. Using a complex model when a simple one will do is just stupid.

How does this relate to evolution vs creationism? Evolution is a set of scientific theories (it's not just one -- there are many many theories relating to evolution). There are models that explain the observations to date. There are predictions that can be observed. Those predictions have been observed. (For example, if you give a disease to a large population of rabbits in Australia, those who are susceptible to the disease will die and those that aren't will live. You will end up with a population of rabbits which is immune to the disease). We use the theories in evolution every day to deal with environmental issues, medicine, etc, etc.

Creationism says that something created everything (what created everything, how it happened, etc, is dependent upon your belief system -- I won't try to go into more detail). Some observations are explained, but there is no model that I'm aware of. Using the bible (for instance) to make predictions about whether or not it is a good idea to try to wipe out Australian rabbits with a disease isn't going to get me anywhere.

Creationism is an extremely poor scientific model. The theories related to evolution are actually extremely robust and very useful. When we are talking about science, we must talk about evolution. When we are talking about religion, I don't suppose it really matters if we talk about evolution or not. You are free to believe whatever you like -- this is known as freedom of religion. But it is very unproductive (in the extreme) to impose religious viewpoints on the scientific method. The two are not related in any way.

I hope that helps some people who have a poor understanding of the scientific method (very likely not through their own fault).

Re:This is why science rocks.

[r0kk3rz]

All this has happened before. All this will happen again

Re:This is why science rocks.

[JohnFluxx]

Don't you also have to assume that Noah etc all lived 1500 years each etc?

Re:This is why science rocks.

[smash]

There are still people who don't understand satire.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[geschild]

"What if the person/people who started our universe were just a bunch of scientists in their universe?"

Worse, what if our universe is one of a bunch of test-tubes in the drawer of some spotty-faced alien kid? Part of last years science project, now long forgotten about?

What if her mother walks in in a few minutes, finds it and cleanes it out... Will we even realise that our universe ends, never mind how or why?

(The kicker: religious people objecting to the fact that I had to make the alien kid female :P)

Re:This is why science rocks.

[zmooc]

Gravity is also "only a theory" but that doesn't mean you can fly if you don't "believe" in it.

Obviously not, because as we all know, flying requires gravity, otherwise it'd be floating;P

Re:This is why science rocks.

[V!NCENT]

I like LHC's

Re:This is why science rocks.

[V!NCENT]

You see, there'a serious flaw in creationism that has to be solved in order for there to be a God.

Everything that is, has to created. So who created God? And who created the creater of God?

But then when one says: "Well stop thinking there; nobody created God; God just is", the how can't the Big Bang just be?

This is one of the primary reasons I do not believe in creationism.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Raenex]

The other replies to you cover other points, but I wanted to address this one:

The Bible is the "straight dope". I don't see where you're coming from on that point - clarify for me please?

What I mean is why the "straight dope" is delivered through prophets, of which there are many. Yet one, Jesus, happens to become popular and considered authoritative, and some time later we get varying accounts of his teachings and life. Yet if you look around the world and at history, everybody else came up with different religions, with no record of a Jesus figure.

You and I know full well that English had no presence at the time of writing, and wouldn't have been worth much to the people of the time.

You think God is powerful enough to create universes, people from dust and ribs of other people, but can't manage to get the same message across in different languages and time periods? The most obvious explanation is that religion is man made, and the Jesus mythology isn't any different.

If it's communication errors/mistranslations/lost or dropped meanings and texts thing you're worried about, I think God, being who He is, will be(has been) able to get His point across and steer His letter to humans clear of destruction.

Funny how civilizations all around the planet managed to survive before coming into contact with the Bible. Also funny how many wars people have over which flavor of God is the true one. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all essentially believe in the same God, yet they fight amongst each other and themselves. You'd think a just God that wanted to get his message across would deliver the message unambiguously and equally for all people, especially if he's going to punish them for getting it wrong.

You'll notice that, despite the many attempts to rid the world of Bibles, it always seems to reappear

Plenty of other religious texts from history have survived.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[V!NCENT]

I have a question; where do dinasaurs come from?

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Mattskimo]

Usher published his calculation the late 1648.

I just imagined the R&B singer dressed up like Galileo. I nearly shot cola through my nose.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Perhaps. But this begs the question of what came first. The LHC or the universe?

Re:This is why science rocks.

[worf_mo]

Very well said. Additionally, creationism must be very convenient for those in the upper level of the food chain, like the folks you mention who venture into politics. It makes it easy to explain away awkward situations and facts. After all, if it was designed on purpose by your deity, who are you to complain?

On a lighter note:

Gravity is also "only a theory" but that doesn't mean you can fly if you don't "believe" in it.

"Flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." (Douglas Adams)

Re:This is why science rocks.

[NoSleepDemon]

It's LHC's all the way down?

Re:This is why science rocks.

[m50d]

and what is wrong living like the world hasn't moved on if you can afford it? the power bill? your children repeating mistakes?

The answer's the same as to "what's wrong with being wrong about X", for any value of X. You making mistakes, and mistakes that may affect other people; if you don't harm others then I guess you're harmless, but you're still basing your decisions on things that aren't true, which I can't imagine is good for you.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[mcgrew]

Maybe, maybe not. It could have been a Muslim offended because they consider Jesus to be a prophet, or it could have been a Jew taking offense at someone poking fun of a good, Jewish boy done good, it may have been a Hispanic named Jesus that took offense at the misspelling of his name, or "Jebus" may mean some awful obscenity in some obscure language, or it could have been someone on his "foes" list that automatically downmods him when he sees one of his comments.

Then again, it could have been one of the occasional non-nerd dimwits who occasionally get mod points who downmod a comment for no apparent reason.

Modding that comment down was decidedly an anti-Christian thing to do; "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So if it was a Christian, he needs to re-read his bible.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[m50d]

I don't see why an entity that created a universe can't grow a human from a rib.

Even if you assume the can (which is by no means obvious; creating the universe is to a certain extent simpler than creating a human, in the same way that creating an embryo is simpler than creating an adult), the why makes no sense. Why would an entity that created a universe so big that if I wrote the diameter in miles it would be a silly string of zeroes, care about the goings-on of one self-impressed species on one planet of one star of one galaxy, and intervene there, but nowhere else? If this entity likes creating humans from ribs, why don't we see humans being created from ribs all the time? Forgive the flippancy.

much like Israel - I believe it's the only country to be destroyed/dissolved and reform, ever

You forgot Poland. (And probably others)

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Nocturna81]

I believe there's a short story about that one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God's_Debris

Re:This is why science rocks.

[silverglade00]

Parent post is the tiny area of a Venn diagram where "+1, Funny", "+1, Informative", and "+1, Insightful" overlap. Too bad for Randy I don't have any mod points. Oh well, they would expire while I tried to decide which to give anyway.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Coren22]

I am Catholic and I thought it was hilarious. So, dumb people will be dumb, it is now +5 funny, so no worries

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

Have fun in Hell.

Yes, the eternal answer to criticism of Christianity. When you can't make a logical reply, resort to fear mongering and threats. How pathetic.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[mcgrew]

I don't know about your universe, but mine is always exactly 6000 years old.

Wow, mine's only 58. I'll try to stay off your lawn...

Re:This is why science rocks.

[mcgrew]

What if the person/people who started our universe were just a bunch of scientists in their universe?

What if it's just some eighth grader's science experiment? Here's a head asploder -- what if a future LHC (say, by the species that we evolve into that inhabits Earth 10 million years from now) creates the present universe?

What would the zealots hate more, the idea that our universe sprang out of nothing, or that our "god(s)" were just some nerds performing an experiment?

If I'm made in God's image, he must be a nerd.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[mcgrew]

It was +5 funny when I saw it, too, and I also (non-Catholic Christian) thought it funny. I was just offering reasons why a non-Christian might mod it down. In fact, the "Jebus" could be like the old joke where little Johhny is walking home from the store with his cheese and cracker when he trips and lands in a mud puddle.

"Jesus Christ God Almighty!" he swears as he gets up.

"WHAT DID YOU SAY?!?!?" his mother demands.

"Uh, I said 'cheese and crackers got all muddy."

Re:This is why science rocks.

[radtea]

it's kind of a nervous laugh since there is this constant reminder that people exist who want to turn the clock on human knowledge back hundreds of years.

They are also the kind of people who believe that God is a liar, a charlatan and a cheat. If God created the universe as it is and gave us the brains we have, then it is only reasonable to expect that God wants us to use these brains to understand the universe He made. If the answers we get about the universe God made using the brains God gave us contradict scripture, then so much the worse for scripture.

Anyone who believes in scripture does not and cannot believe in God, as they are essentially claiming that God got scripture right, and the universe wrong.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[FredFredrickson]

Reminds me of the Last Question by Issac Asimov - The Last Question

Great short story.. though I bet most people here have already read it. :)

Re:This is why science rocks.

[mcgrew]

ONLY WHEN USED IN MODERATION.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[radtea]

This is one of the most clear and brief accounts of what is wrong with the Bible I have ever read. Thanks!

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Ed_Pinkley]

"Capitalization is the difference between helping my uncle Jack off a horse and..."

Re:This is why science rocks.

[radtea]

God, being holy, couldn't interact with us without a proxy anymore.

Wow, so you not only believe God is incompetent--having failed in His creation of Man--but also that he is limited in his capabilities. Most Christians claim to believe that God is omnipotent, but here you are claiming that there is something God couldn't do: interact with unholy things.

Are there any other limitations you put on God's potentialities? And how exactly did God manage to create unholy things to being with?

Could it be that you don't actually believe in God, who made the universe, at all, but actually believe in scripture, which is a bunch of bizarre fairy-tales written by igorant primitives who didn't know about the germ theory of disease (which would explain its mysterious absense from scripture, when clearly God knew about it and would have known humans would benefit from it?)

Re:This is why science rocks.

[tehcyder]

The problem is, that the universe that the alien kid lives in still had to start from something/somewhere, unless there is some sort of circular cause and effect such that we started his universe and he started ours.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Huh. Thanks for the clarification.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[mcgrew]

The acquisition of knowledge is viewed as a sin, while blind obedience to dogmatic creeds is exalted.

Proverbs 1: "Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish". As to "blind obedience to dogmatic creeds", far from being exalted in the New Testament, those creeds were sorely questioned by Jesus. In fact, he was arrested for "working on the Sabbath" and then executed for heresy.

If I write a work of fiction, am I a murderer for killing off the main character in the last chapter? If I write a computer program, do I murder when I kill off a child process? If I create a universe populated with images of myself, how is it wrong for me to kill them or do anything I want with them? Do you not own the work of your own hands?

The universe is a fiction with you as the main character. Spoiler alert: the main character dies. The only suspense is when.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[cowscows]

Also I think it's important that to many people, believing what scientists say is reality would be just as much a leap of faith as believing that the what their religion tells them is true. You can tell me that science has definitively proven that the universe is at least 13 billion years old because astronomers can see light from stars that are that far away, but all the talk of red shifting and gravitational lensing might not mean much of anything to me. Maybe I've got two kids and a job that I'm worried I might lose, I don't have time to learn the math and check your work, so you might as well be telling me that space is full of black jello. It's so far out of my frame of reference that your "proof" has no meaning to me. You say that hundreds of other scientists have confirmed your observations, but so what, there are thousands of people out there who say that God has spoken to them.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[cowscows]

That's a question that has come up before in religious discussions about the origin of the universe, and it generally falls under the idea of the "uncaused cause". Ok, so our universe has been created in a lab somewhere. Then what created the universe that that lab exists in? Oh, that lab only exists as part of an elaborate computer simulation. Ok, well then what created the universe that that computer exists in?

The argument would be that no matter how many steps back you want to take it, there has to be that first universe that became the canvas for all this other stuff. So whatever made that first universe is the uncaused cause.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Bobb Sledd]

As a Christian, that is a VERY good question that I wrestle with personally. I really wished you had logged in so I could continue a meaningful dialogue. I hope you see this.

Many Christians will argue with me, but I assert this one very rigid and profound rule: "Free Will" and "Omniscience" are completely incompatible notions: If I truly have free will, then no one can possibly know for sure what my next choice will be. And if you do know for certain what my choices will be, then I have no free will; I am bound by some complicated script that must play out.

Well, I personally choose to believe that I am not bound by a script. I choose to believe that I have free will, and that there really can be some randomness to life. And here's why I believe this:

As a Christian, we believe that our purpose in life, the reason we were created, was to glorify God and to have a personal relationship with him. Is it really even possible to have a relationship with someone whom you know every single answer they will say? That would be really boring. It'd be about as much fun as having a chat with Eliza the chat bot.

So, if I must have free will, then I must also re-define the meaning of "omniscience" just a wee little bit.

Perhaps omniscience doesn't mean that one knows the precise outcome of the entire game. Perhaps life is a little more like a Choose-Your-Own Adventure Book. Remember, where you read down to the bottom of the page, and it says something like, "If you choose the Red Door, turn to page 141. If you choose the White Door, turn to page 35."

Well, what if instead, God had all of the pages memorized, he knew where every choice led, what page led to what page, and what outcome, and additionally... because he knows us so well, he could statistically guess what choices we would make at any given moment in our lives?

YET... there needed to exist a random element for the game to be fun. Maybe you might accidentally slip and fall. Maybe you might mess up when singing that song on stage. Maybe you might accidentally oversleep and get fired from your job. Little things no one could predict, just little random variances that aren't in your normal behavior, but are necessary to "randomize the plan" just a bit.

In that way, it appears to me, it is the only way that a God can be "omniscient" and I still have some form of "free will."

And that is what I believe.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Bobb Sledd]

Hm. Please allow me to open your mind just a little.

The problem is that you are applying what you know to be true for THIS reality, and THIS universe from what you've observed, and applying that to unknown exo-realities. Do you believe in the possibility of parallel universes? Perhaps, each where a physical law or some other construct or variable is slightly changed?

Imagine that God is analogous to a computer user who is playing the Sims on a grand scale. The Sims never see God. They can NEVER see God, because he is not in their universe; yet he interacts with it when he chooses, and lets the physical laws move along as they will the rest of the time. And as a Sim, you believe things simply "pop into existence" because that is the behavior objects always take in the Sims. Creating objects? That's just silly.

Similarly, a character in a single frame of a strip of movie film might wonder how things in his environment could ever change. Eternally, that character, in that frame, is stuck in a single emotion, a single position... But from our perspective it can. Because from his frame of reference, he has no concept of time. No concept of order or what an event even is. He is missing far, far more information to put together what exists outside of his dimensions of thinking.

So with those two analogies: What other concepts could we possibly be missing that are beyond our thinking, simply because our physical laws (or lack of them) are different from our God's own environment? Perhaps it could be, that in HIS dimension, beings are not created. They just are. And that is just the way it is in that environment.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Bobb Sledd]

I am really trying to reply to you in an intelligent and respectful manner. But before I address your concerns, let me point out that your post is really making a lot of unfair and accusatory generalizations with unwarranted fear.

If you have a Creationist in your government, what exactly are you afraid of? That they might accidentally bring you a message of peace and love and forgiveness?

Your comparison of a Creationist (which I think you are by association meaning "Christian") to a Muslim simply is not equitable. If you knew anything about the Islam religion, you would know it does not bring a message of peace or tolerance or understanding or even simple equality. People are converted to Islam by force and at the point of a sword; not by choice.

Show me any present-day reference where Christianity does the same thing.

Now let me call out a few characters in the science realm. If you believe in the Big Bang Theory, then please tell me the difference in that and a religion. You have a belief in something you still can't prove. You may have a lot of evidence that supports it, but at the end of the day, you just have a pretty fancy story.

The truth is, if you really are a scientist, and not just another zealot, then you honestly can't believe in anything. You might say, "well according to the prevailing school of thought, the universe was created this way." But until you know that for certain, you must also say, "However, there are some who have evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster wished it into existence." And that possibility --- no matter how small --- must remain a possibility until fully proven that it is not a possibility.

Science has yet to do that, and yet there seems to be this angry "ha! I told you so" every time something goes your way.

Please, just shut up already. I'm tired of hearing another religion that says it isn't.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Bobb Sledd]

I agree with you.

Except, that doesn't mean a Creationist's model can't be made. It just means one hasn't.

And yet, as I'm thinking about it, why does it have to predict anything useful at all?

Why is it any less difficult to conceive that SOMETHING made... just your planet. Or just your solar system. Or just your galaxy. Perhaps it could even be said that sure, planets and stars and solar systems form naturally... but HERE, maybe in this one specific case, it was an alien race not native to your planet that created this one. Some alien race with Terra-forming technology. That knows how to make an environment with just the right amounts of water, oxygen, etc., is just the right distance from the sun... I mean it isn't that far-fetched when you look at it that way... and just happen to give it the name "God." There are many levels from planet to multi-verse where anything more powerful than man could be injected, and be completely undetectably different from nature.

True Creationism (not the rigid extremist kind) doesn't really care WHO created it. The position is that it was just "created" somehow in some manner unnaturally.

That said, I'm not a Creationist, and I happen to believe in Evolution. But my mind is at least open to other possibilities rather than leaping to the conclusion that "oh, that's just some wild fairy tale from wacko-conservatism." Therefore, I consider myself a true scientist.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Bobb Sledd]

Perhaps you have missed the point.

Jesus said a lot of things, but I believe the most important was when he was asked what was the most important commandment was, he gave two. But I'll even shorten it down further to just one, so that if there is ANYTHING that even a non-believing individual could and should take away from the Bible, please take away this one thing:

"Love thy neighbor as thyself."

Thank you, that is all.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[operagost]

Modding that comment down was decidedly an anti-Christian thing to do; "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Actually, if I made a dumb post like that, I would rightfully expect the decidedly lenient punishment of having it modded down.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Walkingshark]

Any deficiencies in the morality of the old testament is always explained away as "oh, those were just flawed people, but God was still good and right." You can rub their nose in the part where God orders his minions to dash babies against rocks, but they just push their head further into the sand. You can lead a person to sense but you can't make them sensible.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[operagost]

What would the zealots hate more, the idea that our universe sprang out of nothing

I'm not a zealot, but considering that Genesis says the universe was without form before it was created, it's much the same.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[operagost]

No, and he's busy destroying all those worthless old MS written by ancient historians. Complete rubbish! We should rely only on the empirical research of science to determine history!

Re:This is why science rocks.

[operagost]

But then when one says: "Well stop thinking there; nobody created God; God just is", the how can't the Big Bang just be?

Because we already have determined the law of conservation of mass and the second law of thermodynamics.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[operagost]

You do realize that you equated belief in creationism with suicide bombing, right? Just wanted to check.

People's differing beliefs don't harm you, in and of themselves. It's what they do with them. Let's not have a Minority Report, thoughtcrime society.

Gravity is also "only a theory" but that doesn't mean you can fly if you don't "believe" in it.

No, actually it's a law in the Newtonian model. Too bad slashdot is apparently loaded with people who never passed third-grace science and have mod points.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[operagost]

Wow. Not only are you wrong in assuming the ark needed to be made of steel, you speculated that it would be too small (there are lots of studies existing on this; the ones that use actual numbers claim it's plausible) and we have, indeed, found lots of evidence of flood levels around the world in the proper time frame. The best physical evidence is in the Middle East, which lends credence to the theory that it was only a local event, but we have flood narratives from many, many religions.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[operagost]

The rib thing is already wrong, because it insinuates that women can be created from men, when it's been proven that the natural default gender of a human is female, and you become male later.

Who's sillier: someone who literally believes the Bible, or someone who thinks God is going to use some sort of cloning machine that meets Slashdot specifications?

Re:This is why science rocks.

[operagost]

As we all know, we grow older and our bodies essentially break in at least some ways almost from birth. Before the fall, we did not. Afterward, we began to die ON THAT DAY.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[operagost]

How about backing up any of that ad hoc tripe with some empirical evidence?

Empirical? This is literary analysis, not a science experiment. He should have provided citations, but the Gospels and Paul's epistles explain these concepts.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

The acquisition of knowledge is viewed as a sin, while blind obedience to dogmatic creeds is exalted.

Proverbs 1: "Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish".

And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." - Gen. 2:16-17
Why, isn't that verse the root of the whole concept of Original Sin, which is in turn the whole point of the sacrifice of Jesus?

As to "blind obedience to dogmatic creeds", far from being exalted in the New Testament, those creeds were sorely questioned by Jesus. In fact, he was arrested for "working on the Sabbath" and then executed for heresy.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. - Mat. 28:19-20
Yup, that Jesus was big on freethinking. No obeying creeds for him!

If I write a work of fiction, am I a murderer for killing off the main character in the last chapter? If I write a computer program, do I murder when I kill off a child process? If I create a universe populated with images of myself, how is it wrong for me to kill them or do anything I want with them? Do you not own the work of your own hands?

The universe is a fiction with you as the main character. Spoiler alert: the main character dies. The only suspense is when.

Why, yes, if you somehow managed to create sentient beings, you would be a murderer for killing them. You'd be worse than a spoiled child killing his pets out of peevish perversity. Or are you suggesting that you believe that your god created us as deluded automatons, fit only to be used as mindless toys and destroyed at his leisure? How twisted are your beliefs, exactly?

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

Perhaps you have missed the point.

Jesus said a lot of things, but I believe the most important was when he was asked what was the most important commandment was, he gave two. But I'll even shorten it down further to just one, so that if there is ANYTHING that even a non-believing individual could and should take away from the Bible, please take away this one thing:

"Love thy neighbor as thyself."

Thank you, that is all.

And, as I said, if you winnowed out the utter crap of the rest of the book, there are nuggets of wisdom.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

Wow. Not only are you wrong in assuming the ark needed to be made of steel,

Not I, ye of little link reading.

Some deviations have been necessary such as building the Ark out of American Cedar and Pine over a steel hull (otherwise it collapse under its own weight) rather than the enigmatic gopher wood specified in the Bible.

From the link the grandparent posted. Do try to keep up.

you speculated that it would be too small (there are lots of studies existing on this; the ones that use actual numbers claim it's plausible)

Now it's my turn: [CITATION PLEASE]
And it's pretty obvious. Calculate the volume of your ark. Now, go measure the body mass of just the occupants of your local zoo. Now, add in the food stores needed for the length of time Noah was floating about(the zoo keepers can help you here). You've already likely run out of space, unless your local zoo only houses a couple of ferrets and a raccoon. Now do this for every land ecosystem on the face of the planet. 'Nuff said.

and we have, indeed, found lots of evidence of flood levels around the world in the proper time frame. The best physical evidence is in the Middle East, which lends credence to the theory that it was only a local event, but we have flood narratives from many, many religions.

Great. You have flood narratives from many cultures. Many cultures who lived next to many rivers which often flooded. The mind boggles as to why they would have similar myths. You would think that cultural and historical commonalities would lead to analogous beliefs about gods, diseases, weather, seasons and other natural occurrences. Oh, wait, they do.

Oh, and what exactly would the "proper time frame" be? I'd like to see the evidence you are proposing.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

Who's sillier: someone who literally believes the Bible, or someone who thinks God is going to use some sort of cloning machine that meets Slashdot specifications?

Who is sillier, someone who believes in Iron Man or someone who believes in Superman?

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

Unfortunately, it's also wrong and misguided. But whatever makes you feel better.

I notice you didn't bother refuting any of it. Typical. Feel free to cling to your delusions. Whatever makes you feel better.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

Any deficiencies in the morality of the old testament is always explained away as "oh, those were just flawed people, but God was still good and right." You can rub their nose in the part where God orders his minions to dash babies against rocks, but they just push their head further into the sand. You can lead a person to sense but you can't make them sensible.

I hear that. Rationality is a scarce commodity in some circles. Especially when it contradicts their favorite Bronze Age myths.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[CODiNE]

That idea would actually be easy enough to test. We'd just have to check the verb tense of "die" in that sentence and see if it's a "perfect" tense as in "will be dead that day" or imperfect tense as in "begin the process of dying". I'll have to research that one sometime.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

Empirical? This is literary analysis, not a science experiment. He should have provided citations, but the Gospels and Paul's epistles explain these concepts.

Do you even know what the context of this conversation is? Let me refresh your memory:

Interestingly contrary to what you've posted, the more I read the Bible, and the more I learn from science and history, the more they seem to join and support the other.

If he can't back up his claims with empirical data, he's just repeating groundless theological conjecture. Which is NOT SCIENCE. Which is the point of this thread. Again, do try to keep up.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

As we all know, we grow older and our bodies essentially break in at least some ways almost from birth. Before the fall, we did not. Afterward, we began to die ON THAT DAY.

Got some fossil evidence to back that claim up?

Re:This is why science rocks.

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

Another interesting take. Well, you took my words and the literal meaning, so it's mostly my fault for phrasing it so, I suppose. Yes, He actually could interact with it(us). And then we'd die. Which was not His wish. So, He "couldn't", for the sense that it wouldn't accomplish His intentions.

Another thing the non-Christian population at large(and, alarmingly, some Christians as well) understand badly is the "failed creation" you mentioned. It wasn't fallen from the beginning. God walked with Adam and Eve in the garden, talked with them, generally spent a lot of time with them, before they met the serpent(Satan). Who caused them to fall. So they weren't created broken, if that pairing of words makes any sense. Your next question will be "If He knew they'd fall, why'd He let them/created them in the first place?", yes?

Re:This is why science rocks.

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

The "created the universe" bit was meant to portray the infinite ability for creation. He seems to have demonstrated it well, no? In text, even if you don't believe it actually occurred.

The reason, however, is a somewhat more complicated matter. Or rather, it just takes a bit of explaining if you haven't read much of the Bible. To condense the story, I'll tell you that God is a bachelor, and is looking to fix that. The church, which has been snapped into hundreds of pieces by the same person who sabotaged humans in the first place, is to be His eventual bride. I think if you wanted any detail on the story, you'd want to read Revelation. Not much of it will make sense unless you read the four gospels at least, but verses like Rev:21:2( And I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband) will help tell the story.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

I was tempted to make you Google it.

Somewhere between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 would be the time period, but of their source, the Bible isn't explicit. The points in Job and Genesis don't seem to lay much importance in it, (probably because it has nothing to do with God or His intentions) so they barely even mention the existence of creatures on earth at the time. I think there's one verse in Job 9(49?) that notes it, while telling of the past before humans. But, unfortunately, your question goes largely unanswered. I'm sure an archaeological dig will point to their origins, one day.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

Yet if you look around the world and at history, everybody else came up with different religions, with no record of a Jesus figure.

Of course. I can't remember if I said this, but man is three parts("made in the image of God", remember that from Genesis?). Body, soul, spirit, in that order, outermost to innermost[1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the God of peace Himself sanctify you wholly, and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.](the soul is also three part - mind, emotion, will). With the third part, your spirit, dead though(thanks to the introduction of sin), that's one third of you inactive. And it wants to be active(not just on it's own, but with nudging from the Lord as well). But, as with almost every Hollywood movie, this story too has a "bad guy". Satan, who has done just about everything he can to twist and corrupt God's creations and plans, plays the biggest hand there. Distract, distract, distract, and hopefully the church will never fully mature. That's his apparent direction.

You think God is powerful enough to create universes, people from dust and ribs of other people, but can't manage to get the same message across in different languages and time periods?

Hasn't He? I know Bibles are in well over a hundred languages, and pretty well dispersed. Again, I think I'm missing something in your question.

Funny how civilizations all around the planet managed to survive before coming into contact with the Bible. Also funny how many wars people have over which flavor of God is the true one. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all essentially believe in the same God, yet they fight amongst each other and themselves.

Especially amusing when you say that, knowing Muslims and the Jewish people say Jesus is not God. They, essentially, believe in a different God altogether. On top of that, there's always someone lying... But I addressed that in my first answer.

You'd think a just God that wanted to get his message across would deliver the message unambiguously and equally for all people, especially if he's going to punish them for getting it wrong.

Do they not have access to Bibles? Some don't, for sure, but I think quite a few do(and more every day, with a bit of effort and prayer). It's just that they reject it. Okay, I think that's enough parentheses.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

While I'm not sure why you bothered voicing the science of a situation that defies any kind of modern logic, the second paragraph of yours is more interesting.

The passage is mostly used to 'justify' that women are 'inferior' to men.

Yes. And more. The scene is also typifying Christ's relation with the church(called in Revelation "the bride of Christ"). As an entity which also came from Christ's side(while Jesus was on the cross, a Roman soldier put a spear in His side, and "out came blood and water"), the two relations are very similar, and seemingly not by accident.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

No sir. Unless you would accept someone else's writings on the Bible cross examined with personal experience, no. As of yet, I've found very little besides the Bible and actual experience can report on the human spirit.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

Doesn't match the evidence. That's why it's a silly notion.

You're mentioning a specific evidence it seems, but I'm either too tired or not paying enough attention, because I don't know what exactly you're citing.

Congratulations. You proven that, given a steel hull, Noah could have built an ark which could float. Oh, and is still far too small to contain even a decent fraction of the land creatures of the Earth, even ignoring the food problem. Oh, and which supposedly floated around on a worldwide flood which mysteriously left no worldwide evidence behind. Truly, an awe inspiring feat.

Truly.

Isn't it obvious? He's asking why God couldn't give a straight account of creation,

Hey, that's my line! The Bible is the straight account(a.k.a. "dope").

I also notice that we have religious writings from other cultures of that age. We even have pornography from way back then. God must be protecting all of that, too.

While I'm sure the Bible's survival is not a unique case, it certainly has faced quite a bit of opposition(none of which, I'm sure, porn was forced to withstand. Ancient or otherwise), and yet still exists. An interesting note, but yes, nothing more.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

Touche. Back to my books it seems.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Raenex]

Hasn't He? I know Bibles are in well over a hundred languages, and pretty well dispersed. Again, I think I'm missing something in your question.

I have a hard time understanding your answer. In the first part you lay out a bunch of mystical mumbo-jumbo in answer to why there are different religions, which in the end say, I think, "Satan's fault!". Why does God even allow an evil being like Satan in the first place? Where is the counter to Satan in these other civilizations and times? A random person growing up in one of these civilizations never would have had a chance to receive the message. Instead, they would have adopted one of the prevailing religions.

But then you reverse yourself, and say the Bible is everywhere, and ask what's the problem. You're looking at modern times and completely ignoring all of human history.

Especially amusing when you say that, knowing Muslims and the Jewish people say Jesus is not God. They, essentially, believe in a different God altogether.

A different variation of the same God. Islam is an offshoot of Christianity which is an offshoot of Judaism. Regarding whether "Jesus is God", even the Christians can't agree on that point. Which again highlights the problem with the Bible. You say the message is easily muddled but essentially there, but then you rely on it's authority in rather specific interpretations of it.

On top of that, there's always someone lying... But I addressed that in my first answer.

Yeah, Satan did it. What a convenient fellow to blame things on.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

You're mentioning a specific evidence it seems, but I'm either too tired or not paying enough attention, because I don't know what exactly you're citing.

I am referring to the rib idea. There is no empirical evidence for it, and it directly contradicts the facts of human descent.

Hey, that's my line! The Bible is the straight account(a.k.a. "dope").

As I have noted, it doesn't agree with itself, let alone what we know of the physical history of the universe. That makes your claim problematic at best.

While I'm sure the Bible's survival is not a unique case, it certainly has faced quite a bit of opposition(none of which, I'm sure, porn was forced to withstand. Ancient or otherwise), and yet still exists. An interesting note, but yes, nothing more.

Are you not aware of the long standing monotheistic attacks upon sexual literature? Moreover, are you not aware of the opposition that Christians had to Christian writings that they considered heretical? It's simply not a mark of divine intervention that any particular piece of literature survived that long, especially something as widespread and copied as the Bible in its various forms.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

No sir. Unless you would accept someone else's writings on the Bible cross examined with personal experience, no. As of yet, I've found very little besides the Bible and actual experience can report on the human spirit.

Nope. I don't accept that, anymore than I accept Muslim anecdotes cross examined by Islamic experience.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

Another interesting take. Well, you took my words and the literal meaning, so it's mostly my fault for phrasing it so, I suppose. Yes, He actually could interact with it(us). And then we'd die. Which was not His wish. So, He "couldn't", for the sense that it wouldn't accomplish His intentions.

Then he is not omnipotent.

Another thing the non-Christian population at large(and, alarmingly, some Christians as well) understand badly is the "failed creation" you mentioned. It wasn't fallen from the beginning. God walked with Adam and Eve in the garden, talked with them, generally spent a lot of time with them, before they met the serpent(Satan). Who caused them to fall. So they weren't created broken, if that pairing of words makes any sense. Your next question will be "If He knew they'd fall, why'd He let them/created them in the first place?", yes?

We have ample evidence for the nature of life going back to single celled organisms. There is no evidence of a time when life was anything like what is claimed as the "unfallen" creation.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

The "created the universe" bit was meant to portray the infinite ability for creation. He seems to have demonstrated it well, no? In text, even if you don't believe it actually occurred.

That, of course, is the crux of this argument. Allah, Elune, Zeus and any number of other characters demonstrated amazing powers. In text, at least.

The reason, however, is a somewhat more complicated matter. Or rather, it just takes a bit of explaining if you haven't read much of the Bible. To condense the story, I'll tell you that God is a bachelor, and is looking to fix that. The church, which has been snapped into hundreds of pieces by the same person who sabotaged humans in the first place, is to be His eventual bride. I think if you wanted any detail on the story, you'd want to read Revelation. Not much of it will make sense unless you read the four gospels at least, but verses like Rev:21:2( And I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband) will help tell the story.

I am aware of the theology behind the "bride of Christ." That doesn't make it any more likely than Mormon theology, to pick one example.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

The morality of the Bible is repulsive. Women and children are treated little better than chattle. Blind obedience is exalted(Abraham and Isaac). Genocide is a commandment from God. Ritual vicarious atonement is practiced as blood sacrifices, which the Christians later claim as a precursor to Jesus' sacrifice. The New Testament would seem better if it didn't add in the concept of Hell, reinforced the earlier misogyny and make claims which can be empirically proven false about the efficacy of Christian prayer.

Now there's something to be going on. It took me about an hour to puzzle over the best answer to your presentation of the Bible's recording of God's various misdeeds. Once I had formed it(with additional help from, of all places, your signature), I realized I didn't even need to ask you to give examples. Go figure. The reason is this. If I answer, "No; it is moral because it is God", you say "Your God is revels in genocide and bloody rituals". If I say, "Yes; you're right, it is immoral", you say "Your God is immoral". And so forth. We argue over what is or isn't immoral, for what reasons, and likely it would take a long time. And maybe, though not likely, I, or any other Christian in this exact same position, wins the argument! But even if they win the argument, they lose. The opponent of the Christian loses as well. Someone else claims the victory here.
Maybe instead, the atheist wins(I'm not sure what your standing is, but atheism is most likely, but it doesn't matter regardless of your stance). But the atheist, at the same time, loses, as does the Christian. Because regardless of the argument's result, both argue-ers are telling one another what is good, and what is evil. They have the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and they use it to argue. The source is not from the Tree of Life.

So here is the answer. Whether or not we are right when we say "this is good[moral]" or "this is bad[immoral]", we are wrong[read: dead(spiritually)]. We are wrong because we have the wrong source. To use a car-related analogy, winning a drag race means nothing if you and I are on the wrong track. The result of the argument is meaningless, because no matter the result, the winner is yours, my, and God's enemy. I will not tell you the Bible is moral, or God is moral. I will not pretend to be able to define lines between good and bad, right and wrong, because what one American says is acceptable, a man in Tehran shuns from sight. God defines the lines. You and I don't need to worry about that. Our goal should not be Good or Bad, because neither one is Life. Life is in Christ. That is my answer.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

which in the end say, I think, "Satan's fault!

Well, you got the gist of it then. It doesn't sound like you really understood it though - ask anything, I'll explain as best I can.

Why does God even allow an evil being like Satan in the first place? Where is the counter to Satan in these other civilizations and times?

The same reason He hasn't replaced us with a whole new batch of humans. Lucifer, as he was first called, was once His prize pupil, a beautiful being, and God's second. His favorite creation by far. He loved Lucifer. Regardless, he will be punished.

But then you reverse yourself, and say the Bible is everywhere, and ask what's the problem. You're looking at modern times and completely ignoring all of human history.

You're right. I took none of it into account. And it certainly doesn't seem fair, does it? But then, I don't define fair.

A different variation of the same God. Islam is an offshoot of Christianity which is an offshoot of Judaism. Regarding whether "Jesus is God", even the Christians can't agree on that point.

A variation of the same is not the same. It is a variation. Thus, different. As for the divide among Christians, there is an inconvenient fellow who takes the blame with a grin. Trust me, I wish I never had reason to mention him myself. But alas. He seems to have humans by the nose. Including you, and when I'm not praying or praising, me. Alright, last issue addressed here.

Which again highlights the problem with the Bible. You say the message is easily muddled but essentially there, but then you rely on it's authority in rather specific interpretations of it.

You make a keen observation there. You're perfectly right, I do. I use a Bible called the recovery version, for the reason that those who translated it decided that regardless of whether they understood the sentence they translated, they wouldn't alter the wording. There are a few exceptions, and those are marked out by footnotes, which tell you what the original word is, and thus you have the original text of the Bible, as close as it can be in English. Honestly, I might learn Hebrew or Greek just so I can read the original manuscripts in their original forms. With that said, I don't think many updated translations hold enough errors, or big enough errors, to warp the original word spoken.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

I am referring to the rib idea. There is no empirical evidence for it, and it directly contradicts the facts of human descent.

When you prove evolution solidly, or find Adam's body, which I don't think is really possible either, you can say that without being hypocritical at the same time. For now, it's not a subject you and I can discuss to any end.

As I have noted, it doesn't agree with itself, let alone what we know of the physical history of the universe. That makes your claim problematic at best.

If you read a Bible, and it explicitly states one thing, and then states the contrary, one of two things has occurred. The first being you misread, mistook, or misunderstood a passage. That's the most common "disagreement" in the Bible. Another reason the recovery version is my favorite, because it has footnotes to explain concisely. Two, you're holding a poorly translated Bible, where the translator(s) inserted a different, but similar text in place of the original, because it made no sense to them. That's not uncommon either. A third just occurred to me, that you aren't reading the Bible.

Are you not aware of the long standing monotheistic attacks upon sexual literature?

I'll give on that. You win.

It's simply not a mark of divine intervention that any particular piece of literature survived that long, especially something as widespread and copied as the Bible in its various forms.

Perfectly true as well. An interesting note, nothing more.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

Then he is not omnipotent.

Your infinite wisdom does not seem to agree with God's infinite wisdom then, and I have no place in the discussion. I'll give you two some space to talk it out.

We have ample evidence for the nature of life going back to single celled organisms. There is no evidence of a time when life was anything like what is claimed as the "unfallen" creation.

Nor do we have evidence the it is currently fallen. Or that there is a difference between the two. Or that either really exist. In fact, do I exist? Am I really typing these words? What are words?
Mockery aside, I think the point here is simple. You won't have evidence. Even if fallen and unfallen states left physical evidence behind for you to examine, it is long since gone. The question is pointless, because the answer won't be found.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

That, of course, is the crux of this argument. Allah, Elune, Zeus and any number of other characters demonstrated amazing powers. In text, at least.

You deduced that crux with your mind and critical thinking skills. How are you able to do that? The monkeys who are called our family members remain unable.

I am aware of the theology behind the "bride of Christ." That doesn't make it any more likely than Mormon theology, to pick one example.

It's not a question of "likely". It's not "likely" that God made men. It's a factual knowledge conveyed through the Bible and prophets. In the same way, it's not likely that God wants a corporate bride, of the church. It's a factual knowledge conveyed through the Bible and prophets.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

When you prove evolution solidly, or find Adam's body, which I don't think is really possible either, you can say that without being hypocritical at the same time. For now, it's not a subject you and I can discuss to any end.

Evolution is quite solidly proven at this point. I suggest you put your Bible down, and pick up any of the many introductory books on the subject. You don't even have to pick up a book by an atheist if you so choose. You will find sufficient works from theists such as Ken Miller who have written excellent books defending evolution.

If you read a Bible, and it explicitly states one thing, and then states the contrary, one of two things has occurred. The first being you misread, mistook, or misunderstood a passage. That's the most common "disagreement" in the Bible. Another reason the recovery version is my favorite, because it has footnotes to explain concisely. Two, you're holding a poorly translated Bible, where the translator(s) inserted a different, but similar text in place of the original, because it made no sense to them. That's not uncommon either. A third just occurred to me, that you aren't reading the Bible.

No, it is utterly irrational to first assume that the book you are investigating is infallible. It is a fine method of remaining locked into an irrational belief system, but it is neither a scientific mindset nor is it useful for anything aside from ignoring evidence.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

Your infinite wisdom does not seem to agree with God's infinite wisdom then, and I have no place in the discussion. I'll give you two some space to talk it out.

Given that your god doesn't seem inclined to give evidence of his existence aside from specious claims from his followers, I doubt I will be hearing from him.

Nor do we have evidence the it is currently fallen.

Then why believe it?

Or that there is a difference between the two. Or that either really exist. In fact, do I exist? Am I really typing these words? What are words? Mockery aside, I think the point here is simple. You won't have evidence. Even if fallen and unfallen states left physical evidence behind for you to examine, it is long since gone. The question is pointless, because the answer won't be found.

Then you are again making unscientific, unfounded and illogical claims. How does fit with your thesis that science and the Bible fit together again?

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

Now there's something to be going on. It took me about an hour to puzzle over the best answer to your presentation of the Bible's recording of God's various misdeeds. Once I had formed it(with additional help from, of all places, your signature), I realized I didn't even need to ask you to give examples. Go figure. The reason is this. If I answer, "No; it is moral because it is God", you say "Your God is revels in genocide and bloody rituals". If I say, "Yes; you're right, it is immoral", you say "Your God is immoral". And so forth. We argue over what is or isn't immoral, for what reasons, and likely it would take a long time. And maybe, though not likely, I, or any other Christian in this exact same position, wins the argument! But even if they win the argument, they lose. The opponent of the Christian loses as well. Someone else claims the victory here. Maybe instead, the atheist wins(I'm not sure what your standing is, but atheism is most likely, but it doesn't matter regardless of your stance). But the atheist, at the same time, loses, as does the Christian. Because regardless of the argument's result, both argue-ers are telling one another what is good, and what is evil. They have the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and they use it to argue. The source is not from the Tree of Life. So here is the answer. Whether or not we are right when we say "this is good[moral]" or "this is bad[immoral]", we are wrong[read: dead(spiritually)]. We are wrong because we have the wrong source. To use a car-related analogy, winning a drag race means nothing if you and I are on the wrong track. The result of the argument is meaningless, because no matter the result, the winner is yours, my, and God's enemy. I will not tell you the Bible is moral, or God is moral. I will not pretend to be able to define lines between good and bad, right and wrong, because what one American says is acceptable, a man in Tehran shuns from sight. God defines the lines. You and I don't need to worry about that. Our goal should not be Good or Bad, because neither one is Life. Life is in Christ. That is my answer.

Pointing to a literary character from your favorite mythology and claiming that their interference is the reason your scriptures and beliefs aren't logically coherent is not exactly a compelling argument. Do you not see how circular your reasoning is?

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

And, for the record, I am an ex-Christian atheist. I was in your shoes once. The difference appears to be that I was willing to subject my own beliefs to the same levels of critical thought as those of other believers.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

Evolution is quite solidly proven at this point.

I will admit ignorance the subject. Has the been a study that conclusively showed one species evolving into a new species?

No, it is utterly irrational to first assume that the book you are investigating is infallible.

My entire argument is irrational. I'm telling you that a book conveys the secrets of the universe, a book that is hotly contested by the devil, who wishes it had never appeared, but did because God gave men the words to write so that He could save us all from a spiritual death. If you keep thinking irrationally and rationally, you'll miss the entire thing, so listen, experience, and then decide. God will give Life simply because you want it, and believe He can give it, and He is "rich to all who call upon Him; For whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."(Romans 10:12-13)

Re:This is why science rocks.

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

Given that your god doesn't seem inclined to give evidence of his existence aside from specious claims from his followers, I doubt I will be hearing from him.

Then if you want to prove once and for all that He does not exist, follow Him.

Then you are again making unscientific, unfounded and illogical claims.

Experience > decide. I am, after all, making totally illogical claims. Find if I'm wrong.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

At this point in this particular discussion, pointing to the argument I've just pointed away from and saying "this is not yet settled" very nearly deserves a crude expression of exasperation, such as a facepalm.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

And with all that critical thinking, you've never once wondered "why can I think critically?". Or maybe you did, and forgot the question when you stopped meeting with the church. I can't tell, and won't try. I'm curious now, if only to know how it happened. What's your story sir?

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

And with all that critical thinking, you've never once wondered "why can I think critically?". Or maybe you did, and forgot the question when you stopped meeting with the church. I can't tell, and won't try. I'm curious now, if only to know how it happened. What's your story sir?

I can think critically because it was advantageous to the survival of my ancestors and selected for. Nothing mysterious about it at all. It's simply a more advanced form of the same abilities as found in other life forms.

As far as my story, I've already told it. In a nutshell, I was a Christian apologist who realized that my own beliefs were as ludicrous as those I was trying to "save." Honesty and a devotion to seeking the truth dictated that I abandon my earlier beliefs. What's your story?

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

I will admit ignorance the subject. Has the been a study that conclusively showed one species evolving into a new species?

There have been many such studies. I suggest you spend some time reading up on it. At the very least, it would prepare you for arguments like this.

My entire argument is irrational.

Well, that's a solid admission.

I'm telling you that a book conveys the secrets of the universe, a book that is hotly contested by the devil, who wishes it had never appeared, but did because God gave men the words to write so that He could save us all from a spiritual death. If you keep thinking irrationally and rationally, you'll miss the entire thing, so listen, experience, and then decide.

You are asking the same thing of me as every other religion, every crazy cult leader and every two-bit con man. You'll get the same answer.

God will give Life simply because you want it, and believe He can give it, and He is "rich to all who call upon Him; For whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."(Romans 10:12-13)

You seem to forget that I was a Christian at one point.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

Then if you want to prove once and for all that Zeus does not exist, follow Him.

You follow your own advice first, and prove once and for all that Zeus does not exist. Get back with me on how it goes.

Experience > decide. I am, after all, making totally illogical claims. Find if I'm wrong.

And, yet again, I will mention that I was Christian at one point. I have already found out.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

You deduced that crux with your mind and critical thinking skills. How are you able to do that? The monkeys who are called our family members remain unable.

And they can climb trees better than I. And fish can swim better than I. Birds can fly better. The fact that our species developed specialized cognitive abilities has no bearing on whether a divine creator exists.

It's not a question of "likely". It's not "likely" that God made men. It's a factual knowledge conveyed through the Bible and prophets. In the same way, it's not likely that God wants a corporate bride, of the church. It's a factual knowledge conveyed through the Bible and prophets.

No, it's not "factual knowledge." It is groundless conjecture. It's a completely ad hoc explanation of reality which doesn't take into account actual factual knowledge.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[wrook]

And yet, as I'm thinking about it, why does it have to predict anything useful at all?

This is the crucial point. A model that doesn't predict isn't science. The point of science is to create models that predict future observations. You can easily create models that don't predict future observations. I can say that the world sits on the back of a turtle. The turtle sits on the back of another turtle. There are turtles all the way down. This is fine. But if I can't make a prediction that I can observe, then it isn't science.

Science is about useful models. The method has been refined over the centuries and has developed into something that allows us to do amazing things. That said, it isn't necessarily about discovering the truth. There is room for both approaches IMHO. You can believe whatever you like. But if you can't make a model that makes observable predictions, then it isn't science. Not being science doesn't necessarily make it bad, though.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Raenex]

And it certainly doesn't seem fair, does it? But then, I don't define fair.

You may not, but I do. I prefer to think for myself rather than accept dogma. The obvious answer about why some version of the Bible wasn't found in every culture to me isn't because God works in mysterious ways, or Satan, but because people all around the world were just making up religions. The Christian religion isn't anything special in that regard, except for being one of the popular ones.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[radtea]

Unfortunately, it's also wrong and misguided.

It's nothing of the kind. Consider the following statements:

1) The two versions of the creation myth don't match. Furthermore... it gets the order wrong. Plants are created before the sun, moon and stars. The seas were populated after the land.

This is all LITERALLY true of the Bible. Creative, imaginative, metaphorical readings are possible that make these problems seem to go away, but of course then you have completely rejected the Bible as the basis of your belief and replaced it with whatever principle you used to create the imaginative reading that makes these literal falsehoods seem coherent.

2) Women and children are treated little better than chattle. Blind obedience is exalted (Abraham and Isaac). Genocide is a commandment from God. Ritual vicarious atonement is practiced as blood sacrifices, which the Christians later claim as a precursor to Jesus' sacrifice. The New Testament would seem better if it didn't add in the concept of Hell, reinforced the earlier misogyny and make claims which can be empirically proven false about the efficacy of Christian prayer.

Again, all LITERALLY true, and furthermore there is a goodly body of specifically Christian theology that accepts these aspects of the Bible as literally true. Again, you can abandon the Bible as the foundation of your belief and use some other, completely unrelated principle, to make up some just-so stories about how "things were different" back then regarding women and children, and how the power of prayer isn't really the power to acomplish anything but rather the power to be told "no", which is in direct contradition to the literal reading of the Bible.

3) The theology ... starts with a concept of man as a deviant, broken being in need of salvation. The ... deity which created him ... enable[s] that salvation through the [sacrifice] of his son/self.

Again, stripped of the inflamatory language, this is unexceptionable theology. You cannot possibly deny this and call yourself a Christian. It is at the core of Christian doctrine. You can disagree with the OP's evaluation of this doctrine, but you cannot disagree that it IS doctrine.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[fyrewulff]

A silly reply is the only thing that fits a silly question.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Bobb Sledd]

No, sir, I disagree with that. It isn't just about models that can predict things.

You would agree with me that archeology is a part of science, is it not?

Assuming you say yes, then what does the discovery of a mummy or a king's treasure or a civilization's mathematical processes or sewage system -- what does it predict exactly? Nothing. Now, I'll grant that we occasionally learn some new scientific fact about mathematics or astronomy that we didn't know and can perhaps apply to our own models, and history will teach you lessons that you should learn from and apply to your own society, but on the whole of it, it doesn't predict a darn thing. But it does piece together how past human civilization worked (or didn't work) and evolved (or died out).

What about forensics? It's all about how a particular event occurred and it's parameters.

There are lots of theories out there that explain how something came to be, but don't necessarily predict how things will be. All product of science.

Well you might say, "No, the act of archeology is the science part, the discoveries are just its product -- it predicts where you'll find history."

Fine then. I would even be OK with saying that any form of Creationism fits under the "History" topic and not "Science." But the Big Bang theory and the Theory of Evolution will suffer the same issues. Evolution only explains how we got here, it makes no prediction about where we will be (and it can't). And I have no idea what the Big Bang predicts exactly. Maybe you can enlighten me.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Bootsy Collins]

No, sir, I disagree with that. It isn't just about models that can predict things.

You would agree with me that archeology is a part of science, is it not?

No, I would say it is not; although archaeologists certainly use some tools of science in their work. Archaeology to me is a branch of anthropology, and is no more a science than history is. Paleontology, OTOH, can be science.

Evolution only explains how we got here, it makes no prediction about where we will be (and it can't).

That's not how scientists use the word "prediction." In science, a prediction simply means "if I go and do this experiment or conduct this observation, what would my theory tell me I should find?" Evolutionary theory has made predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, the comparative anatomy of genetically similar species (or, similarly, the genetic sequences present in morphologically similar species), the geographical distribution of species, etc.

And I have no idea what the Big Bang predicts exactly. Maybe you can enlighten me.

The dynamic nature of space (i.e. that it's not static). (observed)

The existence of the cosmic microwave background, with a blackbody spectrum (observed) and an energy density that scales with redshift in a specific way (observed at multiple redshifts).

The existence of the cosmic neutrino background, with an energy density that relates to the energy density of the CMBR in a specific way. (this is a prediction that hasn't yet been observed, by the way; but experimentally we're a long way away from being able to try.)

The cosmic abundances of hydrogen, helium and lithium. (observed)

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Bootsy Collins]

It is an insightful comment, but it lacks enough information for some people to share the insight.

(rest of your post snipped)

It's probable that nobody's reading this anymore; but just in case . . .

I agree with a lot of what you say, but the point I was trying to make with my reply was more fundamental.

The poster to whom I replied referred to a scientific theory being *proven*. This represents a fundamental misconception of science. Science is not in the business of proving things true. In fact, if it's in the business of proving anything at all, it's proving things *false*.

To elaborate: it is impossible to prove a scientific theory to be true. No matter how much evidence you have in favor of a theory, it's always possible that tomorrow, someone will conceive of and execute an experiment under circumstances that the theory implicitly says shouldn't matter that then provides a result that's inconsistent with the theory. You can accumulate evidence in favor of a theory, but you can never, ever prove a theory to be true. And people who say "________ is just a theory that hasn't been proved" thus are advertising that they don't know what they're talking about.

But while you can't prove anything true in science, you can prove things false. A theory that makes firm predictions that fail the test of experiment is wrong.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[246o1]

Nice use of pi. It's better at being random than our brains are.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Thing 1]

It's not a troll, it is what I firmly believe. But, whatever.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[geschild]

Sorry, should've mentioned I actually believe it's turtles all the way down... :D

Re:This is why science rocks.

[cong06]

The one thing I quickly want to add, is alot of the stories don't quite match up because they were written by different people. I'm personally (as a christian) very schepical about the Mat. 28:19-20 verse, and think that many churches have taken it out of context.

Nip THAT one in the bud

[Un pobre guey]

Turn it off! Turn it off! Dude! Turn the fucking thing off!

Re:Nip THAT one in the bud

[Picass0]

...and you thought there would be no consequences for learning the horrible truth of Super-Science?

Re:Nip THAT one in the bud

[Halifax Samuels]

No, it's cool. I'm actively monitoring this. We're still good.

Re:Nip THAT one in the bud

[toriver]

If they turn it off it will release all the ghosts! Didn't you see Ghostbusters?

Re:Nip THAT one in the bud

[Robert Zenz]

Unforeseen consequences.

Re:Nip THAT one in the bud

[Evil.Bonsai]

Dr Kleiner says it's well within parameters, nothing to worry about.

Re:Nip THAT one in the bud

[LostAlaska]

Holy crap! It's not Shrodinger's Cat that's in the box... it's all of us! Don't open the Box!!!!

Re:Nip THAT one in the bud

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we should tell them about the resonance cascade scenario?

Re:Nip THAT one in the bud

[slshwtw]

You may want to use the RSS feed then.

Re:Nip THAT one in the bud

[X0563511]

What the hell is all this for? (tag brackets replaced to survive /. mangling)

{html}
{head}
{style type="text/css"}
body {
background-color: #000;
color: #fff;
font-family:arial,helvetica;
font-size:5em;
text-align: center;
}
#main {
margin: 0px auto;
margin-top: 150px;
width: 350px;
text-align:center;
}
{/style}
{title}Has the Large Hadron Collider destroyed the world yet?{/title}
{link rel="alternate" type="application/atom+xml" title="Recent Entries"
href="http://www.hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/atom.xml" /}
{/head}
{body}
{div id="main"}
{script type="text/javascript"}
if (!(typeof worldHasEnded == "undefined")) {
document.write("YUP.");
} else {
document.write("NOPE.");
}
{/script}
{noscript}NOPE.{/noscript}
{/div}
{script type="text/javascript"}
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." :
"http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost +
"google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
{/script}

{script type="text/javascript"}
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-275043-3");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
{/script}
{!-- if the lhc actually destroys the earth & this page isn't yet updated
please email {snip}@{snip} to receive a full refund --}
{/body}
{/html}

Re:Nip THAT one in the bud

[X0563511]

... and seconds after I post this, I get it. Durr.

I love the if/else :D

Re:Nip THAT one in the bud

[LMahesa]

The consequences will never be the same!

Re:Nip THAT one in the bud

[kurokame]

Too late, they already created the universe through a predestination paradox.

Wow!

[The MAZZTer]

The LHC employs its own SPIES? That's... oh... that's not what it means. :(

Re:Wow!

[TheRaven64]

No, I think it's implying that the guys at CERN are pedophiles. I mean, who else would be spying on infants?

Re:Wow!

[God Of Atheism]

They're catholic priests?

Universe Protection Services.

[Anonymous Coward]

LHC Spies Hints of Infant Universe

Won't someone think of the infant universe?

Re:Universe Protection Services.

[Pojut]

The title of your post reminds me of Indigo Prime. Such an awesome series of stories.

"Indigo Prime itself is an extra-dimensional agency dedicated to the maintenance and repair of breaks and distortions across the multiverse."

I am glad

[KillaGouge]

I am glad they are finally up and running, they haven't killed us all, and are doing cool experiments. I really hope we can gain some new insight into our wonderful universe.

Re:I am glad

[BobMcD]

They haven't killed us all /yet/

Yeah, I'm genuinely at least a tiny bit worried about that one. They're right there, in print, admitting they 'may' have 'accidentally' triggered a 'big bang'.

Genuine confidence builder, that. Oh, and they 'hope to track it down'.

This isn't the Millennium Falcon here, fellas, this is our one and only home. Maybe it is completely and totally safe. If it is, fire your PR guy.

Re:I am glad

[hoggoth]

They are up and running for now. Expect a bird to drop toast in a critical spot, or an airplane to lose a chunk of blue ice at just the exactly wrong instant, or vibrations from a tunneling gopher to hit just the right frequency to cause sympathetic vibrations in a crucial component and shut it all down. It has happened before and it will happen again. The universe must protect itself from temporal paradox!

Re:I am glad

[jd]

So long as the Universe is replaced with something identical, I won't care.

Re:I am glad

[aliddell]

Who the hell modded this flamebait? Slashdot, you fail.

Re:I am glad

[BobMcD]

Meh, I've got foes. They seem to hate most anything I say, no matter what the actual content is, from time to time, anyway. Don't sweat it on my account.

Re:I am glad

[TheGothicGuardian]

Sure, Han Solo can go get another ship, but after all the hard work and love that he's put into it, another just couldn't compare.

Re:I am glad

[nitehawk214]

Who the hell modded this flamebait? Slashdot, you fail.

Yeah, he was clearly trolling. :)

Re:I am glad

[mcgrew]

I am glad they are finally up and running

I'm glad they're up and running AFTER the US is out of Iraq. Otherwise my sci-fi story about the LHC would be obsolete already.

Re:Big Bang.

[Anonymous Coward]

looks like you need to do more research... :P

Re:full article

[Anonymous Coward]

Paragraphs?

Re:full article

[zero_out]

Did the parent just violate a copyright? I'm not trying to be a troll. I genuinely wonder if wholesale copy/paste of articles would be considered copyright infringement.

Re:full article

[ultranova]

I genuinely wonder if wholesale copy/paste of articles would be considered copyright infringement.

It's useful, so probably yes. After all, the purpose of copyright law is to inconvenience people as much as possible so that "copyright holders" get more opportunities to exctract profit.

Then again, who cares?

Re:full article

[jpapon]

From underneath the article:

If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.

So the definitive answer is: yes, maybe.

Re:Let's build an accelerator that circles the ear

[rossdee]

Sounds like a good project to unite humanity. However theres too many fault lines, its gonna break at the first quake. (continental drift etc.

Re:Let's build an accelerator that circles the ear

[jpapon]

Not if you build it at high enough latitude!

Or better yet... in space!

source

[slshwtw]

full announcement (pdf)
New two-particle correlations observed in the CMS detector at the LHC

full paper (also pdf)
Observation of Long-Range, Near-Side Angular Correlations in Proton-Proton Collisions at the LHC

Misleading title

[BobGod8]

They have spied indications of conditions such as those postulated to exist during the beginning of OUR universe.

Sadly, they have NOT seen indications of a NEW infant universe.

Re:Misleading title

[Brad1138]

Sadly, they have NOT seen indications of a NEW infant universe.

I don't know about you, but I am OK with a new universe not starting anywhere near me. I think it would get rather crowded really fast.

Re:Misleading title

[BobGod8]

Especially a negaverse. What if it collides with our universe, do we annihilate each other? No thanks :(

hot, dense state of matter???

[kehren77]

Big deal, I create a hot, dense state of matter every time I nuke a Hot Pocket.

Re:hot, dense state of matter???

[Monkeedude1212]

Man, you kids these days have really funky sexual innuendos.

Re:hot, dense state of matter???

[sjames]

That's all well and good, but I'll bet you have NEVER nuked a hot pocket as thoroughly as the guys at LHC do.

That's the big secret, the science is a side effect. They were just tired of waiting on the old under-powered nuker in the faculty lounge.

Re:hot, dense state of matter???

[vegiVamp]

Yeah, but this one is probably less fat.

Re:hot, dense state of matter???

[Chowderbags]

Except in that case, if you wait a couple hours, you're the one making the big bang. Into the toilet.

Quark gluon plasma?

[jmizrahi]

The article seems to say that sufficiently high energy density results in free quarks. I was under the impression that the theory of the strong nuclear force demanded that all observable particles are "colorless," i.e. quarks are never free, but only appear in colorless combinations of mesons and hadrons. Could someone more knowledgeable clarify whether this phenomenon is a violation of the "nature is colorless" law, or whether the article simply does a poor job of explaining a quark-gluon plasma?

Re:Quark gluon plasma?

[RAMMS EIN]

Colorless green quarks spin charmingly!

Re:Quark gluon plasma?

[RAMMS EIN]

I am not an expert on this matter, but perhaps Wikipedia can help. Apparently,

Under sufficiently extreme conditions, quarks may become deconfined and exist as free particles. In the course of asymptotic freedom, the strong interaction becomes weaker at higher temperatures. Eventually, color confinement would be lost and an extremely hot plasma of freely moving quarks and gluons would be formed. This theoretical phase of matter is called quark-gluon plasma.

Re:Quark gluon plasma?

[wowbagger]

It's called "asymptotic freedom".

In a QGP, for the time and distance scales in question (very short and very small), a quark can act as though it is free to move, like a dog on a rope in the yard - as long as it doesn't go very far, it can move freely without the rope (a string of gluons) yanking it around. Since the density of the QGP is very high, just being able to roam his yard is enough - there's plenty of things to chase/bark at/hump in his yard, he doesn't NEED to go beyond it, and his rope doesn't change his behavior.

However, as the QGP cools and expands, all the good stuff leaves the yard, and poor ol' DownBoy can't get at anything without running into the end of his rope.

So as long as all the neighborhood UpBitches, LeptonCats, W-kids, Z-leaves, and other things are squeezed into his yard, DownBoy has asymptotic freedom. Let things cool, and his gluon leash is cramping his style again.

Re:Quark gluon plasma?

[Giranan]

That... is an amazing analogy. Thank you.

Re:Quark gluon plasma?

[John_Sauter]

And thank you from me, also. If you aren't a physics teacher, you should be.

Re:Quark gluon plasma?

[ceoyoyo]

There's also a "nature is neutral" law that says any clump of matter has to be neutral. It's just not quite as strict as the colourless law. When you heat up neutral matter enough, all the individual charged particles can go swimming around as if they were free, in a state of matter called a plasma. The plasma as a whole is still neutral though, and the particles aren't really free -- if they try to go too far away they get sucked back, but the plasma behaves as if the individual charged particles were free. A quark-gluon plasma is the same idea, except with colour charged particles roaming around instead of electrically charged ones. The plasma is still colour neutral, but the quarks aren't bound into pairs and triads anymore.

Re:Quark gluon plasma?

[myrikhan]

Coolest explanation ever.

Re:Quark gluon plasma?

[hey!]

Could you explain that again, but using a car analogy?

Re:Quark gluon plasma?

[Urkki]

I don't understand. How do cars or LOCs fit into this analogy?

Disappointing Article

[Obble]

Detecting a new form of plasma has nothing to do with the fantasy of the big bang. The reason this was published was because they dropped the BB name in it.
Don't get me wrong, the finding of super hot plasma gluttons is a cool thing, (err hot?) but trying to push the unrelated big bang with it is not (Although it does it work to get published).

Re:Disappointing Article

[myrikhan]

Detecting a new form of plasma has nothing to do with the fantasy of the big bang..

I'll bite too: Can you point us to a paper in a credible peer reviewed science journal that says the big bang is a fantasy? Scholar.google.com is a good place to start.

Re:Let's build an accelerator that circles the ear

[tomhudson]

... except that time probably doesn't flow the same way under those conditions, and even the smallest asymmetry makes a difference (and since we're seeing it through the lens of our own perception and current state of time, it's inaccurate at best). Or do we now want to have people claim that time is not (a manifestation of) one (or more) of the dimensions?

I know - I'll just go back in time and find o ...

This just in...

[Dialecticus]

...have seen hints of what may be the hot, dense state of matter thought to have filled the universe in its first nanoseconds.

Scientists are quoted as saying "My God...it's full of FAIL."

OK, I'll bite...

[Un pobre guey]

the fantasy of the big bang

Just what do you mean by that?

Re:OK, I'll bite...

[sconeu]

In his fantasies, some chick bangs him.

Re:OK, I'll bite...

[jpapon]

You have proof that the big bang is anything more than fantasy?

I'm not saying it's necessarily false, but it certainly is still far from being proven fact. It's not like he said the "fantasy of Maxwell's Equations"

Re:OK, I'll bite...

[Obble]

Wow, my first post reads like I was a troll. oops. I post was about using a unrelated theory to advertise this article. (Which I think needs more technical details)

The big bang is a theory which relies on many assumptions which work against it. The more science you apply to it the more assumptions you have to make. Every theory you have to start with at least 1 assumption so lets give the BB the credit of the doubt and say it's did came from a singularly. just off the top of my head I can think of these problems:
  1 - Where did a singularity come from?
                    Problem, you can't rely on any matter or energy because they didn't exist yet.
  2 - A singularity is a black hole? all the matter of the universe is compressed into a theorized pinhead that means the atoms can not move, therefor the matter is in a thermodynamic dead end. it can not change state.
3- How long in time was the singularity stayed the way it was? (Does time stop in a black hole?, I dont know.)
4 - What mystical force caused the explosion / expansion of the singularity?
5 - I might be wrong on the name here but the hubble's constant of the expanding universe combiend with the gravity of the matter of the universe force would have to match to a accuracy ratio of 1 to 1 million million million in relation to each other otherwise the universe will
              A - collpase on itself.
              B - explode.
6 - With the BB I read you only get hydrogen / heiliem atoms. This means you should get a steady cloud of gas expanding at 10^70 the speed of light
                A - What causes the cloud to condense into galixies at the gas is uniformed.
                B - Why wouldn't the gas collapse back to the sigularity?

Do you want me to go on about how gas clouds can't form galaxies because they require a working super nova / sun to compact them enough for gravity to hold them?

Anyway, People have to use the BigBang theory because they have no other way to explain the universe and how they exist. And the other explanation they refuse to accept. So funding goes mainly/only? to such "research" hindering science other possibilities.
  Enhance funding == more popular.
More popular == getting chance at being read / publish.
Therefor when I stick my fork into the power socket and see sparks flying, that must be something to do with how the early big bang worked. (I am now moderated up).

I hope this brief posting enlightens some people but I gotta work now. I do recommended for anyone to read a book "Dismantling the Big Bang". It does a much better job at ripping to pieces then what I can remember.

Cheers
Obble.

 

Re:OK, I'll bite...

[geekoid]

1970 called and they want there understanding of the Big Bang back..

Seriously, keep up or shut up.

Re:OK, I'll bite...

[geekoid]

oh, and this:

  And the other explanation they refuse to accept

perhaps because it isn't science? makes no prediction, can't be tested, and it counter to all actual evidences.

Yes, that book did an excellent job of dismantling it for people who don't know better. Sadly, it is wildly inaccurate and logical fallacious in many places.

It's related to the big bang in that it is an example of how matter behaved..briefly. It also confirms what was found at RHIC

Sorry about the double post, that's my bad.

Re:OK, I'll bite...

[Obble]

Can you enlighten me where I have a misunderstanding? as I would like to not argue illrelativant points.

Or did the laws of physics just changed when I wasn't looking?

Re:OK, I'll bite...

[nmos]

Items 1 - 4 are basically "beyond the scope" of the BB Theory and anything at or before the Bang falls under the heading of speculation. I don't see how that's a big problem though, I don't know how my great grandparents first met but I'm pretty sure it happened.

5. Yeah that's pretty amazing.

6 a . Afaik that's the $64,000 question. The gas clearly wasn't completely uniform and it had to have expanded at exactly the right rate with just the right amount of "clumpyness". Maybe studying gasses in a similar state will provide some clues.

6 b. This is the same question as 5. Basically if the expansion was fast enough it wouldn't ever collapse back to a singularity.

Re:OK, I'll bite...

[myrikhan]

1 - Where did a singularity come from?

Problem, you can't rely on any matter or energy because they didn't exist yet.

Good question. No-one knows. Where did a supernatural god come from? "It just is that way." Is a valid answer to both questions.

2 - A singularity is a black hole? all the matter of the universe is compressed into a theorized pinhead that means the atoms can not move, therefor the matter is in a thermodynamic dead end. it can not change state.

Two problems: 1. The big bang doesn't have to start from a singularity. It can start from a small, dense hot object that isn't a black hole.

2. Atoms not moving is against the rules of quantum mechanics. Stephen Hawking showed that black holes are not a thermodynamic dead end in the 80s (or 90s.) He showed that black holes have a temperature and, over massive time scales will radiate their mass away as energy.

3- How long in time was the singularity stayed the way it was?

Probably some infinitesimally short time. (Like .000000000000000000000000000001 seconds. Give or take 10 to 20 zeros.) AFAIK there's no way the big bang could have been a stable object that had any kind of lifespan. It could only go boom.

(Does time stop in a black hole?, I dont know.)

It does. As you get pulled close to and over the event horizon you accelerate to almost the speed of light. So, yes, time dilates massively for you.

4 - What mystical force caused the explosion / expansion of the singularity?

As I said above, the BB doesn't have to start from a singularity. It can start from a small, dense ball-o-really hot stuff.

5 - I might be wrong on the name here but the hubble's constant of the expanding universe combiend with the gravity of the matter of the universe force would have to match to a accuracy ratio of 1 to 1 million million million in relation to each other otherwise the universe will

A - collpase on itself.

B - explode.

That's right. But, when you add dark energy to the picture, it looks like we live in an open universe where everything flies apart, the universe cools to absolute zero and becomes silent, empty and boring.

6 - With the BB I read you only get hydrogen / heiliem atoms. This means you should get a steady cloud of gas expanding at 10^70 the speed of light

Yes, hydrogen and helium were created in the BB. The expanding gas at 10^70 part is complete nonsense. No physicist would ever say that as we all know the maximum speed is c (the speed of light.)

As the universe expands, the gas cools. Over a billion years or so it collapsed into galaxies, stars, clusters, etc...

A - What causes the cloud to condense into galixies at the gas is uniformed.

As the gas cooled, it wasn't uniform. Small instabilities in density are magnified over time, creating what we have today.

B - Why wouldn't the gas collapse back to the sigularity?

This one I'm not so sure on. I think the expansion of the universe (Hubble constant) and the outward energy of the explosion ensure the gas won't collapse back in on itself.

Do you want me to go on about how gas clouds can't form galaxies because they require a working super nova / sun to compact them enough for gravity to hold them?

You don't need a supernova to seed these things. As I said above, the gas wasn't uniform from the beginning. Those mass fluctuations are enough to start the process.

BTW, look at a picture of the cosmic microwave background. The variations in color are the fluctuations I'm referring to.

Anyway, People have to use the BigBang theory because they have no other way to explain the universe and how they exist. And the other explanation they refuse to accept. So funding goes mainly/only? to such "research" hindering science other possibilities.

Research is based on theorizing, observation and proof. Roughly put, an idea is accepted if the experimental evidence confirms the idea

Re:OK, I'll bite...

[Obble]

Well replied educated response there Myrikhan.

1 - Your right, it's an starting assumption.
2 - Thats very cool, I didn't know that. I will have to read up on that.
3 - I've heard it was plank time . 10^-43 seconds? (but it is still assuming all matter was in a ball or a pinhead.)
4 - How big does the ball have to be for matter to over ride the gravity? At what point did it start? These are based on a faith that it must of existed but theres no *proof, (which can't be explained by another theory, e.g. cosmic microwave background can be explained by 2 other theorys, one I didn't agree with but predicted it before it was measured (Can't remember what is was about right now.)).
If it was a ball, why it started as a ball then expanded? again you are forced to make assumptions.
My own assumption is that it's easier trying to explain it came from a singularity because "the laws of normal physics dont apply", so you can get away with string theories and multi-verses. I thought it will be much harder to explain a ball-o-really hot stuff coming into existence.
5 - Dark Energy isn't proven yet even though it's 75% of whats there? same for dark matter (light & heavy). These fudging factors are required for the BB to work. (And for outer galaxy stars to move as observed) I've read a theory that if gravity is a pushing force from gravitons then the effect of objects blocking the gravitons will cause an attraction in between objects and so that would account for the odd behavior of the outer stars moving faster than expected.
6 - I'll have to look up that 10^70 thing, I had a memory of that being the speed of which our 3d space expanded, but I will have to look up what the current BB theory says about that then.
The books I've read all say that a gas cloud is just too hot for it to collapse.
you suffer from the following:
1 - If temperature goes above 50Kelvin the gas tears apart
2 - The speed of gas is just too fast for gravity to take effect.
3 - for the gas to form stars it requires first to be a primed state (compressed to tipping point)
& a compression shock wave to get above the barrar.
The problem here is that if you say gas can collapse then it would of formed black holes everywhere.
And since gas can't compress itself into the critical density it requires a shock wave to form a star, but you need a star first to create a star. circular reference there.
How dense do you need it to be? well if it's as dense as the earth, then it can only just hold onto the air.
4 - How about rock planets?
You suffer from the problem that you first need stars then explosions to generate heavy metals / rocks/ dust required for planets (so you dont have the time)
You require at least 50cubicKms of rock just to hold on to a dust partical. The smallest I've read was astoriod is 500cubKm
1 way to get the asteroids is if you have a planet to break up but then what would of created the planet? another circular loop.

Parallel Discovery

[carrier lost]

...of what may be the hot, dense state of matter...

Wow. Just like the last time I used a microwave!

Re:full article

[KillaGouge]

Since when does Slashdot care about giving information that is behind a paywall out? I thought the general consensus was that paywalls are bad?

Yawn.

[chrylis]

Hooray! LHC has "discovered" "hints" of what the experiments at RHIC found several years ago...

Re:Yawn.

[physburn]

Yes, the RHIC is a much better machine for studying the quark gluon plasma in the early universe, at least while the LHC is in photon mode. The LHC can and we be schedule to collide heavy ions like the RHIC later its in life, and with its higher energy will look at QCD at much higher energies than the RHIC.

---

LHC Feed @ Feed Distiller

Re:full article

[Jorl17]

The Purpose is to FUCK US ALL. Nothing else.

Oh, and protect their rights, or something.

Re:full article

[jpapon]

I don't think the paywall was really the issue, merely the copying and pasting of an entire article.

Not that it matters, nobody is going to come after you for copying and p(a|o)sting on a comment thread. I would hope not anyways.

what if they create another universe

[FudRucker]

and it destroys our universe in the process, and after a few billion years another planet revolving around a insignificant sun in an insignificant galaxy evolves life forms advanced enough to learn technology high enough to make another LHC type device and they accidentally create another universe while simultaneously destroying their own universe (which we created when we destoryed our universe), and it just keeps going like that forever & ever & ever.

Re:what if they create another universe

[SleazyRidr]

That'd be awesome!

Re:what if they create another universe

[WilliamGeorge]

I guess it's Large Hadron Colliders all the way down after all...

Re:what if they create another universe

[kolcon]

But imagine - there is a chance that in the newly created Universe there would be no Microsoft!

Re:what if they create another universe

[ParkedStar]

Well that all depends on if you believe in a pre-determined future or one where quantum physics exist. Quantum physics = hope.

Re:what if they create another universe

[cong06]

I have no mod points, but I'm happy I was browsing through the (Score:1) posts.

God said "let there be light"

[peter303]

And the infinitely dense primordial energy soup came into being. CERN has nearly recreated it.

Title fail

[Anomalyx]

The title is total fail.
The correct summary would be: "Scientists aren't sure, but they think they've detected a quark-gluon plasma. They aren't sure if this plasma even really exists, but it happens to be the same stuff that they think existed in the instants after the big bang"

I built the gluon gun

[lennier]

But I just can't bring myself to use it on another living creature.

You don't look as if you have any trouble killing things.

Re:didn't come from monkeys? raise your mouse

[jpapon]

Erm, what?

I think something might have just whooshed over me, but I'm really not sure.

Re:Mmmmmm

[jewishbaconzombies]

So how does it taste?

Re:didn't come from monkeys? raise your mouse

[WilliamGeorge]

I'm thinking it is more likely that several things are constantly whooshing around the OP...

Serious question here

[Potor]

As a non-physicist, I am trying to wrap my head around the article. Glad it was short!

With the presupposition that verything is caused, meaning everything is an effect, does this further mean that the LHR can sub-atomically trace back the chain of causality to the prime efficient cause (taking the Big Bang to be a causa sui)?

This is no troll - I am not trying to smuggle in any cosmological proofs for God. What I want to know is whether this provisional result is possibly a trace of the big bang itself, or a recreation of the conditions. Or, perhaps, if recreating the conditions is identical to witnessing it.

Hope my post is not nonsensical.

Re:Serious question here

[Bootsy Collins]

I'm not sure I understand the questions in your post; so rather than trying to answer them, I'll just post what they're actually doing at the LHC and hope that it answers your questions.

The LHC is a ring-shaped particle accelerator. It accelerates counter-rotating beams of subatomic particles (normally, protons) to extremely high energies, and arranges for the particles in the beams to "collide" in several collision halls located at various places around the ring. Fundamental particles can interact with each other in a number of ways which can result in (for example) the annihilation of the original particles and the creation of new ones. As the energy of the interaction/collision goes up, the manner of interactions available change -- that is, the nature of the fundamental forces between particles depends on the energy of their interaction. This is not speculation: we've already observed this sort of thing. At LEP (an earlier particle accelerator, also located at CERN like the LHC is), for instance, back in the 80s, we saw that at high enough energies, two fundamental forces (the electromagnetic force and the weak force) unify and become the electroweak interaction, as theorized years earlier. There are a number of reasons, mostly theoretical in nature, for why we expect similar changes to the fundamental interactions at even higher energies. So, we build accelerators that get particles moving to higher and higher speeds (energies) before allowing them to come together and interact, in order to see how they interact and whether there's evidence for the kind of new physics that people expect.

The Big Bang comes in when you consider that the expansion of the Universe reduces the energy of the particles within it. If you imagine running the film backwards, looking into the past of the Universe, you get to a state where it was so hot that the atoms in the Universe would be ionized -- we had a sea of simple nuclei and electrons, with photons interacting with them. Run the film a little forward again, and as the Universe expands and the stuff within it cools, the electrons and nuclei combine to form atoms while around the same time, the likelihood of any one photon interacting with matter drops to where most photons in the Universe are likely to fly freely through it. Those photons are what we see in the Cosmic Microwave Background -- you may have heard of that. Now, consider still earlier times in the Universe. As you run the film backward, you'll eventually get to a point where the typical energies of matter are comparable to the binding energies of nuclei. Earlier than this in the Universe's history, nucleons (protons and neutrons) could come together and form simple nuclei, while nuclei could also break up as the energies of the nucleons typically exceeded the nuclear binding energies. As the Universe expanded and cooled, it passed through this transition where the nuclei that had formed stuck around. People call this era "Big Bang Nucleosynthesis" and have done calculations of how much hydrogen, helium, lithium, etc., should have been produced that do a pretty good job of matching what astronomical observations tell us. Now consider even earlier times. As you look further back, you'll get to a time where the average energies in the Universe are comparable to the binding energies of the nucleons themselves. People use the expression "quark-gluon plasma" to refer to the state of the Universe immediately preceding the transition when nucleons form for good. This is the state of matter they're talking about in TFA. In principle, if we collide subatomic particles together at sufficiently high energies, we can recreate (in a very very very small volume of space) the conditions that existed in the Universe at that time; observing the results of the collision will hopefully tell us whether such a state can indeed exist, as we think, and what it might have been like.

But it's incorrect to think of this state as being the state of matter "immediately" after the Big Bang, because "immedia

if only...

[olborro]

Researchers on the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) experiment at CERN's Large Hadron Collider near Geneva, Switzerland, have seen hints of what may be the hot, dense state of matter thought to have filled the universe in its first nanoseconds."

if only i could get a penny every time i read this in a news article mentioning LHC

Interesting note

[Burning1]

Until I observed those webpages, I thought that the answer was 'Maybe.'

Re:full article

[Chosen Reject]

nobody is going to come after you for copying and p(a|o)sting on a comment thread

Maybe my sarcasm meter is in need of some maintenance, but this happens all the time. Just check out the Righthaven/LVJR lawsuits for a small sampling.

Re:Let's build an accelerator that circles the ear

[nitehawk214]

Not if you build it at high enough latitude!

Or better yet... in space!

Honestly I think this is a good idea. If you can design it such that you don't need to have the ring completely enclosed, it would work great.

rest of the reaction

[Joebert]

Wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that if they truly were seeing what they think they see, it would have continued to expand and wipe us all out in an instant ?

Re:rest of the reaction

[c0lo]

Wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that if they truly were seeing what they think they see, it would have continued to expand and wipe us all out in an instant ?

Not quite. On the same line of rationing: one can discover radioactivity in uranium without necessarily creating an A-bomb; one can explode an H-bomb without creating a star.

Re:rest of the reaction

[thryllkill]

No, it wouldn't. I'm not a physicist (or fond of trite acronyms), but I don't think that a handful of particles resuming a state they once held would be destructive. For that to happen, ALL of the particles would have to resume that state. The LHC is pretty cool, but I don't think it's strong enough to turn the clock back on all the matter in the universe.

Re:rest of the reaction

[Engeekneer]

The LHC is pretty cool,

Pretty cool? The magnets are at friggin 1.9K! That's freezing!

Re:rest of the reaction

[Joebert]

Good point.

Re: citation needed on the Bible

[Unoti]

I've studied the Bible... The morality is repulsive. The theology is degrading...

[citation needed] That was pretty vague, unfortunately. Toss me an example or two to illustrate.

I'm not the grandparent you were responding to, but here are some examples.

Start with Hosea 13:16 which speaks for itself: "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."

1 Corinthians 11: 2-16 says that women should cover their heads with a doiley in Church or when praying, to avoid disgracing God. Like many other anti-women scriptures, modern Christians have spent a great deal of time and mental power explaining this away.

1 Corinthians 14: 34-36 says that women should STFU in church, should not be allowed to speak. If they have a question, they should be good and talk to their man privately at home. Again, much time and energy has been spent by Christians explaining away this segment of the Word of God.

It's actually too easy, with regard to women, to bag on the bible. From putting women to death for prostitition, to cutting off the hand of a women who tries to help her husband in a fight and showing her no pity... to put it mildly, the Bible takes an unkind and unenlightened view of the role of women in the world.

Ephesians 5:22-24 says that women should submit absolutely to their husbands in everything, just like a husband should ultimately submit to God. "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour."

Go read the Bible, cover to cover. It's disturbing in parts. But don't worry too much, very few Christians actually read it for themselves except for the happy parts. Alternatively, look at Dark Bible for a very unkind look at other things that are in the Bible.

Sorry to nit-pick a good comment, but...frat?!?!

[rts008]

...is frat with difficulties...

emphasis mine....
Perhaps you were trying for 'fraught'? [ie: filled/full of- fraught is an old 'cargo' related term to mean 'the holds/wagon are full/filled', IIRC]

I truly appreciate your comment.
It was well stated, seemed well thought out, and was both insightful and informative...interesting to boot.

But the pedant in me cringed at the use of 'frat' instead of 'fraught'.
How cromulent of me. ;-)

*DANGER, WILL ROBINSON! DANGER!: offtopic and out of context attempt at humour below!*

"...frat with difficulties..." is a given; most fraternities have, or ARE difficulties!

I'm on to your plan!

[BigSes]

Now I know what they are attempting to do, create a parallel universe where they ALREADY have reservations at Elzar's.

Re: citation needed on the Bible

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

Please read here, I think it covers my reply here too.

Re:didn't come from monkeys? raise your mouse

[cong06]

I'm disappointed. The post isn't there, now I have no idea what you guys are talking about, though I'm sure it was hilarious.