Slashdot Mirror
Study Finds Universe Is 100 Million Years Older Than Previously Thought
skade88 writes "Reuters is reporting that scientists now say the universe is 100 million years older than previously thought after they took a closer look at leftover radiation from the Big Bang. This puts the age of the Universe at 13.8 billion years. The new findings are the direct results from analyzing data provided by the European Space Agency's Planck spacecraft. The spacecraft is providing the most detailed look to date at the remnant microwave radiation that permeates the universe. 'It's as if we've gone from a standard television to a high-definition television. New and important details have become crystal clear,' Paul Hertz, NASA's director of astrophysics, told reporters on a conference call."
It says right here in my textbook tha God created the universe 13.7 billion years ago.
The universe is 100,006,000 years old!
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Lying about its age like that.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
It should be 40 million years older with a margin of error of 50 million years. Ars article much more in depth if you want to know more.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/03/first-planck-results-the-universe-is-still-weird-and-interesting/
"On weekends, to let off steam, I participate in full-contact origami."
...is known to 3 significant figures, I'll sell you a bridge.
Everything needs its proper scale. 100million appears large. But not so much when it is the difference between 13.7 and 13.8 billion years. That is less than 1%.
Does the title "Universe is a tiny bit older than we thought" or "Less than 1% correction to age of Universe from new Measurements" capture as many headlines.
On the scale of the age of the universe 100million really is not much at all.
So... 4017 is still the standard age in Christendom then, yes?
Oh, I see. You've decided that there is such a thing as the "science vs religion debate" outside your tiny little circle and you need to score points for your side at every opportunity. You don't care that your comment is completely off-topic, or that what you're saying is obviously nonsense. Beating up that straw man makes you feel important.
You may want to stop. You're not helping.
Required reading for internet skeptics
... what was going on 1 attosecond BEFORE the big bang actually popped. I suspect there was leaking condom involved.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Dammit! EVERYBODY lies about their age!
Yep, the bible is interpreted exactly the same as it was 2000 years ago.
Sure except for the fact that significant portions have been altered, re-translated, or just plain re-written. A perfect example would be the King James version that the purists consider a standard. Or maybe the fact that many of the books of the bible appear to have been written by the same person, well after the dates implied in the writings.
And, once you account for the fact that the new observation *also* has it own error bar of ~50My, the error bar on the difference (assuming no major correlated errors) is sqrt(59^2+50^2)=77My --- so the two results actually only disagree by ~1.0 standard deviations.
That's not a very good argument.
The bible has to be interpreted differently than the plain meaning of the words because otherwise it's immoral, self-contradictory, bigoted and doesn't fit with modern understanding, morality or facts.
But let's take an example from science. The equations of motion are used today as they were when they were written. We've learned there are more accurate models, and sometimes need to apply those, but we still read his writings as written.
we've also invented a way to apply his methods and equations to more objects that have been invented since, which is a form of reinterpreting, but a distinctly different one.
The Bible isn't interpreted. It was compiled.
I'm Message Approval Man, and I approve this message.
Yeah, but only into Koine Greek bytecode, so it's kinda on the fence...
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Well, with some virtual machines some JIT compiling, it's still chugging away as the back-end code on some more modern platforms...
So the universe is a woman?
Next we we will find out that it is more massive than previously estimated.
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
Is Slashdot's sarcasm meter broken again today? I'm pretty certain the parent poster was trying to (snarkily) make the point that interpretation of religious texts *has* changed a whole lot (in opposition to the grandparent post indicating religious rigidity back to a "bunch of bronze age shepards"), despite all the replies taking him overly literally.
Trying to defend the bible on the back of newton is a little insulting.
While newtons calculation do well for the most part, we know its not 100% accurate and most scientist will freely admit this. It works well unless your in extreme cases.
The bible however, is just a bunch of text written by people who pretended to know shit they didnt know.
Your analogy is more akin to saying that even though newton was mostly right, we are going to choose another crackpot who never used any scientific methodology to create a new and improved version of the law of motions and just believe that the math is right despite the evidence.
The bible is a bunch of bullshit, its just a fact.
Slashdot did at one point bill itself as a news site for nerds...
I think you misunderstood my post, because 1. I would never defend the bible and 2. I agree 100% with the rest of your post.
Yep, the bible is interpreted exactly the same as it was 2000 years ago.
Sure except for the fact that significant portions have been altered, re-translated, or just plain re-written. A perfect example would be the King James version that the purists consider a standard. Or maybe the fact that many of the books of the bible appear to have been written by the same person, well after the dates implied in the writings.
Re-written?! Half of it hadn't been written for the first time 2000 years ago. For that matter, much of the last half deals with events that hadn't happened yet 2000 years ago. Unless I'm very confused, it's currently 2013AD, so 2000 years ago which would be 13AD, well before the governorship of Pontius Pilate (26-36AD).
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Trying to defend the bible on the back of newton is a little insulting.
I don't think he was trying to defend the bible:
The bible has to be interpreted differently than the plain meaning of the words because otherwise it's immoral, self-contradictory, bigoted and doesn't fit with modern understanding, morality or facts.
The universe came into existence last Tuesday. You're almost as bad as the Last Mondayers, fucking heretics.
I'm going to hazard a guess that 50 years from now - we'll have better detection instruments set up that will change the age of the Universe dramatically.
Just look back 50 years and see the change.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Refined or rewritten bullshit is still bullshit.
There really should be a Scientology Proven Right web page in the spirit of Conservapedia's:
Xenu Scientific Foreknowledge: The universe is 4 quadrillion years old.
Liberal claptrap in response: The universe is 13.7 billion years old.
Result: The latest Plank spacecraft measurement is 13.8 billion years. Scientology Proven Right!
The good news is we now know the age of the universe. The bad news is that the warranty just expired.
even PAT ROBERTSON thinks the whole 6000 years thing is a bunch of crap... youd think the militant anti-theism folks would give it a break.
Look, I know that people will probably try to lynch me when I say this, but Bishop Ussher wasn't inspired by the Lord when he said that it all took 6,000 years. It just didn't. You go back in time, you've got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things and you've got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas.
They're out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don't try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That's not the Bible. If you fight science you're going to lose your children, and I believe in telling it the way it was.-Pat Robertson
http://www.examiner.com/article/evangelist-pat-robertson-no-longer-preaching-creationism
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/29/pat-robertson-challenges-creationism/
Yes you are correct that scholars believe most of the new testament was written 45-90 AD, and that is part of the point that I think you missed. Writing first person accounts about events and people that occurred prior to your birth is generally not considered to be highly accurate unless you have a blind faith that God was guiding their hands. Which leads to the next question, was God guiding the hands of all those who've altered or written the bible since then? You can't call it the true word of god if it's been altered since it was written.
Personally, I consider the bible to be a fictionalized version of history of the time. Most religions or believes have something similar. I don't have reason to doubt that a man named Jesus was a notable figure in history. I just don't believe he was the son of god anymore than Indian or Chinese folklore ascribes supernatural powers to some of its ancient leaders.
Christianity is the youngest religion on the block and certainly not the largest. What makes their version of the unexplainable the correct one?
Christianity is the youngest religion on the block and certainly not the largest.
I'll give you that it's not the largest, but where did you get this notion that it's the youngest religion? Christianity began in the mid first-century AD (or CE, if you prefer). Meanwhile, the largest religon (Islam) didn't get started until Muhammed in 610. So your "youngest religion on the block" argument is off by over half a millenia. And that's just talking about the "mainstream" religions, to say nothing of some of the more modern belief systems.
It's the dark matter that is still the key to all of this. Could this new data show some kind of structure to dark matter distribution in the early universe. Can Dark matter as WIMPs be generated as the result of high energy collisions more common at the beginning of the universe? From a press release it noted that "At the same time, some curious features are observed that don't quite fit with the current model. For example, the model assumes the sky is the same everywhere, but the light patterns are asymmetrical on two halves of the sky, and there is larger-than-expected cold spot extending over a patch of sky." http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-03/uoc--pnm032113.php So there is hope yet for some interesting potential new physics and cosmology. M-Theory, Brane cosmology is perhaps going to get a bit more data to back it up.
Yep, the bible is interpreted exactly the same as it was 2000 years ago.
Sure except for the fact that significant portions have been altered, re-translated, or just plain re-written. A perfect example would be the King James version that the purists consider a standard. Or maybe the fact that many of the books of the bible appear to have been written by the same person, well after the dates implied in the writings.
You are free to believe whatever you wish but the Old Testament that is found in the King James bible is based on the Greek translation of the hebrew scriptures which is known as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint and it predates AD or (CE if you prefer). You are free to study the differences between the Greek translation, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh and modern translations but please stop spreading your unfounded bullshit as it were fact.
The main gospels of the new testament have manuscripts dating back to around the first century and the epistles are generally considered to be letters to the various congregations written by the apostles and Paul to the various congregations in Asia minor during the first century.
Your objections are nebulous and derivative. I have heard the same bullshit claims about alteration, re-translation and rewrites over and over again. I am really bored and tired of it. Do you people have a script that you read from?
The modern translations are based on a number of sources including the Septuagint, the Tanakh and any of the oldest manuscript fragments available. Please stop with the bullshit already. You don't need to backup your atheism with lies and self-delusions. Are you afraid of pursuing the truth because of what you might find? Are you afraid of losing control? Your "self-control" is an illusion. You are a slave to your desires.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Yep, the bible is interpreted exactly the same as it was 2000 years ago.
Sure except for the fact that significant portions have been altered, re-translated, or just plain re-written. A perfect example would be the King James version that the purists consider a standard. Or maybe the fact that many of the books of the bible appear to have been written by the same person, well after the dates implied in the writings.
Don't mind the person you are responding to. They are not being serious. They are speaking with hyperbole. They have only a passing knowledge of the contents of the bible. They are simply parroting what they have heard other people say about the bible.
Re-written?! Half of it hadn't been written for the first time 2000 years ago. For that matter, much of the last half deals with events that hadn't happened yet 2000 years ago. Unless I'm very confused, it's currently 2013AD, so 2000 years ago which would be 13AD, well before the governorship of Pontius Pilate (26-36AD).
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
This is nonsense. I live in a country with all the issues of sanitation you can imagine - India.
It is not practically possible to dig a hole and bury your waste in urban environments anywhere in the world. Even in rural environments there are severe limitations.
There are good lessons and moral / ethical fables in Bible and other religious texts, but it is hopelessly outdated.
Tat Tvam Asi
Big Bang is only a theory. As far as I know it is the theory with the most number of followers so it is assumed to be truer than others.
I have a feeling the Deterministic school of thought which governs science is failing to answer the big questions. I am not saying the alternates available - religion and other other super natural stuff - is better, but we need a third model.
And until a new model is found, lets collectively gasp at da big bang!!!
Tat Tvam Asi
Great, so there's all this useful information in the bible that everyone ignores and is useless anyway until NGOs explain to them that shitting 5ft outside of the village doesn't work anymore when past a certain population point?
I'm not saying 100% of the Bible is wrong, I'm saying 90% of people who quote the Bible are quoting the wrong parts and have no interest in honest, legitimate, pragmatic improvement of the situation of all man kind. They only want to relieve suffering on their terms, good is only good with a blessing, and the spirit of salvation is only what an old, white, European (still) tells you.
Does it still count as a religion if it relies on science to determine it's beliefs?
The Bible has been under continual re-interpretation.
Take any Bibical statement:
* don't eat shellfish
* keep slaves
* don't be gay
We can show fuzzy date ranges for which the statement was uncontroversally true through to it being considered symbolic only.
From that, we can scientifically predict the half-life of a Biblical truth. Thus, today:
* we do longer need to kill witches
* we don't really need to keep the sabbath holy
* gays are pretty much normal people to god now
* being wealthy no bar to heaven
And tomorrow? Just apply the Biblical truth half-life test to predict!
Yep, the bible is interpreted exactly the same as it was 2000 years ago.
And all the thousands of variant interpretations are based on evidence.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Slashdot did at one point bill itself as a news site for nerds...
Now it's a talk site for news sites.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
In 100 years we will look back as these ass-wipe clowns and laugh !!
Yeah, 'cause then it will be 100,000100 years older than we thought it was yesterday.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
But it was Heinrich Hertz, not Paul Hertz (sorry, no english Wikipedia entry).
Trying to defend the bible on the back of [N]ewton is a little insulting.
To whom? Among the many hats he wore in public Newton was a respected theologian, he wrote more words on the subject of religion than any other subject, for example he wrote close to a million words on the numerology of 666. He also claimed "Jesus was sent to Earth to operate the levers of gravity". Religion was a major force in his life, He approached both religion and science as if the same subject, to him God was more than a mere assumption, he "knew" God existed because like modern day worshipers he had "conversations with God" (the copious amounts of Mercury he breathed most likely helped with that). History tends to ignore his bullshit and concentrate on what he wrote in what (from a modern POV) is arguably the most important book ever published. However, also from a modern POV, the bulk of his other writings are widely seen as batshit crazy.
Disclaimer(s): I don't think the OP was defending the bible. I've been an atheist for at least 50yrs. I don't believe in God but some of the smartest people who ever lived certainly did. The claims about Newton come from my memory of two biographies I read long ago (don't recall which ones)
PS: If anyone is looking for an interesting programming exercise. Write a program or heuristic to find a 6X6 magic square where the columns, rows, and diagonals all add up to 666, no number is repeated and all numbers must be prime. When you have discovered how difficult that is to do from scratch, know that Newton found one in his head!
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Christianity is the youngest religion on the block and certainly not the largest.
I'll give you that it's not the largest...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups FFS, do you research, guys.
just a tad.
What is the "other" section consists off? Jedi, FSM, est..?
Then they are not religious in the traditional sense and suddenly "atheism in respect to any major religion" climbs to number two after the Christians. Moreover I have never seen an unbiased statistics about the only country I can speak off with authority – my own. According to the CIA fact book everyone in my country who belongs to the majority ethnic group (white Caucasian) is Orthodox Christian. Well, at least from my generation more than half are atheists and among everyone else not everyone is Christian. I think the greatest public secret of religion is that one, it loses ground unless extreme peer pressure and violence is used and two, many of those that belong to a particular church follow because of tradition, fashion or conformism, not so much from actual belief. And anyway, can you say that you have a true believer unless he/she is prepared to give his/her life and the lives of anyone (if deemed necessary) for your God? How many such people are out there? What was the saying? If God tells you to kill your kids and you don't, you are an atheist. If you do, you are a madman that should be locked away.
Christianity is with 2.1 billion followers by far the largest religion (hey, even Catholics outnumber every other non-christian religion!). Islam comes in second with 1.3 billion, Hinduism has 750 million followers, and the different buddhistic traditions are fourth with 375 million.
Is Slashdot's sarcasm meter broken again today?
It a US site, it doesn't have a sarcasm meter! /ducks
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
It must be a woman trying to shave off 100 million years on us like that.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
13.8 billion years?!? Wow you wear it well. I would have sworn you were not a day older than 13.7 billion years.
Hi, This is a profound statement "The bible has to be interpreted differently than the plain meaning of the words...doesn't fit with modern understanding" The Bible will never fit with modern understanding. Modern understanding should fit wiuth the bible. The problem with science is that they are desperatly trying to get mankind away from scripture and base everything on our own understanding, which is the wrong approach. The bible will never make sense to the average man (worldly person) it is a manual for the christian like when you by a pc or motherboard you get a manual with it. The average person dowsn't undersatand it. To say the universe is millions of years old is rediculous...they also said the earth was flat at one stage...think about that. The bible was documented way before scientist even existed. Ask yourself: why dont we have any books, scrolls, or documents dating back 1million years or 500,000 years, not even 50,000 years...the oldest documentation we know of dates back about +-7000 years, strange hey, evolutionists are trying to brainwash everyone, and they are doing a great job of it, especialy with naieve nations like America and Europe. Please take some time to study other material and not just man's theories. What does God think of this? Ask Him. It will solve all your problems look at: http://www.infrabyte.com/?p=12 to see how they get to this age
Why are you on /. ?
Are you afraid of pursuing the truth because of what you might find?
What I may find by spying on a close friend or loved one, certainly, other than that, no.
Are you afraid of losing control?
Sometimes, especially when I feel I am being provoked beyond common decency, but in day to day life I'm not driven by fear, I'm driven by curiosity. On the rare occasions I have lost control as an adult, I have asked for forgiveness from those who I wronged, I do not have an "imaginary friend" to use as a surrogate.
Your "self-control" is an illusion.
Agree, but I have the same attitude to that illusion as you do to your illusory God, ie: I stubbornly refuse to part with it.
You are a slave to your desires.
Agree. Being a social mammal, one of my primordial desires is to moderate my own base desires for the benefit of other members of my species, especially those individuals who happen to belong to my tribe (extended family). Some people are born without that desire and fall under the heading of "sociopaths", sociopaths can be trained to behave normally if they believe a supernatural being is constantly watching their every move and will crush them like a grape if they misbehave.
Now riddle me this God man...
The ultimate test of moral fiber has always been "doing the right thing when nobody is watching", how is it possible for someone who believes in an omnipresent god to take that test?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
How is this even newsworthy? 100 million years is less than 1% of 13.8 Billion years. Given how little of the Universe we have actually see so far the margin of error for any prediction like this has to be huge so a 0.7% change is meaningless.
Over two thousand years ago Eratosthenes estimated the circumference of the Earth from measurements taken in the vicinity of ancient Egypt. Given the limitations of his measurements we are amazed that he managed to get an answer that is in the right ballpark. Depending on interpretation his calculation was wrong by between 2% and 16%. The age of the Universe is a much bigger problem and the amount of it we have seen to date is a much smaller proportion than Egypt was to the size of the World so I think it is fair to assume that even if all the key assumptions underlying this age of universe calculation are correct the margin for error is huge. Of course it is even more likely that something we don't know yet will render the entire calculation invalid.
The beauty of science is that old hypotheses are continually tested and new ones subjected to rigorous proofs, which then gives us the best available solutions. New means of observation and methods of analysis are always welcome.
That being the case, it is a pity that so much attention gets focused on the storm troopers of the Empirical Empire, who are so uncomprehending of the scientific method as to thump their chests and loudly proclaim each new discovery as incontrovertible, absolute fact. The wise and humble Einstein had a lot of embarrassed fanbois when he himself recognized the error of his Cosmological Constant applied to General and Special Relativity.
Astronomy and Cosmology are sciences based on a whole family of fluid, ever-evolving mathematical models and ever-improving means of observation. There is no room in the scientific community as a whole, or in the individual gifted mind, for foolish absolutism.
We have lots of pejoratives for the fanatically religious. What do we call scientific absolutists? Theory Thumpers?
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
Auto-play audio ad => instant close
The CENTRE of the range of values we accept for the age of the universe has shifted, but it has done so well within the 1-sigma boundary of the previous measurement's errors. What has really changed is the error bar is now considerably smaller.
It's been a while since I looked at big bang physics, but I seem to recall that time itself 'begins' at the big bang. Rather than it being like a clock that starts ticking at a constant rate, time itself begins to slow down (so the first few moments of the universe take a very long time, but the time itself is squashed up very tightly). There was no 'first second' - just a space-time singularity. (Apparent time would be infinite but take no time. Apparent space would be infinite but take no space).
Secondly, there is no such thing as a universal clock. We've known this since the beginning of the last century. Even our local time (and it's measurement) varies.
So what does it mean to give an absolute figure (in years, no less) to the age of the universe?
So I would appreciate it if someone can set me straight here.
This comment was written with the intention to opt out of advertising.
I have heard the same bullshit claims about alteration, re-translation and rewrites over and over again. I am really bored and tired of it.
Uhhhh... You're blind? The only reason I study the Bible at all is to find amusing ways to get proselytizers to leave me alone. Even with just the most casual, basic comparative study of one version against any other, it's extremely and painfully obvious that one translation says one thing, and another translation says something else. This is especially evident if you compare versions in different languages, and I've read bits of the Bible in Spanish, French, Latin and ancient Greek, along with several different English translations. You don't have to look hard at all. Let's just take my favorite example off the top of my head, Exodus 22:18:
Do not allow a sorceress to live.
Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live.
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
maleficos non patieris vivere
A la hechicera no dejarás que viva.
No dejarás con vida a la hechicera.
Tu ne laisseras point vivre la magicienne.
Tu ne laisseras point vivre la sorcière.
[Greek removed by Slashdot]
The word in bold is variously translated into modern languages as something like witch, sorceress, etc. and it's almost always in the feminine in translations. The word [Greek removed by Slashdot] is obscure and hard to translate definitively, but "animal" is a common translation, and the word is neuter in gender. Maleficos in Latin is masculine, and means something like "doers of evil" etymologically, and is translated as things like "evil, wicked, accursed ones." Greek and Latin are as far back as I can go, but there's nothing in either language to suggest the original author intended this to apply only to female wicked people, and yet that is how it has ended up in every modern language I can read. It even ended up that way in Latin eventually, changing gender to feminine in Malleus maleficarum.
So, to summarize, the only bullshit is believing that none of the countless people who have dipped their fingers into the Biblical pie over the centuries have ever let their personal views or the times they were living in color what they did with the text. Sure they have.
"The ultimate test of moral fiber has always been "doing the right thing when nobody is watching", how is it possible for someone who believes in an omnipresent god to take that test?"
Very, very well said.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
If you think Christians are so beholden to the literal translation of the Bible, then how do you explain the fact that the majority of Christians have never read the Bible and likely couldn't even quote rudimentary passages from it? Until the last few hundred years most Christians didn't even have the ability to read.
Lastly, your conspiracy theories about the bibles authors are misguided. You seem to be missing some rudimentary understanding of Biblical Canonization. I recommend reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Christian_biblical_canons
they'll reply "god isn't 'somebody', he is god"
Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
not easy to translate greek in other languages, especially by people who do not understand greek. They mostly transliterated, they did not translate. iirc the original word was ÏαÏμαÎÎÏÏ? In that case a rough translation is "the one who poisons".
Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
That is the usual ./ do-it-yourself interpretation of the Bible. First of all, the original Latin translation of the Bible (the Vulgata) is based on the Greek one and it is known to be somewhat imprecise for the Old Testament, not only because it is a translation of a translation, but also because Jerome did not like literal translations ("non verbum de verbo, sed sensum exprimere de sensu" as he wrote). However, while the word is a little obscure, there is no doubt that the original Hebrew word is a feminine term related to kashaf (sorcerer, masculine) and keshef (sorcery), so the most probable translation is sorcerer (or witch, less likely poisoner).
It must be noted that it is not an order to kill witches, but an order to not use their services and so to not let them live (to not sustain their life).
When the previous guy truncated the numbers so that he could have a manageable figure to compute with, the next guy wants more data and suddenly the universe is older....The problem is when you try to translate the infinite into finite values, you end up constantly increasing that value towards infinity, if only people would accept that it is infinite and work back from that...
that the universe is 100,005,300 years old according to Creationists?
Well when it comes to Newton, using him as a theologian is perfectly reasonable. He did that, and he did it as well as anyone else in his time. However christians toting his name should also keep in mind, he had many views in theology that contradict many parts of modern theology, for instance he thought the trinity concept was bunk. However where we get into issues is when we move towards the "Newton's brilliance in physics, means what he stated about anything else is true" viewpoint. That kind of view makes about as much sense as "because Hannah Gay successfully cured HIV, I'm going to ask her what kind of engine I should put in my car". Newton also did quite a bit of work in the field of alchemy. Long story short, no matter how brilliant someone is in X field, the true measure of the quality of every individual piece of work, is not who wrote it, but how well it stands up in peer review.
God should have gotten the 2-year extension plan.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
According to polls on the subject, atheism / agnosticism / unaffiliated / non-religious is the third largest (non-)religious view in the world, after Christianity and Islam.
I agree that many self-identified Christians aren't exactly devout e.g. most Catholics in the US use birth control. But by the same token, self-identified atheists have been known to get married in a church or ask for a minister on their deathbed.
My basic take on the issue: As long as nobody is coercing other people into or out of religion, and as long as the group in question isn't hurting anybody, I don't have a problem with it. So far, nearly every religious viewpoint has used coercion or violence at some point in their history, atheists included.
I am officially gone from
It's not fair. Other people always seem to have access to much more potent drugs than myself.
What is the "other" section consists off? Jedi, FSM, est..?
Then they are not religious in the traditional sense and suddenly "atheism in respect to any major religion" climbs to number two after the Christians.
So you think there are only 4 religions in the world? Everyone else who thinks they are religious, are just fooling themselves, and are actually atheists? If you actually looked at the article, it lists about two dozen religions. Plus there are hundreds of religions with membership too small to list individually in that article. Maybe that's why they used the blanket category "Other" on a pie chart.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
I find this page to be a source of inspiration:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatYouAreInTheDark
Damn, I just finally got used to writing 2013 on everything too.
nil
I was being sarcastic.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Does it matter... she still got "big banged" didn't she?
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Thank you.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Evidence is going a little far, but since any and all morals are completely subjective, and the only way to gauge the current subjective morals is by culture . And Christianity interpretation of the bible has always corresponded quite well to the current societies morality.
Then it is based on evidence, or the closest thing to it for morality, which is what the bible mostly deals with.
They do, at least currently, seem about 10-20 years behind on most issues (contraception, homosexuality). But anything in a 100 year range is pretty close in a historic perspective.
Its interpenetration of history and science also seems to follow this. It was a accurate specific historic account when that was what scholars thought. now it is mostly considered an analogy.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
It turns out that the universe is 20 years older than they thought it was 20 years ago...
"80 million years older than previously thought." http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/349098/description/Universe_is_a_teeny_bit_older_than_thought
You need to stop being a fucking ass-hole. The gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus Christ and were written primarily by one Apostle and copied by the others. Get over it. There did not exist one definitive Bible until the Council of Trent (1545). At that time the Bible was edited: books and gospels were included or removed based in the decision of the council.
Try doing some research sometime.
I believe the Bible also says something about spreading out and populating the world. Perhaps people shouldn't be crowding together, living in cities if they aren't ready to build a sufficient sanitation system.
On the other hand, the position he took at college required that he be a minister. He asked that the requirement be dropped, and it was.
The age of current universe wasnt even known until a factor of two then., i.e. somewhere between 9 and 22 gigayears. The two dating methods of recession and low metal stars gave widely different answers. The 3rd method from the background radiation spatial wavelengths clinched it.
Thanks, my words but credit belongs to Christopher Hitchens.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
How many agnostics are there in the world?
Considering that younger children are, like most animals, agnostic from birth. And when humans
grows up they either discover that religion is bull and becomes atheists. Or joins a religion.
wolframalpha.com/input?i=how+many+children+are+there+in+the+world
Humans age 0-15: 1855 Million, 2009 estimate.
The younger they are - the more likely agnostic. And many adults are agnostic.
Hmmm...
I believe something like that is happening. Time slows down in a gravitational field, so the speed at which time runs for us, who are in something of a gravity well compared to the voids that exist in the universe, must be slower than for the universe as a whole.
self-identified atheists have been known to get married in a church
Self-identified atheists have been known to go to listen to sacred music in churches. Self-identified atheists have been known to go to children's baptisms. Self-identified atheists have been known to say "oh my god".
So what? Atheists don't deny that religion is intertwined thoroughly in society, there aren't many who refuse to enter the doors of a church, or who can't enjoy some of the religious-related ceremonies and traditions.
As an atheist, I don't refuse to celebrte Christmas.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You don't need to backup your atheism with lies and self-delusions. Are you afraid of pursuing the truth because of what you might find? Are you afraid of losing control? Your "self-control" is an illusion. You are a slave to your desires.
At least I don't believe in a grown-ups version of the fucking tooth fairy.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The denizens of the universe need a better dealership.
That's a test. Why would mystics ever say it's the ultimate test? As you mention, it's impossible (within their view) for anyone to ever really take that test, so I doubt they would accept it as a meaningful test. The ultimate test occurs at the pearly gates.
Furthermore, what's really awesome about religion, is that even if mystics could take that test, they would always pass it.
You may have noticed that religious people always have exactly identical opinions as their gods. The ones who say "God hates fags" happen to hate fags, and the ones who say, "No, God doesn't hate homosexuals" also happen to share either their god's compassion, or their god's apathy. Opinions line up, exactly, on all issues. And whenever there's ambiguity ("I'm not sure what God says about this, I need to analyze the scriptures in more depth") the person is also on the fence or conflicted.
When did you last hear one of them say they disagree with God, about anything? When did someone say, "That seems like a good act to me, but I heard God is against it, so I've decided to work against my own perception of good, and instead do what I think is evil. Because I'm wrong about what's good and evil." (Or better yet, instead of choosing perceived evil for God's sake, how about this: "I'll be punished in purgatory for my disobedience, but that's a price I choose to pay: it's up to us to make a stand against the divine tyrant, and hopefully, through our acts of conviction and sacrifice, persuade him to change his opinion.") It doesn't happen.
Thus, even if no one were watching or guiding, mystics know the right thing to do. Whatever they decide to do, well, I'm sure God would have decided the same thing. Thus, God watching them doesn't count, because being watched by God is no different than being watched by yourself. A mystic is wise enough and informed enough, compassionate enough and uncompromising enough -- a paragon of ideal virtue in every way -- to be qualified to act as their own divine judge. This makes your "ultimate test" irrelevant and useless.
That Christopher Hitchens would make such an easily-swept-aside argument .. oh .. just another reason he's in Hell now. Just where the people he criticized Knew, in their infinite wisdom, he'd end up. ;-)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
"The ultimate test of moral fiber has always been "doing the right thing when nobody is watching", how is it possible for someone who believes in an omnipresent god to take that test?" Very, very well said.
Ah, but if a man performs an unwitnessed heroic act and then dies when a branch falls on him in the middle of an empty forest, has an heroic act been performed?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Hebrew speaker here.
the most probable translation is sorcerer (or witch, less likely poisoner).
The original word "Mekhashefa" translates as "witch" or "sorceress" (feminine, but see below). Definitely not "poisoner", which derives from a different root -- Resh-Ain-Lamed.
It must be noted that it is not an order to kill witches, but an order to not use their services and so to not let them live (to not sustain their life).
It definitely was an order to execute witches. The RASHI commentary says:
You shall not allow a sorceress to live: But she shall be executed by the court. [This law applies equally to] both males and females, but the text speaks of the usual, and those who practice sorcery are usually women. -[From Mechilta, Sanh. 67a]
Also see Leviticus 20:27
And a man or a woman who has [the sorcery of] Ov or Yid'oni, shall surely be put to death; they shall pelt them with stones; their blood is upon themselves.
And the RASHI commentary thereof:
[And a man or a woman] who has [the sorcery of] Ov or Yid’oni: Here, regarding those [who practice the sorcery of Ov or Yid’oni,] Scripture states death, while above (verse 6), Scripture states excision. [With] witnesses and warning [not to commit the sin], they incur [death by] stoning, but if [the perpetrators transgress] willfully but without warning, they incur excision; and if they transgress unintentionally, [they must bring] a sin-offering. And this [general principle regarding death, excision or sin-offering,] applies to all who are subject to the death penalty, about whom excision is also stated.
Quotes from http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165
I believe the Bible also says something about spreading out and populating the world. Perhaps people shouldn't be crowding together, living in cities if they aren't ready to build a sufficient sanitation system.
Yeah, everybody should just live on their luxury ranches and enjoy the easy life.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
It Expired 13.5 Billion Years Ago, Sorry. Guess the mice should have bought the extended warranty... ;)
Agrisea Tsunami - Epyc Servers... https://agrisea.net/products
Gee, all the reports *I* read yesterday said 80M, not 100M. You could lose homo sap evolving in that gap, y'know.
mark
http://www.adherents.com/images/rel_pie.gif
That 33% total for Christianity is achieved by lumping several disparate religions together. It's a stretch to group Christians, Catholics, Mormon, Jehovahs Witness, Quakers, etc and call them the same religion. It's also relevant to note that they all use slightly different versions and interpretations of the Bible, which was my original point that the Bible has been changed and altered through the years.
Christianity is the youngest religion on the block and certainly not the largest.
I'll give you that it's not the largest, but where did you get this notion that it's the youngest religion? Christianity began in the mid first-century AD (or CE, if you prefer). Meanwhile, the largest religon (Islam) didn't get started until Muhammed in 610. So your "youngest religion on the block" argument is off by over half a millenia. And that's just talking about the "mainstream" religions, to say nothing of some of the more modern belief systems.
In the grand scheme of things, both Christianity and Islam are both relatively new religions. I'll repeat my question - What makes the Christian, Islamic, American Indian, Hindu, etc set of beliefs any more correct than the other? Particularly Christianity when it is based on faith in an unprovable god and a history book claiming unprovable supernatural events?
Universe doesn't have age because doesn't have beginning and end. Universe is the physical manifestation of eternity. This whole Big Bang theory is completely false. See http://www.sensibleuniverse.com/
That 33% total for Christianity is achieved by lumping several disparate religions together. It's a stretch to group Christians, Catholics, Mormon, Jehovahs Witness, Quakers, etc and call them the same religion
No, it's not. They all believe Jesus is the son of God and that he'll one day come back to Earth to judge the quick and the dead.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Are you still paying attention to those Nut jobs, then assuming they represent the majority of religions.
Most religions are actually OK with Science, They don't see it interfering with their religion and they don't push science to push a model that fits their view of the universe.
Perhaps the religious people you know never really read past those first few chapters of the bible, and realized it isn't a book of just a bunch of miracles, but more about human interactions. Sure there are a few put in just to keep it interesting.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Wow such venomous defense of the bible - you must be Christian right? No I don't have a script. What makes you assume I'm atheist instead of agnostic? Perhaps I am Islamic and share their believe that the Bible has become corrupted? Or perhaps Jewish and don't simply discount the events of the New Testament. (Yes I'm generalizing a bit here, but no worse that automatically labeling me an atheist because I legitimately question the integrity of the bible)
I once was Christian and after much introspection decided that the storyline just wasn't believable anymore. One of the things that I realized was the indisputable fact that the bible has been altered both deliberately (ala King James) and unintentionally colored through translation between the languages.
As someone here else noted, the vast majority of Christians have not read the bible cover to cover. They rely on hearing the bible through preaching which adds it's own twists, interpretations, and coloring. Or like the Catholics, they pull religious beliefs from other sacred texts as well. I'll even bet real money that the average Christian on the street can't name more than 1/3 of the books the version of the Bible their particular religion uses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible
Who cares what Pat Robertson thinks? I'm more concerned that about 40 percent of the American population believes it!
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
You are free to believe whatever you wish but the Old Testament that is found in the King James bible is based on the Greek translation of the hebrew scriptures which is known as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint and it predates AD or (CE if you prefer). You are free to study the differences between the Greek translation, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh and modern translations but please stop spreading your unfounded bullshit as it were fact.
The main gospels of the new testament have manuscripts dating back to around the first century and the epistles are generally considered to be letters to the various congregations written by the apostles and Paul to the various congregations in Asia minor during the first century.
I would've modded you informative for this part if I hadn't posted in here already. Most of the Bible (The Old Testament) is older than 2000 years. The new Testament, which is significantly smaller, not so much. FWIW
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Ahh, you beat me to it.
A very detailed article on that whole thing is at http://proteuscoven.com/Suffer.htm
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Pffft...you guys are wasting your time.
Those features were all deprecated in the last build. See the patch notes.
No, it doesn't.
GGP's point seemed to have been that some people marked down as Christians weren't really devout Christians. My counterpoint was that some people marked down as atheists aren't really devout atheists either, so that arguing that non-devout people were skewing the statistics didn't seem valid.
My general impression is that in Europe, the US, and Canada, the trend is that people's religious views are becoming a less significant part of their personal identity and more of an occasional interest or cultural affiliation. The exception is those in the US who's religious views are focused on the concepts of authority and obedience that are really scared that their worldview is dying.
I am officially gone from
The age of the universe is pure guess work. It's not even good educated guess work. Hell, go search and you will see numbers from the expanding vacuum theory crowd over 17 billion. The 13 billion is based on big bang models which use as much as 90% made up numbers for dark matter and energy to get close to a valid simulation.
If you are guessing to begin with, it's not a story that your guess is .1% wrong! This is especially obnoxious when others in the field are guessing at 125% differences depending on who's guess work and theory you like.
What is more newsworthy in my opinion is why people are gullible enough to think crap like this is actually "newsworthy". I'll add that it's very sad that the people that believe these models are real when it's admitted to be mostly made of magical materials and energy, and yet those same people make fun of others that believe in theology.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I think that the difficulty is to put that phrase in the right context. A mekhashefa was not necessarily the same kind of sorceress who practiced Ov and Yid’oni (necromancy and divination, right?), but possibly some other kind of witch (the Old Testament identifies many different kinds of witchcraft, the peculiarities of which are mostly forgotten).
Those features were all deprecated in the last build. See the patch notes.
My OS is incompatible with all such programs.
Therefore my interest is purely academic -- from a historical and anthropological perspective.
When did you last hear one of them say they disagree with God, about anything? When did someone say, "That seems like a good act to me, but I heard God is against it, so I've decided to work against my own perception of good, and instead do what I think is evil. Because I'm wrong about what's good and evil." (Or better yet, instead of choosing perceived evil for God's sake, how about this: "I'll be punished in purgatory for my disobedience, but that's a price I choose to pay: it's up to us to make a stand against the divine tyrant, and hopefully, through our acts of conviction and sacrifice, persuade him to change his opinion.") It doesn't happen.
I suppose you've never seen someone say smoking is bad and then light up, or say that sleeping around is bad and then proceed to do so. If you look around a little harder I'm sure you can find people who are morally compromised, by their own standards and not mine, even in the religious realm. After all, religious people are people, too. In fact, we have a whole tradition built around this - it's called the New Year Resolution, which can be loosely defined as: things someone wishes they did, but haven't done before and, statistically, won't do for very long now.
Thus, even if no one were watching or guiding, mystics know the right thing to do. Whatever they decide to do, well, I'm sure God would have decided the same thing. Thus, God watching them doesn't count, because being watched by God is no different than being watched by yourself. A mystic is wise enough and informed enough, compassionate enough and uncompromising enough -- a paragon of ideal virtue in every way -- to be qualified to act as their own divine judge. This makes your "ultimate test" irrelevant and useless.
As for your pious statements, I suggest you read the Bible. Many people who were claimed to be loved by God did some truly horrible things, got called out by it, and acknowledged the error of their ways. Very very few were considered to be good enough to get a direct ticket to heaven. Whether you agree with it or not, your statements have no basis on the actual document in question, and if you wish to categorically criticize something you should choose to become informed first.
I've met plenty of Christians, religious types, and atheists whose worldview can be summed up as "I'm right even when I'm not consistent, and anyone who disagrees with me is hopelessly uninformed (and could benefit from trying to be more like me)." So maybe this is more of a people issue, and a generalization as opposed to a universal truth.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Exactly, it's all love and peace while sitting inside the church, but the mood changes when trying to get out of the church car park. If we atheists had a church with a car park, I'm pretty sure the same phenomena would occur.
Religion is nothing more than a social club suffering from groupthink, most times the club acts like the RSL but on other occasions it acts like the KKK. The majority of people attend church services to socialize, few of them are really interested in all the detailed waffle of the die hard god botherers. The average church goer wears their god hat in pretty much the same way I wore my cowboy hat as a child in the 60's, there is simply no way John Wayne could be the bad guy and I will hurt you if you keep saying otherwise.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
When they see all the news headlines they'll think it is all about them.
Imagine your name is Previously Thought and check out the hilarious mad-libs in Google News.
An example,
"Polar bears and brown bears, species known to produce fertile hybrids, have much more in common genetically than Previously Thought."
More entertaining than reading about The Artist Formerly Known As The Artist Formerly Known As Prince.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
You don't get it. Nobody is perfect and even christians sometimes stumble. Once you become a christian then you will understand. You have this really distorted view of what christians are supposed to be. People don't "earn" their salvation. It is a gift. People start doing good works to give thanks, grow in their faith and to be an example for others who will then ask them about their faith.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
And what is the purpose of life?
Seriously?!!
As the science gets better, the older the Universe gets. I would not make any bets that the Universe is ONLY 13.8 billion years old and no older.
And to confound your dodgy dichotomy, how about Sikhism, which is definitely a significant religion (around 10^7.5 followers), and established between 1500 and 1600 (Gregorian calendar)?
Not "New Age Fruitloopery", or at least, no more so than every other religion (apart from the CoFSM ; we take the fruit loops of other religions and use them to supply our Beer Volcano, blessed be the Noodly Appendage!)
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
I wonder why anyone wants to know the age of the universe in the first place? Is it just a scientific exercise or does it really have a purpose?
Christianity is the youngest religion on the block and certainly not the largest. What makes their version of the unexplainable the correct one?
It is the largest. And it's not the youngest (Islam is 600 or so years younger). Other than that, spot on.
Incidentally, I'm not saying that makes it in any way credible. When adults believe fairy tales you have Religion.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
As an atheist, I don't refuse to celebrte Christmas.
Yay for the Annual Winter Festival..!
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
There are some pretty good reasons to think that it's probable that we actually have a biological predisposition to belief in the supernatural. There are areas of the brain that can be stimulated to give someone a strong sense of a 'presence' being there, or to feel 'at one' with everything.
Doesn't meant we're born bible-thumpers, far from it, but it's sad to see how quickly the bollocks takes root when it comes from a trusted source. I honestly believe preaching hellfire-bullshit at kids is tantamount to abuse.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
My fave Chris Hitchens line: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
The New Testament is all very nice, apart from the bizarre nonsensical fever dream at the end (Revelation). Strangely many Christians are reluctant to renounce the quite nasty Old Testament, despite the deeply unpleasant (and frankly ludicrous e.g. Samson) content.
In the Old Testament, for example, slavery is condoned, genocide is condoned, almost unimaginable misogyny (women are basically assets to be traded around) and hard as this is to believe - homophobia. ;) e.g. "If a man has sex with another man, kill them both" Lev. 20:13.
I'm quite curious what an enlightened Christian such as yourself thinks of this kind of content. Are you ever tempted to pick through it for the few nice bits? If so, isn't that intellectually dishonest?
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Is that 100 million years longer ago, or is it 100 million light years farther from here to the initial ripple? How far is it in wave numbers? Is that the right space-time measure?
I suspect in SR these questions are meaningless, that you don't measure event separation like that. Does it have any better interpretation in GR?
And what is so hot in the direction of Eridanus? There is no range data, right?
--
Maybe dinosaurs arenâ(TM)t around HERE now because they DO have a space program (apologies to Larry Niven)
"Christianity is the youngest religion on the block and certainly not the largest. What makes their version of the unexplainable the correct one?"
Except for Islam, which post dates Christianity by about 400 years. There are plenty of 'younger' religions than that too, even if you don't count sects of a main religion. Scientology for example is not even 50 years old.
Christianity is however the largest religion, with 1/3 of the worlds population, and has the largest single denomination - Roman Catholic - with 1 Billion people.
Nor are supernatural powers only attributed to ancient leaders. Today, most reigning monarchs are considered to be appointed, and anointed' by God. The King of Thailand is the Avatar of Vishnu. The Emperor of Japan is of divine descent. And anyone beatified is both the provider and receiver of supernatural miracles.
It's a fairy story written by bronze age goat herders. Apart from that, you're bang on.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
In general, believing what you want to believe is simply a really bad idea.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Wackos always feel excluded from the process. They are, because they've got crappy evidence and crappy methodology. Then they scream that they're being victimised. Grow up and take it on the chin. Science is self-corrective. Childish moaning isn't going to convince anyone.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
LOL, yup, everyone in the country is rich and has a luxury ranch. Ha Ha
Usually people in the country are poorer actually. But.. they do have room to dig a hole and where there are trees to cut, even build an outhouse over it. Personally, I would rather squat in the woods than be poor in the city and drinking shit in my water. (even if the city provides some hope of a factory hiring me for the day now and then) I suppose there might not be enough non-desert country to squat in if everybody in every bad urban environment decided to do that at the same time but that's not what is happening anyway. Populations are moving into the cities, not out of them.
My point though was only meant in regards to the grandparent posts. Does the bible have some wisdom in it? Regardless of the truth or non-truth of the religion part? One guy says the parts about sanitation are a good example of wisdom. Another says such sanitation is impossible under current conditions in some places. I pointed out that if people followed one other bit of wisdom from the bible that condition might not exist today so yes, there does seem to be some wisdom in there.
Relative to the billions of years the universe has been in existence, 100 million doesn't seem to add much.
I think 6000 years will always be a lot funnier than 14ish billion.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
I really don't give a crap how old some scientist says the universe is.
I don't give a crap that you don't give a crap. Common sense would suggest you piss off and spend your time more profitably elsewhere.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
However, when the universe was first expanding, the expansion was going faster than the speed of light
This indicates the laws of physics were fundamentally different when the universe first started to expand
Space isn't subject to the speed of light limitation. It can expand as fast as it likes. Parts of the universe are moving away from us faster than the speed of light due to this. This is why there is a horizon beyond which we can never see.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
It's painfully obvious that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. The primordial radiation is now in the microwave band. It is not in x-rays or gamma rays and never will be again. You might not be able to imagine the universe being younger than tens of trillions of years, but I would say the burden of proof is on you now. Off you go. Best of luck and let me know if you want to bet.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.