I had interpreted this as the best way that God could explain to a guy 6000years ago. Technologically how would you explain that I just took a piece out of you, altered the double helix acid code in ways you will never understand, grew up sample into your really sexy babe. This isn't even thought possible to humans until recently in the last 50 maybe 100yrs and as of yet, we got dolly the sheep which is just a clone, not an altered clone.
So saying God took a rib and grew Eve out of it I think it much more realistic now than it ever was. (Same for the Adam from dirt argument, think of startrek teleport technology assembling people from atoms. All the resources are already there, and Eve was made from adman and not from dirt I assume to stop people saying females were not human. (which people would do if they could.)) Or I could be completely off on the technology side but it seems thats how it is.
Thanks for respecting my views, usually I just get insulted as someone who doesn't think.
Right now I am thinking of my car. It's a dihatsu 91 model. It had a leaking radiator, the aircon was ripped out of it (before I brought it), and it has holes in the side door's padding, the wipers can't move the water off the window unless it's smush it to make everything blury. (Anyone want to buy it:-p)
Did the manufacture designed the car that way? No, they manufacture a good car. And it's the way I (and previous owners) treated it that caused it to be "evil".
Dont blame the manufacturer for a good car being completely awful. (still better than the busses in Canberra.)
And you can have good without evil. God created it Good, without any evil in it. (otherwise it would not be "good"). It's not Ying&Yang. That would be like giving a car to your son (good) and then saying, I did you good son, heres the evil (and kicking him in the balls). That doesn't happen(?). There is not force connecting Good and Evil together. (I'm sounding a bit weird here) The two will always try remove the other, they can not exist in harmony with each other.
Also God created the first humans directly, not the descendants. So God created the matter and the program of DNA for "kinds" to manufacture descending "kinds". So God didn't create you directly, but the atoms you exist from and the original blueprints of your design (of course degraded from the prefect dna of adam/eve).
I will agree that God created everything, but God didn't create "evil". Genesis talked about everything he created was "good". God created Lucifer has a "Cherubim" (super angle). The bible talked about 5 of them, we know 3 of them names. Lucifer was in charge of all creation, and was referred to as "The morning star". He is brilliant and very creative (in talent) and good at music. But being the most powerful created thing didn't make him as powerful as God. He got cocky and wanted to raise himself to be like God. His arrogance caused him to sin and rebel against God and he talked 1/3 of angles into joining him.
So God didn't create evil, but he allowed this angle to choose to be evil. Thats the problem of free will, as you slashdotter's love to have freedom to do what you want. God allowed (against his will) for this to happen. And the reason Satin is "evil" is he knows his punishment is coming and he only have a short time to spit in the face of God, since he can't do it directly, he goes after the thing God loves the most which Satin can hurt,... Us.
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.
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.
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).
I've been waiting for this release, I use OS 11.2 as well. I have tried Ubuntu, Gentoo & Slackware but always came back to OpenSuse. (mainly because it's the CD that wasn't scratched and booted with little effort because of my old / weird sata chipset. )
I would have to disagree on that argument, because wither it's potentially a chicken in that egg, doesn't stop it from not being a chicken. Alive or dead (unless it's a crock / snake), This is the same as the debate of a baby in the wome being alive or not, because its only a potential human. But never the less, it's cool that this argument is 2340 years old.
I am disappointed that article writers have to make things up to be noticed. The article does not prove that a NC (non chicken) came before. All does show the complex and efficient design of the egg. The problem is people are force to believe in the story tale of evolution and hence must come up with ridiculous stories to try to explain the chicken and egg.
I've heard things from pigoens, pheasants to even large lizzords could lay chicken eggs which is laughable. What we know as a chicken is a bird. Natural Selection is a fact and that means if we saw what a chicken origonally looked like, we would probably wonder what bird it was. Like the great veryance in dogs from Great Danes to chawawas. Natueral selection is a opposite of "evolution". NS works by the filtering out of geanes from the pool availbe. This means dogs will only produce dogs, cats to cats and birds to birds.
Example for NS filtering geans for dogs.
LS MS 2 dogs both are median in size, Long, Small Median & Small
LM LS SM SS medain tall, median, small median, very small.
Now if thoses SS dogs bread, you will only every get small dogs.
SM SS
SS MS SS SS
SS SS SS SS
SS SS SS CHICKEN oops the last dog turned into a chicken and layed an egg.
So Natural Selection will not produce creatures who couldn't lay eggs before but now can! The Chicken egg came from a bird, in any case it was either created as a chicken or not, the birds will always be a bird kind.
The debate about Chicken and the egg is based on people rejecting the design choice. This is the first time of me raving about bad science called evolution NS isn't evolution
What ever you do, dont think of a beautiful girl on a nudist beach. Now you will be force to control your thoughts, so think happy thoughts like flowers, puppies and little children,
oops, not little children you pervert!
This is a very bad idea to be able to surf like that imo.
Slashdot Mirror
I was expected to see in the image a sheep being picked up half way in the tractor beam. :-(
kind of disappointed its not there.
I had interpreted this as the best way that God could explain to a guy 6000years ago.
Technologically how would you explain that I just took a piece out of you, altered the double helix acid code in ways you will never understand, grew up sample into your really sexy babe. This isn't even thought possible to humans until recently in the last 50 maybe 100yrs and as of yet, we got dolly the sheep which is just a clone, not an altered clone.
So saying God took a rib and grew Eve out of it I think it much more realistic now than it ever was.
(Same for the Adam from dirt argument, think of startrek teleport technology assembling people from atoms. All the resources are already there, and Eve was made from adman and not from dirt I assume to stop people saying females were not human. (which people would do if they could.))
Or I could be completely off on the technology side but it seems thats how it is.
Thanks for respecting my views, usually I just get insulted as someone who doesn't think.
Right now I am thinking of my car. It's a dihatsu 91 model. It had a leaking radiator, the aircon was ripped out of it (before I brought it), and it has holes in the side door's padding, the wipers can't move the water off the window unless it's smush it to make everything blury. (Anyone want to buy it :-p)
Did the manufacture designed the car that way? No, they manufacture a good car. And it's the way I (and previous owners) treated it that caused it to be "evil".
Dont blame the manufacturer for a good car being completely awful. (still better than the busses in Canberra.)
And you can have good without evil. God created it Good, without any evil in it. (otherwise it would not be "good"). It's not Ying&Yang. That would be like giving a car to your son (good) and then saying, I did you good son, heres the evil (and kicking him in the balls). That doesn't happen(?). There is not force connecting Good and Evil together. (I'm sounding a bit weird here) The two will always try remove the other, they can not exist in harmony with each other.
Also God created the first humans directly, not the descendants. So God created the matter and the program of DNA for "kinds" to manufacture descending "kinds". So God didn't create you directly, but the atoms you exist from and the original blueprints of your design (of course degraded from the prefect dna of adam/eve).
I will agree that God created everything, but God didn't create "evil". Genesis talked about everything he created was "good". God created Lucifer has a "Cherubim" (super angle). The bible talked about 5 of them, we know 3 of them names. Lucifer was in charge of all creation, and was referred to as "The morning star". He is brilliant and very creative (in talent) and good at music. But being the most powerful created thing didn't make him as powerful as God. He got cocky and wanted to raise himself to be like God. His arrogance caused him to sin and rebel against God and he talked 1/3 of angles into joining him.
So God didn't create evil, but he allowed this angle to choose to be evil. Thats the problem of free will, as you slashdotter's love to have freedom to do what you want. God allowed (against his will) for this to happen. And the reason Satin is "evil" is he knows his punishment is coming and he only have a short time to spit in the face of God, since he can't do it directly, he goes after the thing God loves the most which Satin can hurt, ... Us.
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.
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?
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.
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).
Ho Ho ho, Your Legi mind tricks wont work on me.
I've been waiting for this release, I use OS 11.2 as well. I have tried Ubuntu, Gentoo & Slackware but always came back to OpenSuse. (mainly because it's the CD that wasn't scratched and booted with little effort because of my old / weird sata chipset. )
I would have to disagree on that argument, because wither it's potentially a chicken in that egg, doesn't stop it from not being a chicken. Alive or dead (unless it's a crock / snake), This is the same as the debate of a baby in the wome being alive or not, because its only a potential human. But never the less, it's cool that this argument is 2340 years old.
I am disappointed that article writers have to make things up to be noticed. The article does not prove that a NC (non chicken) came before. All does show the complex and efficient design of the egg.
The problem is people are force to believe in the story tale of evolution and hence must come up with ridiculous stories to try to explain the chicken and egg.
I've heard things from pigoens, pheasants to even large lizzords could lay chicken eggs which is laughable. What we know as a chicken is a bird.
Natural Selection is a fact and that means if we saw what a chicken origonally looked like, we would probably wonder what bird it was. Like the great veryance in dogs from Great Danes to chawawas.
Natueral selection is a opposite of "evolution". NS works by the filtering out of geanes from the pool availbe. This means dogs will only produce dogs, cats to cats and birds to birds.
Example for NS filtering geans for dogs.
LS MS 2 dogs both are median in size, Long, Small Median & Small
LM LS SM SS medain tall, median, small median, very small.
Now if thoses SS dogs bread, you will only every get small dogs.
SM SS
SS MS SS SS
SS SS SS SS
SS SS SS CHICKEN oops the last dog turned into a chicken and layed an egg.
So Natural Selection will not produce creatures who couldn't lay eggs before but now can!
The Chicken egg came from a bird, in any case it was either created as a chicken or not, the birds will always be a bird kind.
The debate about Chicken and the egg is based on people rejecting the design choice.
This is the first time of me raving about bad science called evolution NS isn't evolution
Tell me if your interested to hear more guys
Does anyone know if it comes with a Shark accessory?
This is another 1st April joke.
So is this an example of Evolution or INTELegent Design?
All though I visited the site twice before in my life I couldn't remember the url of that site. I have now got the push in the right direction. :-)
What ever you do, dont think of a beautiful girl on a nudist beach. Now you will be force to control your thoughts, so think happy thoughts like flowers, puppies and little children, oops, not little children you pervert! This is a very bad idea to be able to surf like that imo.