Heat may have impacted some aspects of growth, but not necessarily the mutations they saw. I read through the whole translation, and it seems like these young people did some very sound science work.
Which is why we have known cases of human sterilization due to exposure to radar and microwave frequencies at high power?
If you ever work in the industry, you would see warnings on the equipment that call that aspect out (Civilian and Military).
It's amazing to see how much venom people spew in order to avoid cognitive dissonance. "No, it can't be harmful because I like the stuff. Everyone that found it harmful must be a liar!".... *sigh*
Do you trust the NYP who has had leaks tell us how the Feds have to approve all their stories? If you can't trust the "trusted" sources any longer, maybe you should consider trusting other people?
*shrug* seems like you make a whole lot of assumptions about what I stated. If you immediately jump into bed with anyone you meet, I'm not really with you since you have to know the risks of being that promiscuous. If you have an STD and sleep with someone, sure I'm with you. If you are dating someone and not sleeping together, and you are getting treatment for a STD, do you need to disclose? And before you pull out your straw man, the majority of STDs are not AIDS and Herpes that are with you for life. The majority are strains of syphilis and gonorrhea which are easily cured.
Seems like you and Larry have lots in common, everyone's situation must match your view and not their reality.
Opening up all the statistical information contained in the medial records of the entire population could certainly be a massive benefit to the whole of humanity.
Huh? Name one benefit, just one. And no! Marketing information for some company is not a benefit to humanity. There is no benefit to opening up medical records for anyone to review. Maybe to some other species we have yet to meet, but sure as hell not to humans.
You currently go to a doctor that has your history and can make decisions based on that history. If you change doctors, you need to approve a form allowing the transfer of your old records to the new doctor. I think that your current doctor should have your history. I don't believe that your insurance company should be able to make you change doctors. Those decisions were placed in your hands for good reason.
Makes one wonder, or at least I think it should, how much of the Bilderberg NWO conspiracy stuff is really going on. Anyone connected to reality would have thoughts along the lines of what I wrote. I really doubt that he is that big of an idiot, so is he pushing an agenda?
The only reason to worry is to be insured? How about not being discriminated against in all kinds of areas (namely job hunting)? How about not pissing off a girlfriend when you have to clear up a STD from an Ex or a bad decision? How about not wanting the family to know you have a terminal disease?
There are many reasons we want to keep our health issues private. I'm not going to discount that being able to talk to someone is helpful, but that is not even close to making them available to everyone all the time.
Horse shit! You don't need an app to ask you "Do you want to talk to Joe?". You either want to talk to Joe or don't, and if you are dependent on a reminder to talk to people it's time to get off the computer. You don't need a computer to index your photo's, but yes certain aspects of an auto-indexer could be nice. Except what if you don't want your pictures shared to the world and searchable by everyone? You know, private memories of Grandma's last big trip and such.
The shepherd is the guardian of the sheep. The shepherd should not be picking up the lambs and carrying them around because, well, fuck.. Why would a lamb ever learn to walk? Call a parasite a parasite, and a shepherd a shepherd, and be honest about who is who.
To me that is not the only obvious problem. We lack the technology to do what the brain does, period. The brain processes much differently than a computer. 3D connections allow correlation of data that simply does not happen on a computer, and can't happen until we have working 3D computers. What ever they come up with as a simulation, won't be a simulation at all. It's going to be a whole lot of linear processors running as fast as it can, that won't match what a human brain can do.
No offense, but I'll have to do some research since I'm not in Australia. Your statement does not back what I have read here in the US, which is that people had to turn in guns and, that if you did keep them there is little ability to actually use them. Components had to be removed and stored in separate locations, ammo restrictions on keeping rounds, etc.. Much like the gun laws in the UK where a common person really does not have a gun.
WTF? Are you mentally handicapped or just trying to voice propaganda? The 20th century saw Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, etc.. etc.. etc.. so you are absolutely full of shit. WW II was to stop Hitler, after corrupt people in other countries gave him money, weapons, and power.
You can't change human nature. This is why Socrates stated that the only people that should be representing people in a Republic are the people that don't want the job. This prevents people craving power from holding offices and abusing their offices to gain power. Remember power comes in many forms.
Socrates was also adamant that society needs to be highly educated. The people holding offices in the US have done everything they can to make the populace some of the dumbest people in history. People don't understand fallacy and rhetoric, and the people in Government don't want them to understand either. It's not just in the US either, all of the "free" countries have gone down the same road.
Bullshit, and a big-ole steaming pile of it. Many times/. moderation is not about really marking people as Trolls or Flame baiting. It's about people that don't like your opinion so mod you something to make you invisible, reduce your karma, and make you stop posting. The persons post was not flame bait by anyone's definition, nor was it a troll.
While you make a fair "feel good" argument, it's not historically accurate. If you read history, you will find that there have been no perfect Governments. Governments that are granted powers always request more and more, until the point where a revolution is required to restore a Government that people can live with.
I guess you could ignore the fact that the US had been trending toward a tyranny for a very long time. Each year, more and more power is granted to the Government. Each year we pay more and more in taxes, and what does the average person get? The trend has not been moving the other direction, because that is how it works. Governments become corrupt, the corruption becomes entrenched, and the corruption becomes the normal Government. People will go through several phases (apathy, complacency, etc..) before they are fed up enough to revolt. But it happens in every single situation where corruption becomes the Government Normal. Where it has not happened yet, is places like Russia and China who have been diligent about shooting anyone that discusses revolt.
Australia kind of leapfrogged past the US and even the UK in terms of a soft tyrannical take over. I found it surprising, but as soon as they lost their ability to fight (gave up the guns) the changes have been moving very quickly.
A tyranny is not necessarily an outrageously oppressive Government murdering masses. I think this is why you are trying to justify such Government and attack people that point them out. It's easier to live in delusion than face cognitive dissonance.
You've yet to show that Krauss holds that view. Abolishment through education (as higher education correlates with less belief in sky-fairies) seems to be what he advocates.
Huh? He want's it labelled child abuse. You are intentionally or not, ignoring facts to back your belief. Your ad hominem is a nice validation that it's you, not me that is being ignorant.
It's also a blatant fallacy that "higher education correlates with less creation". In fact the opposite is true if a person pursues an education in Philosophy. This is why a classical education (what we had in the US up until the 1950s) included Philosophy at a young age. Have you decided to investigate how the US has been dumbed down, or will you ignore that piece of education as well?
So, you couldn't find anyone giving those odds? Winning in lottery is a true/false question, how can anyone set those odds as anything different than 50/50? This is something that you seemingly fail to grasp.
Wrong, maybe you should go back and take a basic statistics class. Either that, or you need to stop twisting facts to support your beliefs, which would be the most advisable course of action.
As a PhD, I'll have to inform that you are wrong. Every scientific theory begins with experimental data. This is why, say, the ancient Greeks theorizing about atoms didn't produce anything usable.
The experiment comes from Philosophy first! You have a concept of something, you build a model to see if you are correct. The concept and thought process allowing you to build the experiment is Philosophy. I'm doubtful that you have a PHD. The reason the Ancient Greeks could not experiment about atomic theory is because they did not have enough technology to perform any experiments. They sure as hell had theories about it though!
Much of the Old Testament is factually wrong or pretty hideous stuff morally. I don't know about truth, but science has been the only tool to give us something usable.
Einstein was not too happy about how Science was used against Japan either was he? What humans do with knowledge is a drag right? To the first part of what you said, bullshit. We have found giant skeletons, which means that David and Goliath is very possible. We have found all kinds of validation that a major world wide flood happened, so it is possible that this event occurred. Parting the Red Sea has been shown to have some merit with natural phenomenon, so while it may not have been a guy with a staff it could have happened.
Where I would agree with you, is that many of the stories from the Old Testament seem to match stories we translated from Sumerian writings. This means that certain peoples beliefs in where a story came from may be incorrect. That is not what you speculated nor what you take issue with. You make a false claim that it's all horrible and all wrong. Please go educate yourself before speaking out of ignorance.
I haven't claimed that BB theory is right, as no theory is ever right. They can only shown to be wrong; until that happens, the prevailing theories are our best models to match the universe we observe. Did you read the Scienceblogs page I linked to? Where were the numerous BB theories presented there?
That whole paragraph reeks! Some theories are always wrong and should never be pursued. Prevailing theories are often wrong, sometimes to the point of never being pursued Hitler's theories of a supreme race for example (which were heavily embraced in the US). Countless theories have been right enough that we can progress in knowledge because of them. Einstein's theory of relativity for example. Big Bang sits somewhere in the middle of those two theories. Yes, I read the blog but no, my opinion that Expanding Vacuum is a much better theory does not change. It also does not change the fact that I can go to numerous locations to read variations in the B
While I don't doubt that you can find people with extreme views such as abolishment of religion, that's not what atheists in general demand. The demand is to keep the beliefs inside the believers and out of the society.
Were we not discussing Krauss that has just such a view? Randomly poll atheists and see how many agree with him, and don't see their belief as hypocritical.
And yet you can't give an example of your 50/50 claim. Not that it matters, philosophy is pretty worthless in evaluating claims of existence.
It becomes rather pointless to establish a different ratio when we know we can never prove either side is correct. It's a true or false question. How does any rational person set the odds any other way?
The second half of that is absolute rubbish! Every scientific theory starts with a Philosophical evaluation! Every single one! Why do you think most scientists have PHDs? You do know what PHD is an acronym for don't you?
I've often wondered, how many of those people would have believed in a god, had they not been indoctrinated during their childhood (I don't claim that all of them were). I have hard time believing that anyone would come up with the Christian God and dogma (virgin birth and such) just starting from first principles and working in vacuum.
You are showing a great amount of ignorance of history here. Read up on Sumeria and Ancient Greek beliefs. It's not difficult to come up with any modern religion based on previous beliefs. Much of what is in the Judea Christian old testament seems to have some truth to the shape of the world also. If some does, perhaps you have been fooled into thinking there is no truth in anything except for what you have been taught to believe?
Additionally, Einstein was a pantheist, he didn't believe in a creator god.
You are blatantly repeating false propaganda. Einstein did believe in a creator, but was not a practicing Jew and did not believe what most Religions did or taught about the creator. You do realize that all of his writings are on the Smithsonian web site and translated to English, so you could easily check facts for yourself right?
You still haven't shown a single disagreement. You just don't get it: That two popular sources cite somewhat different numbers does not mean that there are two different Big Bang theories. The theory is the framework that ties the parameters together in a consistent way. For example, in BB theory, the size of the universe is tied to the age of the universe. The size of the universe is also tied to the Hubble constant. If we measure the Hubble constant with say 20 % accuracy, we get an estimate for the age of the universe that's 20 % or more inaccurate. This inaccuracy in determination of parameters has as just little to do with correctness of the BB theory than inaccuracy in the earth's circumstance measurements has to do with the theory of the spherical earth.
How can you possibly agree with a disproportional set of conflicting information? That is my disagreement, and I believe it to be well founded. I'm not trying to claim the theories are bad, but pointing out the fact that there are numerous theories of the same name and none of them are the same. To claim BB is right means you have never read on what BB is. You must also answer "who's BB" theory is right, who's numbers for dark matter and energy are correct, etc.. etc...
Also remember that if the expanding vacuum theory is correct, BB never happens. The Universe slowly expanded from a small point of space. In addition to making BB defunct, it ages the Universe immensely.
You still seem to believe that there is only 1 theory of Big Bang after being shown that there are differences between who you ask about BB theory!
Yes, yes, there are different parameters in the BB theory. Using two different sets of parameters doesn't
I'm not trying to convince you that a creationist is right, I'm trying to show that their beliefs are just as valid as an atheists. As I mentioned twice, learning the Philosophy required to make your own decision is beneficial. Either side of the argument demanding that their beliefs are right and everyone else is wrong harms society.
You would probably not argue that a Muslim demanding everyone believes and worships as they do, or they suffer criminal penalties is wrong. Why is it okay for an atheist to do the same? I call that hypocrisy.
I have studied Philosophy and countless Philosophers for over 30 years. No, I can't provide you immediate answers but will point you to the beginning of Philosophy to Socrates. From there, you will find Plato, and from there you will find Aristotle. All of those believed in "the creator" and discuss that to some extent in various pieces of work. Move to Descartes, Aquinas, and even many people we don't call "Philosophers" such as Newton, Godel, and even Einstein.
Unfortunately, showing you that different places having different facts in the same theories does no good. I will admit that I don't know everything, but you refuse to admit that you are wrong even when shown facts. If there was some magic book of the Universe, there would be one set of facts that everyone pointed to. There is no such book, and scientists can't agree on numerous portions of the Big Bang. Simulations can use up to 90% dark matter and dark energy, yet there is no fixed properties for either. Just like there are no fixed property for the age of the Universe, what exactly blew up at the beginning, or even how much stuff existed. The only thing that is agreeable is the speed at which the Universe is expanding because we can't argue measured speeds. There are still scientists today that are working on determining if the rate is slowing down because it's required with a mass inflation scenario.
All you have to do is read and you will see that very few people agree on some pretty major facts with Big Bang. This is why the expanding vacuum is gaining so much momentum. It's a way better theory and requires no big ball of mass. And if you claim that the theories are the same, or that Big Bang does not require a ball of exploding mass why is it named "Big Bang"? Use your head just a little bit.
No, I don't dismiss it. I dismiss any personal, interacting god. I dismiss any biblical and such creator gods, who create the universe in an already-evolved state. A creator who just pushes the button, so to speak, and ends the interaction there, is an option that must be considered possible. For example, if our universe is a computer simulation, the entity who started the simulation would qualify as such a creator. However, I find this option rather disinteresting. How would you show that this is what really happened? I don't see a way, and we'll be stuck in a situation of "we don't know what happened". As long as science can hypothesize testable (at least in principle) theories of the beginning of the universe, that's the way to go.
Just like a Rabbi, a Priest, a Monk could, or anyone else can not prove their "belief" on creation neither can you! You have a belief! Goody for you! Do you understand that your belief is based on your opinion and not fact? Your belief is no better than the Rabbi's, or the Monks, or the Priests when it comes to the matter of having a Creator. When it comes to other aspects of Theology, yes we can debunk quite a few Theological beliefs. I think we can debunk your belief in a computer simulation using Descartes principles just as easily as other things.
That's only an issue with theories that don't make (currently) testable predictions.
Bullshit, at least in the given context. We can't prove any portion of string theory correct, just like we can't prove Big Bang to be correct. Don't get me wrong, string theory has some interesting math, but it's not factual. If there i
Huh? So child abuse is now legal? I think you are selectively interpreting what was stated. If you think about that, somehow saying that, well, anything goes, we shouldn’t offend religious beliefs by requiring kids to know – to understand reality; that’s child abuse. This is just one example of numerous examples. Bill Nye said something very similar which is pointed out in that same article, which shows that it's not just Krauss to boot!
So you can't actually back up your claims, and now you're trying to change the subject? That's just in addition to being caught lying, of course
Rubbish, did you read the precursor? I think once again you used selective reading. I gave up arguing because it's impossible to argue with people that deny facts in order to support their beliefs.
No, belief in a creator is not like winning the lottery. It's a pure true/false question. We know the Universe began somehow. Atheists believe in no deity and claim that a Universe can just spring up from nothing. A creationist believes that something must have caused it to begin. Observation dictates that the creationist is probably correct.
Why? 1. Observe the Universe and everything has a cause and effect. We have some really cool unknowns at this point, but no proof as to why or how those things really work. Expanding Vacuum is the best example of those quantum particles in action. We are too immature in our knowledge to know if there is cause and effect relationships involved. 2. If a Universe could just pop up from nothing what has prevented numerous additional Universes from popping up within ours, which would most likely have catastrophic impact?
Because there is no proof, and no way of proving the answer to the question Philosophers through history have given it a 50/50 shot. Not the lottery as you fallaciously attempt to label it.
Further, having a Creator has nothing to do with any particular Religion. Religion is people trying to put clothes and make sense of the Creator.
Most atheists, yourself obviously included, dismiss the creator question because of Religious teaching, not because the question has been invalidated by any science. The question is still a very valid, and as mentioned previously it's an extremely healthy question to try and solve.
As to this:
How laughable can you get? Your evidence is two popular accounts of a scientific theory? And the "U of M" site has its latest reference from 1995, do you think that Wiki might have a bit more up-to-date info?
No, the Wiki does not have the most up to date information for Big Bang. The age of the Universe by most cosmologists is closer to U of M's information than Wiki's information. Again, you are only looking at the part of science you want to see. I can't help you there, if you keep blinders on you will have limited vision.
I can tell you that in elementary school in Michigan we were taught the Big Bang, as are most kids. In the decades that followed, the size of the ball of mass was changed as often as the age of the Universe. The books and theories all vary greatly, and have since the time the theory was first proposed. Theoretical physics as a whole has that issue (and this should be obvious since it's "theory"), look at string theory for another example. The first theory to come out had 7 strings, now it could be infinite depending on who's work you like. I get that it's science can be cool stuff, but it's "theory" and not "fact". The theories range from "hmm, interesting" to "wtf?" in the same exact subject matter.
I'm not claiming its wrong to learn any theory either, including what cosmologists want to teach. All learning is healthy for the mind. I'm against being biased in what is taught.
I gave sources, read up in the thread. Or don't, and keep claiming I never gave sources. Youtube his appearance on "The Colbert Report" and "The Daily Show". He has claimed the same thing many times in public formats, so I'm willing to bet it's not restricted to those 2 show episodes. Here is an article where he is making the claim.
Will you still claim "you never proved it" or will you admit you were plain old wrong? These quotes and articles are not hard to find at all, use Google.
A militant religionist attacks and kills people. That's why he's called militant. A militant atheist uses words, not weapons, and does not kill anyone.
Hard to understand the Westboro Baptist Church example I take it? No, it's not. But it does not fit your beliefs so again, you probably won't admit you are simply wrong.
Whose messages of hating religion? What are these messages? What are they shouting? Who are they? Also: Sources/examples, please.
If you refuse to admit Krauss is a bigot teaching hatred of Religion then no amount of proof would do any good would it? You refuse to see facts as facts! If you are preaching for the criminalization Religion and claiming that it's abusive, you are attempting to teach hatred.
There is no point in arguing with someone that denies facts to support their beliefs. Hence, I'll close with something I have pointed out for decades. Many atheists are biased the same way a "Bible thumping zealot" is biased. No amount of facts will change their arguments, and they will never consider facts that counter their beliefs. They believe that their beliefs are right, and just like Religious zealots, condemn anyone that believes differently than they do.
That fact is very disturbing, considering that those same atheists claim "We don't know" when asked the question "What created the Universe? (including Lawrence Krauss).
Way way off on nearly all you first posted. Did you bother to read this on Wiki? Are you calling steady state theory the same as big bang? Both were similar, but until the 80s there was a ton of push trying to determine when the Universe would start to contract because that was required due to the explosion in the Big Bang. It had nothing to do with Einstein being wrong or right about the speed of light in a vacuum. It was because the majority of Cosmologists believed that there was a ball of mass that blew up causing the Universe to begin to exist (and they don't mention how the mass came to exist, or the energy, or the space, or the physics) and for the most part in the Scientific community you were not allowed to discuss it. If you did, you were shunned and labelled a "Creationist".
Now compare the Wiki with U of M, and see where the same theory can easily contradict itself. As a quick pointer, U of M has the Universe at 15+ billion years, Wiki at 13. There are other major differences in the theory as well. Such as U of M describing more of an expanding vacuum.
Well, String Theories have at least some hope of being correct. But, as with anything dealing with science, it should be taught as dogma. You are once again building a straw man, as I've nowhere demanded punishing parents for teaching religious rubbish to their children.
Actually, your opinion is rubbish on that one. Belief in a creator is a 50/50 shot. There is no proof that string theory is right, but at least someone believing in a creator can say "The Universe came in to existence somehow". So no, you can't make up a lie, commit ad hominem, then complain that someone else is using a fallacy.
Krauss would be one, but of course you won't bother to look. You already have an opinion that he is right to make teaching Religion criminal, or at least you inferred as much. How many people can you find publicly supporting Krauss's opinion on that? Countless people support him, look at who bank rolls his books and speeches.
You use selective reasoning when it comes to known atheists like Mao and Stalin killing. By your logic, the Crusades were not Religious wars either, since that was a war for Land.
When people talk about militant atheists, they're always referring to people like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. Indeed, this was what you were saying as well. You said they were just shouting something, not killing anyone. So you were indeed referring to someone using words and not violence.
The same exact thing can be said about nearly every Religious extremist as well, including the middle east. If you believe that these people with their messages of hating Religion are any different than Westboro Baptist Church members yelling hate (insert anything) then you are a very lost cause. Both promote hate based on their beliefs. Neither tote guns around shooting people, but that does not make what either does morally right or good for society.
Slashdot Mirror
Heat may have impacted some aspects of growth, but not necessarily the mutations they saw. I read through the whole translation, and it seems like these young people did some very sound science work.
They have been known to cook the genitals of people sitting on the dish adjusting a horn though, which does not kill you and does cause sterilization.
Which is why we have known cases of human sterilization due to exposure to radar and microwave frequencies at high power? If you ever work in the industry, you would see warnings on the equipment that call that aspect out (Civilian and Military).
I think we have a spoiler fail!
It's amazing to see how much venom people spew in order to avoid cognitive dissonance. "No, it can't be harmful because I like the stuff. Everyone that found it harmful must be a liar!".... *sigh*
Do you trust the NYP who has had leaks tell us how the Feds have to approve all their stories? If you can't trust the "trusted" sources any longer, maybe you should consider trusting other people?
*shrug* seems like you make a whole lot of assumptions about what I stated. If you immediately jump into bed with anyone you meet, I'm not really with you since you have to know the risks of being that promiscuous. If you have an STD and sleep with someone, sure I'm with you. If you are dating someone and not sleeping together, and you are getting treatment for a STD, do you need to disclose? And before you pull out your straw man, the majority of STDs are not AIDS and Herpes that are with you for life. The majority are strains of syphilis and gonorrhea which are easily cured.
Seems like you and Larry have lots in common, everyone's situation must match your view and not their reality.
Opening up all the statistical information contained in the medial records of the entire population could certainly be a massive benefit to the whole of humanity.
Huh? Name one benefit, just one. And no! Marketing information for some company is not a benefit to humanity. There is no benefit to opening up medical records for anyone to review. Maybe to some other species we have yet to meet, but sure as hell not to humans.
You currently go to a doctor that has your history and can make decisions based on that history. If you change doctors, you need to approve a form allowing the transfer of your old records to the new doctor. I think that your current doctor should have your history. I don't believe that your insurance company should be able to make you change doctors. Those decisions were placed in your hands for good reason.
Makes one wonder, or at least I think it should, how much of the Bilderberg NWO conspiracy stuff is really going on. Anyone connected to reality would have thoughts along the lines of what I wrote. I really doubt that he is that big of an idiot, so is he pushing an agenda?
The only reason to worry is to be insured? How about not being discriminated against in all kinds of areas (namely job hunting)? How about not pissing off a girlfriend when you have to clear up a STD from an Ex or a bad decision? How about not wanting the family to know you have a terminal disease?
There are many reasons we want to keep our health issues private. I'm not going to discount that being able to talk to someone is helpful, but that is not even close to making them available to everyone all the time.
Horse shit! You don't need an app to ask you "Do you want to talk to Joe?". You either want to talk to Joe or don't, and if you are dependent on a reminder to talk to people it's time to get off the computer. You don't need a computer to index your photo's, but yes certain aspects of an auto-indexer could be nice. Except what if you don't want your pictures shared to the world and searchable by everyone? You know, private memories of Grandma's last big trip and such.
The shepherd is the guardian of the sheep. The shepherd should not be picking up the lambs and carrying them around because, well, fuck.. Why would a lamb ever learn to walk? Call a parasite a parasite, and a shepherd a shepherd, and be honest about who is who.
To me that is not the only obvious problem. We lack the technology to do what the brain does, period. The brain processes much differently than a computer. 3D connections allow correlation of data that simply does not happen on a computer, and can't happen until we have working 3D computers. What ever they come up with as a simulation, won't be a simulation at all. It's going to be a whole lot of linear processors running as fast as it can, that won't match what a human brain can do.
it's not just you
No offense, but I'll have to do some research since I'm not in Australia. Your statement does not back what I have read here in the US, which is that people had to turn in guns and, that if you did keep them there is little ability to actually use them. Components had to be removed and stored in separate locations, ammo restrictions on keeping rounds, etc.. Much like the gun laws in the UK where a common person really does not have a gun.
WTF? Are you mentally handicapped or just trying to voice propaganda? The 20th century saw Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, etc.. etc.. etc.. so you are absolutely full of shit. WW II was to stop Hitler, after corrupt people in other countries gave him money, weapons, and power.
You can't change human nature. This is why Socrates stated that the only people that should be representing people in a Republic are the people that don't want the job. This prevents people craving power from holding offices and abusing their offices to gain power. Remember power comes in many forms.
Socrates was also adamant that society needs to be highly educated. The people holding offices in the US have done everything they can to make the populace some of the dumbest people in history. People don't understand fallacy and rhetoric, and the people in Government don't want them to understand either. It's not just in the US either, all of the "free" countries have gone down the same road.
Bullshit, and a big-ole steaming pile of it. Many times /. moderation is not about really marking people as Trolls or Flame baiting. It's about people that don't like your opinion so mod you something to make you invisible, reduce your karma, and make you stop posting. The persons post was not flame bait by anyone's definition, nor was it a troll.
While you make a fair "feel good" argument, it's not historically accurate. If you read history, you will find that there have been no perfect Governments. Governments that are granted powers always request more and more, until the point where a revolution is required to restore a Government that people can live with.
I guess you could ignore the fact that the US had been trending toward a tyranny for a very long time. Each year, more and more power is granted to the Government. Each year we pay more and more in taxes, and what does the average person get? The trend has not been moving the other direction, because that is how it works. Governments become corrupt, the corruption becomes entrenched, and the corruption becomes the normal Government. People will go through several phases (apathy, complacency, etc..) before they are fed up enough to revolt. But it happens in every single situation where corruption becomes the Government Normal. Where it has not happened yet, is places like Russia and China who have been diligent about shooting anyone that discusses revolt.
Australia kind of leapfrogged past the US and even the UK in terms of a soft tyrannical take over. I found it surprising, but as soon as they lost their ability to fight (gave up the guns) the changes have been moving very quickly.
A tyranny is not necessarily an outrageously oppressive Government murdering masses. I think this is why you are trying to justify such Government and attack people that point them out. It's easier to live in delusion than face cognitive dissonance.
You've yet to show that Krauss holds that view. Abolishment through education (as higher education correlates with less belief in sky-fairies) seems to be what he advocates.
Huh? He want's it labelled child abuse. You are intentionally or not, ignoring facts to back your belief. Your ad hominem is a nice validation that it's you, not me that is being ignorant.
It's also a blatant fallacy that "higher education correlates with less creation". In fact the opposite is true if a person pursues an education in Philosophy. This is why a classical education (what we had in the US up until the 1950s) included Philosophy at a young age. Have you decided to investigate how the US has been dumbed down, or will you ignore that piece of education as well?
So, you couldn't find anyone giving those odds? Winning in lottery is a true/false question, how can anyone set those odds as anything different than 50/50? This is something that you seemingly fail to grasp.
Wrong, maybe you should go back and take a basic statistics class. Either that, or you need to stop twisting facts to support your beliefs, which would be the most advisable course of action.
As a PhD, I'll have to inform that you are wrong. Every scientific theory begins with experimental data. This is why, say, the ancient Greeks theorizing about atoms didn't produce anything usable.
The experiment comes from Philosophy first! You have a concept of something, you build a model to see if you are correct. The concept and thought process allowing you to build the experiment is Philosophy. I'm doubtful that you have a PHD. The reason the Ancient Greeks could not experiment about atomic theory is because they did not have enough technology to perform any experiments. They sure as hell had theories about it though!
Much of the Old Testament is factually wrong or pretty hideous stuff morally. I don't know about truth, but science has been the only tool to give us something usable.
Einstein was not too happy about how Science was used against Japan either was he? What humans do with knowledge is a drag right? To the first part of what you said, bullshit. We have found giant skeletons, which means that David and Goliath is very possible. We have found all kinds of validation that a major world wide flood happened, so it is possible that this event occurred. Parting the Red Sea has been shown to have some merit with natural phenomenon, so while it may not have been a guy with a staff it could have happened.
Where I would agree with you, is that many of the stories from the Old Testament seem to match stories we translated from Sumerian writings. This means that certain peoples beliefs in where a story came from may be incorrect. That is not what you speculated nor what you take issue with. You make a false claim that it's all horrible and all wrong. Please go educate yourself before speaking out of ignorance.
I haven't claimed that BB theory is right, as no theory is ever right. They can only shown to be wrong; until that happens, the prevailing theories are our best models to match the universe we observe. Did you read the Scienceblogs page I linked to? Where were the numerous BB theories presented there?
That whole paragraph reeks! Some theories are always wrong and should never be pursued. Prevailing theories are often wrong, sometimes to the point of never being pursued Hitler's theories of a supreme race for example (which were heavily embraced in the US). Countless theories have been right enough that we can progress in knowledge because of them. Einstein's theory of relativity for example. Big Bang sits somewhere in the middle of those two theories. Yes, I read the blog but no, my opinion that Expanding Vacuum is a much better theory does not change. It also does not change the fact that I can go to numerous locations to read variations in the B
While I don't doubt that you can find people with extreme views such as abolishment of religion, that's not what atheists in general demand. The demand is to keep the beliefs inside the believers and out of the society.
Were we not discussing Krauss that has just such a view? Randomly poll atheists and see how many agree with him, and don't see their belief as hypocritical.
And yet you can't give an example of your 50/50 claim. Not that it matters, philosophy is pretty worthless in evaluating claims of existence.
It becomes rather pointless to establish a different ratio when we know we can never prove either side is correct. It's a true or false question. How does any rational person set the odds any other way?
The second half of that is absolute rubbish! Every scientific theory starts with a Philosophical evaluation! Every single one! Why do you think most scientists have PHDs? You do know what PHD is an acronym for don't you?
I've often wondered, how many of those people would have believed in a god, had they not been indoctrinated during their childhood (I don't claim that all of them were). I have hard time believing that anyone would come up with the Christian God and dogma (virgin birth and such) just starting from first principles and working in vacuum.
You are showing a great amount of ignorance of history here. Read up on Sumeria and Ancient Greek beliefs. It's not difficult to come up with any modern religion based on previous beliefs. Much of what is in the Judea Christian old testament seems to have some truth to the shape of the world also. If some does, perhaps you have been fooled into thinking there is no truth in anything except for what you have been taught to believe?
Additionally, Einstein was a pantheist, he didn't believe in a creator god.
You are blatantly repeating false propaganda. Einstein did believe in a creator, but was not a practicing Jew and did not believe what most Religions did or taught about the creator. You do realize that all of his writings are on the Smithsonian web site and translated to English, so you could easily check facts for yourself right?
You still haven't shown a single disagreement. You just don't get it: That two popular sources cite somewhat different numbers does not mean that there are two different Big Bang theories. The theory is the framework that ties the parameters together in a consistent way. For example, in BB theory, the size of the universe is tied to the age of the universe. The size of the universe is also tied to the Hubble constant. If we measure the Hubble constant with say 20 % accuracy, we get an estimate for the age of the universe that's 20 % or more inaccurate. This inaccuracy in determination of parameters has as just little to do with correctness of the BB theory than inaccuracy in the earth's circumstance measurements has to do with the theory of the spherical earth.
How can you possibly agree with a disproportional set of conflicting information? That is my disagreement, and I believe it to be well founded. I'm not trying to claim the theories are bad, but pointing out the fact that there are numerous theories of the same name and none of them are the same. To claim BB is right means you have never read on what BB is. You must also answer "who's BB" theory is right, who's numbers for dark matter and energy are correct, etc.. etc...
Also remember that if the expanding vacuum theory is correct, BB never happens. The Universe slowly expanded from a small point of space. In addition to making BB defunct, it ages the Universe immensely.
You still seem to believe that there is only 1 theory of Big Bang after being shown that there are differences between who you ask about BB theory!
Yes, yes, there are different parameters in the BB theory. Using two different sets of parameters doesn't
I'm not trying to convince you that a creationist is right, I'm trying to show that their beliefs are just as valid as an atheists. As I mentioned twice, learning the Philosophy required to make your own decision is beneficial. Either side of the argument demanding that their beliefs are right and everyone else is wrong harms society.
You would probably not argue that a Muslim demanding everyone believes and worships as they do, or they suffer criminal penalties is wrong. Why is it okay for an atheist to do the same? I call that hypocrisy.
I have studied Philosophy and countless Philosophers for over 30 years. No, I can't provide you immediate answers but will point you to the beginning of Philosophy to Socrates. From there, you will find Plato, and from there you will find Aristotle. All of those believed in "the creator" and discuss that to some extent in various pieces of work. Move to Descartes, Aquinas, and even many people we don't call "Philosophers" such as Newton, Godel, and even Einstein.
Unfortunately, showing you that different places having different facts in the same theories does no good. I will admit that I don't know everything, but you refuse to admit that you are wrong even when shown facts. If there was some magic book of the Universe, there would be one set of facts that everyone pointed to. There is no such book, and scientists can't agree on numerous portions of the Big Bang. Simulations can use up to 90% dark matter and dark energy, yet there is no fixed properties for either. Just like there are no fixed property for the age of the Universe, what exactly blew up at the beginning, or even how much stuff existed. The only thing that is agreeable is the speed at which the Universe is expanding because we can't argue measured speeds. There are still scientists today that are working on determining if the rate is slowing down because it's required with a mass inflation scenario.
All you have to do is read and you will see that very few people agree on some pretty major facts with Big Bang. This is why the expanding vacuum is gaining so much momentum. It's a way better theory and requires no big ball of mass. And if you claim that the theories are the same, or that Big Bang does not require a ball of exploding mass why is it named "Big Bang"? Use your head just a little bit.
No, I don't dismiss it. I dismiss any personal, interacting god. I dismiss any biblical and such creator gods, who create the universe in an already-evolved state. A creator who just pushes the button, so to speak, and ends the interaction there, is an option that must be considered possible. For example, if our universe is a computer simulation, the entity who started the simulation would qualify as such a creator. However, I find this option rather disinteresting. How would you show that this is what really happened? I don't see a way, and we'll be stuck in a situation of "we don't know what happened". As long as science can hypothesize testable (at least in principle) theories of the beginning of the universe, that's the way to go.
Just like a Rabbi, a Priest, a Monk could, or anyone else can not prove their "belief" on creation neither can you! You have a belief! Goody for you! Do you understand that your belief is based on your opinion and not fact? Your belief is no better than the Rabbi's, or the Monks, or the Priests when it comes to the matter of having a Creator. When it comes to other aspects of Theology, yes we can debunk quite a few Theological beliefs. I think we can debunk your belief in a computer simulation using Descartes principles just as easily as other things.
That's only an issue with theories that don't make (currently) testable predictions.
Bullshit, at least in the given context. We can't prove any portion of string theory correct, just like we can't prove Big Bang to be correct. Don't get me wrong, string theory has some interesting math, but it's not factual. If there i
Huh? So child abuse is now legal? I think you are selectively interpreting what was stated. If you think about that, somehow saying that, well, anything goes, we shouldn’t offend religious beliefs by requiring kids to know – to understand reality; that’s child abuse. This is just one example of numerous examples. Bill Nye said something very similar which is pointed out in that same article, which shows that it's not just Krauss to boot!
So you can't actually back up your claims, and now you're trying to change the subject? That's just in addition to being caught lying, of course
Rubbish, did you read the precursor? I think once again you used selective reading. I gave up arguing because it's impossible to argue with people that deny facts in order to support their beliefs.
No, belief in a creator is not like winning the lottery. It's a pure true/false question. We know the Universe began somehow. Atheists believe in no deity and claim that a Universe can just spring up from nothing. A creationist believes that something must have caused it to begin. Observation dictates that the creationist is probably correct.
Why? 1. Observe the Universe and everything has a cause and effect. We have some really cool unknowns at this point, but no proof as to why or how those things really work. Expanding Vacuum is the best example of those quantum particles in action. We are too immature in our knowledge to know if there is cause and effect relationships involved. 2. If a Universe could just pop up from nothing what has prevented numerous additional Universes from popping up within ours, which would most likely have catastrophic impact?
Because there is no proof, and no way of proving the answer to the question Philosophers through history have given it a 50/50 shot. Not the lottery as you fallaciously attempt to label it.
Further, having a Creator has nothing to do with any particular Religion. Religion is people trying to put clothes and make sense of the Creator.
Most atheists, yourself obviously included, dismiss the creator question because of Religious teaching, not because the question has been invalidated by any science. The question is still a very valid, and as mentioned previously it's an extremely healthy question to try and solve.
As to this:
How laughable can you get? Your evidence is two popular accounts of a scientific theory? And the "U of M" site has its latest reference from 1995, do you think that Wiki might have a bit more up-to-date info?
No, the Wiki does not have the most up to date information for Big Bang. The age of the Universe by most cosmologists is closer to U of M's information than Wiki's information. Again, you are only looking at the part of science you want to see. I can't help you there, if you keep blinders on you will have limited vision.
I can tell you that in elementary school in Michigan we were taught the Big Bang, as are most kids. In the decades that followed, the size of the ball of mass was changed as often as the age of the Universe. The books and theories all vary greatly, and have since the time the theory was first proposed. Theoretical physics as a whole has that issue (and this should be obvious since it's "theory"), look at string theory for another example. The first theory to come out had 7 strings, now it could be infinite depending on who's work you like. I get that it's science can be cool stuff, but it's "theory" and not "fact". The theories range from "hmm, interesting" to "wtf?" in the same exact subject matter.
I'm not claiming its wrong to learn any theory either, including what cosmologists want to teach. All learning is healthy for the mind. I'm against being biased in what is taught.
I gave sources, read up in the thread. Or don't, and keep claiming I never gave sources. Youtube his appearance on "The Colbert Report" and "The Daily Show". He has claimed the same thing many times in public formats, so I'm willing to bet it's not restricted to those 2 show episodes. Here is an article where he is making the claim.
Will you still claim "you never proved it" or will you admit you were plain old wrong? These quotes and articles are not hard to find at all, use Google.
A militant religionist attacks and kills people. That's why he's called militant. A militant atheist uses words, not weapons, and does not kill anyone.
Hard to understand the Westboro Baptist Church example I take it? No, it's not. But it does not fit your beliefs so again, you probably won't admit you are simply wrong.
Whose messages of hating religion? What are these messages? What are they shouting? Who are they? Also: Sources/examples, please.
If you refuse to admit Krauss is a bigot teaching hatred of Religion then no amount of proof would do any good would it? You refuse to see facts as facts! If you are preaching for the criminalization Religion and claiming that it's abusive, you are attempting to teach hatred.
There is no point in arguing with someone that denies facts to support their beliefs. Hence, I'll close with something I have pointed out for decades. Many atheists are biased the same way a "Bible thumping zealot" is biased. No amount of facts will change their arguments, and they will never consider facts that counter their beliefs. They believe that their beliefs are right, and just like Religious zealots, condemn anyone that believes differently than they do.
That fact is very disturbing, considering that those same atheists claim "We don't know" when asked the question "What created the Universe? (including Lawrence Krauss).
Now compare the Wiki with U of M, and see where the same theory can easily contradict itself. As a quick pointer, U of M has the Universe at 15+ billion years, Wiki at 13. There are other major differences in the theory as well. Such as U of M describing more of an expanding vacuum.
Well, String Theories have at least some hope of being correct. But, as with anything dealing with science, it should be taught as dogma. You are once again building a straw man, as I've nowhere demanded punishing parents for teaching religious rubbish to their children.
Actually, your opinion is rubbish on that one. Belief in a creator is a 50/50 shot. There is no proof that string theory is right, but at least someone believing in a creator can say "The Universe came in to existence somehow". So no, you can't make up a lie, commit ad hominem, then complain that someone else is using a fallacy.
Krauss would be one, but of course you won't bother to look. You already have an opinion that he is right to make teaching Religion criminal, or at least you inferred as much. How many people can you find publicly supporting Krauss's opinion on that? Countless people support him, look at who bank rolls his books and speeches.
You use selective reasoning when it comes to known atheists like Mao and Stalin killing. By your logic, the Crusades were not Religious wars either, since that was a war for Land.
When people talk about militant atheists, they're always referring to people like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. Indeed, this was what you were saying as well. You said they were just shouting something, not killing anyone. So you were indeed referring to someone using words and not violence.
The same exact thing can be said about nearly every Religious extremist as well, including the middle east. If you believe that these people with their messages of hating Religion are any different than Westboro Baptist Church members yelling hate (insert anything) then you are a very lost cause. Both promote hate based on their beliefs. Neither tote guns around shooting people, but that does not make what either does morally right or good for society.