What is Digg?111 Comments
- monkeyboy7706, on 12/23/2007, -0/+24The big splat really gives weight to the theory it was sneezed in to existence by The Great Green Arkelseizure.
- Ramble, on 12/23/2007, -5/+24I think it was sarcasm.
- TheHim, on 12/23/2007, -2/+21A milky splat huh? I'm for one am not surprised.
- glinsvad, on 12/23/2007, -1/+19I just looove science articles written by non-scientific journalists (here Elizabeth Quill). The only novel information presented in her piece is the word "splat", which perhaps is a little vague as a physical theory...
- inactive, on 12/23/2007, -2/+16Great argument. Magic created the universe is so much more plausible than "naturalistic" processes that are back up by scientific evidence.
Please show us this statistics since statisticians and mathematicians would laugh at the absurd assumptions I seen in those so-called "statistical odds".
BTW, the odds of life existing is 100% since we are here but you seem to enjoy refusing the accept evidence contradictory to your beliefs. Keep it up. - inactive, on 12/23/2007, -1/+14Atheism isn't a religion. And yeah, I can't possibly imagine what it's like, as more and more states seek to remove evolution from the classroom. I mean, here's something that even most major denominations of Christianity accept, and yet roughly 50% of the population believes the Earth is only 6,000 years old. I know these debates get tiresome, but they're merely a venting of frustration over the state of science in this country (though evolution is the primary area, it is by no means the only area in which Americans seem to struggle with basic scientific principles and become easily swayed with pseudoscientific gibberish). Eventually something's gotta give, because this war against science is self-destructive.
- Funktastic, on 12/23/2007, -1/+14Keep in mind that it's space itself that expanded, in all directions, into itself. This means the space doesn't have any 'central area'.
- inactive, on 12/23/2007, -1/+12If we can't measure it, examine it, see consequnces of it, etc., we can't study it, stupid.
- ziffel, on 12/23/2007, -5/+15StupidStan's sarcasm is well placed here, because we all know a million theists are scoffing at the article, thinking "durr, we all know goddidit! with his magic super powers!" - waving their hands at science and the facts.
- cranium, on 12/23/2007, -0/+10Sir, a massive bong hit is not a suitable substitute for a formal education from a proper university.
- cranium, on 12/23/2007, -0/+10Basic probability theory says that unless you calculate the odds to exactly zero, you really don't have a point. Unlikely things still happen. For example, what is the probability that the PowerBall numbers would come up exactly as they have from the very start up until today? Extremely small, yet it happened.
- Carrot1991, on 12/23/2007, -3/+12so an exponential "inflation" expanded the universe?
big bang or not... it seems to revolve around some form of expansion from a central area of the universe.... - inactive, on 12/23/2007, -1/+10Nothing beats a strawman fallacious argument from someone who doesn't understand the scientific process.
- jihadjohnson, on 12/23/2007, -4/+13When will you people admit all the failures of your "theories" and realize it is was a Flying Spaghetti Monster?
- nicko68, on 12/23/2007, -3/+12Don't you know that every time a story is posted about the origins of life, someone is just chomping at the bit to make a comment about Christianity? I bet this just made StupidStan's day. I can just picture it now. He's in his basement basement apartment, yelling up the stairs..
"Hey Ma, I just made the funniest comment on Digg"
"What the hell is Digg? And when are you going to get a job and move out on your own?" - JohnFlux, on 12/23/2007, -0/+8A flat ant walking on the surface of a balloon would not be able to find the centre of the balloon, or perhaps even be able to think about it. The surface, however, would not be infinite. Even a very clever ant, trapped in this curved 2D world, would have a hard time understanding what it means that the surface that he walks on is curved into a 3rd dimension.
In the same way, we cannot imagine our universe being curved into a 4th dimension. (Technically you don't need a 4th dimension to curve into, but that's even harder to think about) - inactive, on 12/23/2007, -4/+12Please. Go ahead and shootdown atheism.
We're not afraid and so thin-skinned as to be afraid of criticism.
When certain religious fanatics stop attacking science and keep their beliefs to themselves, perhaps we'll stop criticizing them. - Ramble, on 12/23/2007, -0/+8I think you've managed to type an entire essay without actually saying anything.
I also think you don't know what science is, trying to fit the universe into mathematical theories is science.
The reason we don't think there are plasma life forms (do you know what plasma is?) is because there is nothing to show that, no evidence whatsoever.
So, kindly take your new age rubbish and scarper, some of us are trying to have a real debate. - blix797, on 12/23/2007, -0/+7Next week: after watching old batman episodes, scientists decide the universe was formed by the "Big Ker-wham!"
- Po0py, on 12/23/2007, -3/+10I prefere the big belch theory, myself.
- ozydingo, on 12/23/2007, -0/+7Though I sort of agree that certain sarcastic comments are just foolish and should be kept to oneself, sometimes comments like these, the "damning with faint praise," I believe are valid and called-for criticisms of the types of comments we are all too familiar with. Jury's out on what I think about this one, but I don't suppose it much matter anyway.
Curious, where were you going with that atheism being shot down comment? Not sure I follow you on that one. - inactive, on 12/23/2007, -2/+9"use your brain instead of blowing hot air out your rear end, start posting some serious replies and documents on digg instead of the third rate plagiarised mindless crap which appears on the net."
You should set the example you so proudly stated. - inactive, on 12/23/2007, -3/+10I enjoy making fun of people who are detrimental to science education in our country.
- jgzman, on 12/23/2007, -0/+6Confessed as guilty. Hang him!
- Ramble, on 12/23/2007, -0/+61. When?
2. This has nothing to do with Dawkins. - vertinox, on 12/23/2007, -1/+7The problem is that the universe seems central to our point of view because we can only observe in 360 of our point in the universe only for about 14 billion light years (actually we can't even close to 14 billion light years but in theory if the universe is that old thats a far as we can look). If there is anything beyond that, we don't really know about or can even see at this point.
- inactive, on 12/23/2007, -0/+5I'm glad you are so proud of your ignorance and dishonesty.
- Ramble, on 12/23/2007, -1/+6Fair enough if you believe that, but an intelligent creation can't be explained by science, it is the antithesis of science, so it is not science and has no place in any scientific work.
A 100% chance is not circular reasoning, it is probability, a common misconception when someone says what are the chances of that happening, they are always one because they have just happened. - inactive, on 12/23/2007, -1/+6What are you? A bigot? How dare you call the FSM a joke? May he sauce you!!!
- inactive, on 12/23/2007, -1/+6Actually, to be entirely honest, half of Americans believe the world is 6,000 years old. Kind of hard to avoid religious debate when the basic premise of the article is thought to be entirely made-up by half the country.
- jgzman, on 12/23/2007, -0/+5Scientists do, in fact, let their imagination go, but they need evidence as well. Do you even understand the ideas behind Dark Matter?
The galaxies near us have had their mass calculated by basic laws of physics. (for a value of basic) These same laws allow us to do things like land on Mars, send people to the moon, put satellites in orbit, etc. They seem to work well. However, the calculated mass, and the 'visible' mass do not match up. At all. Not even close. The current theory is some kind of 'Dark Matter' that we can't detect, but still has mass.
But you don't like it? OK, fine. What's your theory? In words of three syllables or less, for us plebeians. - jgzman, on 12/23/2007, -1/+6No, you can assume there is no center. As well, you can propose the existence of a center without finding it. It appears that everything near us (for a value of 'near') is moving in the same direction, more or less. What can you 'surmise' from that? That the entire universe is moving to the left? If so why?
- inactive, on 12/23/2007, -0/+5He speaks of garbage and New Age anti-science BS. If you call it "wisdom", you really need into what science really is.
- inactive, on 12/23/2007, -0/+4Oh really? So he has perhaps reversed his position that religion is the root of all evil and it and its products must be destroyed? I agree with him 100% on the issue of religion stifling the study of the universe, but not with his extreme position.
- 3tcp, on 12/23/2007, -3/+7The Universe definitely seems more like a splat than a bang. I think whoosh and doiiing would be more accurate but i do like splat better than bang.
- 3tcp, on 12/23/2007, -5/+9WRONG. If you can't prove what God used for lotion then God doesn't exist! +1 for Dawkins!!!12@!1
- wire02, on 12/23/2007, -1/+5well then we will have to watch out for the eventual Great Hankie Whipe
- JohnFlux, on 12/23/2007, -0/+4Wild speculation by itself is kinda pointless. What evidence is there that the universe is older than 15 billion years? What test could you do to check? You need some reason for what you state, otherwise it's just pointless masterbation.
- glinsvad, on 12/23/2007, -1/+4Usually it's bang then splat
- rarson, on 12/24/2007, -0/+3The probability of any possible event approaches 1 as the time interval under consideration approaches infinity.
- Encablossa, on 12/23/2007, -12/+15Either contribute to the article or don't post, this isn't a religious debate.
- inactive, on 12/23/2007, -1/+4RAmen
- inactive, on 12/23/2007, -1/+4Agreed. However, many Global Warming denialist are not arguing based on scientific merit but purely from a political agenda. While Global Warming is far from settled, the denialist continue to use these BS arguments against the current evidence and consensus on global warming.
- FadieZ, on 12/23/2007, -1/+4Praise the Great White Handkerchief, that it may wipe us from existence.
- nitsuj, on 12/23/2007, -0/+3"What would be much more interesting is a point that many are extremely reluctant to investigate - the statistical odds that a purely naturalistic cause and processes resulted in this universe."
Please explain in detail what these statistical odds are and how they are derived.
You might also like to explain how the supposed existence of a magical supernatural being is somehow statistically more probable. I would like to see how you come up with these figures. Numbers please. - Inverno, on 12/23/2007, -1/+3To graph probability you make a wave. When something stops being a probability and starts being reality the wave collapses at 100%.
Since to my knowledge we don't not what triggered the Big Bang (splat, sneeze, pfffft) we can't begin to calculate the probability of it happening again. Is it possible for another universe to pop up? Would we be able to observe see it if it did? - inactive, on 12/23/2007, -4/+6God gets bashed because He can't do half the things Ron Paul can do.
- schnikies79, on 12/23/2007, -2/+4It may be a straw man argument, but it's right. Coming from a scientist (chemist), I can't stand it when someone says the science is settled. They immediately lose all my respect.
If you don't know enough about science to understand that science is NEVER settled, please don't comment on it. That goes for you, Mr. Gore. - nitsuj, on 12/24/2007, -0/+2This is not how cosmology (or indeed any other science) works. You don't conjure up an ad-hoc bunch of numbers to work out whether something is possible or not. It's simply impossible at this stage to take all factors into account and to try is folly.
The actual process involves gathering evidence and developing frameworks (scientific theories) to explain phenomena. Gaps in the theories are allowed and expected. If a new piece of evidence comes to light that conflicts with the theory then the theory CHANGES. If new evidence doesn't conflict then it bolsters the theory up.
That's the way it works. But this has probably been explained to you a dozen or more times and still it doesn't sink in.
Conjuring up of bogus stats or demanding strange numerical proofs is something that I've seen many times from creationists - your question is just an adaptation of that. In each case it's been fallacious, based in ignorance or ill conceived.
You haven't been able to answer how such statistics for/against can come about with your supernatural being. You know damn well this is a nonsense question when posed back at you like this. You can't do it. Why not apply the same reasoning to yourself that you demand from others?
Put simply, when we look at the universe we do not see your magical being making it all happen, pushing planets around and causing nuclear fusion in the hearts of stars.
Everywhere we see natural processes at play.
If you have one piece of evidence to put forward that shows the universe coming about by means that we do not observe anywhere (supernatural) then please put it forward.
Otherwise you have...nothing. -
Show 51 - 100 of 110 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is