What is Digg?44 Comments
- inactive, on 06/05/2008, -3/+42In Australia the Milky Way spirals the other way.
- ApokalypseNow, on 06/04/2008, -0/+20You're just anthropomorphizing. We humans tend to attribute our qualities to all sorts of things - since design is what humans do, we attribute it far and wide. In most cases, the inference of design is made because people cannot envision an alternative. This is simply an argument from incredulity. Historically, supernatural design has been attributed to lots of things that we now know form naturally, such as lightning, rainbows, and seasons. Why should this be any different, especially without evidence to show a difference like the one you assert exists?
- drlha, on 06/05/2008, -0/+11Time to trash a million "You Are Here" spiral galaxy posters then. :(
- ApokalypseNow, on 06/05/2008, -0/+11"You don't consider that designs that form naturally were given that built-in capacity by their Creator who was wise enough to allow for natural processing."
Again you assume the existence of such a creator without evidence for it. That a thing exists is, by itself, not evidence that the thing was "created" or "designed" in some way. That life changes is not indicative that it was "designed" to do so. In known design, innovations that occur in one product quickly get incorporated into other, often very different, products. In eukaryotic life, innovations generally stay confined in one lineage. When the same sort of innovation occurs in different lineages (such as webs of spiders, caterpillars, and web spinners), the details of their implementation differ in the different lineages. When one traces lineages, one sees a great difference between life and design. (Eldredge has done this, comparing trilobites and cornets; Walker 2003.)
In design, form typically follows function. Some creationists expect this (Morris 1974). Yet life shows many examples of different forms with the same function (e.g., different structures making up the wings of birds, bats, insects, and pterodactyls; different organs for making webs in spiders, caterpillars, and web spinners; and at least eleven different types of insect ears), the same basic form with different functions (e.g., the same pattern of bones in a human hand, whale flipper, dog paw, and bat wing) and some structures and even entire organisms without apparent function (e.g., some vestigial organs, creatures living isolated in inaccessible caves and deep underground).
"You must lead a drag of a life where everything beautifully designed in nature untouched by man is only incidental."
Not incidental, but a result of billions of years of natural processes at work - variation and selection, variation and selection, again and again.
"Evidence is all over the place but if you're in denial"
I have already answered this - you are just anthropomorphizing. You are attributing human attributes to things found in nature, attributes that do not actually exist in those things. That you continue to bring it up is not evidence for your case, just an excuse for your inability to make a case in the first place.
"no thankfulness for your enjoyments of creation"
Still no evidence for a creator - you can insist such evidence exists all you want, you can say that "oh, you're just in denial of the evidence" 'tlll you turn blue in the face, but you either cannot or will not produce it. That you insist that it cannot be produced or demonstrated from person to person shows further that it is of a subjective, personal nature, and as such is unreliable. - davids1, on 06/05/2008, -0/+11This is going to challenge a lot of theories. Wish the pictures were much larger versions.
I think these are the larger versions updated with fewer galaxy arms.
http://ipac.jpl.nasa.gov/media_images/ssc2008-10a. ...
http://gallery.spitzer.caltech.edu/Imagegallery/im ... - infinitejones, on 06/05/2008, -0/+6Go away, do some science, and come back to us with your results. All we want from people like you are some controlled, reproducible experiments that predict measurable results, that can be tested by other people and reviewed by your peers. Millions of scientists all around the world do it every day, so why can't any of you?
- greenvortex, on 06/05/2008, -0/+6Now our galaxy looks like Sauron's eye.
- davbmn68, on 06/05/2008, -1/+6FTA - "a telescope of such power that you could use it to read a newspaper on the moon- "
Is that the same one Neil Armstrong used to read his newspapers on the moon? Doesn't sound so powerful, I have glasses that would probably work too. - Ciryon, on 06/05/2008, -1/+6It's idiots like you who start it by saying that kind of *****. Please STFU
- sk545, on 06/05/2008, -3/+8coming soon: Forget what you know about evolution.
- Jeffler, on 06/05/2008, -12/+17Let the faith-oriented flame war begin....*facepalm*
- p51d007, on 06/05/2008, -1/+4My god! It's full of stars!
Why don't they just call the Enterprise from the future, have them warp out past the edge of the milky way and take a picture? - browe07, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3What if it's ugly?
- archiesteel, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3"You must lead a drag of a life where everything beautifully designed in nature untouched by man is only incidental."
To the contrary, it never ceases to be a source of wonderment for me to see such visual representations of natural laws at work. In fact, reducing the beauty of the universe to a conscious, separate (or semi-separate, in the case of Panentheism, which is the official doctrine of Christianity) actually takes away from the beauty of it, in my view.
Listen, you're welcome to believe in any creation myth you want, however irrational it may seem - but please don't assume that those who don't have lives that are less fulfilling in any way. Those who, like me, find amazement in the works of nature without the need of a creator god are just as enchanted/humbled as you. - directive0, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3That would violate the temporal prime directive.
- Jeffler, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2Or, you know, just look above me.
- Andrwmorph, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2Religion is such an amazing way to control stupid people. I should start one.
- Udog, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2More like: Forget what you know about revolution.
- shaneagraves, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2Yeah, here on earth, we usually just stick to glasses/contacts if your eyes can't do the job naturally.
I guess maybe they print the newspapers really tiny on the moon?
Sucks to be on the moon... - jhshukla, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2they look at a star and measure its distances using multiple methods: parallax, Doppler shift, absorption by interstellar dust, etc. now you know where approximately each star is (direction + distance) and you have a model of the galaxy.
- inactive, on 06/05/2008, -3/+4Jax vs. Goro.... FIGHT!
Jax Wins
Fatality - ElatedPanda, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1good vocab word
- RealmDown, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Besides, galaxies HATE anthropomorphism.
- Fergy, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1I thought we still even couldn't see the lunar base of the Apollo missions?
- MrSmiley909, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2Two of the Milky Ways spiral arms were eaten by black holes.
- Andrwmorph, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Shot down! Nerd style!
- GlassAgate, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Bart Simpson: No it doesn't.
- inactive, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1"The content you requested requires a AAAS member subscription to this site or ScienceNOW Site Pass purchase. If you already have a user name and password, please sign in below."
Not quite as stunning as proof that no one reads articles linked on Digg :| - Andrwmorph, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2ALL ART IS CREATED BY GOD THROUGH THE HANDS OF MAN!
- mk2ja, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Ha! That'll teach the galaxy to think its big enough to divide by zero!
- jhshukla, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1I thought this was known for quite some time now. not decades but about 1.5-2 years ago.
- arobicha, on 06/05/2008, -0/+0I'm willing to guess against that. Cosmology is a bit more of an art form, but Astronomy is pretty good at what it does. it's just easier for us to map our neighbors than our own back yard.
- arobicha, on 06/05/2008, -0/+0Artistic rendition. Scientists model the galaxy based on what they see/know, and artists make a picture based on other pictures of galaxies.
- inactive, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1I'm sorry, can someone please explain to me how we know what our galaxy looks like when our probes can't see outside of our own galaxy? Sorry, I'm just a little confused is all. The article does admit that we have a hard time mapping the Milky Way so I'm taking that as a admission that we are guessing.
- Waaaaalt, on 06/05/2008, -2/+2It looks like a bar because Jesus made it that way. Doy.
- JGib, on 06/05/2008, -3/+3ಠ_ಠ
- drunkmonkey01, on 06/05/2008, -0/+0most of astronomy seems like guesswork to me (just like predicting the weather here on earth). im sure once we figure out a way to send a camera way outside the galaxy and take an actual picture of it from the outside it will look different (if only slightly) than all these. however, those images do look pretty badass i hope thats how it really looks
- Mnementh2230, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Ah HA Mr. Andrwmorph. Your Troll-Fu is weak!
- Dustmuffins, on 06/05/2008, -2/+1Halo 3's interpretation: http://www.bungie.net/stats/halo3/screenshot_viewe ...
- kenrayd, on 06/04/2008, -11/+2You don't consider that designs that form naturally were given that built-in capacity by their Creator who was wise enough to allow for natural processing. Man does this all the time. Cans or jars are designed to pop out when the vegitables that go bad, etc. An Intelligence has to not only originate the design, but design for changes in those designs to give it better survival for one thing - that's a no-brainer.
You must lead a drag of a life where everything beautifully designed in nature untouched by man is only incidental.
Evidence is all over the place but if you're in denial, you're better off in a sealed tomb because you callously take advantage of the "good things" in life, having no thankfulness for your enjoyments of creation. You can't thank the Giver you're in denial of. Sad - kenrayd, on 06/04/2008, -30/+6The biggest surprise of all is...wonderful! that beautiful design and symmetry comes so much clearer. So there must have been a supreme artist who made it!
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 