What is Digg?69 Comments
- KaiUno, on 01/24/2008, -2/+12Every single time with you people, twisting every fact into a bloody religious rant. For once just shut up about the stuff we can't possibly know. Just try to look at the facts and talk about them instead of taking it one step beyond.
- inactive, on 01/24/2008, -2/+12The postulation of an eleventh dimension has unified the mathematical equations of both the super-gravity and super-string theorists. Their thinking is that a clash of pre-Big Bang "membranes" is responsible that detonation and for the laws of physics that shape our post-Big Bang universe. Other, parallel universes quite possibly coexist with our own, but with very different laws of physics. Some cosmologists believe that our own force of gravity is actually "leaking" into our own universe from another, where that force is much stronger, and obeys different laws of physics.
- MattBlackCat, on 01/24/2008, -3/+12No it is not. Give it up creationists.
- case42tlc, on 01/24/2008, -1/+10If these things are light-years long, and as dense as a neutron star, I wonder if they might account for at least some portion of the "Missing Mass" that has been such a mystery for the last couple decades......
- inactive, on 01/24/2008, -1/+7He's known for wasting lots of time on that before discovering his planetary orbital mechanics formulas based on his buddy Tycho Brahe's observations. Planets orbiting in elliptical orbits that explain their trajectories around the sun... pure genius.
- inactive, on 01/24/2008, -1/+6Who designed this designer? Who designed the designer or the designer?
You don;t get a free escape from infinite regression card with the "the designer does not need a designer" crap. - Encablossa, on 01/24/2008, -1/+6My religion tells me that the universe was designed by a flying spaghetti monster.
- inactive, on 01/24/2008, -0/+4Having faith and believing in a "designer" is fine as a personal philosphy but as soon as you make a claim, prepare to be challenged on it and justify your claim. Your entire explanation was an argument from ignorance, that basically boils down to "I don't know, therefore I believe."
Using the Bible as evidence in an argument about science isn't really helpful since now you have got to justify even believing anything claimed in that book in the first place. The many "mind boggling information" in these ancient writings is opposed by the mind boggling things they get totally wrong as well.
My position as to the creation of the cosmos is agnostic. I don't know and henceforth cannot draw any conclusion about it. - Encablossa, on 01/24/2008, -1/+5Life is a mystery, no one truly has the answer no matter what you claim. Religion uses simple and predetermined ideas, science uses logic and evidence and continually develops.
- inactive, on 01/24/2008, -0/+4You are not a skeptic. A skeptic does not accept a proposition until evidence presents itself.
There is no evidence for a god henceforth the default position is non/disbelief not "I will believe in Zeus/Odin/God/Unicorns until proven wrong" - Encablossa, on 01/24/2008, -1/+4Yet you have absolutely NO proof this designer exists. You are no smarter than people centuries ago.
- Encablossa, on 01/24/2008, -1/+4If you are referring to the 'Bible' God or any God created by the human imagination, I am truly appalled.
- inactive, on 01/24/2008, -1/+4So you;re an Old Earth Creationist? Genesis has an astouding ability to get many thing wrong since apparently the Earth was created before the sun and the moon is apparently its own light source but then apologist have all the answers.
I henceforth claim that all the Bible is alleghory and nothing happened as it claims. - Ph34rb0t, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2Perhaps you should of just drawn your religion out of a hat, most of the worlds religions (Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, etc...) provide a similar anecdotal 'theory'. Perhaps you should apply Occam's Razor and believe the simplest answer...
Or you could follow your 'rational' path and start with the only premise you know to be true 'I exist'?
Alternately, you could read outside of the apparent narrow scope of your research; Jean-Paul Sartre, Edmund Husserl, Albert Camus, and even Dostoevsky, would be a good start. - inactive, on 01/24/2008, -1/+3No, science has never claimed the cosmos appeared out of thin air. The story of Genesis does claim that the cosmos came about from nothing and that humans are made of dirt.
- m1ss1ontomars, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2Also the same picture used in a cover of Scientific American several years ago as well.
- inactive, on 01/24/2008, -1/+3What evidence do you have that this Designer precedes time and space?
I have as much evidence as you do to argue claim same argument about the cosmos. Why must it have a designer? Why can't it "precede time and space"?
Great, you've just self defined god as the creation of the cosmos. I could call the creation of the cosmos Zoobob the Giant troll. Now you've got to prove that this "god" is:
1)Intelligent
2)still exist
3)has any power to affect our cosmos
4)cares about humans
etc. - Zoltair, on 01/24/2008, -1/+3That like saying since 30% of all accidents are caused by drunk drivers, 70% are caused by being sober, totally ignoring the numerous more likely causes of the accidents. The statement certainly does not mean they are 95% correct....I can be open minded and convinced of such theories, but I tend to prefer the fact that nature in itself is quite simplistic, and we tend to ignore the simple, and invent the complex. Moto: "Show me!", we do not understand much of what is around us, and have much to learn.
- buckrogers1965, on 01/24/2008, -2/+4Have you ever stirred a cup of hot water and looked at sun shining through the cup onto the counter? See the "strings" that are undulating through the water? Same thing on a cosmic scale.
- Esstee, on 01/24/2008, -2/+4Sure, but it remains very intriguing and there is always more to learn on the said matter.
Of course, we will keep looking also. - inactive, on 01/24/2008, -1/+2You don't have a theory. You have a hypothesis that is essentially useless and is unsupported by any evidence.
You answer the mysteries with the universe with an even bigger mystery.
"Why is X happening? Because God made it so." That did not answer the question and is basically useless.
"we appeared out of nothing, without a reason or cause".
-Whatever "reason" you meant. - Esstee, on 01/24/2008, -1/+2Bon apetit!
- Truzseeker, on 01/24/2008, -4/+5or by another name Kepler's Harmony of the Spheres.
- Boeing777, on 01/24/2008, -1/+2stupid [pic] comment added, that's nothing and doesn't represent anything close to what's out there.
http://www.amazon.com/NOVA-Universe-Michael-B-Gree ...
same picture used two years ago by NOVA documentary The Elegant Universe.
Bury for misleading title. - Zoltair, on 01/24/2008, -2/+3I amazing how some of the most intelligent people revert to substituting some far fetched theory to explain something they can't figure out, making the solution complicated enough to prevent a valid argument. String theory has not been proven and really is not much more then a best guess to make their error prone math concepts work. The 5% chance that it is just random noise is probably far more valid then some string theory. Keep looking.....
- jasondragon, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1I loved that show growing up :P!
- HollowMarkeD, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1Sorry, thats right. I mean there is a 95% it isn't random noise.
- Codee, on 01/26/2008, -0/+1It was a joke. Lighten up. I dugg the article.
- inactive, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1"From where I stand, the concept that we exist without a cause, reason or origin offers plenty for unrest. "
Which inherently means that you are accepting the premise that there is any reason or origin to begin with. This basically means you've started with a conclusion and have built a belief around a preconceived conclusion. Wishing for a reason does not automatically make it real.
Why do we need a logical explanation for existing? Why can't the cosmos exist "just because"?
Using your logic, any unchallenged proposition that is impossible to disprove is valid until proven otherwise. This would mean ANY claim can never be disproven. You can't disprove Zeus/Amaterasu/Zombies/Pink Unicorns on Mars/Voodoo man sitting on the sun etc. - inactive, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1Thanks. For a more lucid description, visit wikipedia and enter the search word ekpyrotic.
- karmabandit, on 01/25/2008, -0/+0I had no idea that sunlight in water causes 1-dimensional topological defects in spacetime. Gee whiz!
- datastorageguy, on 01/25/2008, -1/+1Stop inserting political comments into science categories. I blocked political posts for a reason.
- HollowMarkeD, on 01/24/2008, -3/+3..this means they are 95% sure it is correct. From the article:
Future observations should clarify things. The Planck satellite, due to launch in 2008, will make even more sensitive measurements of the microwave background than WMAP, and could turn up better evidence for cosmic strings. - karmabandit, on 01/25/2008, -0/+0True, but string theory has revived interest in them.
- ripple123, on 01/24/2008, -1/+1yes
- karmabandit, on 01/25/2008, -0/+0No it doesn't mean that. That says that it is likely not created by random noise. It says nothing about what really did create it!
In analogy, if I put you on trial for murder and we do a DNA test, and the test examiner comes into the courtroom and says, "there's only a 5% chance that this blood is from a monkey." Does that prove it's your blood? Of course not! It just says it's probably not the monkey's. Get my point? - case42tlc, on 01/24/2008, -6/+6Another sad sign of the scientific illiteracy of America as a whole, not to mention the average Digger...
- DizzyDragon, on 01/24/2008, -1/+1No, your wrong.
This is only further proof that we don't know anything about what exactly happened at the beginning of the universe and that we probably won't figure it out anytime soon. - inactive, on 01/24/2008, -2/+2Your continue ***** about ""we appeared out of nothing, without a reason or cause" is telling. Science does not claim that we come from nothing, we just can't tell what precedes the Big Bang.
So tell me, what is the reason is there for us being here? You seem so sure. Please enlighten me. - jabelar, on 01/24/2008, -0/+0Watch it ... you sound more like a Scientologist than a Scientist!
- Esstee, on 01/24/2008, -1/+1To be honest, I really don't know what such labels(old earth creationist etc.) mean for you but, I don't ever recall enrolling in such groups, so I can't really comment on that.
I am not surprised however that you feel Genesis presents us with a confusing picture of elements on creation, since(I'm assuming) you are referring to English translations of an ancient Hebrew document. And so, with this in mind, I would say that herein lies the problem. But in the Hebraic language of this same document, the implications and resolutions do come across quite differently.
Having said this, I doubt such information would influence your position towards the information in question, since you seem to of already determined that corrections to this effect are none other than apologetics. - bbardlbradd, on 01/24/2008, -1/+1 Humans have an inborn bias to the idea that something had to create existence because each and every human was born at some point. We all understand that we each began because two people either intended on having us, or intended on having sex... We all "know" that there were people before we were conscious, so the idea that EXISTENCE was created, I think is just a human error that needs to be marked as serious bias.
Just because you, biologically, had a creator doesn't mean the universe had one. There is no proof that this reality began anywhere, anytime. So I think the best idea out there is that the universe/multiverse has always been, and it's far FAR more complicated than we could ever imagine as individuals /or/ a collective.
Now, I wouldn't disagree with the notion that the universe or reality itself is the creator, or if that's your idea of god, because if it weren't for it we wouldn't be here as we seem to be now. Other than that the concept of the universe being created by an intelligent thing, as we understand intelligence, is no more impressive than Scientologist's argument. In fact, I would be inclined to say that all of today's religions (not talking about spirituality, but organized religion) is nothing more than pre-Scientology, Scientology, looking for new drones to propagate their memes and establish a metagovernment. - Esstee, on 01/24/2008, -1/+1O' contraire oh humble one.
While a scientific theory does rests on a logical and testable models, a common theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this form, a theory is not necessarily based on facts nor required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of the term theory leads to the common incorrect statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory." While true descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.
Creation is a theory, and our existence is the evidence. Like it or not, those are the elements of this particular theory. Whether or not you acknowledge this is entirely your prerogative.
As for your illustrations of the question and answer syndrome, it would seem as though the issues may be limited to ones own personal requirements rather than an overall one. For example; what is the BIG QUESTION? for many, it is why are we here or what is our purpose? However, others may face different issues in regards to the empirical question. Such as, how did God do it? or, where did He come from(etc. etc). - JohnFlux, on 01/24/2008, -0/+0Cosmic strings don't have anything to do with string theory.
- shibainu, on 01/24/2008, -1/+1i want to check out the booties cluster! and then visit the sextans quadrant. interstellar sex tourism is great!
- karmabandit, on 01/25/2008, -0/+0Even though I agree that this is hardly convincing evidence for string theory. And by hardly, I mean "laughable." I do feel the need to say that nature is not simplistic. The standard model of particle physics is not simple. General relativity is not simple. String theory is worse, granted, but there is absolutely no way you can make a "simple" theory that is going to describe our universe, since it will have to encapsulate two already complex theories. People do not ignore simple theories except in science-conspiracy-fantasy-land. People are forced into complex theories because that is all that has a chance of working!
- KaiUno, on 01/24/2008, -3/+2With all the vagaries he spouts, he's allways right one way or the other.
- directrix13, on 01/24/2008, -2/+1***** I gotta bury this just for using the words "extreme physics". Ugh.
- JohnFlux, on 01/24/2008, -1/+0Nah, there's only a few in our universe. It's not significant.
- Esstee, on 01/24/2008, -2/+1"Your entire explanation was an argument from ignorance, that basically boils down to "I don't know, therefore I believe."
Well that would be both premature and false, since my argument is derived solely from study and rationalization. Which is not quite the same as accepting something because one has no other alternatives.
Additionally, I don't think I have ever used the bible to argue science per say, since the bible seems to harmonize with a good portion of our scientific knowledge. If anything, I find science to compliment God and creation rather than discredit it(as some would claim).
As for the wrong portions of the writings, I will admit, that my own area of study has been limited to the creation account of the scriptures and so I can't honestly comment on much else at this point. -
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is