What is Digg?159 Comments
- D0m0kun, on 06/30/2008, -4/+26# 2 lbs Italian sausage, casings removed (mild or hot)
# 1 small onion, chopped (optional)
# 3-4 garlic cloves, minced
# 1 (28 ounce) can diced tomatoes
# 2 (6 ounce) cans tomato paste
# 2 (15 ounce) cans tomato sauce
# 2 cups water (for a long period of simmering for flavors to meld. If you don't want to simmer it as long, add less)
# 3 teaspoons basil
# 2 teaspoons dried parsley flakes
# 1 1/2 teaspoons brown sugar
# 1 teaspoon salt
# 1/4-1/2 teaspoon crushed red pepper flakes
# 1/4 teaspoon fresh coarse ground black pepper
# 1/4 cup red wine (a good cabernet!)
# 1 lb thin spaghetti
# Then add monster - jeexbit, on 06/30/2008, -9/+24Light is Consciousness and Gravity is Love.
- nitsuj, on 06/30/2008, -0/+15"If He's not real, then fine, you'll be right. Good job, you're six feet under. But if He is, dude you're screwed. Good luck explaining to your Creator what you thought of Him."
And:
"And by the way, the God I serve loves gays, democrats, republicans, jews, muslims, murderers, rapists, as well as thieves."
Wait a minute, god loves murderers, rapists and thieves but HATES the people that didn't believe in him because of lack of evidence and probably being totally put off by the likes of you?
Interesting prejudices your god has there.
BTW, this 'logic' is called Pascal's Wager and it's deeply flawed. By this logic if it turns out to be another god then you're screwed. - ApokalypseNow, on 06/30/2008, -1/+16You're just making an appeal to Pascal's Wager - as usual, it does not consider all other possible gods and/or goddesses who would send you to their particular flavor of "bad place" for not believing in THEM.
- neocr0n, on 06/30/2008, -0/+12When do they turn the LHC on?
- ApokalypseNow, on 06/30/2008, -1/+13Yes, dumbasses would say that - scientists, however, would say that the universe started with a rapidly expanding singularity, and that we have a good understanding of everything that went on from 10^-11 seconds after the start of this process and beyond, as we are able to replicate conditions similar to that in currently available particle accelerators.
How is belief in an unevidenced, omnipotent, omniscient supernatural being that contradicts himself about 405 times or so in this book that was supposedly written inerrantly by him more reasonable than that? - pinchduck, on 06/30/2008, -1/+12It shows the state of intellectual curiosity in the United States that in the same year that the Europeans are getting ready to probe the inner workings of the universe in the most minute detail possible to date, Louisiana has voted to play "let's pretend" instead of delivering a genuine science curriculum to their school kids. Texas, which was going to be the site of the Superconducting Super Collider, is also heading in the "Let's Pretend" direction. What a shame.
- davidrools, on 06/30/2008, -2/+13I dugg you down as a theist because there's nothing wrong with learning about the world and its origins. It's people like you who make all theism seem anti-science and counter to reason when they are really quite complimentary.
- specialK16, on 06/30/2008, -3/+13Buried for trying to create a flame war that is simply not necessary.
- Scynet, on 06/30/2008, -1/+11Certainly explains everything about *you*...
- nitsuj, on 06/30/2008, -2/+12"God created it and I'm just gonna get back to my purposeful life instead of spending millions if not billions of dollars researching how it all began."
Oooh, looks like somebody's scared that we'll perhaps find out how it all began and their favorite god won't be a featuring star. - inactive, on 06/30/2008, -0/+9Yeah, an omniscient, all-powerful being gives a ***** about MY blind allegiance and unquestioning loyalty. What, is he Mugabe now?
- Zaxcomp, on 06/30/2008, -2/+11It didn't, that question is like asking what is north of the north pole. It's a logically unanswerable question.
- GT35R, on 06/30/2008, -6/+15In the beginning God Created the heavens and the earth..... Im just ***** with y'alll.
- ApokalypseNow, on 06/30/2008, -3/+12What validity?
- Scynet, on 06/30/2008, -0/+9http://www.lhcountdown.com/
AFAIK this site stays up to date with the latest news, although it might be hard to define "turned on". Some tests have already been fired quite a while ago. - pooroldluser, on 07/01/2008, -0/+8Dude, where in my comment did you ever dig up the interpretation that you were not allowed to say what you did? Just because you can doesn't mean you should. I'm trying to say that you are not helping your cause at all when you resort to the laziest intellectual argument of all - name calling- which is the debater's version of "yo momma".
I thought that (as a theist) that I was on your side. But the way you are coming off, I am beginning to think that you are just a troll. - Scynet, on 06/30/2008, -0/+8Or there could just be a lot of us geeky types on Digg who are intrigued and excited about this kind of stuff. Certainly beats the random top 10 list of useless things you have to know because you're afraid you're not living life to the fullest...
- DimensionalPunk, on 06/30/2008, -0/+7After reading this, I've decided to observe every religion/creed/science/belief system ever imagined. I'll work out the contradictions somehow. Thank you for your flawless logic, you have truly changed my life.
- hurricanewane, on 06/30/2008, -3/+10That is why Man created god.
God is summation of all that cannot be explained. Sort of like a big sausage of left over animal parts. You don't know what's in it but it sure tastes good. - davidrools, on 06/30/2008, -0/+7now that's a unifying theory if I ever heard one
- Barackalypse, on 06/30/2008, -2/+8Could anyone explain to me, a humble mechanical engineer, what the practical benefits of knowing this are? Does this unlock the secrets to cold fusion or allow manipulation of matter on the subatomic level or anything else useful? Or is it simply some physicists who have grown tired of calculus and speculation?
- ChocChunkOaties, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6It's what we plan on putting in the LHC before we fire it up.
- Abomonog, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6If the answer they come up with is 42 I'm killing something.
- Lyk4n, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6If your god condemns me to hell because his followers and his only published book can't convince me then I would prefer hell. At least all of the interesting people will be there..
- Yage2006, on 06/30/2008, -1/+7"the more reasonable and simpler explanation: God created it"
Reasonable huh.
So what created god then or did he just pop into existence out of nothing like a cosmic accident.
Your circular logic amuses me. - Lyk4n, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6"the more reasonable and simpler explanation"? You claim to think the universe is far to complex to have just sprouted up and yet you think a god that would have to be even more complex to come up with such a complex universe if far more logical? Just throw another layer in, that'll make it work right kid?
- ApokalypseNow, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5A good question - one of the things that they are looking to find is a particle called the Higgs Boson - this is the theoretical particle that imbues objects with mass. If we can find it, it would be a step towards any number of potential scientific discoveries and technologies, not the least of which is anti-gravity.
- cesclaveria, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5and how do you make it fly?
- bratterscain, on 06/30/2008, -1/+6
- Kenzan, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5If Half-life has taught us anything....Look, all I'm asking is that they'd better not be putting any strange crystals in the proton beams...
~An old tennis shoe maybe..but NO crystals! - cesclaveria, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5the problem with this question is the assumption that the space is like a canvas where the universe is painted, things don't work like that, here the canvas and the paint were created the same way and the grow and change one along the other. And we have very little clues of how this works, or from where it comes.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5"A God is a being defined as having no start"
Well, a Threbblemop is defined as a being whose existence makes all gods impossible. I have exactly as much evidence for the existence of the Threbblemop as you have for your god, but my definition trumps yours, therefore I win.
Honestly, you can redefine things all you want, but unless you have some evidence to back your assertions, then you have no case. - inactive, on 06/30/2008, -2/+7These watered down articles written for a 6th grade reading level about LHC are getting boring. I wish they'd just wait for some results to come out of it. That will be a hell of a lot more interesting than all this "what me might find" *****.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5"Summation of [nothingness / lack of existence including blackness, vacuums, devoid-ness]
n-> infinity"
Before you attempt to generalize and dismiss science, at least make sure you understand it well enough to properly refute it - all you have done here is grossly misrepresent Big Bang cosmology from a standpoint of ignorance.
THAT is a summary of YOUR douchebag logic (or lack thereof). - ApokalypseNow, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4"and what's the source of that process? Who or what was source of that process being defined, created, coined, etc? "
You're asking for a cause - there doesn't necessarily have to be one. Not all events are deterministically causal. Take for example a mass of a particular radioactive element: we can look at an atom of that element and, given a particular time frame, only give you odds on whether or not that particular atom will decay. We use this to determine radioactive half lives. However, whether or not this particular atom will or will not decay is completely random - there is no cause. This is just one example of quantum randomness.
"create a vacuum of space and without and[sic] meddling, monitoring, or even knowing about that vacuum, replicate those same conditions that began the universe"
A perfect vacuum does not accurately represent the conditions present at the moment of the Big Bang - it was not matter that expanded in that event, it was the whole universe. Your proposed experiment is based upon false presuppositions, and would yield little useful data.
"there's an eternal flaw in ur[sic] logic and that's the 'WE part'....notice that u[sic] didn't say 'Replicate Conditions'...u[sic] say 'We are able to...'"
No, I said "...we are able to replicate conditions similar to..." We, as in scientists. We, as in rationalists. We, as in those who do not need a comforting fairy tale about a magical sky man to help us sleep at night.
"and don't talk about books u[sic] ignorant *****"
You don't want to bring up sources of information and you call ME ignorant?
The rest of your incoherent, poorly spelled, and little punctuated rambling does not bear rebuttal. - mt4055, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4Where did you hear that?
- Mushroonaut, on 07/11/2008, -1/+5Time is up for the Higgs particle.
- inactive, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4But the money was better spent. 3 trillion went towards the invasion of Iraq for example. This invasion will do wonders for the world of religious nutcases on both sides.
- EarlOfLade, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4Better and more complete understanding of the sub-atomic world can lead to many new and exciting inventions.
I can easily think of numerous applications in computing, medicine, chemistry (basically everything you see around you are the result of chemistry) and probably tons of areas that we can not even think of until we know the basics.
As with most things, you do not know what you can do with them until you know the principles after which the function. - cesclaveria, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4you should complain to the author, I suspect he is more than qualified to give you some more mature reading.
- ChocChunkOaties, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4I observed what you did there.
- EarlOfLade, on 06/30/2008, -3/+6Which one of the thousands of gods made by man are you referring to? And why is your fantasy figure any more relevant than the others?
- Fordi, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3"How'd the energy get here? Whatever makes up the atoms or energy, how'd that get here?"
Not actually relevant to scientific endeavor except as a matter of special interest. We don't need to know how the universe started to know its conditions shortly thereafter: we're looking backwards from the present, not forwards from the start.
As for what caused the Big Bang: you're free to believe whatever you like, but the honest answer is 'we don't know yet'.
An unknown requires no faith. If it required faith, we wouldn't call it 'science'. - benjorino, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3In about a week, (I think)
- dollar0dot02, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4"Suppose we were time travellers, and could transmit one key item of modern knowledge to a great intellect of the ancient world - Aristotle"
...
"But I think what would enlighten them most of all would be the knowledge that all the stuff in the world is made of atoms "
Maybe we did send a time traveler and his name was Democritus. - EarlOfLade, on 06/30/2008, -2/+5There is not enough mocking of your absurd fantasy figure.
Until you can parade this fantasy in front of us for all to see, I will continue to mock you for believing in bronze age mythology derived from a collection of 2000+ year old goat herder and camel driver scifi books. - Quaterni0n, on 07/01/2008, -2/+5Theism and ignorance really go hand in hand. I look forward to the day when we can finally eradicate this scourge upon the Earth through solid education. It will have to wait a few generations because there's no reasoning with nut jobs after they've been brainwashed at a young age. It's a disease - and education is the cure.
I tried religion after being agnostic for many years. I didn't just give it a half hearted try - I got swept up by the idea and I believed. But it only lasted about 2 years. Listening to religious zealots for a few years and witnessing what the evangelicals were doing to the US (like ***** with the education system and being responsible for getting Bush a second term) really got me frustrated with the arrogance and ignorance of these fools. The type of fools that say that Harry Potter is evil because their pastor said so. The type of fools that say they're voting for Bush because he's a Christian and their pastor publicly endorses him and that's good enough for them. The type of fools that say we need to amend the constitution to give the church more power over the state. This caused me to do a 180 and completely reject theism in favor of atheism. ***** those nut jobs and their fairy tales. - ApokalypseNow, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3@jbenson2
There was no "before".
The universe, including time, was created with the Big Bang. Without time, you cannot have a "before". You cannot place a temporal quantifier onto a frame of reference where that continuum does not exist. - TheCatsPants, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3God lives in the gaps? Just because we don't know yet doesn't mean there was an intelligence behind it. I'm happy to say "we don't know" while we keep trying to find out. To me saying that God was behind it kinda takes away the fun a bit.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 159 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