Bullshit. The red shift is because the low-frequency visual rays projected by the human eye has a longer range than the high-frequency ones. (The range is a limit on the number of wavelengths the rays can extend.)
A dog would see the universe entirely differently. (Who ever met a dog that believed in a cosmic red shift?)
Sure. Go ahead and send me the dollar in case one of us dies unexpectedly.
And while it's in the mail... even if there was reason to doubt the big bang, why the heck do you think we would go back to a steady state universe? The universal trend in science is to discover that the universe and all its workings are far stranger than we thought, not more intuitive.
Intuition comes from brains that evolved to operate on a certain scale of space and time. When we start getting away from that in any direction (larger or smaller scales), our intuitions become utterly useless as a guide to what we will find.
Just so it's completely clear (the parent is probably aware of this): The dust levels do not cast the Big Bang into doubt.
I was surprised, and even mildly offended, that the recent discovery was being hyped as "proof of the big bang". The long-ago discovery of the CMB is one of the handful of science's greatest achievements.
I'm an "old earth" creationist. The Earth is obviously old. But I do beleive in a Creator. Science shows us several things in this regard.
- The universe did not come from nothing. Thermodynamics prevents this.
- The universe did not create itself. Thermodynamics prevents this.
- The universe was created by an intelligent Creator is the sole, logical conclusion.
God for me is faith. Science still can prove, one way or another, the origins of the universe with science. Science is a useful tool given to us by God via our increased knowledge as we grow as a species. God and science go hand in hand. One cannot exist without the other.
Suppose we discovered that our universe was created by a non-supernatural being that lives in a "parent" universe.
Would we worship that being?
Would we unquestioningly do whatever it wanted?
Would we look to it for ethical guidance?
Would we look to it for the meaning of life?
In summary, all the space theories that are still just space theories, include:
All space theories.
LoL.
Moon landing take 2: Ok Neil, but this time you need to say, "One step for A man... one giant leap for mankind." Don't flub your line or "One small step fur man" will be in the history books.
Producer: No! Leave it in - a minor human slip will make it more believable.
911 Conspiracy take 2: The first take was Ok but we need to swap out the Saudis and Egyptian hijackers. You guys are supposed to be our allies. Can we get at least one Iranian, Iraqi or Afghani hijackers? How the heck are we gonna start a war? How about a North Korean?
Turns out that the demographics didn't have much effect on where the war was started.
Your wife, like all other scientists and amateurs with sufficiently powerful telescopes, is in on the conspiracy.
(Is she evil, or did they threaten to kill her cat if she didn't cooperate?)
I see conspiracy theorists as an example of believing in a very unlikely scenario to boost your ego.
I recently saw an article (here?) about a study that found that subscribing to conspiracy theories correlates strongly with a low self-image.
The next logical step is to research the story-telling of people drinking heavily at a bar.
But you've got to research it while drinking heavily, so you'll understand the stories from the perspective of the intended audience.
I could introduce you to a couple of blind people that I know...
Though I think that for one of them, staring intently into a campfire might have been a contributor.
I have a little scar in one eyebrow where my younger brother poked me with a hot coathanger while toasting marshmallows at the beach. I'm about half an inch from being blind in one eye due to a campfire.
Many, many tales in many religious traditions are simply oral histories, eventually written down. There's quite a bit of good history there, both in stories at least "inspired by real events", and fairly accurate representations of customs and values of ancient peoples.
They also tend to contain a lot of superstition, prejudice, ignorance, outright nonsense, and religious/social/political spin.
(Just like secular literature.)
That second link has been posted here recently enough that my browser still shows it as visited. It *uttterly* failed to support the claims of the person who posted it, leaving the impression that they hadn't actually read it. Or maybe read it and didn't understand it. Or maybe read it and understood it, but thought they could get away with misrepresenting it. Who knows...
In your case... uhm... what claim about history, religion, or ghost stores do you think it supports? Merely posting a link doens't win a vague argument, nor does it make your personal beliefs real.
MAD prevented WWIII. I don't care whether the people who build them or the people who authorize their construction are corrupt, or worship a giant statue of a sexually aroused Beelzebub, the fact is that we are kept largely secure from would be Napoleons, Hitlers and Stalins by the mere fact that these weapons exist.
Hitler would have pushed the button just before he pulled the trigger.
MAD only works when all the owners of knukes are reasonably sane.
You're equating the "buggy whip/automobile" quantum leap with the "C/C#/C++/Ruby/Perl/python/haskell/lisp/whatever" language wars? Or "cloud/client/distributed/centralized"? Or even "sql/nosql"?
Straw man. We don't know what kind of conference this is.
The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.
