Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:And if one can't believe? (Score 1) 931

Way way off on nearly all you first posted.

Nope, you just didn't understand it.

Did you bother to read this on Wiki?

It seems that you didn't.

Are you calling steady state theory the same as big bang? Both were similar, but until the 80s there was a ton of push trying to determine when the Universe would start to contract because that was required due to the explosion in the Big Bang.

Yes, it really seems that you didn't read the article. For example, steady state theory doesn't explain the CMB, which was observed well before the 80s.

It was because the majority of Cosmologists believed that there was a ball of mass that blew up causing the Universe to begin to exist (and they don't mention how the mass came to exist, or the energy, or the space, or the physics) and for the most part in the Scientific community you were not allowed to discuss it.

Repeating your rubbish doesn't make it right. How about this: Go to your local university or look up their site for email contact info, find an astronomer or a cosmologist, and ask his/her view on this.

If you did, you were shunned and labelled a "Creationist".

So you think that for example string theorists are/were labelled as creationists for proposing systems that would lead to a Big Bang?

Now compare the Wiki with U of M, and see where the same theory can easily contradict itself. As a quick pointer, U of M has the Universe at 15+ billion years, Wiki at 13.

How laughable can you get? Your evidence is two popular accounts of a scientific theory? And the "U of M" site has its latest reference from 1995, do you think that Wiki might have a bit more up-to-date info?

Belief in a creator is a 50/50 shot.

:D This one is a gem. Sure, like winning lottery is a 50/50 shot. You either win, or you don't.

Comment Re:And if one can't believe? (Score 1) 931

I gave no false facts. The BB theory by Gamow's concept was a ball of mass exploding which matches what I stated.

Oops, you did it again. An explosion would require pre-existing space. The explosion description is only an analogy.

It also does not change the _fact_ that there are numerous different competing BB theories. Size of mass, energy required, age of the Universe are all different.

You seem to be very confused about what a theory means. I'll give you an analogy: At a time when we didn't have very exact measurements of the speed of light in vacuum, your absurd definition of a theory would mean that there's an infinity of Einsteinian theories of relativity. One has the speed of light value of 299 792 458 m/s, another 299 792 458.1 m/s. That's just plain rubbish. There's one special and one general theory of relativity, with the parameter values we have measured. Other parameter values are ruled out the measurements.

BB was proven to be a rather funny joke, which is why it had to adopt EV theories to remain relevant.

Show me where this was proven. And again, no-one using the abbreviation "EV" should tell you something.

Let me guess, you never looked at the U of M web site did you?

WTF? I even gave you a link to what I think you mean by the U of M site. If it's not the correct, please provide an actual reference.

And while I'm not a cosmologist or an astronomer, I'd say I have a reasonable understanding of the BB theory and its history. Heck, reading about cosmology some 18 years ago was the main reason for me to start studying physics a few years later, and I still closely follow the area of research.

Kraus not demanding a punishment does not change the fact that he want's the teaching of specific subject matter illegal.

Please provide references. In secular countries the US, teaching religion in this sense in schools is already illegal. But I'd like you to show me where he demands that parents indoctrinating their children with a religion should be made illegal instead of it being morally wrong.

Further, you calling your children names has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of teaching them to answer to question creation.

I'm not sure where you got this part, but for once, you are right. Teaching critical thinking is not indoctrination, though.

Teaching them to think about a theory is not a harmful act, calling names or hitting them is, or at least has greater potential.

You are missing the part about teaching them to believe and not question a fairy tale.

If you want to claim "Religion is not proven" then the same punishment should be proper for teaching them Big Bang or EV theory.

Rubbish. Telling children that a fairy tale is true is not comparable to presenting the current scientific knowledge.

They are all theories.

Religion is not a theory, it's fantasy.

Do you support punishing parents for teaching their kids String theory too?

Well, String Theories have at least some hope of being correct. But, as with anything dealing with science, it should be taught as dogma. You are once again building a straw man, as I've nowhere demanded punishing parents for teaching religious rubbish to their children.

Stalin used Marxist theories, and condemned Religious people to death.

Stalin condemned a big lot of non-religious communists to death, too, while there remained persons in the USSR who were not condemned to death. To blame atheism for the acts done in building up a person cult and a dictatorship is ignorance of historical facts.

The point of the examples of Catholicism are that you can't blame Religion for shitty things people do, as is the atheist tendency.

While I sort of agree with you (bad people would do bad things with or without religion, and so on), what's your apologist explanation for the wreck that Catholicism has given us in the AIDS situation in Africa?

It's easy to spot when you claim that teaching a kid faith is like giving them heroin.

Yet again, your reading comprehension fails you. The analogy was never about giving children heroin.

Believing in a creator is rational and logical. Just as logical as claiming there is none. I agree with people that claim we can't prove it, but that does not diminish the importance of the question.

I did not miss it, and it's still not rational or logical, at least as long as your creator has any religious context. To believe in someone pressing the button to start our universe is a position that can't be disproved, but the evidence we have is very much against an omniscient and -potent being.

If you agree with that last statement, there should be no reason for us not to teach others how we came to our answers.

OK, how did you come to your conclusion? What evidence did you use to get there.

What is very wrong, is only presenting our answers and claiming anyone else is wrong/criminal/insane/etc...

Well, that's what religions do. Be gay and want to get married in my country, tough luck, you are a pervert and will go to hell. And that's because the Christians say so.

Comment Re:And if one can't believe? (Score 1) 931

There were no factual errors.

There were several factual errors, starting from your revisionist claims of BB theory, which I showed wrong. Buy the G. Gamow's book I mentioned, or better yet, find Gamow's BB nucleosynthesis article from 1948 (that's before event there was the rather misleading name "Big Bang theory").

If I claim that you must believe like me, then I'm a horrible Religious person correct?

Well, pretty much so. Show me the evidence for your argument, which have absolutely refused to do.

So Krauss does this as an atheist, and it's not just as horrible?

Krauss bases his view on what we can observe (in the scientific sense, in a repeatable way), and speculates on what we can possibly extrapolate from that data. Any religious view can't do that. And yet, the scientific views like Krauss's doesn't say you *must* believe like me, it's rather that you should look at the evidence (or lack of it) we have, and draw your own conclusions, not cram it down your children's throats.

Krauss with his specific beliefs requiring the punishment of anyone that digs for the prime question and comes to a conclusion different than his.

Again, show me where he requires punishment for that. You don't say what your *prime question* is, but I'd guess it has something to do with the beginning of the universe, and Krauss along with others is actually helping a new generation or two to get some handle in perhaps digging into those issues.

What is the punishment for Child abuse? Now you are nitpicking and not making sense at all. In addition to removal of children from custody, it's a felony. Duration for imprisonment depends on the State as well as the Judicial system (Jury, Judges, Lawyers, etc...). If I say "atheists should be charged as murders" it won't mean anything if I don't say "and they should go to jail for X years!"? Sorry, it does not work that way in any language.

Common misunderstanding in these issues, in your part, that is. If I abuse my children by calling them bastards every now and them, while otherwise keeping good care of them, it's not a punishable offence. You just don't want understand underlying issues that may affect the development of a child if he, say, has to always be afraid of going to hell if he does one bad thing.

That does not follow at all. The laws in my country say that hard drugs like heroin are illegal, and I wouldn't be a criminal by determining that hard drugs are necessary for people.

Did you decide that someone believing that there is a creator is as harmful to society as feeding a child heroin.

And you didn't get it. In the example, I would be just expressing my opinion that heroin is good for you, not feeding or injecting anyone with heroin.

Stop blaming fucked up people on Religion, it's absolute rubbish!

Where did I do that?

The two biggest mass murders in history committed their atrocities for power and were atheists. In the process, they deemed it necessary to kill anyone of any Religion. Does that mean that every atheist in the world is as fucked up as Mao and Stalin? Obviously the answer is "no".

Where did Hitler go? Oh, he was shown to have deep religious connections. I'd guess Stalin is the next one to drop off the list with his religious training... Where is the Pope on your list? The body count in Africa is getting pretty good with the prevention of condom usage. Or the Christian God, the worst murderer of all times (at least for the Christians): He invented death.
 

If the Catholic Church doctrine told their followers to be pedophiles, would they have done so?

I have no idea of how we got from your atheist bashing and BB theory misconceptions to this point, but very well... Would you endorse an establishment that systematically protects pedophiles? The Catholic Church did, and there's good documentation that the just-retired Pope Ratzi did. These abuse cases have been going on for years and years now. If a system is rotten at the top, why do even bring in the congregations? And sadly, even congregations did want the cases hidden, but I'll let you Google for that. Or.. (I'll loan your next line) Hell no. The congregation, consisting partly of the parents of the abused children, at least created a culture of silence, where the abused couldn't speak out about the abuse. I'll let you Google that.

Back to the point of the argument: Believing in a creator is rational and logical.

On the base level of this discussion, I'm asking you to justify that. There is no sign of a creator, so why believing one is rational and logical. And, where did that creator come from?

If you agree with that last statement, there should be no reason for us not to teach others how we came to our answers. What is very wrong, is only presenting our answers and claiming anyone else is wrong/criminal/insane/etc...

How did you come to the "answer" of a creator? There is no evidence for it, and, as far as any creators as the religions describe them, our available data rather outrules them. Indoctrinating your child with, say, the Christian creation story is wrong, if it prevents him from understanding scientific theories like the theory of evolution.

And yes, atheists like Krauss do exactly the wrong thing. They get paid a whole lot of money to do the wrong to boot! Question why?

To do what? To make speeches? If you think that they are preaching instead of presenting the current scientific theories, perhaps with their own pet hypotheses, you are just plain wrong.

Comment Re:And if one can't believe? (Score 1) 931

And still no acknowledgements of the factual errors you have presented...

And Krauss also claims that anyone teaching any Religion to a child should be jailed for Child abuse.

Provide quotation for the requirement of jailing the parents. Saying that religious indoctrination is a form of child abuse doesn't mean claiming that the parents should be jailed for that.

So people that look for the answer, and determine that there needs to be a creator are criminals to him.

That does not follow at all. The laws in my country say that hard drugs like heroin are illegal, and I wouldn't be a criminal by determining that hard drugs are necessary for people.

Comment Re:And if one can't believe? (Score 1) 931

People are taught not to look for the beginning of all things.

OK, please show where this happens in science and atheism. It's pure rubbish, even Krauss, who you so eager to put down, has published a book that clearly establishes the fact that we don't know what happened at the beginning or even if there really was a beginning per se at all, and then goes on to present some of his views on the subject.

Comment Re:And if one can't believe? (Score 1) 931

You nicely ignore the points showing that you are factually wrong.

Who are paid to claim those things? The vocal atheists are saying that in light of the evidence (or lack of it), it seems very unlikely that there is a god or gods, and that we have a framework which does a god job in explaining what we see about our universe at the moment.

Did you even bother to listen to any of the 5-10 minute segments with Larry Kraus in them? Kraus is not the best person to publicly speak on the EV theory, yet he does and gets paid a lot of money to do so.

Why don't you quote what you actually claimed? Krauss does not say that we are 100 % certain that there isn't a creator and so on, he says that a) we can build hypotheses that don't require a creator, and b) we have no evidence of such an entity. Thus a creator is an unlikely hypothesis.

If you watch his segments and see him using ad hominem against Religion,

It's not an ad hominem when the religion's (Christianity I'd guess) holy book exactly describes a bully god. It's not an ad hominem to attack an idea.

should you not wonder if that's why he's getting paid assloads of money to speak on EVs behalf? He gets book promotions, as do many others that denounce all Religion

People pay public speakers, was that news to you? And drop the "EV" junk.

and push atheism in science.

Science by definition doesn't recognize anything supernatural, including gods.

Government grant's go to papers that denounce a creator while similar work gets nothing.

Well, can you show some scientific work and results done by creationists? The ID folk have tried and tried, and nothing has come out of it. Rubbish like irreducible complexity has been presented, and shown wrong.

There's plenty of private parties like the Templeton Foundation with money to spare on non-scientific studies.

I know you messed up the quote, no biggie. From that statement however, it is clearly you that are ignorant. Search for the Big Bang and you will find numerous competing theories.

Well, I'm a physicist (in a different field), and I don't think that anyone I know who's working in a related area would agree with you. Why don't you present some of those competing theories that have passed peer review?

U of M's web site has some of the history. The U of M web site calls "EV" theory "Big Bang".

That your source doesn't recognize your "EV" should tell you something. Googling for "U of M big bang" produces this: http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm There's nothing to support your claims there. If you are talking about some other site, please give the reference.

There was a massive publication in the last year that claimed that the Ball of mass that blew up must have been 270million light years in diameter.

Where? What ball of mass? And what's a "massive publication"? There are always fringe hypotheses that may even get published in decent journals, but data is what sorts the incorrect ones out (see below).

So the Big Bang still depends on who you care to believe. Some date the Universe at 13billion years old, others as much as 19 billion,

Read up on the research. The Planck probe gives our best estimate for the age of the universe at 13.8 billion years, and Planck is working at a resolution level that won't get better by improving the detection system. Anything claiming the age to be much more than that is excluded by the data, unless a non-BB universe is proposed too.

Absolutely, that's kind of how science and math works.

I have to say I got a laugh out of this. Bundling math with science in terms of theories is ridiculous; unlike science, in math you have proofs.

Comment Re:And if one can't believe? (Score 1) 931

These questions show that you know very little about the Big Bang (BB) theories. First one: There was no ball of mass. The current prevailing inflationary BB theories suggest that after a period of exponential expansion, the observable universe was formed from the energy released from the inflation field in a phase change, giving rise to a high energy state. Second question is basically just a rephrasing of the first one.

That is not the Big Bang theory in earnest, that is the Expanding Vacuum theory. The Big Bang was so fucked up and easily disproved, that they adopted the EV theory and claim that they never said there was an exploding ball of mass. Revisionist bullshit, go read a book on the Big Bang written any time in the 1900s.

You simply don't know what you are talking about here. For example, George Gamow describes the essentials of current Big Bang theory in his textbook The Creation of the Universe, written in semi-popular style in 1952, only 3 years after the term Big Bang was coined. The book doesn't include inflation, which came later to explain the smoothness of the high-energy state, and it has some specific details wrong, like the estimate for the CMB temperature is an order of magnitude too high, as at the time the estimate for the age of the universe was an order of magnitude low, and the two are inversely proportional.

Rubbish. Produce the exact quote in context.

My 9 year old Nephew has no trouble using Google and finding videos on Youtube, why can't you? He is easy to find since he's been on dozens of nationally broadcast TV shows like "The Colbert Report", "The Daily Show" and more. In addition to numerous taped presentations at Universities and other public places.

Google finds zero hits for that quote. I know Lawrence Krauss, and I even own some of his books. The context is important here; so what if a physicist doesn't want to speculate about multiverse and eternal inflation scenarios to answer questions that we don't know answers for, possibly in some popular interview, and instead answer with a flippant remark? What he says is: "I don't know, but we have some hypotheses that don't require the God of the Old Testament to create the universe."

Again, rubbish. The scientific position is that as we have no theory extending to the beginning of our universe, the question is unanswerable. If there is some sort of a specific beginning or a cause, it could be eternal inflation, a guy starting up his computer universe simulator, or Odin. We have no way of differentiating between those options.

If that were true, then people would not be being paid to claim that there is no God, no Creator, and that the Big Bang and EV theories are all you need to know! I can see that even when propaganda is spelled out for you, you refuse to believe it exists. I can't fix your mental deficiency, I can only point it out.

Who are paid to claim those things? The vocal atheists are saying that in light of the evidence (or lack of it), it seems very unlikely that there is a god or gods, and that we have a framework which does a god job in explaining what we see about our universe at the moment.

No. Anyone asking the question *within BB theory* is ignorant of the theory, in the same way that someone asking about the origin of life on Earth with the theory of evolution is ignorant of the theory.

Which Big Bang theory are you claiming to be true? There are dozens. Use "Google", as mentioned previously a 9 year old can do it so you can as well. Also, stay on topic. This is something else my 9 year old nephew has no issues with.

Again, to claim that there are several BB theories shows ignorance of the subject. High-energy initial state, nucleosynthesis for the light elements, expansion and cooling down, formation of stars and galaxies; that's the BB theory. There are versions with differences in details, like the inflation type. We are only just being able to probe those details to rule out competing detail, as for example the data from the Planck probe could pretty much rule out some versions of inflation.

Comment Re:And if one can't believe? (Score 1) 931

This is going to hurt, but I feel the same way about atheism. Atheists are taught that the Universe could just happen, contrary to what we know and observe everywhere else in the Universe.

You already go wrong here. For example virtual particles just "happen", without anything in particular making them appear at this particular moment.

Everything we see and observe has a cause, yet when it comes to the most important event we could discuss you can't ask "where the ball of mass came from for the big bang and how did physics already exist?" or "how did a vacuum just appear with mass, energy, and physics already inside?".

These questions show that you know very little about the Big Bang (BB) theories. First one: There was no ball of mass. The current prevailing inflationary BB theories suggest that after a period of exponential expansion, the observable universe was formed from the energy released from the inflation field in a phase change, giving rise to a high energy state. Second question is basically just a rephrasing of the first one.

The answer from the top atheist propagandist, Lawrence Kraus, is immediately "I don't need some bully in the sky to make the Universe." What? That does not change or answer the questions!

Rubbish. Produce the exact quote in context.

Most atheists are brainwashed into thinking that if they ask about the beginning of the Universe, they are ignorant.

Again, rubbish. The scientific position is that as we have no theory extending to the beginning of our universe, the question is unanswerable. If there is some sort of a specific beginning or a cause, it could be eternal inflation, a guy starting up his computer universe simulator, or Odin. We have no way of differentiating between those options.

Worse, they are taught that anyone asking the question is ignorant.

No. Anyone asking the question *within BB theory* is ignorant of the theory, in the same way that someone asking about the origin of life on Earth with the theory of evolution is ignorant of the theory.

The rest of your post is just you banging on your straw man.

Privacy

Submission + - Stallman on Unity: Canonical will have to hand over users' data to governments (benjaminkerensa.com)

Giorgio Maone writes: "Ubuntu developer and fellow mozillian Benjamin Kerensa chatted with various people about the new Amazon Product Results in the Ubuntu 12.10 Unity Dash. Among them, Richard Stallman told him that this feature is bad because: 1. "If Canonical gets this data, it will be forced to hand it over to various governments."; 2. Amazon is bad. Concerned people can disable remote data retrieval for any lens and scopes or, more surgically, use sudo apt-get remove unity-lens-shopping."
Australia

Submission + - Ecuador grants asylum to Julian Assange (reuters.com) 1

jampola writes: "Reuters UK has reported:

"Ecuador has granted political asylum to WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange, Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said on Thursday, a day after the British government threatened to storm the Ecuadorean embassy in London to arrest Assange."

Assange and the Ecuadorian Embassy are still unsure if the UK Police will make good on it's previous threat to forcefully remove Assange."

Slashdot Top Deals

Bus error -- driver executed.

Working...