Atheist Islamophobia... Again

Apr 9, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Religion Dispatched

Sparked by a Richard Dawkins tweet , in which he drew a parallel between Islamists and Nazis, Nathan Lean recently suggested on Salon.com that the most famous representatives of the new atheism "flirt with" Islamophobia [echoing Chris Stedman's prescient warning to fellow atheists on RD this past August]. As the article explains, Dawkins, Hitchens ... (more)

Comments (Page 130)

Showing posts 2,581 - 2,600 of3,766
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2628
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you seem very qualified at making a fool of yourself talking about things you do not understand at all.

tell us about the big bang explosion one more time...snicker...
Was the BB an explosion?

About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

Astronomers Detect Most Powerful Explosion Since Big Bang

18 May 1998

The energy released in a cosmic gamma-rayburst detected in December 1997 is the most energy ever detected from an explosion in theUniverse, perhaps making it the most powerful explosion since the creation of the Universe in the Big Bang.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/ne...

big bang

(bg)
The explosion of an extremely small, hot, and dense body of matter that, according to some cosmological theories, gave rise to the universe between 12 and 20 billion years ago.

Most astronomers now believe that the universe began around 12 billion years ago in a cataclysmic explosion we call the Big Bang

Most astronomers now believe that the universe began around 12 billion years ago in a cataclysmic explosion we call the Big Bang

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-1...

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2629
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you seem very qualified at making a fool of yourself talking about things you do not understand at all.

tell us about the big bang explosion one more time...snicker...
Was the BB an explosion?

"To any forms of life arising afterward, such as us, the inflation would look like a giant explosion from which the universe originated

"Such a scenario isn’t as crazy as it sounds. Our universe is expanding and becoming increasingly dilute, and the high-entropy future will be one in which space is essentially empty. But quantum mechanics assures us that empty space is not a quiet, boring place; it’s alive and bubbling with quantum fluctuations—ephemeral, virtual particles flitting in and out of existence. According to a theory known as the “inflationary universe scenario,” all we need is for a tiny patch of space to be filled with a very high density of dark energy—energy that is inherent in the fabric of space itself. That dark energy will fuel a spontaneous, super-accelerated expansion, stretching the infinitesimal patch to universal proportions.

Empty space, in which omnipresent quantum fields are jiggling back and forth, is a natural, high-entropy state for the universe. Eventually (and we’re talking about a really, really big eventually) the fluctuations will conspire in just the right way to fill a tiny patch of space with dark energy, setting off the ultra-fast expansion. To any forms of life arising afterward, such as us, the inflation would look like a giant explosion from which the universe originated, and the quiescent background—the other universes—would be completely unobservable. Such an occurrence would look exactly like the Big Bang and the universe we experience.
The most appealing aspect of this idea, Chen and I have argued, is that over the vast scale of the entire universe, time is actually symmetric and the laws truly don’t care about which direction it is moving. In our patch of the cosmos, time just so happens to be moving forward because of its initial low entropy, but there are others where this is not the case. The far past and the far future are filled with these other baby universes, and they would each think that the other had its arrow of time backwards. Time’s arrow isn’t a basic aspect of the universe as a whole, just a hallmark of the little bit we see. Over a long enough period of time, a baby universe such as ours would have been birthed into existence naturally. Our observable universe and its hundred billion galaxies is just one of those things that happens every once in a while, and its arrow of time is just a quirk of chance due to its beginnings amid a sea of universes.

Such a scenario is obviously speculative, but it fits in well with modern ideas of a multiverse with different regions of possibly distinct physical conditions. Admittedly, it would be hard to gather experimental evidence for or against this idea. But science doesn’t only need evidence, it also needs to make sense, to tell a consistent story. We can’t turn eggs into omelets, even though the laws of physics seem to be perfectly reversible, and this brute fact demands an explanation. It’s intriguing to imagine that the search for an answer would lead us to the literal ends of the universe."

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/time_...

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2630
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you seem very qualified at making a fool of yourself talking about things you do not understand at all.

tell us about the big bang explosion one more time...snicker...
"The nature of time is such that the influence of the very beginning of the universe stretches all the way into your kitchen—you can make an omelet out of an egg, but you can’t make an egg out of an omelet. Time, unlike space, has an obvious directionality—the view in a mirror makes sense in a way that a movie in reverse never would.
The arrow of time in our universe is puzzling because the fundamental laws of physics themselves are symmetric and don’t seem to discriminate between the past and future. Unlike an egg breaking on the side of a frying pan, the journey of the planets around the sun would look basically the same if we filmed them and ran the movie backwards. Rather, it must be due to the initial conditions of the universe—a fact that makes the nature of time a question for cosmology. Remarkably, the answers we’re beginning to discover are telling us there may be other universes out there in which the arrow of time actually points in reverse.

For some reason, our early universe was an orderly place; as physicists like to say, it had low entropy. Entropy measures the number of ways that you can rearrange the components of a system such that the overall state wouldn’t change considerably. A set of neatly racked billiard balls has a low entropy, since moving one of the balls to another location on the table would change the configuration significantly. Randomly scattered balls are high entropy; we could move a ball or two and nobody would really notice.

Low-entropy configurations naturally evolve into high-entropy ones—as any billiards-break shows—for the simple reason that there are more ways to be high entropy than low entropy. The very beginning of time found our universe in an extremely unnatural and highly organized low-entropy state. It is the process by which it is inevitably relaxing into a more naturally disordered and messy configuration that imprints the unmistakable difference between past and future that we perceive.
Naturally, this leads one to wonder why the Big Bang began in such an unusual state. Attempts to answer this question are wrapped up with the question of time and have led me and my colleague Jennifer Chen to imagine another era before the Big Bang, in which the extremely far past looks essentially the same as the extremely far future. The distinction between past and future doesn’t matter on the scale of the entire cosmos, it’s just a feature we observe locally.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2631
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you seem very qualified at making a fool of yourself talking about things you do not understand at all.

tell us about the big bang explosion one more time...snicker...
Continued::::::::

If time is to be symmetric—if the direction of its flow is not to matter throughout the universe—conditions at early times should be similar to those at late times. This idea has previously inspired cosmologists like Thomas Gold to suggest that the universe will someday recollapse and that the arrow of time would reverse. However, we now know that the universe is actually accelerating and seems unlikely to ever recollapse. Even if it did, there is no reason to think that entropy will spontaneously begin to decrease and re-rack the billiard balls. Stephen Hawking once suggested that it would—and he later called that the biggest blunder of his scientific career.

If we don’t want the laws of physics to distinguish arbitrarily between past and future, we can imagine that the universe is really high-entropy in both the far past and the far future. How can a high-entropy past be reconciled with what we know about our observable universe—that it began with unnaturally low entropy? Only by imagining that there is an ultra-large-scale universe beyond our reach, where entropy can always be increasing without limit, and that if we went far enough back into the past, time would actually be running backwards."

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/time_...

"Such a scenario isn’t as crazy as it sounds. Our universe is expanding and becoming increasingly dilute, and the high-entropy future will be one in which space is essentially empty. But quantum mechanics assures us that empty space is not a quiet, boring place; it’s alive and bubbling with quantum fluctuations—ephemeral, virtual particles flitting in and out of existence. According to a theory known as the “inflationary universe scenario,” all we need is for a tiny patch of space to be filled with a very high density of dark energy—energy that is inherent in the fabric of space itself. That dark energy will fuel a spontaneous, super-accelerated expansion, stretching the infinitesimal patch to universal proportions.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2632
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you seem very qualified at making a fool of yourself talking about things you do not understand at all.

tell us about the big bang explosion one more time...snicker...
Continued ::;::::::::

Part 3

Empty space, in which omnipresent quantum fields are jiggling back and forth, is a natural, high-entropy state for the universe. Eventually (and we’re talking about a really, really big eventually) the fluctuations will conspire in just the right way to fill a tiny patch of space with dark energy, setting off the ultra-fast expansion. To any forms of life arising afterward, such as us, the inflation would look like a giant explosion from which the universe originated, and the quiescent background—the other universes—would be completely unobservable. Such an occurrence would look exactly like the Big Bang and the universe we experience.
The most appealing aspect of this idea, Chen and I have argued, is that over the vast scale of the entire universe, time is actually symmetric and the laws truly don’t care about which direction it is moving. In our patch of the cosmos, time just so happens to be moving forward because of its initial low entropy, but there are others where this is not the case. The far past and the far future are filled with these other baby universes, and they would each think that the other had its arrow of time backwards. Time’s arrow isn’t a basic aspect of the universe as a whole, just a hallmark of the little bit we see. Over a long enough period of time, a baby universe such as ours would have been birthed into existence naturally. Our observable universe and its hundred billion galaxies is just one of those things that happens every once in a while, and its arrow of time is just a quirk of chance due to its beginnings amid a sea of universes.

Such a scenario is obviously speculative, but it fits in well with modern ideas of a multiverse with different regions of possibly distinct physical conditions. Admittedly, it would be hard to gather experimental evidence for or against this idea. But science doesn’t only need evidence, it also needs to make sense, to tell a consistent story. We can’t turn eggs into omelets, even though the laws of physics seem to be perfectly reversible, and this brute fact demands an explanation. It’s intriguing to imagine that the search for an answer would lead us to the literal ends of the universe."

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/time_...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2633
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
I know this is over your head but here goes anyways:
http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm...
Exploding the Big Bang Theory
Originally, the Big Bang Theory was being used to explain the beginning of the universe. Now more and more people are seeing this huge event less as the actual beginning and more as a massive event unto itself. However, many still claim the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe and this article is evidence that this is probably a false claim.
This article will not involve any mathematical calculations or anything too difficult to understand. The purpose of this article is to explain in simple language why a "Big Bang" if they do exist, was not the creation of the universe.
First off we must explain the Big Bang Theory and then give the arguments that we will be dispelling.
The theory actually has multiple formations and differences in details depending on who you talk to.(Time frame, speed differences, etc.) However since we will be discussing the overall generalities and not the mathematical details, we won't bother with those differences.
The overall Big Bang theory states that the universe started from an incredibly dense singularity that exploded. All matter, light and energy came from that explosion. The size of the universe increases as everything expands from this explosion. The theory is that of an expanding universe, meaning that the universe as a whole is expanding, instead of a static universe meaning that matter is expanding into a statically sized space. The theory states that the size of the universe is equal to the speed of light (the item furthest away from the explosion as possible) times the age of the explosion. In simpler terms, the light created from the explosion is expanding in equal directions and they represent the edge of the universe.
That's it in a nutshell. Now let's look at the problems with this theory.
http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm...
Not this again. Did you even read what I said the *last* time you posted this nonsense? The person who wrote this article does not understand the *first* things about the Big Bang theory.

There is no edge to the expansion in the Big Bang theory.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2634
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Notice the tense of that last statement. There *seemed* to be no way....

That is no longer true.
What, are you going to go with string theory?

"At the museum debate, after panelists took a diversion into whether we all actually live in “the Matrix,” Tyson asked whether string theorists were just “chasing a ghost.”

“We are ambitious,” said Greene on the screen. He holds out hope that future experiments and technology will be able to provide the proof of strings that has so far eluded everyone.

“Do I believe in string theory?” he said.“No. I only believe in things that are proven.”

For nearly 30 years, many in physics circles have believed that string theory might help unlock the secrets of the universe and possibly reveal hidden realities beyond our own. But skeptics have charged that instead of aiding scientific discovery, and helping young physics post-docs get on the path to professorships, string theory has actually become a dead end."

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2635
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>And as I pointed out, we need a tested quantum theory of gravity. That doesn't make QM and GR unscientific.
I never said unscientific!
I said they failed as scientific theories!

And they do. Nuf said.

KK please note I used the correct spelling here.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2636
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Was the BB an explosion?
About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
Astronomers Detect Most Powerful Explosion Since Big Bang
18 May 1998
The energy released in a cosmic gamma-rayburst detected in December 1997 is the most energy ever detected from an explosion in theUniverse, perhaps making it the most powerful explosion since the creation of the Universe in the Big Bang.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/ne...
big bang
(bg)
The explosion of an extremely small, hot, and dense body of matter that, according to some cosmological theories, gave rise to the universe between 12 and 20 billion years ago.
Most astronomers now believe that the universe began around 12 billion years ago in a cataclysmic explosion we call the Big Bang
Most astronomers now believe that the universe began around 12 billion years ago in a cataclysmic explosion we call the Big Bang
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-1...
That is the problem with depending on news media for scientific information, it doesn't word it correctly very often. You need to track the sources, the papers that the news articles use as a source, not the new articles themselves.

The "big bang" was not really an explosion, explosions are chaotic, destructive releases of energy, note the description I used. The "big bang" was a rapid expansion of "stuff," I forget the technical wording for it as it's not an area I researched that much, which was the result of some, as of yet, unknown event. This reaction is still going on today, just slowing down each moment, by such a small amount that it's virtually imperceptible at this point. When the expansion is graphed out, it looks like a bell curve, basically, and thus why many people often refer to it as "explosive," which is different than an explosion.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2637
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Continued::::::::
If time is to be symmetric—if the direction of its flow is not to matter throughout the universe—conditions at early times should be similar to those at late times. This idea has previously inspired cosmologists like Thomas Gold to suggest that the universe will someday recollapse and that the arrow of time would reverse. However, we now know that the universe is actually accelerating and seems unlikely to ever recollapse. Even if it did, there is no reason to think that entropy will spontaneously begin to decrease and re-rack the billiard balls. Stephen Hawking once suggested that it would—and he later called that the biggest blunder of his scientific career.
If we don’t want the laws of physics to distinguish arbitrarily between past and future, we can imagine that the universe is really high-entropy in both the far past and the far future. How can a high-entropy past be reconciled with what we know about our observable universe—that it began with unnaturally low entropy? Only by imagining that there is an ultra-large-scale universe beyond our reach, where entropy can always be increasing without limit, and that if we went far enough back into the past, time would actually be running backwards."
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/time_...
"Such a scenario isn’t as crazy as it sounds. Our universe is expanding and becoming increasingly dilute, and the high-entropy future will be one in which space is essentially empty. But quantum mechanics assures us that empty space is not a quiet, boring place; it’s alive and bubbling with quantum fluctuations—ephemeral, virtual particles flitting in and out of existence. According to a theory known as the “inflationary universe scenario,” all we need is for a tiny patch of space to be filled with a very high density of dark energy—energy that is inherent in the fabric of space itself. That dark energy will fuel a spontaneous, super-accelerated expansion, stretching the infinitesimal patch to universal proportions.
yes, you have shown that you can copy and paste.

you have also clearly shown you do not understand what you are copying and pasting...

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2638
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said unscientific!
I said they failed as scientific theories!
And they do. Nuf said.
KK please note I used the correct spelling here.
Spelling correct, but you did ignore the requirement for a collection of hypotheses to become a theory. It's not simply a wild guess, there's a lot of rigorous and very cut throat testing done, any hypothesis is beaten mercilessly by the peers, all wanting to prove it wrong somehow, before it's accepted, and only after they fail to falsify it. Scientists are akin to a den of alpha male wolves, to make a name for themselves they must provide hypotheses that can stand up to the others' scrutiny, if it does not withstand the tests of those who want to make you look a fool simply for being a peer, then you get your hypothesis added to a theory, or even elevated on it's own to a theory.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2639
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yes, you have shown that you can copy and paste.

you have also clearly shown you do not understand what you are copying and pasting...
Oh no, not super dolt babbling on with no clue what is even being debated. What will I do?

Sorry wood dicky I'm not going to dumb it down to your level. Just stay back and root on your champion because you clearly can't hold your own.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2640
Jun 24, 2013
 
For a country we have more prisons than any other countries in the a world.Are you sure it's God?
Where is he?

“Handsome white and black men”

Since: Jan 10

Interracial love

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2641
Jun 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I can tell your qualifications are minimal. Based on what you write, you do not understand what it means to be a scientific theory or how science is actually done, even by the experts.
A scientific theory, in spite of your quotes, does not have to be universally applicable. If that were required, there would be no scientific theories. For example, the Bronsted theory of acids does not apply to stellar structure. They are simply two separate theories.
You are correct, QM and GR are NOT all-encompassing theories. QM does not apply to cases of large masses and GR does not apply to atomic level phenomena and smaller. But they are still scientific theories. That you don't grasp that shows your qualifications are next to non-existent.
I think you will be interested in this article.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22991838
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22991838

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2642
Jun 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said unscientific!
I said they failed as scientific theories!
No, they are quite good as scientific theories. Your criterion is strict enough that if we applied it, there would be no scientific theories at all!

The difficulty is not that GR and QM fail to be scientific theories. The problem is that we do not have a scientific theory about the center of black holes. Since we have no data from there, that is not surprising.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2643
Jun 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh no, not super dolt babbling on with no clue what is even being debated. What will I do?
Probably continue babbling.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2644
Jun 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>No, they are quite good as scientific theories. Your criterion is strict enough that if we applied it, there would be no scientific theories at all!

The difficulty is not that GR and QM fail to be scientific theories. The problem is that we do not have a scientific theory about the center of black holes. Since we have no data from there, that is not surprising.
"A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science."

BRIAN GREENE:

As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down.

__________

From Nova:

S. JAMES GATES, JR.: The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate everywheres.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2645
Jun 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science."
BRIAN GREENE:
As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down.
__________
From Nova:
S. JAMES GATES, JR.: The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate everywheres.
how does the theory of evolution hold true for the big bang theory? they are different fields of science and one theory has nothing to do with the other...

you keep copying things you do not understand...why?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2646
Jun 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>how does the theory of evolution hold true for the big bang theory? they are different fields of science and one theory has nothing to do with the other...

you keep copying things you do not understand...why?
Just because you're lost doesn't mean others don't understand it.

Poor ticky. Wants some real attention but can't think on his own.
Thinking

Tisbury, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2647
Jun 25, 2013
 
Because the almighty twart [sic] is a fucktard.
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>how does the theory of evolution hold true for the big bang theory? they are different fields of science and one theory has nothing to do with the other...
you keep copying things you do not understand...why?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 2,581 - 2,600 of3,766
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••