A universe from nothing

[totalnoob]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
This little "science" talk had an agenda.

Did you notice who is hosting the video?

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Bringing in religion is specious. It had nothing to do with the topic. Hey, how about "This is General Relativity" Oh, and how about them darkies?

Not everyone who is religious is anti science and the reverse is also true. It's the moonbats at either end who make most reasonable and educated people shake their heads. This little "science" talk had an agenda.

Well no shit. It was at Atheist Alliance International. Like it or not, cosmology and physics beggars the petty religious view of the universe. God is small. The universe is big.

 

[Viper0329]

It's sad to see a man of such scientific intelligence show a great ignorance about religion. In the first few minutes of the lecture, he makes the great error of saying that "religion" ignores the concept of mystery by its supposed claim to "know everything. On the contrary, several of the great religions of the world center around mystery just as science does and claim to have little understanding of the mechanics of the universe.

Also, he claims towards the end that "cosmic humility" is necessary. I think he should carefully evaluate the meaning of humility and avoid a careless attempt at discrediting religious thinking. In the end, a great deal of humility is necessary on both sides, religion and science as well, so that together, both may be humble in front of the cosmic mystery.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Thanks for the link OP. Glad to see it's pissing off the usual suspects.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Viper0329
It's sad to see a man of such scientific intelligence show a great ignorance about religion. In the first few minutes of the lecture, he makes the great error of saying that "religion" ignores the concept of mystery by its supposed claim to "know everything. On the contrary, several of the great religions of the world center around mystery just as science does and claim to have little understanding of the mechanics of the universe.

Also, he claims towards the end that "cosmic humility" is necessary. I think he should carefully evaluate the meaning of humility and avoid a careless attempt at discrediting religious thinking. In the end, a great deal of humility is necessary on both sides, religion and science as well, so that together, both may be humble in front of the cosmic mystery.

Tell you what... The day religion adds anything useful to the understanding of the the universe, we'll put on an equal footing as science. Until then, just mentioning religion in the same sentence as science is questionable.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: Viper0329
It's sad to see a man of such scientific intelligence show a great ignorance about religion. In the first few minutes of the lecture, he makes the great error of saying that "religion" ignores the concept of mystery by its supposed claim to "know everything. On the contrary, several of the great religions of the world center around mystery just as science does and claim to have little understanding of the mechanics of the universe.

Also, he claims towards the end that "cosmic humility" is necessary. I think he should carefully evaluate the meaning of humility and avoid a careless attempt at discrediting religious thinking. In the end, a great deal of humility is necessary on both sides, religion and science as well, so that together, both may be humble in front of the cosmic mystery.

WRONG!

Religion, by definition, is a bunch of made up knowledge about the nature of the universe; god is this way, this is moral, etc.

Humility about the awesomeness of made up shit is false humility.

 

[artikk]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Viper0329
It's sad to see a man of such scientific intelligence show a great ignorance about religion. In the first few minutes of the lecture, he makes the great error of saying that "religion" ignores the concept of mystery by its supposed claim to "know everything. On the contrary, several of the great religions of the world center around mystery just as science does and claim to have little understanding of the mechanics of the universe.

Also, he claims towards the end that "cosmic humility" is necessary. I think he should carefully evaluate the meaning of humility and avoid a careless attempt at discrediting religious thinking. In the end, a great deal of humility is necessary on both sides, religion and science as well, so that together, both may be humble in front of the cosmic mystery.

Tell you what... The day religion adds anything useful to the understanding of the the universe, we'll put on an equal footing as science. Until then, just mentioning religion in the same sentence as science is questionable.

Well religion definitely gives more understanding to people about other people. Since they're part of the universe...

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Really?

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis is a controversial 1985 book by Michael Denton in which he claims that the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection is a "theory in crisis". The scientific community considers the book to contain incorrect claims and it is not taken seriously by mainstream scientists.[1] According to intelligent design proponents Phillip E. Johnson[2] and Michael J. Behe[3] they rejected evolution after reading the book.

-wiki

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Bringing in religion is specious. It had nothing to do with the topic. Hey, how about "This is General Relativity" Oh, and how about them darkies?

Not everyone who is religious is anti science and the reverse is also true. It's the moonbats at either end who make most reasonable and educated people shake their heads. This little "science" talk had an agenda.

Well no shit. It was at Atheist Alliance International. Like it or not, cosmology and physics beggars the petty religious view of the universe. God is small. The universe is big.

It's the international "Hey I'm superior because I don't believe in God, and oh yeah here's some science stuff" Alliance.

Has it occurred that there are people who are atheists who haven't a clue about science, and there are scientists who are religious, and have no problem with scientific reality?

Who do you think attended who was substantially more scientifically qualified than Francis Collins? Probably no one.

Yeah, people shouldn't be forcing their religion on you, and these guys should get the sticks out of their rectum.

Both a bunch of idiots.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Bringing in religion is specious. It had nothing to do with the topic. Hey, how about "This is General Relativity" Oh, and how about them darkies?

Not everyone who is religious is anti science and the reverse is also true. It's the moonbats at either end who make most reasonable and educated people shake their heads. This little "science" talk had an agenda.

Well no shit. It was at Atheist Alliance International. Like it or not, cosmology and physics beggars the petty religious view of the universe. God is small. The universe is big.

And even if the universe was full you could fit an infinite amount more in it...

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: artikk

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Viper0329
It's sad to see a man of such scientific intelligence show a great ignorance about religion. In the first few minutes of the lecture, he makes the great error of saying that "religion" ignores the concept of mystery by its supposed claim to "know everything. On the contrary, several of the great religions of the world center around mystery just as science does and claim to have little understanding of the mechanics of the universe.

Also, he claims towards the end that "cosmic humility" is necessary. I think he should carefully evaluate the meaning of humility and avoid a careless attempt at discrediting religious thinking. In the end, a great deal of humility is necessary on both sides, religion and science as well, so that together, both may be humble in front of the cosmic mystery.

Tell you what... The day religion adds anything useful to the understanding of the the universe, we'll put on an equal footing as science. Until then, just mentioning religion in the same sentence as science is questionable.

Well religion definitely gives more understanding to people about other people. Since they're part of the universe...

wat?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Bringing in religion is specious. It had nothing to do with the topic. Hey, how about "This is General Relativity" Oh, and how about them darkies?

Not everyone who is religious is anti science and the reverse is also true. It's the moonbats at either end who make most reasonable and educated people shake their heads. This little "science" talk had an agenda.

Well no shit. It was at Atheist Alliance International. Like it or not, cosmology and physics beggars the petty religious view of the universe. God is small. The universe is big.

And even if the universe was full you could fit an infinite amount more in it...

Reminds me of Einsteins best theorem

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Really? This is just one book, apparently from a non-spiritual perspective. I've not read it but a friend who is reading it has told me of it. BTW it references many scholarly sources that also question the evolutionary theory. Does this mean they are right? Who knows. I'm simply saying don't try and pretend there is consensus when there is not.

Sorry Skoorb - Denton = Intelligent design. He doesn't come from a non-spiritual perspective. Do some research. Heck, a simple wikipedia check should suffice. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Denton "In his iconoclastic book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), Denton questioned the validity of neo-Darwinism and argued that evidence of divine design exists in nature. The book was instrumental in starting the Intelligent Design movement."

Also, as far as his attacks on religion, I don't think it was so much religion in general. If you really think about it, each of the more meaningful attacks was against the anti-progress idiots who constantly deny all this evidence. I believe his attacks, and rightly so, are against the "the universe is 4000 years old. Dinosaurs used to live alongside mankind, dontcha know" people.

Don't forget - there really are quite a few very vocal people who do everything in their powers to cast doubt among all the children in their communities that this stuff is incredibly well understood and agreed upon. Don't forget that there are places that want stickers attached to biology books, making sure that the kids know that this is "just a theory" without educating the kids about what exactly the term "theory" means.

 

[Praxis1452]

Amazing lecture, and found it great throughout.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

In the lecture, the man expressed how remarkable man's evolution has been, that we have reached a point where we can state how long ago the Universe was created, accurate to four decimal places (IIRC). 14.52xx billion years, I think he said? To someone involved - and excelling - in that field of study, of course a book that talks about all of 'this' coming into existence 6,000 years ago would be a laughable bunch of crock. Of course he is not going to bother about respecting people who cling archaic beliefs founded in nothing. Of course he is going to not give a tiny rat's ass about what religious people might think of him. The religious probably think of him as a heathen, subhuman waste of matter anyway. Why should he care about the feelings of the anti-progress crowd?

High-horse? Horseshit.

 

[TridenT]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
Amazing lecture, and found it great throughout.

This.

 

[timosyy]

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
In the lecture, the man expressed how remarkable man's evolution has been, that we have reached a point where we can state how long ago the Universe was created, accurate to four decimal places (IIRC). 14.52xx billion years, I think he said? To someone involved - and excelling - in that field of study, of course a book that talks about all of 'this' coming into existence 6,000 years ago would be a laughable bunch of crock. Of course he is not going to bother about respecting people who cling archaic beliefs founded in nothing. Of course he is going to not give a tiny rat's ass about what religious people might think of him. The religious probably think of him as a heathen, subhuman waste of matter anyway. Why should he care about the feelings of the anti-progress crowd?

High-horse? Horseshit.

And it's a shame, because due to a few choice sentences that could've easily been omitted with no harm done to the actual subject matter, his message could reach a lot more people. Also, the sterotype that all religions (he wasn't specific in his jabs) believe the same thing (specifically in your post, young-earth creationism), is an ignorant one.


Is it so mind-boggling to you (and others in this thread) that those with religious upbringing could be open and interested in science? If your goal is to "enlighten" others, why steer your message away from those in need of enlightenment? Some of the elitism in this thread is astounding.

That being said, I understand the context of the lecture. I'm just saying it's a shame the content won't be heard by certain groups of people who would be just as interested, simply due to a few light-hearted jabs (I listened to the whole thing anyway and found it fascinating, but others might be put off by his occasionally hostile manner).

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: timosyy
And it's a shame, because due to a few choice sentences that could've easily been omitted with no harm done to the actual subject matter, his message could reach a lot more people. Also, the sterotype that all religions (he wasn't specific in his jabs) believe the same thing (specifically in your post, young-earth creationism), is an ignorant one.

Yeah, it's a real shame he has a sense of humor. :roll:

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: timosyy

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
In the lecture, the man expressed how remarkable man's evolution has been, that we have reached a point where we can state how long ago the Universe was created, accurate to four decimal places (IIRC). 14.52xx billion years, I think he said? To someone involved - and excelling - in that field of study, of course a book that talks about all of 'this' coming into existence 6,000 years ago would be a laughable bunch of crock. Of course he is not going to bother about respecting people who cling archaic beliefs founded in nothing. Of course he is going to not give a tiny rat's ass about what religious people might think of him. The religious probably think of him as a heathen, subhuman waste of matter anyway. Why should he care about the feelings of the anti-progress crowd?

High-horse? Horseshit.

And it's a shame, because due to a few choice sentences that could've easily been omitted with no harm done to the actual subject matter, his message could reach a lot more people. Also, the sterotype that all religions (he wasn't specific in his jabs) believe the same thing (specifically in your post, young-earth creationism), is an ignorant one.


Is it so mind-boggling to you (and others in this thread) that those with religious upbringing could be open and interested in science? If your goal is to "enlighten" others, why steer your message away from those in need of enlightenment? Some of the elitism in this thread is astounding.

That being said, I understand the context of the lecture. I'm just saying it's a shame the content won't be heard by certain groups of people who would be just as interested, simply due to a few light-hearted jabs (I listened to the whole thing anyway and found it fascinating, but others might be put off by his occasionally hostile manner).

You're right about those sentences that could have been omitted, but again, consider the setting where this was taped. For what it's worth, I was going to have the school's video editing class take that video & edit out those portions of his speech so that I can use it in my physics class. (i.e. something that a substitute can handle on the day that I'll be out with some other students.) Perhaps then, I'll even put it back up on youtube in the edited form so that more people will listen to it & marvel at the facts we know, rather than be offended and turn it off and consider it to be just "made up anti-religion propaganda."

 

[IronWing]

A universe from nothing and your chicks for free.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: ironwing
A universe from nothing and your chicks for free.

That ain't workin'.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

Originally posted by: ironwing
A universe from nothing and your chicks for free.

That ain't workin'.

That's the way you do it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Really? This is just one book, apparently from a non-spiritual perspective. I've not read it but a friend who is reading it has told me of it. BTW it references many scholarly sources that also question the evolutionary theory. Does this mean they are right? Who knows. I'm simply saying don't try and pretend there is consensus when there is not.

Sorry Skoorb - Denton = Intelligent design. He doesn't come from a non-spiritual perspective. Do some research. Heck, a simple wikipedia check should suffice. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Denton "In his iconoclastic book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), Denton questioned the validity of neo-Darwinism and argued that evidence of divine design exists in nature. The book was instrumental in starting the Intelligent Design movement."

Also, as far as his attacks on religion, I don't think it was so much religion in general. If you really think about it, each of the more meaningful attacks was against the anti-progress idiots who constantly deny all this evidence. I believe his attacks, and rightly so, are against the "the universe is 4000 years old. Dinosaurs used to live alongside mankind, dontcha know" people.

Don't forget - there really are quite a few very vocal people who do everything in their powers to cast doubt among all the children in their communities that this stuff is incredibly well understood and agreed upon. Don't forget that there are places that want stickers attached to biology books, making sure that the kids know that this is "just a theory" without educating the kids about what exactly the term "theory" means.

Sorry, but Dawkins and his crew view are vindictive and have attacked people for religious beliefs, for cause or not.

Francis Collins is one of the most brilliant biologists of the day. He played a large part in the Human Genome Project. He's a definite candidate for the Nobel.

He is also a Christian. No, not a 6 day anti evolutionist, but that was enough for Dawkins to accuse him of not being competent for his current position, the head of the NIH.

Comparatively speaking, Dawkins is an intellectual midget, but because Collins doesn't believe as he does, Dawkins feels he's qualified to be the judge. Fortunately Obama doesn't give a shit about Dawkins agenda and hired him anyway. Why? Because he's good. Real good.

Dawkins? He's full of his own religious hate, his religion being the worship of ego, his own.

 

[timosyy]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: timosyy
And it's a shame, because due to a few choice sentences that could've easily been omitted with no harm done to the actual subject matter, his message could reach a lot more people. Also, the sterotype that all religions (he wasn't specific in his jabs) believe the same thing (specifically in your post, young-earth creationism), is an ignorant one.

Yeah, it's a real shame he has a sense of humor. :roll:

It's not a shame that he has a sense of humor, the shame is that it bars the proliferation of his message. What is so hard to understand about this? DrPizza gets it in the post right below yours-- it'd be a lovely lecture to show students in a classroom environment, but it has to be edited because of some of the remarks.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Before I expend a bunch of bandwidth, is this a lecture on science or religion? I'm frankly fairly tired of the religion debate but if it's a lecture on big bang theory or something I'm interested.