assassin_696

Rebellion (lies) - The Arcade Fire Ah, bringing back memories of a great live gig :)

Oh, how I miss common sense :(

Probably clicked "Order" too many times when buying all their missiles or something. :wall:

Current estimates put it at about 13.7 billion years.

I hear Nature is a pretty well respected science magazine, doesn't sound cheap though. Or New Scientist. If you can maybe hang til about Tuesday/Wednesday my school library has a pretty good selection of science magazines, and i'm sure we've been pointed towards good biology/chemistry ones in the past, I just forgot their names.

Oh yeah I read that as well, something like there can't be any infinitely tiny singularities because how small something can be is limited by the strings themselves? Yah, it's weird, but once the universe tries to contract beyond the Planck length, the strings start giving off inverse energies. There's like a whole chapter on it, and I had to read it twice to get it... but basically, according to the normal and uniform motions of strings and the energy they give off, a universe of radius 1/R has precisely the same physical properties as a universe of radius R. Ya, it's very weird. So, once the universe starts trying to shrink past the Planck length, it start expanding instead of contracting :P . Oh yeah I remember that chapter now. Strange, strange stuff :P

In no particular order Good Will Hunting The Good, The Bad and the Ugly Dead Poets Society Leon Pulp Fiction Resevoir Dogs The Shawshank Redemption The Green Mile Dances With Wolves El Dorado LOTR Trilogy Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl The French Connection The Bourne Identity Das Boot

Oh yeah I read that as well, something like there can't be any infinitely tiny singularities because how small something can be is limited by the strings themselves? Makes you wonder how much matter is locked up in black holes though.

I've heard there isn't enough observable matter to cause a big crunch like a lot of people predicted.

Have you any idea what the theory really is? Or have you just worked it out from the name that it's "like a big explosion" and there's some kind of faulty reasoning with that? Do you have any idea how many years of scientific research have gone into refining the current big bang model? Or how the cosmic microwave background radiation, as well as the observed redshift from distant galaxies (proportional to distance) is good evidence for an expanding universe? Or how people like Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose have shown that the universe almost conclusively started from a singularity? Or even how there have been various inflationary models to explain why we observe the universe the way it is? Or how Stephen Hawking has developed his no-boundary theorem to describe time at the big bang? And you're calling the reasoning and evidence faulty? Good god man speaking from ignorance never does anyone any favours.

Come fly with me, lets fly lets fly away If you can use, some exotic booze Theres a bar in far bombay Come fly with me, well fly well fly away Come fly with me, lets float down to peru In lama land, theres a one man band And hell toot his flute for you Come fly with me, well float down in the blue Once I get you up there, where the air is rarefied Well just glide, starry eyed Once I get you up there, Ill be holding you so near You may here, angels cheer - because were together Weather wise its such a lovely day You just say the words, and well beat the birds Down to acapulco bay Its perfect, for a flying honeymoon - they say Come fly with me, well fly well fly away Just...classy :

Heh, that sounds fascinating, and pretty cool that you have access to a whole new floor : I definitely want to do a science degree at uni, probably physics related. Although the Natural Sciences degree at Cambridge is what appeals to me most. You do a mix of subjects in the first year (i'd probably do physics and chemistry related stuff, i'm not carrying biology on for the next few years, sadly), then specialise in the next 3 years in the subjects that interest you more. :)

I swear, if I hear "but it's just a theory..." one more time...

Moving it back to General, just to confuse ya'll :

Since Rs really doesn't seem to be down, this is spam.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in something, it tells you nothing about the morals of that person. So to say Stalin killed millions of people because of his atheism is wrong, he did it because the Church rivalled his power.

You don't seem to be getting this locking business. This concept of a thread is spam, and it will be locked, no matter how many times you repost it.

Communist Russia. Communist China. Columbine attack. Nero (actually this wasn't chopping of heads, this was burning at the stake... but you know). And I haven't even thought about this yet. Atheism does not equate to communism. The post I quoted doesn't reference atheism. It references anti-religious people. So it's irrelevant to atheism. But anyway talking about communism and atheism rests on a big false assumption, namely that communists did their terrible deeds because they were atheists, which is untrue.

Get ready for a bit fat " :( " because this is spam and therefore going to be locked.

Communist Russia. Communist China. Columbine attack. Nero (actually this wasn't chopping of heads, this was burning at the stake... but you know). And I haven't even thought about this yet. Atheism does not equate to communism.

Brains anyday. Beauty is transcendent, it fades, it wilts. A sharp mind lasts.

I think atheists are largely misunderstood in the broader community (especially in the U.S.). I personally see no need in defending myself as an atheist or being an apologist for atheism (because, of course, there's nothing to apologise for), so all you'll hear me doing is challenging misrepresentations. The quote from the former president of the U.S. obviously wouldn't have helped things along in terms of atheists being an accepted group of U.S. society. I dislike him and his son. Him for condoning state sponsored theism and his son for condoning intelligent design. I could obviously word my dislike of them more strongly but that would just take this thread off the rails. Yeah, I don't really see why atheists should have to justify themsevles, it's just a nice little video. :P

Are you saying someone shouldn't have the right to question and challenge the faith of millions? Yet consistently on these boards, those who do challenge and question the popular beliefs get flamed for it. A little hypocritical, eh? I don't know what you're referring to. Let's see. I make a statement that goes against one's belief in evolution, which we can safely say to be the faith of millions. And look what happens. I get 5 posts within 20 minutes telling me I am nothing but wrong, and that my belief held by millions wrong by proxy. Haha, I thought it might come down to this. Believing in evolution is not faith Faith is belief in something despite lack of evidence. Evolution is a scientific theory based on fact. There's a difference and it's in no way hypocritical to have the right to challenge someone's faith, whereas challenging a long held scientific theory simply because it doesn't fit in with Biblical creation is frankly, ignorant. If you've got some facts against evolution, great, show them and you'll become world famous. But if you're challenging based solely on principle then flaming is inevitable. Are you saying someone shouldn't have the right to question and challenge the faith of millions? I'm not saying that at all, but do you truly believe anyone on tip.it is in a position to? Most people here spawned off an online game to get through their adolescence, some still are. I hardly think we've been blessed with the presence of the next Dalai Lama. I don't mean to be rude, but there's only one way threads like this will go and that's a flame fest. We are capable of a civilised discussion, just not in religion. Very few people in the world are. That's why threads like this were suspended for a while, and to be honest, I don't see the point of this thread as there's an existing one full of flames anyway. No i'm with you there, I can see this being another flame fest, hence my "oh boy" comment, but I suppose i've been drawn in and contributed myself now. I was just worried that you were challenging his freedom of opinion/speech/yadayada. No, not a lot will be accomplished here, but I don't really think that's the point. This is just an outlet for his views, and people will just polarize each other in the debate and bash away. Anyway, i'm going to get out now and try and keep out.

Are you saying someone shouldn't have the right to question and challenge the faith of millions? Yet consistently on these boards, those who do challenge and question the popular beliefs get flamed for it. A little hypocritical, eh? I don't know what you're referring to.