Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

17 Neutral

About revprez

  • Rank
  • Birthday 02/28/1980

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interests
    All sorts of shit
  • College Major/Degree
    MIT, EECS and Pol. Sci.
  • Favorite Area of Science
  • Biography
    Back in NY
  • Occupation
    Lead enterprise application architect
  1. I think I missed missed the part where I needed an excuse to take a dump on Cap.
  2. Then perhaps you'd like to rephrase in a way that doesn't lend itself to that inference. Just like biology, physics, chemistry, and atmospheric and planetary sciences. I beg to differ. We can certainly talk about biology, physics, chemistry and atmospheric and planetary sciences in "science classes." You could cover astrology in a Science, Technology and Society course--a "science class" by any reasonable definition of the term. I suspect you're trying to justify not covering creationism in canonical American secondary science education--that is a debate we can have anothe
  3. Explain what you mean by "true science?" And why should we limit ourselves to the "bogus" claims of creationism? Creationism/ID are a family of ideas, many of which were discarded along the way. Should we declare evolutionary biology unworthy of discussion because modern synthesis supplanted what came before it? I have a sneaking suspicion your GODMOS project will fall far short of its objectives. I'm pretty sure you pulled that measure of uncertainty out of your ass, but if you care to provide a basis for it--feel free. Well, you just fell for a creationist trap.
  4. One, "Red herring" is not synonymous with tangent. Two, Fred didn't start that particular tangent, Edtharan did One, Edtharan raised the issue of people's gullibility, not Fred. Furthermore, Fred's speaking generally to the very subject of a tangent he did not start. Two, Merriam's defines ad hom as either "appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect" or two "marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made." In short, ad hom doesn't apply to personal criticisms of the subject is one of a personal nature.
  5. Damn, Cap. You just making it up as you go along now, aren't you?
  6. It's pretty difficult not to have a discussion of creationism that doesn't touch on at least one of the two definitions you use.
  7. Neither your article or Hawking's popular text supports this conclusion in anyway. And one Planck time unit is 5.391 x 10^-43 seconds, a nearly a full eight orders of magnitude larger. It's precisely what he's saying, whether you agree or not. Once again, Big Bang theory says nothing of the sort--the nature of events prior to one Planck time unit after the event lie entirely outside of the theories scope. Furthermore, not even the singularity theorems derived from carrying general relativity back to t_0 do away with a manifold's dimensionality or differentiability; it simpl
  8. Exactly. I'm debunking a Dawkinism, and after all how is this thread unrelated to the 747 gambit and everything gushing from it? I very much like it, thank you. I have no intentions of validating creationism. If you prefer to be guilty of the same behavior Dawkins assigns his critics in theology, that's your look out. My point is simply that luc has not ruled out hypothesis 3. Nor has anyone else. Considering it's a discussion between mostly atheists, that says something about our intellect...doesn't it?
  9. I didn't think so. The hell it is. Surely in a discussion in the Pseudoscience forum that went to "first causes" by the second post, creationism is the elephant in the room. Try again, buddy.
  10. Ask nicely, lil'man. Put crudely, the philosophical foundation of science, a system that is so overwhelmingly useful when applied in present with results tangible to most everyone, is less convincing when applied to matters in the unobservable (i.e., distant) past and future. Folks tend to grow suspect when others ferociously cling to an extrapolated glidepath based on theory that fits a limited data in an infinitesimally small time-gate compared to the larger epoch. I believe this was the motivation for parsimony in the first place.
  11. The Big Bang isn't "t_0" of cosmic inflation, the namesake event takes place some 10^-35 s before the inflationary period. This is a list of arguments defending prevailing science from creationist attack. The last three sections which actually deal with positive creationist claims do not attempt to falsify them, but point out their inconsistency with prevailing theory and or find defect in their claim to scientific credulity. On several occasions, the authors decide to substitute their own strawmen in place of creationist criticisms and claims.
  12. Just out of curiousity, I understand that the area and volume operators are constructed from surface integrals with discrete spectra, but could you summarize what Reuter and Loll are doing differently? I don't mean to suggest that's where LQG is going as a field, but wouldn't you consider Loll and Reuter leading voices in that area? I haven't read the papers yet, but my impression from your report is that Asymptotic Safety and triangulation are LQG products and alternatives to rank-3 quantization. If I missed something, I think I'll need time to digest the lit.
  13. Out of curiosity, is Smolin actually arguing this or presenting it as a possibility? As Atheist points out, GR and QFT make predictions on arbitrary length scales. Martin reports on LQG research producing models that might mature into effective field theories. If Smolin is making a positive argument for a fundamental quantization of topology, I'd like to know the outline of his case.
  14. The demographic data for Your World with Neil Cavuto, the Fox Business Block and Win Ben Stein's Money. You should be able to purchase it yourself, or find a friend to show you the data. I use their age and level of education as to measure how discriminating they are in their taste. You can go ahead, now. Is there a reason to suspect Ben Stein is reaching a new audience?
  15. Big Bang theory says nothing of the sort, nor does it even attempt to. It is only concerned with the nature of the event that gave rise to the universe today. Period. This is also not entirely accurate. Kaku is simply pointing out that the universe may have begun from a slight perturbation in a false vacuum; basically, the ground gave out underneath a thermodynamically stagnant region of space-time. Before that happens, it is entirely reasonable to say that the universe is in thermal equilibrium and, consequently, there is no free energy to flow as heat or work. With one
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.