JackC

It's nowhere near as bad as the scaremongers would have you believe. It generally not wise to get your info from crackpots. According to the Standard Model (which is the leading theory in particle physics) the LHC isn't big enough to create a micro black hole. It's only some of the more fringe theories that say it might be possible. Even so, if they do make one, the Swartzchild radius of a micro black hole (that's how close something has to get to it before it gets sucked in) is only 10^-35m (thats 0.000000000000000000000000000000000001 m). But even then, Hawking radiation will dissolve the black hole into a shower of energy and create other less exotic particles in a tiny fraction of a second. So really, it's a load of fuss about nothing; unless you're a physicist, in which case it's like winning the lottery, twice.

So that's where all the grant money went.

I don't usually recommend popular science because so little of it is any good but The Big Bang Machine wasn't bad. It's about the Large Hadron Collider at CERN which might prove (or disprove) the existence of the Higgs Boson. This could be a turning point in particle physics and I for one will be interested to see what this experiment turns up. BBC iPlayer link: The Big Bang Machine http://www.lhc.ac.uk/

We live in more secular times too.

It seems that many people do find violence and hate in religious belief even though it isn't supposed to be there. Could it be that humanity has been duped by religions apparently peaceful and loving surface when the reality is something altogether more ugly? Maybe the philosophy is flawed and hate is the inevitable result? Just a thought.

Several? I couldn't find one. Take this thread for example. There is not one proposal by JohnRich in this thread to reduce gun crime. There is however plenty of gun legislation stories and criticism of other peoples stance (which is the irony I was refering too in my previous post). In fact I don't ever remember having read a post by John that says "here is a gun law that would/does work". In fact the only thing that could even remotely be considered a proposal is John's often repeated mantra of "gun laws don't work". So presumably if gun laws don't work as John says, the logical extension is the complete deregulation of all weapons. While that may actually work in some convoluted sense since if nothing you could possibly ever do with a gun would be illegal then gun crime would instantly vanish, it does seems a lot like reducing crime by decriminalising crime. I honestly don't see what John's point is.

Nevertheless, you agree that we already have the "who" and this is a "how", a crap one perhaps but it is a "how". So it's clear that Genesis does make a rudimentary attempt to explain the origin of the universe. From this we also must agree that science and religion (in this case at least) do overlap. My point is that people ignore this overlap because the Biblical version of events is so ludicrous it cannot possibly be taken as the literal truth by anyone with an IQ above single digits.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light ~ Genesis 1:3 There's your "how". God said, and it was so.

Does anyone else see the problem with this line of thinking? Not really. A zygote isn't a baby. It may become a baby, but it isn't one yet.

It wasn't. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. ~ Genesis 1:1 So Genesis isn't meant to explain the origin of the universe eh? Then why does the very first line do exactly that? It says goddidit.

Genesis was either written to explain the origin of the universe or it wasn't. Since it appears to try to provide an explaination for the origin of the universe, it's reasonable to assume it was written to try to explain the origin of the universe. Since you obviously don't think the universe is 6000 years old, you must realise the literal interpretation of Genesis is gibberish and therefore prefer a metaphorical interpretation instead. That is exactly my point and you have illustrated it most clearly. Thanks.

Bollocks. UK bashing is one of John's favourite passtimes. The irony is that he absolutely hates it when someone bashes the US.

Nah, it's not a nautical reference. More anatomical.

Exactly. I've been thinking that "liberal" has been used as a dirty word for ages. Although I do wonder if this philosophy owes something to McCarthyism too.

If by that you mean mutually exclusive, you are dead wrong. I haven't read this whole thread, but the two exist to answer different questions. One does not negate the other. That's rubbish. The Bible absolutely does overlap with science, people simply choose to ignore the fact. Explaining the universe was one of the reasons the Bible was written, we've just realised that this aspect of it is quite obviously complete bollocks. So rather than toss the whole book in the trash where it belongs, we interpret the bits that are literally bollocks as being metaphorical and claim no foul.

Well I read it and I still have no idea who is protesting what and why. So my opinion is the author should be fired.

Alcohol is a muscle relaxant. How does being permanently shit-faced sound to you?

You're right that you have a limited amount of time in a physics exam to get the right answer. However, you should be able to answer physics exam questions analytically if you had done the work your professors asked you to do. Your calculator would almost certainly have let you down for the more advanced topics anyway and if you hadn't got vanilla calculus thoroughly nailed you might have found it tough going. So if you don't like doing maths, you probably did the right thing by getting out. Good luck with whatever you chose to do instead.

I resemble that remark, so I thought I'd offer my 2¢. I left my Math/Physics program because I got tired of having to prove over and over that I can integrate by parts. I made my A in Calculus II; that should be enough, IMO. I despise spending 10-30 minutes doing integrations that I can do in 20-30 seconds on my calculator, with fewer "stupid" mistakes. Personally, I believe it is more important to know why and when I need to integrate than to be able to do it with a pencil and paper every time. Yes, I can, but no, I don't like to. I live in a world where a calculator or a computer with appropriate software is more common than pencils and paper. What am I supposed to do if I can't find a pencil and paper? Are future employers going to want me to do my calculations by hand, or with a computer? The professors typically disagree, which is their prerogative. It's their sandbox. I changed my major to one in which knowing when and why mathematical operations are valued more than knowing how to do them with pencil and paper. That's a shame. I only write code to solve my maths when analytical results are not possible. Maths software isn't infallible. Whatever code you use, it's always worth checking it against maths you can do before you ask it to do maths you can't do. But if you can't even be bothered to do the maths you can do...

Cigarette lighter applied to dogs bollox. Yelp.

Homer: Awww, $20!? I wanted a peanut. Brain: $20 can buy many peanuts. Homer: Explain how! Brain: Money can be exchanged for goods and services. Homer: Woohoo!

I'm not anti-gun. I just don't like you.

Whatever. Talking to you is about as pointless an exercise as I can imagine. Adios.

Speedracers answer to spiralling school lunch costs: "Shuddup and eat your roadkill, it's edjumactional." Joke.