Scientists measure the universe’s first starlight
Scientists used high-energy radiation from blazars to measure the light from the first stars.
November 1st, 2012
02:01 PM ET

Scientists measure the universe’s first starlight

By Elizabeth Landau, CNN

The universe was just a kid at 4 billion years old. Thursday, scientists said that they have a measurement for all of the light that was around at that time that’s still traveling to us.

It’s called the extragalactic background light. This includes light from stars that existed when the universe was even younger than 4 billion years old. Researchers report in the journal Science that this can help with understanding how stars formed and how galaxies evolved.

“I think it’s amazing to be able to probe our universe when it was so young, when the very first stars formed," said Marco Ajello, researcher at Stanford University and study co-author.

Researchers write in the study that there have been several attempts in the past to detect this phenomenon, but none were successful.

The finding is important for estimating the number of smaller, fainter galaxies that current telescopes cannot detect, said Claude-Andre Faucher-Giguere, researcher in the Department of Astronomy at the University of California, Berkeley, who was not involved in the study.

Here’s why: Every telescope has limitations, especially its size. So astronomers can use them to detect the big, luminous galaxies, but there are more galaxies that the tools will miss.

“Studying the extragalactic background light allows us to overcome this limitation, because the background light is the sum of the light produced by all galaxies, including the ones that are too faint to be detected individually by traditional methods,” he said.

How they did it

To study this, scientists focused their efforts at high-energy gamma rays using NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. Specifically, they looked at “blazars,” which are galactic nuclei that spew jets associated with supermassive black holes.

When this extragalactic background light absorbs gamma rays, the process produces electron-positron pairs. A positron is an anti-matter particle.

This is the inverse reaction from what’s described in Dan Brown’s novel “Angels and Demons,” explains Faucher-Giguere. In that book, the villains’ bomb would harness the extraordinary energy from matter and anti-matter annihilating each other.

Based on how many gamma rays are expected to be present, compared to how many were observed, scientists calculated the number of gamma rays that appeared to be absorbed by the starlight from the early universe.

In that sense, these gamma-ray sources are like “lighthouses” and the starlight is like the fog, Ajello said. Scientists know that starlight is absorbing the gamma rays when the "lighthouse" is dimmer.

Scientists can therefore add up the light from the galaxies they can detect, and compare that to the extragalactic background light. This subtraction is a clue to how many galaxies we haven’t yet directly detected with our telescopes, and how luminous they are, Faucher-Giguere said.

According to this study, the galaxies observed directly via telescope accounts for most of the extragalactic background light measured. That means there cannot be much more light coming from fainter galaxies, Faucher-Giguere explains. This also puts limits on how many black holes and massive stars were in the early universe.

“This is a new and unique constraint that all future models of galaxy and black hole evolution will have to satisfy,” Faucher-Giguere said.

An extremely powerful telescope is required to support and complement these findings by directly observing the first galaxies. NASA's James Webb Space Telescope, whose launch is scheduled for 2018, may do the trick.

"The Webb telescope will open a completely new era," Ajello said at a NASA press briefing Thursday.

Post by:
Filed under: Discoveries • News
soundoff (679 Responses)
  1. josh

    Science proves the existence of God. What do you know about science? What other people say, right. Human intelligence is your god. God seeks relationship, don't take my word for it. Seek Him and you will find Him. There is no better feeling than knowing God loves you and that He will give you eternal life if you beleive. Sound foolish? Read 1 Corinthians 1:18-31 again and find a good church.

    November 2, 2012 at 11:36 am |
    • yoyo

      Thank you Josh for sharing the truth. While I am always amazed at how the universe and everything in it work, I am more amazed at the creator of all this. God indeed exist and He works in marvelous ways.

      November 2, 2012 at 11:40 am |
      • ibanezerscrooge

        Science does no such thing. Science does not seek to prove anything. The methods of science only discover and reveal and do so irrespective of belief and bias. I challenge anyone on this comment thread that believes that such things to give me a single example in history where some fact of the known universe that was thought and accepted by the scientific community to have a naturalistic explanation, after careful meditation and study of holy texts, was found to actually be of supernatural origins.

        After you fail to do that, think of how many facts of the known universe that were once thought to be of supernatural origins have been shown to have a completely naturalistic explanation.

        Religion and science are not compatible. You might be religious and accept some scientific truths, but no religion can reconcile itself completely with science because of the supernatural core of the beliefs. That's just the way it is and no amount of mental shoe-horning will ever make it fit.

        November 2, 2012 at 11:54 am |
      • dconklin58

        >"Religion and science are not compatible. You might be religious and accept some scientific truths, but no religion can reconcile itself completely with science because of the supernatural core of the beliefs. That's just the way it is and no amount of mental shoe-horning will ever make it fit."

        The early modern scienteists, Galileo and Newton for instance, looked at science as a way to understand the workings of God. Science, as it now practiced is incompatible with the Bible because of its anti-supernatual assumption. Now, if you drop the assumption, then there is no incompatibility.

        November 2, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
      • EAB

        Enough with the God talk already...

        November 2, 2012 at 11:55 am |
      • Primewonk

        " Science, as it now practiced is incompatible with the Bible because of its anti-supernatual assumption. Now, if you drop the assumption, then there is no incompatibility."

        Exactly. Because that is the job of science. Science only deals with the natural realm. You want to change the very definition of science. You can't do that. You don't have standing. This was what Behe advocated in Kitzmiller. And it's what got him beat down. Because he had to admit that if we did change the definition of science, then things like astrology, numerology, and witchcraft would have to considered science.

        November 2, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
      • dconklin58

        >"if we did change the definition of science, then things like astrology, numerology, and witchcraft would have to considered science."

        Baloney. A wise man eliminates assumptions.

        November 2, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
      • Primewonk

        BULLSHIT. You do not have standing to change the definition of science, because you are not a scientist. And if you doubt what I wrote about Behe, you can read his testimony on line.

        November 2, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • sixsixsheep

      Science does nothing to prove the existence of god. The way science works is that it assumes that everything occurs naturally. Your statement comes off as extremely ignorant. And you have no proof for anything that you said. You can't use the bible to prove that bible, that's a logical fallacy.

      November 2, 2012 at 12:00 pm |
      • dconklin58

        >"The way science works is that it assumes that everything occurs naturally."

        BINGO! Those of us who have been around for more than just a little while have learned not make such simplistic assumptions.

        November 2, 2012 at 12:32 pm |
      • Primewonk

        Except, of course, that there is zero actual evidence of anything ever happening supernaturally.

        November 2, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
      • josh

        I am not using circlular reasoning. I am a witness that I know in my spirit that Jesus is who the Bible says He is. That is not fallicous. My point is that God did not choose to use human wisdom for people to find Him - although everything does point to Him. Here is an interesting tid bit for you and how God uses the intelligence of the intelligent to make them look foolish. Revelation says that water, as we know it, will be gone in the new heaven and earth. And here humans are thinking that we need to find water to find life, life that won't even bring eternal life. Jesus is the living water. And through Him you will find life. And not some funny space alien, but eternal life. With no sickness or death. And a nice new spiritual body. Go to church and let God tear down these strongholds.

        November 2, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
    • ConfucianScholar

      Josh, you are a dimwit and therefore don't belong on this board. Please live and go back to the sports page where you belong spewing mythology for other simpleminded people like you to believe.

      November 2, 2012 at 12:05 pm |
      • dconklin58

        >"you are a dimwit and therefore don't belong on this board. Please live and go back to the sports page where you belong spewing mythology for other simpleminded people like you to believe."

        Otherise known as how to prove that you are what you judge.

        November 2, 2012 at 12:30 pm |
      • josh

        Your personal attacks prove nothing. We are talking facts, right? Here is a fact. You put faith in our Universe having been around for billions of years and even attack others as stupid if they don't agree with you because "science", "scientists", "intelligence", says so – but you haven't been around long enough to be a witness to that and have no proof. And what do you get for your faith? Eternal life? What I have faith in, which is attainable to EVERYONE and is a gift leads to eternal life. I am a witness of what I have experienced and that is Jesus is who the Bible says He is. It must be frustrating to not know what you are going to believe in months from now with the every changing "truth" of science. You are chasing the wind my friend. God made you too.. and the universe we live in. You know little about the creation and I know a lot about the Creator. Let me ask you this, wouldn't you rather know the one that created this wonderful universe of ours more than knowing what He created? Isn't the Creator greater than what He made? May the Lord open the eyes of your heart.

        November 2, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
    • Primewonk

      " Science proves the existence of God. "

      Point 1 – Science doesce doesn't prove thing, it explains things.

      Point 2 – Science only deals with the natural realm. Your version of a god, like any god worth his or her salt, claims supernatural powers and abilities. This makes the god unfalsifiable. And if it isn't falsifiable, science could care less about it.

      November 2, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
    • AverageJoe76

      Or maybe man should just humble himself altogether? Admit that 'us' knowing what the 'creator of reality' wants from us, is pretty darn outlandish. Humans cant even fathom that power, let alone speak to the being in control of everything. We fight over our imagination of what 'it' wants. And can't confirm what 'it' is. We've never grown up. We're still children with competing imaginations. And it still basically boils down to 'who's got enough power to enforce their imagination?' .......Or maybe I'm just standing too close to these illegally dumped chemicals in this abandoned lot...

      November 2, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • religion; a way to control the weak minded

      The only problem is you do not know anything you speak of. You speculate based on an ancient book written by men, then edited by more men to gain power, money and to convert pagans to christianity. The words of the bible are the words of mere mortals, not god.

      November 8, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
      • dconklin58

        >The words of the bible are the words of mere mortals, not god.

        You can't prove that and many, not all Christians do not believe in verbal inspiration.

        >an ancient book written by men, then edited by more men to gain power, money and to convert pagans to christianity.

        Except that most of it was written long BEFORE Christianity even came into existence. Secondly, even portions of the NT were not written for the purpose of converting pagans to Christianity.

        >The only problem is you do not know anything you speak of.

        Truer words were never spoken.

        November 8, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
  2. Alex

    I would like to point out that their findings are based on expected vs. received results. This is the premise that arguments between Creationists and Evolutionists are caused by. It is a matter of interpreting results to suit your world view.

    November 2, 2012 at 11:23 am |
    • dconklin58

      >"It is a matter of interpreting results to suit your world view."

      I use the analogy of Custer's Last Stand. Prior to the battle they came across Indian campsites. The way things normally worked is that the Idnians would set up camp, let their horses out to graze and when they had eaten all the fresh grass, the Indians would pick up and move. So, when Cuter came across all these camp sites his scouts and he assumed this was sequential, one after another. But other Indian scouts looked at the same evidence and said no, all these camp sites were all here at the same time. Unfortunately for Custer, they then let it slip, "But we've never seen this many Indians (far more than the 350 that they thought they were after) in one place like this." So, Custer and his others scouts said/thought: "Well, then, OBVIOUSLY, you are wrong." And we all know how well that turned out.

      November 2, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
  3. jimdog33

    How old is the super-galactic black hole known as Detroit?

    November 2, 2012 at 11:21 am |
  4. Nick Fraher

    CNN This article is completely factually incorrect. This extragalactic light is from when the universe was 4 MILLION years old. Not 4 billion. Can somebody please fact check this stuff, or at least fix it. Thanks

    November 2, 2012 at 11:19 am |
    • khan in chandler

      Thanks for correcting that. I was wondering about that as the scientist were already inside the billionth mark.

      November 2, 2012 at 11:51 am |
  5. Confu2012

    Scientists say there must have been a big bang based on the fact that all the galaxies are moving outward radially from a common center point. Assuming that is true and that there was a big bang 13 billion years ago, I fail to understand why light from before the big bang has still not reached us – have we and the galaxies moving outward faster than light?

    November 2, 2012 at 11:15 am |
    • Jeremiah Obrien

      Yes! And also, no. During the early days (millenia) of the universe, the universe expanded faster than the speed of light. Now, before anyone starts pointing towards relativity and all that, it is important to understand that relativity dictates that nothing can travel THROUGH space faster than light (in a vacuum), but it does not dicate how space itself can move, specifically in this case expand. It's like an ant walking the length of a rubber band as you stretch it. The ant moves at the same rate, but more distance is created as you expand the piece of elastic material.

      As long as the space between the early light sources and where Earth would eventually form has expanded fast and sufficiently enough, the light would need time to make up this new expanded distance once the expansion later slowed. Which it has, though it is said to be speeding up agian, but that's another story.

      November 2, 2012 at 11:24 am |
      • Oscar Pitchfork

        It wasn't even that the Universe expanded faster than the speed of light. Most people have a hard time comprehending the face that before the Universe expanded, there wasn't even any space to expand into yet. Just as gravity doesn't bend light, but bends the space that light travels in, the Universe exploded all at once, maybe instantaneously (for all we know, really), before it ended up whrer things are now.

        November 2, 2012 at 11:52 am |
    • Robert

      Because prior to the big bang, there was nothing – no light prior to the big bang, so there's no light to receive. Your question presumes there was light before the bang.

      November 2, 2012 at 11:36 am |
    • I'm The Best

      Space can expand faster than light, but just space, everything else takes a bit of time to... fill the void.

      But, to explain how the scientists are looking at this stuff, and it isn't because of the universe expanding faster than light. Every direction we look we're looking into the past, for example, if we see something that is 4 lightyears away, then we are seeing that object as it was 4 years ago. So an object at 4 billion light years away, we're seeing it as it was 4 billion years ago. These scientists have found a way to measure only the light coming from objects that are over ~10 billion lightyears away so 10 billion years ago, or 4 billion years old after the big bang. Getting that total light, they can see how bright the universe was at 4 billion years old.

      And everything isn't moving out radially from a center point where the big bang happened, which is why every direction looks the same, there isn't one direction we can look that would be the center of the universe. There is no point where the big bang happened for everything to move out away from.

      So we're always looking into the past no matter which direction we look, we're always looking toward the beginning of the universe, torwards the big bang. Isn't that neat?
      Hope that helped clear some things up.

      November 2, 2012 at 11:50 am |
    • paul321

      no – space is not expanding out from a central point – its expanding everywhere. for a 2 dimensional analogy, put dots on a balloon and then inflate it – on the surface, every dot will move away from every other dot there is no point of origin – the expanding universe is like this except in 3 dimensions.

      Imagine 12" cube made up of 1"cubes. ALL the cubes increase in size to 1.1" – every cube moves away from every other with cubes further away moving further – this is the expanding universe. In this situation there is no central point that the bigger cube is moving away from , instead every point is moving away from every other.

      November 2, 2012 at 12:07 pm |
    • Jason

      There was not any light prior to the Big Bang, nor in a time afterwards, as nothing was formed that could generate light.

      November 2, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
  6. Jeremiah Obrien

    Tide goes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that.

    November 2, 2012 at 11:14 am |
    • snowboarder

      jer – who can't explain that? everyone know what makes the tides.

      November 2, 2012 at 11:27 am |
      • drowlord

        Bill O'Reilly, that's who. It's a much-ridiculed quote from his show, where he was arguing that the world is full of mysteries that science can't explain. In fact, it's so broadly ridiculed that there was a popular picture meme of his picture with a bunch of easily explained stuff at the top with "you can't explain that" at the bottom.

        November 2, 2012 at 12:07 pm |
    • Doo

      Yeah I can, God did it. Unless your a heathen then science can also explain it rather quickly

      November 2, 2012 at 12:04 pm |
  7. zombiemaster

    Religion is based on opinion and faith... not political problems or the economy, A religious view is not much different than a political view, because you are bias over a certain view of yours, I am a christian and a democrat, I believe God helps everybody, so He is definitely not a Republican, God is for everyone, not just the upper class... sorry if anyone is offended by this, but seriously, don't preach about Romney under an article about the UNIVERSE!!

    November 2, 2012 at 10:19 am |
    • CLOS

      you don't have to be a Dem to believe you have to help everyone. That doesn't mean all Reps are bad. I could easily say all Dems are hippies who want everyone else to take care of them. Being a fiscal conservative is not about slashing programs that help the poor, or improve health care, or ensure a social safety net. It's about insisting services are provided efficiently, get to only the people that need them, and achieve the desired results. Fiscal conservatives have hearts too — but we also insist on using our brains, and that means demanding results and holding government accountable for producing them.
      To me, fiscal conservatism means balancing budgets — not running deficits that the next generation can't afford. It means improving the efficiency of delivering services by finding innovative ways to do more with less. It means cutting taxes when possible and prudent to do so, raising them overall only when necessary to balance the budget, and only in combination with spending cuts. It means when you run a surplus, you save it; you don't squander it. And most importantly, being a fiscal conservative means preparing for the inevitable economic downturns — and by all indications, we've got one coming.

      November 2, 2012 at 11:05 am |
  8. Sane Person

    What do scientists know? Why should I believe a collaboration of the most brilliant minds ever, with their "facts",, when I can just listen to religious laymen and their 3000 year old point of view ? They obviously know better.

    November 2, 2012 at 10:11 am |
    • Zaximus

      Ummm...just because. How can you deny this logic?

      November 2, 2012 at 10:37 am |
    • josh

      "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate. Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" 1 cor 1:19,20

      1 JOhn 1:5 "God is light"

      November 2, 2012 at 11:06 am |
      • ironman59

        Of course a book of fairytales used by those in power would condemn science and research. Facts and information are the enemy of religion. With enlightenment people realize that those fairytales never happened and the elite lose their control of the masses. Religion has always condemned scientific advancement because it will, in time put religion out of business.

        November 2, 2012 at 11:14 am |
      • dconklin58

        >"Religion has always condemned scientific advancement because it will, in time put religion out of business."

        Try studying some history. For example, Galileo was punished by the church because other scientists of the day were jealous of the funding he was getting from the CHURCH. This was reported in Scientific American.

        November 2, 2012 at 1:11 pm |
      • josh

        18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:

        “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;

        the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”c

        20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.

        26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.”d

        1 cor 1:18-31

        November 2, 2012 at 11:33 am |
      • snowboarder

        josh – the bible is a collection of occasionally noble myths.

        November 2, 2012 at 11:33 am |
      • dconklin58

        >"the bible is a collection of occasionally noble myths."

        You can't prove that. C. S. Lewis studied myths for a living; see what he says on the subject.

        November 2, 2012 at 1:02 pm |
      • paul321

        josh – how do you know the bible really is the word of god and not just the word of a bunch of frustrated old men with long beards?

        November 2, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
      • josh

        @Paul Because I have the Spirit of God living in my. The Bible says that you can not understand the mind of God until you have the Spirit of God living in you. The Bible also says that faith comes by hearing the word of God. I know because God has given me faith. He has faith for everyone that searches for Him with a true heart. Where do you hear the Word of God? Church. You can also read the Bible as well.

        LIke Saul before he was Paul and wrote over 1/4 of the New Testament. The scales have been lifted. I was blind but now I see. Seek Him and He will give you His peace. Do it with a genuine heart. The choice is yours. That is the awesome thing about God. You don't need me or anyone to find Him. If you really start asking Him to reveal himself and make every effor to find Him He will reveal Himself to you. Jesus dies and was raised from the gave by the Father. He is the son of God. That is true wisdom.

        November 2, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
      • yoyo

        Unless the Spirit of God reveled to you, as a human you can never understand what the bible says. If you have the will to know about the true God, ask Him his guidance to give you the understanding of His word. The bible says those who worship Him (The true God), worship him in truth and in Spirit (Spirit of God). Take time and ask God to tell you if the bible is indeed the true word of God.

        November 2, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
    • Rob-Texas

      Of course they should, the facts support the Bible. Not hard to see that. Obviously the Bible doesn't tell us everything about our history. There are very few Christians that don't believe in science.

      November 2, 2012 at 11:30 am |
  9. ryan

    Maybe they'll find the planet Kolob where Mitt Romney's god is living. Yep, that's what he believes while he wears his magic underpants!

    November 2, 2012 at 10:07 am |
  10. ROMNEY 2012 AND FOREVER AMEN

    Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
    He is trampling out the Democrats where Obama and Taxes are stored;
    He hath loosed the fateful lightning to fry those worthless Democrats
    His truth is marching on.

    Glory, glory, hallelujah!
    Vote, Mitt Romney, hallelujah!
    God would vote for Romney, hallelujah!
    Republicans are marching to victory!

    I have seen Obama in the hell-fires of Satan's Democratic Office,
    They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
    I can read the henious tax raises by the dim and flaring lamps:
    Obama's loss is our victory.

    Glory, glory, hallelujah!
    Vote, Mitt Romney, hallelujah!
    God would vote for Romney, hallelujah!
    Republicans are marching to victory!

    I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
    "As ye deal with worthless Democrats, so with you my grace shall deal;
    Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the Obama with his heel,
    Since Romney is marching on."

    Glory, glory, hallelujah!
    Vote, Mitt Romney, hallelujah!
    God would vote for Romney, hallelujah!
    Republicans are marching to victory!

    He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
    He is sifting out the votes of men before His judgment-seat:
    Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet!
    Our Romney is marching on.

    Glory, glory, hallelujah!
    Vote, Mitt Romney, hallelujah!
    God would vote for Romney, hallelujah!
    Republicans are marching to victory!

    In the filth of Kenyan plains Obama was born across the sea,
    With a liberal hate in His bosom he will tax both you and me:
    He's the worst person to be born in entire humanity,,
    While Romney is marching on.

    Glory, glory, hallelujah!
    Vote, Mitt Romney, hallelujah!
    God would vote for Romney, hallelujah!
    Republicans are marching to victory!

    Mitt is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave,
    He is Wisdom to the mighty, He is Succour to the brave,
    So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of Time His slave,
    Our GOP is marching on.

    Glory, glory, hallelujah!
    Vote, Mitt Romney, hallelujah!
    God would vote for Romney, hallelujah!
    Republicans are marching to victory!

    VOTE ROMNEY , THANK YOU AND GOOD NIGHT!

    November 2, 2012 at 9:47 am |
    • skued

      God would vote for Rommney? Really? how would you know? Anyway God can't vote. But I have to believe voting for a Mormon would be the wrong thing to do.

      November 2, 2012 at 9:54 am |
      • Randall "texrat" Arnold

        There's no cure for delusion that deep.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:55 am |
      • eegur beevur

        God can't vote because He has no arms. Also, He has no brains.... wait a sec, yes, He would vote for Romney!

        November 2, 2012 at 10:02 am |
    • Gunny

      Fruitcake season is upon us. Smart guys rule. Right wingnuts go back to school.

      November 2, 2012 at 10:51 am |
  11. Buck

    Check out this latest discovery by NASA. It could forever change the way we perceive the planetary searching game....

    http://www.fountainsofthegreatdeep.com/Alien.htm

    November 2, 2012 at 9:34 am |
    • snowboarder

      nasarthebest. you and your infantile site. always good for a laugh.

      November 2, 2012 at 9:38 am |
  12. Spring

    They get all the way to the beginning of the universe and find a kid with glasses staring at them through a hole in a cardboard box! :)

    November 2, 2012 at 9:33 am |
    • Randall "texrat" Arnold

      #win

      November 2, 2012 at 9:56 am |
    • eyeswideopen

      Pretty much.

      November 2, 2012 at 10:47 am |
  13. exactspace

    "probe our universe when it was so young" WOW... WRONG words to use there. Makes the author sound like a universe pedophile.

    November 2, 2012 at 9:27 am |
  14. jose

    the interesting thing here is that these people do believe or would like us to believe that what they are saying is true, but I do not believe they know and much less that the universe came to be from an explosion or bang, not posible and not true

    November 2, 2012 at 9:19 am |
    • Cedar Rapids

      "and much less that the universe came to be from an explosion or bang, not posible and not true"

      unless you are able to understand the science in question you cant really be in a position to claim its not possible or not true.

      November 2, 2012 at 9:21 am |
    • Dave

      Religion is for the weak minded.

      November 2, 2012 at 9:27 am |
      • dconklin58

        >"Religion is for the weak minded."

        Religion is your value construct of reality–without it you cannot function. Sorry to hear that your religion is for the wek-minded.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:39 am |
    • Randall "texrat" Arnold

      It's so easy to speak from ignorance. Learning stuff is hard!

      November 2, 2012 at 9:32 am |
      • dconklin58

        >"Learning stuff is hard!"

        The bad news is that far too many people are willfully ignorant.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:34 am |
      • Primewonk

        " The bad news is that far too many people are willfully ignorant."

        Exactly. And that includes every single fundamentalist christian who thinks humans were created by god less than 10,000 years ago. Sadly, that is half of the adult population in the US.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:53 am |
      • dconklin58

        I'm an old-earther who suggests that there may have been multiple creations of life on this planet.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:57 am |
      • Primewonk

        " I'm an old-earther who suggests that there may have been multiple creations of life on this planet."

        Unicellular life began about 3.5 billion years ago. It evolved into all you see today. Modern humans evolved 200,000 years ago. We evolved from earlier hominids. Humans and chimps diverged from a common ancestor that lived 5 million years ago. Humans and monkeys diverged from a common ancestor that lived 20 million years ago.

        Is that what you meant?

        November 2, 2012 at 10:15 am |
      • dconklin58

        >"Unicellular life began about 3.5 billion years ago. It evolved into all you see today. "

        Not enough time for that to have happened.

        November 2, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
    • InFormed

      Wow, you must be the greatest scientist of all time, to be able to conclude that with such authority. What tripe.

      November 2, 2012 at 9:37 am |
    • Primewonk

      Thee Big Bang was neither big, nor a bang. There was no explosion. This has been explained to you ignorant fundiot nutters add nauseum. Yet here you are, repossting the exact same fundiot bullshit.

      Why do you nutters denigrate what you clearly do not understand?

      November 2, 2012 at 10:32 am |
  15. Sane Person

    If all you religious people are so anti-science, throw out your computers :D

    November 2, 2012 at 9:19 am |
    • Franco

      I cant, I need it for my job so I can pay taxes to keep Scientists employed.

      November 2, 2012 at 9:24 am |
    • dconklin58

      >"If all you religious people are so anti-science, throw out your computers :D"

      Yeah, that's real constructive advice. When you are unable to use reason and logic to support your case, why do you rush out to prove it?

      November 2, 2012 at 9:25 am |
      • Primewonk

        Fundiot (fundamentalist idiots) nuuters decry evolution as a lie from the pits of hell. Yet it is evolution that is responsible for the antibiotics and vaccines these cretins use. It is evolution that is responsible for the very food they eat. Either natural evolution, or humans using selective breeding in plants and animals.

        Fundiot nutters decry cosmology and the big bang as a lie from the pits of hell. Yet, the function of the universe is based in quantum mechanics. The same quantum mechanics that is responsible for the computer the type their lies on. The same quantum mechanics that makes the GPS in their phone work.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:47 am |
      • dconklin58

        True and not relevant to the point I made–therefore it is non sequitur. Did you critics take any logic classes?

        November 2, 2012 at 9:52 am |
  16. Nu7

    Maybe a theory that combines science and religion
    Start from 3:20

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CPdZCu2ip4&w=640&h=390]

    November 2, 2012 at 9:13 am |
    • snowboarder

      which of the myriad of religions invented by man over the ages would you suggest we use?

      your religion, of course.

      November 2, 2012 at 9:33 am |
      • Nu7

        no not mine, big bang theory combined with creation theory. Happy? which god? there is only one god ya?

        November 2, 2012 at 10:09 am |
      • Primewonk

        " no not mine, big bang theory combined with creation theory. Happy? which god? there is only one god ya?"

        Please post the citation to the peer-reviewed paper published in a referred science journal discribing this creation theory you speak of.

        Plus, we have invented 10's of thousands of gods since we became modern humans 200,000 years ago. Your god is no more, nor no less real or special than any of these thousands of other gods.

        November 2, 2012 at 10:43 am |
      • dconklin58

        >"Please post the citation to the peer-reviewed paper published in a referred science journal discribing this creation theory you speak of."

        Otherwise known as stacking the deck. We could just as well flip it around and say show me a peer-reviewed paper by an atheist in a scholarly religious journal proving that God does not exist.

        Scientific American used to have a page devoted to Amateur Scientist, showing us experiments we could run at home. Then they found out he was a creationist and propmtly fired him. After all, we all "know" that creationists can't do science, even when we show that we can.

        November 2, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
      • eyeswideopen

        Read the 10 commandments. Thou shall not have any other gods before me. Implies there are other gods.

        November 2, 2012 at 10:56 am |
      • snowboarder

        nu7 – there is no such thing as creation theory. creation is mythology and supported by nothing.

        November 2, 2012 at 12:05 pm |
      • dconklin58

        >"creation is mythology and supported by nothing."

        1) You can't prove that.
        2) The idea of an intelligent being being the creator is far more reasonable that everything coming about naturalistically–someone had to set the basic rules. We see this in the likeness of various animals, blood and structure for instance.

        Think of God as an uber-scientist who has masterd the ability to transfer in some way energy into matter. He creates a single cell animal, runs it through thousand if not millions of tests in various environments to see how well it works and then replicates it–why re-create the wheel after all?

        November 2, 2012 at 12:30 pm |
    • Judas Priest

      You can call it a theory all you want. People who understand the word "theory" call what's in this clip word games, oversimplification, and deliberate misinterpretation.

      November 2, 2012 at 10:54 am |
  17. ROMNE 2012 AND FOREVER AMEN

    You can't deny the LORD
    Obama may try, but that's what antichrists do
    Vote for Romney, it's the only sane choice
    Jesus would vote for Mitt Romney, who are you to question Jesus?

    November 2, 2012 at 9:04 am |
    • ryan

      What the heck does this have to do with anything? Your comment just gave me cancer.

      November 2, 2012 at 9:07 am |
      • Franco

        Ryan - I think you need some anger management help. A little meditation goes a long way. Relax man, life is too short. Peace and love to you and may your day be filled joy.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:14 am |
    • Cedar Rapids

      not the best trolling ive seen.

      November 2, 2012 at 9:12 am |
      • ROMNEY 2012 AND FOREVER AMEN

        Jesus loves you!

        November 2, 2012 at 9:24 am |
    • The Jackdaw

      You propose you know the thoughts of God? Jesus was anti-establishment. That doesn’t seem like Romney at all. I think your view of Jesus is a little backwards.

      November 2, 2012 at 9:12 am |
      • ROMNEY 2012 AND FOREVER AMEN

        Jesus loves you in spite of your shortcomings.
        Mitt Romney is also forgiving, for he will extend the Olive Branch to the fallen democrats.
        he will lift them up with the grace of God and toss those that resist to the hellfires!

        November 2, 2012 at 9:14 am |
      • dconklin58

        >"Mitt Romney is also forgiving, for he will extend the Olive Branch to the fallen democrats. he will lift them up with the grace of God and toss those that resist to the hellfires!"

        ROFL! And if you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you, cheap even! GET OUT AND VOTE ON TUESDAY!

        November 2, 2012 at 9:32 am |
      • Franco

        @JackDaw -- Gotta agree with you on this one.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:16 am |
      • Franco

        I have to go to work now, so I can pay taxes and keep the Scientists funded. Have a good day to you all. May we all one day live in peace and love.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:23 am |
      • Randall "texrat" Arnold

        Franco, you're also paying taxes to fund wars, oil industry subsidies and all kinds of things much nastier than scientists. Well, most of them, anyway.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:34 am |
    • Evangel

      Being an Evangelical I am unable to vote for Romney. I was taught that Mormanism is a cult because they believe Jesus was just a man and that everyone will become a God. As a Cristian, I can not believe you would risk your soul by empowering a Bishop of a cult. I pray that you make the correct decision on electrion day for your souls sake. If anything do not vote.

      November 2, 2012 at 9:26 am |
      • ROMNEY 2012 AND FOREVER AMEN

        The only sane decision is to chose the Man of GOD and not the black antichrist.
        I vote for the LORD!

        November 2, 2012 at 9:31 am |
      • dconklin58

        >"the black antichrist."

        There's no such as a black antichrist. Try actually reading the Bible for yourself.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:35 am |
      • Denzig

        All religions are cults. But If there were a god I'm quite certain s/he/it would hate you and everything you stand for.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:42 am |
      • dconklin58

        >"All religions are cults. "

        That proves that you don't know what a cult is.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:44 am |
      • Primewonk

        From Merriam-Webster (the dictionary people) -

        Cult – 1. formal religious veneration : worship

        2. a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents

        So, yes, all religious sects are cults.

        November 2, 2012 at 10:50 am |
      • dconklin58

        >"So, yes, all religious sects are cults."

        As compared to the lie we were told that all religions are cults.

        November 2, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
      • Judas Priest

        I'm voting for Batman. He's not the hero America deserves, but he's the hero America needs, right now.

        November 2, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
    • skued

      Don't worry athesiets love you too

      November 2, 2012 at 9:56 am |
  18. Light Ray

    When I was much younger, I asked my teacher about the stars and determined that it is likely that they aren't even there any more. With that said, what if there was light from even older stars that we no longer see because it has travelled on past our view? It is entirely possible that the universe is older than 4 billion years, yet many cling to these theories as absolutes. The sad part of this half baked article is that they didn't really share any information about what they found. As for me, my God is science and I hate to see such limiting and pointless psuedo scientific articles such as this one. In journalism, there is this new thing called 'cite your sources', which this article failed to do properly. Go to sciencemag dot com and search for extragalactic background light to see the real version of the story for which this article poorly attempted to paraphrase.

    November 2, 2012 at 8:57 am |
    • robbo88

      Scientist just have a curiosity to seek the truth and I think that is what drives them to find the physical evidence of how this universe was created. You can have all of the faith you want but it doesn't prove anything.

      November 2, 2012 at 9:13 am |
      • dconklin58

        >"You can have all of the faith you want but it doesn't prove anything."

        No one said that it did.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:32 am |
    • Randall "texrat" Arnold

      Many cling absolutely to ignorance, too. I'll take scientific theories over that any day, thanks.

      Oh, and the universe is estimated to be between 13 billion and 15 billion years old. More than 4. You misunderstood that part of the article. Ironic.

      November 2, 2012 at 9:37 am |
    • ibanezerscrooge

      The Universe is older than 4 billion years. The Earth is about 4.7 billion years old. The Universe is thought to be about 14 billion years old based on current observations.

      November 2, 2012 at 9:38 am |
  19. Franco

    Why is it so difficult to say that scientific discoveries have created havoc here on Earth? You can say that science discoveries have been used without knowing all their positive and negative potential. Sometimes I truly believe that the Earth and the species that inhabit it could have been spared had not been for the short sightedness of Scientists.

    November 2, 2012 at 8:54 am |
    • ryan

      Could have been spared from what? The only thing we need to be spared from is the ignorance of fools like yourself.

      November 2, 2012 at 8:55 am |
      • Franco

        spared from destruction.

        November 2, 2012 at 8:59 am |
    • Sane Person

      You are ignorant by choice

      November 2, 2012 at 8:56 am |
    • Cedar Rapids

      short sightedness of scientists? are you for real?

      November 2, 2012 at 9:02 am |
    • The Jackdaw

      Science flies people to the moon. Religion flies them into buildings. Go hide your head in the sand if you think Astronomy kills people. You are what is wrong with the world today. Fear, misunderstanding and the desire to halt progress and reward ignorance.

      November 2, 2012 at 9:04 am |
      • dconklin58

        >"Religion flies them into buildings."

        Really?!? How many Buddhists have flown planes into buildings? How many Taoists have flown planes into buildings? How many Hindus have flown planes into buildings? Do all Moslems fly planes into buildings? You have the mind-set of the simple-minded, narrow-minded bigot.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:17 am |
    • snowboarder

      franco – that is plainly absurd. anything can be used for good or bad purposes. knowledge has no intent.

      November 2, 2012 at 9:04 am |
    • clepto

      geez people...did you forget your coffee this morning? I think he means things such as the atomic bomb...maybe read what he wrote more closely....

      November 2, 2012 at 9:17 am |
      • Cedar Rapids

        actually he also mentioned things like oil and such.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:23 am |
      • dconklin58

        clepto: "maybe read what he wrote more closely."

        That requires work. Some people approach things in life with an agenda. Note that in many of the posts they cannot even construct a decent English sentence.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:28 am |
      • Patrick

        His quote is "at inhabit it could have been spared had not been for the short sightedness of Scientist", hard to "misunderstand that. Maybe you should read the post a bit more clearly!

        November 2, 2012 at 10:16 am |
    • Cranium

      Yeah, I hate things like medicine, refrigeration, paper, modern building materials, electricity, running water, heat, etc.

      If you're trying to imply that science is the root of all evil, aka, the reason we have war and famine, you're better off looking towards religion and money. Religion and greed are the primary causes for every war ever fought in the history of the world. Science is then employed to invent new ways to win those wars, but you can't blame science. Blame the people who use it to create war and further personal gain over the gain of society.

      November 2, 2012 at 9:18 am |
    • Randall "texrat" Arnold

      It's disingenuous to blame the tool for the faults of a user.

      November 2, 2012 at 9:38 am |
      • dconklin58

        >"It's disingenuous to blame the tool for the faults of a user."

        Very good, Randall!

        November 2, 2012 at 9:45 am |
  20. Franco

    I look at the results of Scientific discoveries here on Earth and very few discoveries have been truly free from negative consequences, such as the use of oil, atoms and so on. This is what I mean when I say arrogance and short sightedness. In a way Science is no better than organized religion.

    November 2, 2012 at 8:43 am |
    • Sane Person

      You must be trolling. Nobody is that brainwashed and simple-minded.

      November 2, 2012 at 8:50 am |
      • dconklin58

        People who use the term "brainwashed" are usually simple-minded trolls.

        November 2, 2012 at 8:55 am |
      • Franco

        No, not trolling, just a disappointed human being at to where our state of the Earth is today, all because we thought we knew it all when we discovered certain things to make our life "better", when in fact it only made things worse in the long run. I little knowledge is dangerous, not knowing the full impact over the long haul. Believe it or not I do care for you too and I hope that some day we will all find a way to truly live at peace with all that exists here on Earth.

        November 2, 2012 at 8:57 am |
    • robbo88

      Your comment seems arrogant and short sighted.

      November 2, 2012 at 8:55 am |
    • Neal

      If science is such crap, then turn off your computer, Franco, and chuck it out the window.

      November 2, 2012 at 9:03 am |
      • Franco

        I did not call science crap, I called Scientists short sighted and arrogant, not knowing the full impact of their discoveries. Yes, the computer I am using is a scientific discovery and also pollutes the Earth and so do does the SUV I drive, so you can call me hypocritical.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:09 am |
      • Randall "texrat" Arnold

        Franco, your brush is way too broad.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:39 am |
      • dconklin58

        And Neal's "If science is such crap, then turn off your computer, Franco, and chuck it out the window." wasn't?

        November 2, 2012 at 9:43 am |
      • Randall "texrat" Arnold

        @dconklin58 fair point, but be careful: that kind of question gets into logical fallacy territory.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:58 am |
      • dconklin58

        Lost of posts show that they didn't takle any logic classes, whatsoever. So, in asking the question I was being facetious.

        November 2, 2012 at 10:01 am |
    • allynom

      Right. Because organized religion brought us electricity and antibiotics.

      November 2, 2012 at 9:07 am |
      • Franco

        There are now drug resistant bacteria because of misuse of antibiotics, used properly they are good for humanity, but then some can also say that maybe we should have left things up to nature.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:11 am |
      • dconklin58

        The early scientists who brought us the fundamental discoveries were Christians seeking to understand the ways of God.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:14 am |
      • Cedar Rapids

        "The early scientists who brought us the fundamental discoveries were Christians seeking to understand the ways of God."

        actually the earliest scientists predated christianity.....ancient greeks, middle east, etc.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:20 am |
      • dconklin58

        Modern scientiists, like Newton, et al.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:23 am |
      • Cedar Rapids

        "dconklin58

        Modern scientiists, like Newton, et al."

        sorry, its just you said earliest scientists.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:24 am |
      • dconklin58

        Slip of the tongue–If you had followed the thread it was talking about discovering electricty, not the number zero, or fire.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:41 am |
      • Primewonk

        In the time of Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, etc., of course all the scientists were religious. The all pervasive church owned and controlled the colleges and universities. You couldn't even get admitted to the school unless you pledged to believe what the church told you to believe.

        By the way, as brilliant as Newton was, he still was scientifically ignorant about many things. He still believed in astrology and alchemy.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:34 am |
      • Noel

        Actually A lot of people in the early & previous scientific community believe in a creator. Forget religion it is the worst press agent God could ever hope for. Disbelieve all you want at your final day you will be astonished :)

        November 2, 2012 at 10:59 am |
    • Cedar Rapids

      "I called Scientists short sighted and arrogant, not knowing the full impact of their discoveries"

      arrogant? for discovering something? dont be silly.
      sorry franco but ultimately your comment boils down if would be better for the planet if mankind wasnt around, and in that you are certainly right, but dont blame scientists for this crap as mankind has a history of destroying our world without 'science' being the driving force.

      November 2, 2012 at 9:16 am |
  21. Patrick

    Wow, Franco you are a piece of work!! The arrogance of scientists, that is rich! The most humblest people on this planet are scientists. I am tried of listening to people who have zero ability in critical thinking, and instead are slaves to whatever BS has been poured into their brains when they were kids.

    November 2, 2012 at 8:36 am |
    • Franco

      There is no such thing as a humble Scientist.

      November 2, 2012 at 8:44 am |
      • dj1s

        Would you know humble if it walked up and shook your hand?

        There is some doubt that you would.

        November 2, 2012 at 8:59 am |
    • dconklin58

      Patrick: "I am tried of listening to people who have zero ability in critical thinking, and instead are slaves to whatever BS has been poured into their brains when they were kids."

      Have you been published in a scholarly refereed journal? I have. Your remarks show that you are doing what you are talking about.

      November 2, 2012 at 9:03 am |
      • ryan

        dconklin58 – Let's see your published article then. Based on your comments I'm guessing it's not for anything factual.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:14 am |
      • dconklin58

        Plagiary 2008. The editor said that the reviewers noted its "high quality and cogent tone."

        Or, you can email me and I'll send you a pdf copy of the book (466 pages).

        November 2, 2012 at 9:30 am |
      • ibanezerscrooge

        I should like a copy of your book. How do I email you?

        November 2, 2012 at 9:45 am |
      • dconklin58

        dconklin58@yahoo.com

        November 2, 2012 at 9:52 am |
      • Patrick

        And can you please explain how my comment even remotely implies that? If you are telling me that anyone with critical thinking faculties can logically conclude that there is evidence for god, you have no idea what critical thinking actually is. There is ZERO evidence for the existence of god, ZERO.

        November 2, 2012 at 10:23 am |
      • dconklin58

        Patrick: " If you are telling me that anyone with critical thinking faculties can logically conclude that there is evidence for god, you have no idea what critical thinking actually is."

        Non seguitur with what I said and I said no such thing. The fact that you brought it up shows that you lack critical thinking skills.

        November 2, 2012 at 11:00 am |
  22. Sane Person

    Science isn't perfect so therefore the logical thing to do is deny science as a whole and believe in fairy tales with zero evidence.

    November 2, 2012 at 8:35 am |
    • Franco

      We probably would not have decimated nature.

      November 2, 2012 at 8:45 am |
      • ryan

        Crusades, Inquisition, which hunts, etc

        November 2, 2012 at 8:52 am |
  23. ryan

    Look at all the jesus freaks scrambling to defend their bronze age myths! Hilarious!

    November 2, 2012 at 8:33 am |
    • Franco

      Where?

      November 2, 2012 at 8:46 am |
      • ryan

        Look! Right there he is, in your post! He's the one with the empty space between his ears and rambling on about science being "no better" than religion! Hilarious, I know!

        November 2, 2012 at 8:53 am |
      • dconklin58

        "He's the one with the empty space between his ears"

        No class, no decent upbringing and his parents should have washed his mouth out with soap more often.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:21 am |
  24. rudix

    the scientists that say they "know the beginning of the universe", they know how the universe looked in the "first minute" are the same that are telling you this balony...they are A.Lying B.with such a big ego that they believe in there own stuff C.Dumb or all together....it is so arrogant for any human to stay this...we are so small and our knowledge is so littlel.....i hope that you know what i am saying....a little about it you can read at THE DIMENSION MACHINE

    November 2, 2012 at 8:14 am |
    • ryan

      Well this has to be the most ridiculous comment of the day.

      November 2, 2012 at 8:23 am |
    • Patrick

      I'm guessing you must be a mathematical genius with PhD in Astrophysics to make this statement. Go read some proper science books!

      November 2, 2012 at 8:27 am |
    • alpg49

      People want to know why the US is so far behind in Math and Science... Seems obvious from some of these posts!

      November 2, 2012 at 8:34 am |
  25. Franco

    Science only provides answers with the physical aspects of existence and even with that the Scientists have been wrong on may occasions and they do not admit that they were wrong.

    November 2, 2012 at 7:22 am |
    • Eric G

      They don't admit they were wrong? Can you please provide an example? Science welcomes new evidence.

      It is the religious who deny verifiable evidence. It is the religious who do not admit they were wrong.

      November 2, 2012 at 7:48 am |
      • Franco

        wrong.

        November 2, 2012 at 8:17 am |
      • Franco

        What Scientists say is that in light of new evidence will will have to adjust our theory of whatever, when in fact they were wrong. This message board is not big enough to list all the specifics. No scientific assumption has ever been truly correct and it does have its limitation since it cannot see what a particular discovery will do to life on Earth, such as the manipulation of chemicals and fossil fuels and anyone can see the consequences of that.

        November 2, 2012 at 8:25 am |
      • Patrick

        You obviously have ZERO training in the scientific method. Read ANY science paper and you will see that all data is presented as "most likely" or "to the best of our knowledge". Scientists never claim to be 100% right, we come up with theories then do experiments to validate or refute them. Your use of the word 'wrong' misses the whole point. At least scientists are open-minded enough to admit that their theories might not stand up to new discoveries, try telling that to the religious.

        November 2, 2012 at 8:31 am |
    • Primewonk

      Well Franco, that's because there are only physical aspects to the universe. There is no "supernatural" aspect. Your other comment shows that you do not have a freaking clue as to how science works.

      November 2, 2012 at 8:18 am |
      • Franco

        The truth hurts.

        November 2, 2012 at 8:34 am |
      • Patrick

        Indeed it does, pity you haven't found the truth yet

        November 2, 2012 at 8:37 am |
    • ryan

      Franco, can you prove something is "supernatural"? No? I didn't think so – now shut the heck up.

      November 2, 2012 at 8:23 am |
      • Franco

        ryan - Can you actually prove the beginning of the universe and you do not have to shut up.

        November 2, 2012 at 8:35 am |
    • Sane Person

      You're right, Franco.. Scientists aren't right 100% of the time and they don't know absolutely everything about the universe... therefore we should deny scientific facts and science as a whole, and believe in ancient fairy tales that have zero evidence to support their ridiculous claims.

      November 2, 2012 at 8:30 am |
      • Franco

        Look at the damage that scientific discoveries have done to our planet that we all share. This is all because of Scientists big egos and short sightedness.

        November 2, 2012 at 8:38 am |
      • Sane Person

        First of all, discoveries don't do damage. You're making things up. Also, you seem to criticize science for being arrogant and claiming to know everything about the world but yet you do the same thing with religion. The only difference is science has evidence and tests and religion just has a book. If you and your beliefs are so obviously threatened by science then why are you commenting on a science article?

        November 2, 2012 at 8:44 am |
  26. Elena

    Light from the beginning that it is still travelling to us, as if we were created at the same time or before them. I thought mater expanded and change and that this moment is the result of that change! just like the archaeologists who vehemently keep on arguing that age stone man using copper chisels and stones hammers cut polished, transported and mounted the 2 million stones of the great pyramids in just 20 years, one stone cut, polished and mounted every 2.5 minutes!
    anyways the masses are too lazy to do any thinking on their own

    November 2, 2012 at 6:32 am |
    • jkk

      They did not build them one stone at a time....they had crews of slaves, thousands of people, generations of individuals. I suppose you believe an alien came down and assembled them for us. Not sure who is more ridiculous: you or the masses of which you speak. Do some more reading.

      November 2, 2012 at 7:45 am |
    • Owl96

      When Henry Ford had his Model T assembly line working, one car came off the assembly line every 3 minutes. Image that! A car stamped, painted and assembled in only 3 minutes. Or...the Pyramid stones were cut and polished by thousands of laborers ahead of time, and many were laid simultaneously.

      November 2, 2012 at 7:46 am |
  27. believe it

    What they found was God´s hand in creating the universe.

    November 2, 2012 at 6:12 am |
    • keith

      lol

      November 2, 2012 at 6:49 am |
      • Franco

        Why is it that you cannot respect the above opinion? You do not know what started the process of how the universe came to be.

        November 2, 2012 at 7:04 am |
      • Eric G

        @Franco: The reason the above opinion should not be respected is because that opinion is not based in verifiable evidence. The results of these findings are measurable, testable and repeatable. This opinion is expressed in spite of verifiable evidence to the contrary. Their opinion required no dicipline to obtain and should be disregarded. Your inability to understand the difference is based in either an argument from ignorance or dishonesty.

        November 2, 2012 at 7:55 am |
    • theBmoll

      And his hand, like yours, is certainly busy...!

      November 2, 2012 at 7:02 am |
    • Franco

      I agree with you. The religion of Science is very arrogant. They do not know where the beginning of the Universe is. What if there is a big gap of space between the universe the that the light from the other part of the universe still has to appear?
      Science makes a lot of quick assumptions that get us in trouble later on. Look at the state of the Earth today and you will see what I mean. Scientists are very short sighted.

      November 2, 2012 at 7:09 am |
      • ryan

        Oh yes, but the church and all their wonderful "prophecies" are based on such solid evidence! Yes, a bat is a bird. Yes, the world is flat. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight......

        November 2, 2012 at 8:25 am |
      • Primewonk

        There is no religion of science. This again shows the profound depths of your scientific ignorance. There is no point in space for the beginning of the universe.

        Why do people who purposefully choose to be ignorant about science come onto science boards and demonstrate that ignorance for all to see?

        November 2, 2012 at 8:28 am |
      • Franco

        @ryan - you are making incorrect assumptions, where did I say church prophesies? I am sure that are Atheists that may have the same opinion as me on the arrogance of Scientists and their short sightedness. You do not have to look very var to see what I mean by short sightedness.

        November 2, 2012 at 8:29 am |
      • Franco

        @Primework - Check out the definition of religion and then you can see that strongly held beliefs can be called religious, it does not necessarily have to include a devine deity.

        November 2, 2012 at 8:32 am |
      • dconklin58

        Correct on the definition of religfion. You can be an atheist and be a Hindu. There is some question as to whether or not one has ot be live in a deity in order to be a Buddhist. Or, like Frank Sinatra: "Religion is whatever gets you through the night." Where's the deity there?

        November 2, 2012 at 9:11 am |
      • Primewonk

        Sorry Franco, that's more fundiot nutter bullshit. Science is no more a religion than bald is a hair color. Science is a method to examine the natural universe.

        Your posts are an excellent example of what happens when you choose to get your "sciency" sounding information from non-science sources, like the "Pastor Dave's" of the worldd. The problem with this approach is that "Pastor |Dave" is just as scientifically ignorant as his minions.

        November 2, 2012 at 8:56 am |
      • logicalgirl

        Scientists are not arrogant and short sighted. HUMANs are arrogant and short sighted. Is it not possible that the discovery, found using the best methods possible at this time, are just neutral? Fact has no claim to right or wrong, it is what we do with it that matters. And scientists move on to the next fact or item to discover. I would suggest that it is the rest of us- in the name of greed and pride and religion, etc that use those facts purposefully or not to our own ends due to laziness or whatever that harms others and the Earth. Yes- maybe the planet would be better off if we had never discovered anything. But would you have us never learn anything?

        November 2, 2012 at 9:30 am |
      • Nick

        @Franco
        "What if there is a big gap of space between the universe the that the light from the other part of the universe still has to appear?"
        -No problems there. All you have to do is wait and see. Unfortunately, humans have exceedingly short lifespans and funding for an ongoing observational scientific project beyond the expected lifetime of the Sun will be hard to justify.

        "Scientists are very short sighted."
        -Short sighted!??? Do you think seeking answers and implications of how nature works on the smallest scales to the largest scales is 'short sighted'? Galileo, Max Planck, Louis Pasteur, and Albert Einstein may not have foreseen all of the good and bad implications for their discoveries, but no one else could either. Scientists are not psychics or prophets.

        "Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
        -J. Robert Oppenheimer, (quoting from the Bhagavad Gita) was certainly a scientist who was fully aware of (and lamented) the implications of what he had helped to create... and he paid a hefty price for expressing his regret openly.

        November 4, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
      • dconklin58

        WELL PUT! Thanks!

        November 4, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
  28. photon

    as we all (human being)are made from matter have actually so much limitation to sense what beyond.....but i thanks todays science for to show some universal facts...this show that though matter (we) are minor but always alive....

    November 2, 2012 at 5:50 am |
  29. GO_GOP

    Jesus loves you while Satan hates you. The light coming into the telescope might be created by Satan to distract us for all we know. Read the Bible. The truth lies there.

    November 2, 2012 at 5:39 am |
    • theBmoll

      "The church states that the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round for I have seen its shadow against the moon and I have more faith in a shadow than I do in the church." Ferdinand MAGELLAN 1480 – 1521.

      November 2, 2012 at 5:47 am |
    • Patrick

      jesus never existed

      November 2, 2012 at 8:38 am |
      • dconklin58

        Patrick: "jesus never existed"

        See Jesus Under Fire and read the chapter by the historian Edwin Yanauchi. Learn some critical thinking and stop spouting the BS they filled your mind with when you were a kid.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:01 am |
      • Cedar Rapids

        ok then, i will expand on patricks statement.....
        jesus as a miracle slinging son of god didnt exist.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:29 am |
      • dconklin58

        >"jesus as a miracle slinging son of god didnt exist."

        1) you can't prove that.
        2) Edwin Yamauchi, a historian, came to the opposite conclusion. See his chapter in the book Jesus Under Fire.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:37 am |
      • Patrick

        You cite a single historian, yet of the 40-50 historians in and around Israela nd the middle East at the time that jesus supposedly existed, not a single one mentions him. You would think that some dude going around raising healing the sick, and doing miracles everywhere would at least be worthy of a mention?? No??
        And for your info I was raised a Catholic, in Ireland in fact where there was no getting away from that BS. I stopped going to church at 15 and haven't looked back since.

        November 2, 2012 at 10:31 am |
      • dconklin58

        >"You cite a single historian, yet of the 40-50 historians in and around Israela nd the middle East at the time that jesus supposedly existed, not a single one mentions him. "

        Edwin Yamauchi looked at all of the available historical evidence–he didn't cherry-pick his criticsim like the critics do. Secondly, they did mention Jesus–Josephus, for one example, did so twice. Secondly, Palestine was at that time considered to be a backwater to the Roman empire and so not much attention was paid to it. Thirdly, Pilate wrote his own account and sent it to Rome and was appealed to as a source by those who were defending Christiany agaisnt the attacks made by it during their own day.

        November 2, 2012 at 12:55 pm |
      • Franco

        Yes, historically Jesus did exist, most scholars agree on that, whether they are religious or not.

        November 2, 2012 at 10:53 am |
    • snowboarder

      gop – that is just plain looney.

      November 2, 2012 at 9:27 am |
  30. GO_GOP

    The answer lies in the Bible and not in science. Seek Jesus and be saved. Our Lord loves you.

    November 2, 2012 at 5:38 am |
    • theBmoll

      If the answer lies in scripture then you are DEFINITELY asking the wrong questions!

      November 2, 2012 at 6:14 am |
    • givesuccess

      "The light coming into the telescope might be created by Satan to distract us for all we know"

      What part of that is in Bible?

      November 2, 2012 at 6:28 am |
    • Redhawk

      Show me physical proof of deity. I can show you proof of science. One has facts that are backed up with physical evidence. One has faith and stories to convince others to believe that which is not visible. The bible itself is written by MANkind, faulty and flawed with interpretations used by those that wish to keep populations under control.

      November 2, 2012 at 6:41 am |
      • Elena

        'Show me physical proof of deity. I can show you proof of science' The is why you are not a leading scientist! Science only can show the how, how a mechanism works? but it cant prove, let alone the existence of nothing. If you had the the level of understanding to understand that the universe is an illusion created by the gazillions of electromagnetic impulses exchange by our "brain particles" then you will wonder what then really exist?

        November 2, 2012 at 6:48 am |
      • Franco

        @Elena - Reality, what a concept. So what is real?

        November 2, 2012 at 7:17 am |
      • Elena

        conciousness,

        November 2, 2012 at 10:28 am |
      • Primewonk

        @ Elena – Science does not prove anything. Science explains things. Proofs are for maths, ethanol, and yeast doughs.

        This is stuff you should have learned in Junior High.

        November 2, 2012 at 8:34 am |
      • dconklin58

        > Science explains things. Proofs are for maths, ethanol, and yeast doughs. This is stuff you should have learned in Junior High." Science explains things. Proofs are for maths, ethanol, and yeast doughs. This is stuff you should have learned in Junior High."

        I wasn't taught that even in high school in all of the science classes I took. Try another myth/lie/insult.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:09 am |
      • Pete

        If you went to a private school you should try and get your money back.

        November 2, 2012 at 12:34 pm |
  31. David

    No one knows how many stars are in the univers, but God who put them there knows each and every one of them by name. If you can conunt the sand on the beach, then you will be able able to count the number of stars.

    November 2, 2012 at 5:35 am |
    • guest

      You do know that we have been able to count all the sand on the beaches, oh, and by the way, most scientests are very religious, and true believers. Unlike those who call themselves christians, but do not question, the greatest believers, are the ones who actually ask, and find the answers.

      November 2, 2012 at 5:45 am |
    • Sai

      counting the grains of sand on all the beaches of Earth is not hard to do. An exact number is beyond us but as rational adults we accept a measure of fault in such an endeavor.
      So take a 1 inch X 1 inch square from every beach on Earth. Then use that data to get an average grain of sand dimension.
      From there it is all math.
      Same with the stars. God has nothing to do with names or numbers. That is all us.

      November 2, 2012 at 5:46 am |
      • jason

        i like you!

        November 2, 2012 at 6:38 am |
      • Zach

        exactly

        November 2, 2012 at 7:05 am |
    • MIke7

      Actually, there are MORE stars in the heavens (and more planets) than all the grains of sand on the beachs of the earth, indeed, even more so than all the grains of dirt that make up the earth..

      The Earth is a very, very,very tiny piece of the universe and as it is recorded in the bible ..."The Heavens declare the Glory of God".

      Our God is indeed a mighty and powerful God!! Even if you do not believe in Him, He believes in YOU!!

      November 2, 2012 at 7:14 am |
      • Eric G

        Please provide any verifiable evidence that your god exists. You are starting with your conclusion and working backwards. That is, at best, childlike.

        November 2, 2012 at 7:59 am |
  32. Ross

    I really don't understand how we can be seeing the first light of the universe (after the so called big bang). Surely the first light zoomed off in all directions at the speed of light and has been long gone. The only way we could possibly be viewing it now is if somehow the universe expanded after the (so called) big bang at a speed much greater than the speed of light (which we are told by Einstein is impossible) so that we could get enough billions of light years ahead of the first light so that it would take billions of years to catch up with us again, so we could see it. Unless someone can provide a reasonable explanation for this anomaly in logic (such as the universe is round), then I can only assume that these scientists are smoking something and I know that it is not me (notwithstanding the fact that I am a ginger-beer in down-under terms).

    November 2, 2012 at 4:59 am |
    • Sami

      ROSS
      IT IS THE CASE
      the first 7 billion years the universe was expanding faster than speed of light. That is the space, not the stars, imagine space like a rubber band stretching at enormous speeds, stars and Galaxies were being dragged long . That is why the width of the universe is more Than 14 billion light years,

      November 2, 2012 at 5:33 am |
      • Ross

        Well there you go then. This initial expansion of the universe at speeds greater than the speed of light is fairly fundamental to anyone's understanding. Why is it rarely mentioned?

        November 2, 2012 at 8:33 am |
    • Hamad

      Starlight.... not first light

      November 2, 2012 at 5:34 am |
    • thislittlepiggywentweeweewee

      Ross, for a seemingly bright guy, you're not using those gray cells. The article didn't say the light from the beginning of the universe, but at 4 billion years old. To address your specific point, the article explains that we're seeing evidence of that early light, not the light itself. Try reading again, and maybe smoking something would help.

      November 2, 2012 at 5:43 am |
    • glenview0818

      Ross, I see this exactly as you, I am a reasonably educated person with what I might call good logical skills and this has bothered me ever since they started about looking "back" into the early universe. It just does not make sense unless we were traveling faster than the light outward. I have read many articles and some books on it, and can't see their logic.

      November 2, 2012 at 7:50 am |
    • I'm The Best

      Ross,
      Firstly, Space can expand faster than light, but just space, everything else takes a bit of time to... fill the void.

      Secondly, to explain how the scientists are looking at this stuff, and it isn't because of the universe expanding faster than light. Every direction we look we're looking into the past, for example, if we see something that is 4 lightyears away, then we are seeing that object as it was 4 years ago. So an object at 4 billion light years away, we're seeing it as it was 4 billion years ago. These scientists have found a way to measure only the light coming from objects that are over ~10 billion lightyears away so 10 billion years ago, or 4 billion years old after the big bang. Getting that total light, they can see how bright the universe was at 4 billion years old.

      So we're always looking into the past no matter which direction we look, we're always looking toward the beginning of the universe. Isn't that neat?
      Hope that helped clear some things up.

      November 2, 2012 at 8:52 am |
  33. GO_GOP

    Seek Jesus and be saved.

    November 2, 2012 at 4:55 am |
    • theBmoll

      The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits! (A. Einstein)
      You go ahead and pray for us, we'll continue to think for you...

      November 2, 2012 at 5:43 am |
    • Redhawk

      Is that all you have for the masses? Somehow I see you as a limited intelligence, follower of man.

      November 2, 2012 at 6:45 am |
    • merlinfire

      Its obvious you guys are being trolled. This guy is practicing Poe's Law, look it up. He's just setting up straw men for you to knock down.

      November 2, 2012 at 7:05 am |
    • tkogrady

      Jesus also said that is will be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven, to surrender all your possessions and follow him, and to bang your weapons into plowshares. How do your reconcile those things with the GOP platform?

      November 2, 2012 at 8:24 am |
    • Primewonk

      I did seek Jesus. I needed my gutters cleaned out. He wanted to charge me $125. So I hired his brothers Juan and Jose. They did it for $100, and took half the time.

      November 2, 2012 at 8:40 am |
      • logicalgirl

        Clever! I snorted. Have to remember this one.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:39 am |
    • Old Sailor

      Saved from what? Why?

      I really like reality – why would I want to be saved?

      November 2, 2012 at 8:46 am |
    • Nick

      Do you think he could give me an experimentally verifiable Grand Unified Field Theory? That would be AWESOME!

      November 2, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
  34. Atom

    All these clever people who cant answer or even think about the real question.
    Everything started from nothing or it was always here ?
    Nothing can appear from nothing ,but ALWAYS no start ever?

    Think on

    November 2, 2012 at 4:27 am |
    • Leif

      Translation please: ",but ALWAYS no start ever"

      November 2, 2012 at 4:34 am |
      • Atom

        Well
        We think it started with the big bang (from nothing)
        or you can go further back as far as you want and never get to the start.
        These two answers are both unthinkable to humans!!

        November 2, 2012 at 5:28 am |
      • thislittlepiggywentweeweewee

        Atom, you're making an important point. The universe is beyond human comprehension. The fact that humans can't accommodate the possibilities has nothing to do with the reality of the universe.

        Why would the human mind, created by the universe, have any real perspective on that from which it was made? That's the faulty logic. We might as well be blades of grass when it comes to comprehending the universe.

        November 2, 2012 at 5:51 am |
    • Leif

      I had an '84 Corolla that might have been described by that phrase, when I was drunk.

      November 2, 2012 at 4:37 am |
    • Sami

      Atom, we do not have presently an example of NOTHING. so how do you know that something can not come from nothing. Actually, you don't.

      November 2, 2012 at 5:37 am |
      • Atom

        I agree it is even hard to find complete nothingness but this is a side issue.
        Did it all begin or was it always there...!!
        These are the only two options we have to explain all this!1

        November 2, 2012 at 5:44 am |
    • theBmoll

      Short answer (but honest) is we don't know...but lets project you query a little. If you possit that something can't come from 'nothing'...then where does your god come from!?

      November 2, 2012 at 6:00 am |
      • Atom

        i agree !! If god made everything he must have made himself !
        It is the same argument who made god or was he always there?
        Did god say one day(no sorry he had not made days yet) I think i will make everything.... so before that he was living in nothing?

        November 2, 2012 at 7:02 am |
      • MIke7

        I think this universe is trillions of billions of earth years old and that it has died and come back into existence many times. Similar to a wave on the beach that comes in and then starts over. Each life cycle of our universe must be billions of years old. After all the stars, galaxies and black holes have used all energy, and no stars are visible in the night sky (if Earth were still here that is) something happens that restarts the universe and another "big bang" occurs. Perhaps the collision of our universe with another universe creates enough energy to start what we call a big-bang?

        What we do know fo certain is that this universe has so many secrets that the earth will cease to exist before mere humans have all the answers.

        Anything you can imagine or not imagine IS out there in this universe. It's a big place and yes, I think that God created it all, including other life forms and intelligent life. No where in the bible does it state that God did not create alien life. Perhaps it exists in other dimensions too. God can do anything, so why do people try to limit him with our puny brains?

        November 2, 2012 at 7:26 am |
    • Old Sailor

      The falacy in your thinking is that the big bang occured from nothing. It did not. It occured from a singularity, which is everything, not nothing.

      November 2, 2012 at 8:48 am |
    • Primewonk

      Why do ignorant fundiot nutters post this shit over and over? It's not like we haven't told you cretins this before – Science is not claiming everything came from nothing. What we are telling you is that this universe began expanding from a singularity 13.7 billion years ago. It was this expansion that began time. The expansion was Time(0) – time zero. Our math and physicis is not sophisticated enough (yet) to say what occurred before time started. As of now, that is as nonsensical as asking what is North of North.

      That being said, we can, and do, see elementary particles popping into and out of existence on their own all the time. It's the Casimir effect. Even High School AP Physics students do experiments with it.

      So for god's sake, stop with the fundiot nutter lies – you are only showing your ignorance.

      November 2, 2012 at 8:49 am |
      • dconklin58

        " The expansion was Time(0) – time zero. "

        That's as measured on this planet in this universe.

        November 2, 2012 at 8:57 am |
      • Atom

        Please be scientific when you post
        What we are telling you is that OUR THEORY IS this universe began expanding from a singularity 13.7 billion years ago.
        You have as much proof of how this universe began as anyone else.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:28 am |
  35. JC

    Interesting.

    Like with every piece on Apple seems to draw forth the Android fanboys from their nests, so it seems
    a science piece draws commentary from the creationist fanboys, be they consumers of christianity, islam or one
    of the smaller indie brands that have "evolved" over the years.

    Thank (deity of choice), I'm a flat earthist. Hail the ice wall, keeper of our atmosphere.

    November 2, 2012 at 4:05 am |
  36. Moravian

    Science is one of abilities given us by God for be able to see the few of His greatness, beauty and glory reflection in the wonderful Universe created by Him.

    November 2, 2012 at 3:48 am |
    • mike oduor

      i agree fully with that. but whateevr tries to confuse us from knowing all this is the work of God is realy not science, but some cowardly not so Godly religion

      November 2, 2012 at 5:10 am |
      • David

        No one knows how many stars are in the univers, but God who put them there knows each and every one of them by name. If you can conunt the sand on the beach, then you will be able able to count the number of stars.

        November 2, 2012 at 5:29 am |
  37. Logical_reasoning

    Imagine if there was no us in the universe, imagine all this creation the universe would have no purpose no meaning, who would justify the beautiful creation??

    The gravitational scale of our universe is so precise, that even scientist cannot accept it saying it is by CHANCE. So they came up with Multi-verse theory, just another REASON to go delude from truth.

    Do you know our MOON is the only Natural satellite which would mask the entire sun during eclipses, none of natural satellite do the same during eclipses, add to it the Placement of EARTH in our MilkyWay galaxy, it could have been any where but our position give us the ABILITY to look at the universe!

    There are lot of other facts, but the conclusion is this guys, you can LIVE with a perception of NO GOD, but i observing the nature, studying religions, conclude that ISLAM gives us the proof of creation (read quran) and it gives me the reason for my life.

    November 2, 2012 at 3:03 am |
    • TheBob

      Typical brain dead Muslim with his meatball "logic": the universe, galaxies, sun, moon, gravity, eclipse therefore ... ISLAM!!!

      There are more idiotic mistakes in quran than George W. Bush's 4th grade English test. Oh, and by the way, you're just dead wrong about natural satellites and their eclipses. But even if you were right, what the hell does that have to do with ANYTHING?

      November 2, 2012 at 3:20 am |
      • Logical_reasoning

        Firstly, i would like you to tell me those "stupid mistakes" you are referring to. Secondly the example of the Moon is just to assert my point that the universe is a Design and there are segments of this design just for us humans to observe. Like the placement of earth in our solar system, like how MOON is critically important to keep the EARTH's spin uniformly locked, so that it doesnt tumble around leading to non-uniform days and nights...

        November 2, 2012 at 4:50 am |
      • Nick

        You can switch "Islam" with "Christianity" (or, "Insert your religion here: ________" ) in his post and the argument will amount to exactly the same thing.

        November 2, 2012 at 11:38 am |
    • Andrew

      You are wrong in some rather silly ways.

      First off, the whole 'multiverse theory' is more of an outcrop of quantum mechanical models, with far less emphasis on 'gravity'. More importantly, if we don't know how those parameters are set in the first place, then we can't talk about how 'perfectly set' they were because maybe there's an underlying cause for things like the fine structure constant. In either case the whole 'it's too perfect, hence god' argument feels a cheap cop-out to anyone who cares about physics. I prefer "we don't yet know" to "god made it that way".

      As for the moon, umm, the moon's orbit is elliptical. That means that the actual distance from the moon changes, causing in fact different types of eclipse. There's an 'annular' eclipse, which I sadly missed due to cloud coverage one day, where you have the moon too small to fully cover the sun and hence a 'ring of fire' forms. The images from California showing that off in particular were beautiful. Then when the moon is at its closest approach it can form a total eclipse, that's when it's larger than the sun.

      I suppose you can call that 'perfect', but that seems a somewhat odd thing to want designed. So god has a thing for variety in solar-viewing?

      Listen, if you try to get your science from religion, you will always be sorely disappointed. You will always believe you have a much more firm grasp of the universe than is probably warranted by the evidence itself.

      If you really like the universe, study math, then study physics. If you feel that passionate about unlocking its secrets, understanding its complexity, figuring out the grand scope, then study physics. If you don't really care, and just want to pretend your religion gives you all the answers, especially since they're easy, then stop faking any interest in science.

      November 2, 2012 at 4:06 am |
      • mike oduor

        i think the question here that not any of the so called scientist can answer is where is the origin of all these?. did it just happen? science and physics particular deals with facts that are measurable and quantifiable. you say this cannot be by design but i feel it cannot be by chance either. in actual sense your description gives a picture of something so intriguingly complex that could not have happened just by chance. it happened by design, design by some supernatural being.

        November 2, 2012 at 5:21 am |
      • Andrew

        That's the same structure as the whole setup for the Third-Man argument way back even in ancient greek times. If the universe is too complex to have been created without something else, then what created the universe? Wouldn't that have to be far more complex?

        Physics instead tends to take more or less the path of least resistance. It builds its knowledge slowly, as we uncover more and more, not pretending to offer answers for difficult questions like 'how did the universe get this way'.

        So what DO we know? Well, we've got a decent idea up to roughly inflation, that's some 10^-36 seconds after the big bang. Before that to somewhere around 10^-44 seconds is the 'grand unification epoch', this would have been when the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces were all unified. That's about the current limit of physics right now, we have a moderate theoretical understanding of how electro-weak and strong unification would work, but we can't test much due to our modern particle colliders simply not having the energy to explore that region right now. (Yes that's including the LHC).

        Prior to that is the 'planck epoch'. Now THAT is where all the interesting questions lie, and where I can honestly say 'we don't have much of a clue'. A planck-time is esentially the shortest unit of time, and underneath a planck-time we have littme concept as to what went on in the universe. We can't know really without a model of quantum gravity, string theory is an attempt, but there are plenty other attempts and none have a shred of supporting evidence.

        Questions as to 'why are the constants the way they are' certainly are done better service by probing the lingering questions about the physical origins of the universe than they are stipulating about the metaphysical implications. We know quite a bit about remarkably close to the big bang, I'd trust science to tell me more than I trust religion to.

        November 2, 2012 at 6:06 am |
    • Leif

      @"Logical"_reasoning. Why does the universe "need" justification? You attribute everything you don't understand to a deity. Fine. That is your right. But many of us strive for a more complete answer. Who knows, perhaps WE will find God before you do. I will keep a place in line for you...if you ask nicely.

      November 2, 2012 at 4:26 am |
      • Shi

        I am Catholic and I wanted to reach out to comment.
        May I ask you, have you ever considered the idea that God blessed us all with many specific talents. Specifically those that excel in science, technology, physics, math, etc., were chosen to unlock those secrets of the universe! I think that you would agree that God created us all to learn, understand, and to grow. So when men and women of science prove a theory, isn't that God's will?

        You made a comment to a gentleman – "Finding God...and saving a place if asked nicely."
        My comment would be if you haven't already "found" God, then wouldn't one want to worry less about the universe,saving spots in heaven, and concentrate more on your own inner spirit? Just saying...

        November 2, 2012 at 5:56 am |
    • theBmoll

      Religion...comedy for the intelligent, 'reality' for the ignorant!

      November 2, 2012 at 5:52 am |
    • theBmoll

      The existence of possible multiple universes is not a theory...its hypothesis. The ignorant deluded masses are out in force today!

      November 2, 2012 at 6:04 am |
    • Redhawk

      Christians, Muslims, all religious believers think that theirs is the correct belief. You are ALL wrong. Stop trying to insert doctrine and false stories to convince yourselves of truth that doesn't exist.

      November 2, 2012 at 6:48 am |
      • theBmoll

        Thank you RedHawk... nothing like an informative, interesting and educational article to bring the bigots, paedophiles and extremists out of their sandbox.

        November 2, 2012 at 7:12 am |
  38. Anura Jayailake

    The Universe and all the matter(anti-matter or otherwise) in it were and are created by all the living beings collectively together. it is an infinite process and therefore the universe it self is infinite. These telescopes or any physical instrument(made of matter) shall never be able to see and edge of the universe. the edge we seem to believe in now will be the same if we travel to it and the newer edge you see will be equally far away like the beginning. The universe should be seen by non-physical or non-matter based instruments to see it miniaturized by power of wisdom in totality. Problem is that this wisdom itself is beyond the comprehension of the average and most human beings.

    November 2, 2012 at 2:02 am |
    • Huff

      Stick with what you're good at buddy! Refrain from making any further posts and get back to smoking pot.

      November 2, 2012 at 2:50 am |
      • TheBob

        I don't think it's pot he's been smoking. Smells more like Deepak Chopra b u l l s h ! t. Pretty sue that's what that smell is.

        November 2, 2012 at 3:10 am |
  39. God

    Waste of time really. Even if we can touch the end of the universe, what says the universe is not part of other universe withing other universe?

    November 2, 2012 at 1:14 am |
    • JIM

      Nothing. But wouldnt it be cool if we could prove that it was true? Would send a lot of religions for a loop.

      November 2, 2012 at 1:58 am |
    • Leif

      It may be a waste of time for someone who has zero intellectual curiosity. If you prefer to explore the empty cavern of your empty soul, be my guest.

      November 2, 2012 at 4:32 am |
  40. joe jones

    Esplain someting to me.

    If we know the universe is 14 billion years old and we can trace this light to stars 13.7 billion years old, are you telling me we know the general geographic location where the universe began? I've always wondered.

    Have we identified a location in this limitless universe deemed the center where all the expansion can be traced back to the original location of the big bang?

    November 2, 2012 at 12:58 am |
    • Max

      There really isn't a center in the universe Joe because the fabric of space-time is expanding in all directions.

      I remember my astrophysics professor explaining to us how this work with Hubble's Equation and basically because of the expansion in all directions of space-time, it appears that everything is always moving away from you regardless of your position in the universe. It's really cool, basically wherever you are in the universe you are always considered at the center point! I remember using that cheesy line at a bar once and it work wonders!

      Girls like it when you have mathematical proof that they are the center of the universe.

      References: my astrophysics professor was the co-discoverer of Dark Energy, a Nobel Prize worthy achievement :) I was a student of his before the prize was awarded. I took his class back in 2007. I'm sure his ego is alot bigger now.

      November 2, 2012 at 1:25 am |
      • trailrunner56

        I wish I had a Nobel PRIZE winning prof when I went to school... show off

        November 2, 2012 at 1:28 am |
      • Nick

        Seriously? Knowing that you were taught by a Nobel Prize winner must be Soooo Coool!!

        Throwing that little ditto on your resumé should get you more than a second look!

        November 2, 2012 at 2:34 am |
      • Andrew

        That reminds me I've heard George Smoot apparently has an ego the size of Jupiter.

        November 2, 2012 at 4:09 am |
      • Andrew

        PS, cheesy physics lines, what are you, Feynman? :P

        November 2, 2012 at 4:09 am |
    • TheBob

      "Geographic" location? Seriously? I hope you're not that dense.

      November 2, 2012 at 3:26 am |
  41. amogh.m

    it's good to be born in this whole universe the discoveries of stars,galaxies and celestial bodies.we can't predict universe it's so huge that our ability of thinking is not enough and it's our chance to explore the science within our short period of life.there is something mysterious of this universe as the scientists say it is 4 billion years old.why it is formed.....?

    November 2, 2012 at 12:47 am |
  42. Jesus Christ

    FACT: When you use a telephone, jesus magically transports what you say into the receiver's end.

    November 1, 2012 at 11:49 pm |
    • Major Tom

      The "receiver's end"? So Jesus doesn't even know what body part is used to hear sound with?

      November 2, 2012 at 3:33 am |
    • va

      Зачем вам все это? Все равно правды не узнаете. Учитесь сами смотреть,учитесь выходить из тела.

      November 2, 2012 at 4:16 am |
    • theBmoll

      Careful...next thing you know they will want to sanctify Guiglielmo Marconi!?

      November 2, 2012 at 7:34 am |
  43. Journey

    This whole science thing was a good idea in the enlightenment but it has gotten WAY out of hand.

    Romney 2012

    November 1, 2012 at 11:34 pm |
    • Journey

      I know that I don't sound very smart. But you guys can burn in hell

      Romney 2012

      November 2, 2012 at 12:12 am |
      • theBmoll

        Telling us that we will burn in hell has about as much impact as telling us that Santa won't leave us any presents...!

        November 2, 2012 at 6:12 am |
    • Richard

      "cLICK, WHIR, CLICK." i Am a Democrat, I am programmed to believe global waRMING FIGHT IS against warming, but it is really just the latest version of world socialism dressed up.

      November 2, 2012 at 12:36 am |
    • Nick

      Yeah... This whole modern thing with computers, x-rays, reliable weaponry, general anesthesia, water purification, instant communications, germ theory, weather satellites, effective medicines, nuclear power, electricity, planetary exploration, and artificial fertilizers raising food production manyfold.... Pointless.

      If you think pre-20th century life was a pastoral paradise, you are quite mistaken. It was dirty and smelly and short and *boring.* Your" "world" was everything within a 7 mile radius.
      If you did not die of something during the first 15 years of life, you could expect to live to a ripe old age of 40 or 50 something.

      November 2, 2012 at 1:37 am |
  44. ii2bcnii

    Mind boggling

    November 1, 2012 at 11:27 pm |
  45. Johnny 5

    Scientific literacy: Continued life

    Religion: Extinction

    These are the facts.

    November 1, 2012 at 11:16 pm |
    • Carbon Copy 1

      Well Put Johnny, That's A Fact.

      November 1, 2012 at 11:44 pm |
      • dconklin58

        Not even close.

        November 2, 2012 at 4:14 am |
    • theBmoll

      Intelligent, succinct, articulate and simplistically elegant! (Thank you John).

      November 2, 2012 at 6:07 am |
  46. jvance

    I think this stuff is fascinating but I'm no physicist. Can someone clarify the significance of the 4 billion year line for me?I am aware that the estimated age of the universe is considerably longer.

    November 1, 2012 at 11:14 pm |
    • Jobe

      jvance: I'm not sure this accounts for the entire 4 billion years (it might), but it took quite a while for stars to form after the birth of the universe. Matter had to cool down and clump together, basically.

      November 2, 2012 at 12:41 am |
    • Rodel

      Well the Universe my most estimate 13.2 billion years old so after only 4 billion its still pretty young... I can't say for certain when light was able to reach out into the universe but I imagine that it has to be around this time otherwise they would have look back further to when the universe was even younger... you can imagine that "all" the light that would be created would start here around this time.. hope that helps

      November 2, 2012 at 1:15 am |
    • Andrew

      The universe is 13.7 billion years old. We get that number from what's called the WMAP, or the "Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe".

      Basically what it boils down to is this... when the universe was very young it was very small, and when it was very small it was very hot. In a very hot enviornment, like the sun, photons shoot around constantly and are absorbed so frequently that they're in an equilibrium with the matter. That's why they say it takes a million years for a photon to go from the center of the sun to the surface, because it can't manage to go in a straight path.

      It's this property we refer to as 'opacity'. When the universe was hot it was 'opaque' in the same way that the sun is, we can't look through the sun. Now, as the universe expands when it's very young, it's cooling off. Pretty soon all those excited atoms throwing photons amongst each other will find it more favorable to stay in a ground non-excited state. That means that there's one more giant burst of light before the universe becomes transparent, where you can actually see through space.

      This 'burst of light' would have a special trait known as a 'blackbody curve' and be present throughout the universe. (A 'blackbody curve' changes depending on the temperature. When the universe was new, the blackbody temperature of the universe was very hot, but it has since redshifted to be very cold, in the microwave part of the spectrum, so very low energy). Now we actually discovered this light back in the 1960s, the 'cosmic microwave background', but it wasn't until I believe the late 1980s early 1990s that we launched the COBE satillite. This COBE satillite was able to measure those photons present throughout the universe and find that they perfectly matched a blackbody model. This esentially had the big bang confirmed.

      Now with the success of COBE it became possible to have more refined models of physics. Currently the best model we have is called the ΛCDM, 'lambda-cold dark matter', where lambda is dark energy. You can derive it from things like Einstein's Field Equations, Equations of State, and the Friedman equations. But put simply, with this model in hand we launched a new satillite, the WMAP, which was looking for tiny tiny flucuations in the CMB which are predicted by the ΛCDM model.

      Well, what they found was that the data matches predictions of the 6 paramater ΛCDM model stunningly well, and from that we could extrapolate a hubble constant... which, despite its name, scales with the age of the universe, so from that we could determine the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

      TL;DR Scientists launch satillites which look for tiny flucuations in omnipresent light left over from shortly after the big bang, and find that it matches with theoretical predictions quite well. From that, age of universe is extrapolated with maths.

      November 2, 2012 at 4:24 am |
  47. MashaSobaka

    Oh, look. The atheists and creationists are back at their little sandbox fight. Give it a rest, folks. The question of whether or not there is a creator is so phenomenally unimportant that just thinking about it makes me want to puke. Let's just appreciate the beauty of our universe, shall we?

    November 1, 2012 at 10:36 pm |
    • SirToYe

      Is there oxygen that high up in that Ivory tower of arrogance you live in?

      November 1, 2012 at 10:49 pm |
      • Samuel Mannings

        I actually interpreted the comment as a dismissal of the inherent arrogance of people assuming they know whether there is a creator or not. Or perhaps just the arrogance of people who assume that others want to hear arguments of a debate that will end when the world does.

        November 1, 2012 at 11:00 pm |
      • o

        It's called the tower of Agnosticism and once people grow out of the 18th century it'll be only tower left standing in religiontown.

        November 1, 2012 at 11:05 pm |
      • O has great vision

        Your wisdom falls on deaf religious ears

        November 2, 2012 at 12:15 am |
      • dconklin58

        Good question!

        November 2, 2012 at 4:15 am |
      • Shi

        I must say...that was good!

        November 2, 2012 at 6:04 am |
    • odessa

      It is an important argument since religious fundamentalism directly impacts how science is perceived and funded.

      November 1, 2012 at 11:05 pm |
      • Jessica

        Sad but true.

        November 2, 2012 at 12:15 am |
    • Ronald Raygun

      i just want to see you puke

      November 2, 2012 at 12:11 am |
  48. salathieljones

    Reblogged this on The World Outside of Yourself.

    November 1, 2012 at 10:19 pm |
  49. More Mumbo Jumbo

    Don't believe a word!!

    The Bible states Light was in the beginning. It didn't have to come from a star, but the LORD since stars had yet to be Created by our precious Lamb.

    November 1, 2012 at 10:07 pm |
    • Fug Xu

      Ok...well, why'd he say, "let there be light" if light was always there? The building blocks of the universe are there for all to see, all you have to do is open you mind to see them.

      November 1, 2012 at 10:30 pm |
    • Steve

      You are cooooo cooooo!

      November 1, 2012 at 10:38 pm |
    • Dan

      Your fairy tale known as the bible is the real mumbo jumbo. It's time to take your head out of the sand and put away that absurd, magical religious nonsense.

      November 1, 2012 at 10:55 pm |
    • odessa

      Lamb is quite delicious.

      November 1, 2012 at 11:06 pm |
    • Jessica

      What is with all these Fox New Radical Right Wing Republican Religious nuts commenting in a science blog? Go read your bible, watch Fox News, kills some gays, hate some blacks and start some new wars around the world!

      Amen

      November 1, 2012 at 11:17 pm |
    • Doug

      Comments like this show why this country is beginning to fall behind academically. Sorry but you can have a belief in the Devine but the evidence before us is the evidence before us.

      November 1, 2012 at 11:18 pm |
      • Jessica

        Doug, right, even the Catholic Church believes in the current age of the universe. Approx 13.4 Billion years.

        November 2, 2012 at 12:18 am |
      • Nick

        Exactly. If 'Deep Time' has not been an issue for the Roman Catholic Church ages (no pun intended), I honestly cannot fathom why it remains such a hard thing to get into people minds. (In the United States, at any rate.)

        November 2, 2012 at 1:52 am |
    • Holy than thou

      Sigh... so the earth then is somewhere between 6 and 12 thousand years right? Depending on which creation story you profess to believe in. Please cite exactly which version of the "book" you are claiming to get your facts from. My guess would be one of the revised King James versions. Do you even know why it is called the King James bible? Ever wonder how we got from over 700 commandments to just 10? Ever wonder if the book you read today is the whole story? Here's a hint, it isn't. Ever wonder if evolution is true?..it is and the bible is proof of that because few things have evolved more. Try looking into the nonsense you are spewing forth before assuming you have been given all the answers. Just because you are unable of independent critical thinking does not mean the rest of us are and we don't need to be constantly reminded of your take on the matter.

      November 2, 2012 at 12:32 am |
      • mike oduor

        science doesnt do any better in explaining the origin of all this. i really would like to know what i evolved from. now some things just happened by chance then others started evolving. what triggered all this? scientific crap. never specific. likewise all scientific litrature just like the bible or the quoran were authered by humans.

        November 2, 2012 at 5:44 am |
    • Master Baiter

      If there was a creator who made everything, what was he/she/it made of? If he/she/it was made of something, who made that? If he/she/it was not made of something, then he/she/it was the negation of something, i.e., nothing, which is the same as saying there was no creator. If this involves a syllogistic fallacy, please point it out.

      November 2, 2012 at 1:05 am |
      • Nick

        The whole infinite regression thing is such a theological pain...

        November 2, 2012 at 2:22 am |
    • thislittlepiggywentweeweewee

      In the beginning was the Word, not light. Get it? The Bible has the universe beginning at our mythological ruminations upon our origins.

      Oh, forget it.

      November 2, 2012 at 6:13 am |
    • theBmoll

      So what created god...?

      November 2, 2012 at 7:25 am |
  50. Charlie McGuiness

    What would Brian Boitano do?

    November 1, 2012 at 10:00 pm |
    • Dan

      Probably you.

      November 1, 2012 at 10:56 pm |
  51. Mick

    I was just wondering if someone could tell me how we know that there wasn't another big bang 100 million light years away, perhaps to their left.....and possibly 2 seconds ago?

    November 1, 2012 at 9:50 pm |
    • Sky

      We just do. So there. Thghtttttt!

      November 1, 2012 at 11:00 pm |
    • Madd Chas

      We will find out in about 100 million years.

      November 1, 2012 at 11:36 pm |
  52. Gondor

    Why do religious people go out of their way to read science articles and then bash on it, they obviously dont understand.
    Shouldn't they be loving understanding people like they claim to be ?

    November 1, 2012 at 9:43 pm |
    • MicheleIsHot

      It's like an intelligent person reading fox "news" – he or she just wants to see how they twist and distort the news to make the right wing look good (if that's even possible). For similar reasons, christians read these articles with disdain, because they and only they know that the greatest scams ever – the bible and christianity – show how ridiculous science is. The fools think the truth is foolish.

      November 1, 2012 at 10:02 pm |
    • Dan

      They don't like it when facts destroy their perfect little imaginary world.

      November 1, 2012 at 10:03 pm |
      • chris

        not really. Most Christians are loving and understanding. But like any group we have those who are misinformed and frustrated. I firmly believe that science doesn't prove much of anything. Instead, it helps us understand ourselves and the universe around us. Science is a way to measure. The ideas that come from hard numeric data derive from mankind and are innately flawed. This is not to say that science is wrong, its just incomplete. Most American Christians are brought up to be Christians and later on in life decide if they truly believe in Christianity, or any other religion. Some choose to shun science, when in fact the Bible teaches, quite frequently, that knowledge is to be sought out.

        This information that we receive from science, especially lately, is spectacular. These phenomenal ideas weren't around (i.e. Schrodinger's cat, multi-verse, etc.) until lately, and have changed the world forever and will continue to do so. This dawn of information and understanding, particularly in America shows how closer we are to achieving understanding as a whole. By uniting the information and knowledge of scientific thought with the many wisdoms of religion, we can only advance. Even if there are non-believers, they still understand the general message of most religion. Which is peace, and understanding. Now anyone can pick a part of religion and criticize and do their best to debunk or cheapen it; just as anyone can defend it and argue for it, the point is we are actively engaging each other with both science and religion as two separate systems that tend to disagree and as a union that support each other. The only problem is trying to distribute the ideas above to those who are misinformed and frustrated, believer and non-believer.

        -A Firm believer in "United we stand, Divided we fall"
        God bless the USA and everyone in it.

        November 1, 2012 at 10:40 pm |
      • Fheal

        Science – is only the attempt to understand what GOD has done. You have no more proven GOD doesn't exists; any more than the Christian has disproved the truths of science.

        November 1, 2012 at 10:58 pm |
      • Jessica

        Chris, "I firmly believe that science doesn't prove much of anything."

        Really? You mean that computer your using wasn't based on Science? Or that the GPS you probably use to get around is is not based on Science? If the GPS satellites didn't take into account Einsteins relativity and the curves of spacetime he predicted your GPS would be off by hundreds of yards. That's proof of something Science says is real. Heck, some of your clothing you probably wear wouldn't be possible without Science or any medication you're taking.

        What the heck is with the religious types and the whole anti-science nonsense?

        November 2, 2012 at 12:27 am |
      • logicalgirl

        Chris: "Most Christians are loving and understanding.

        Why do I never meet these loving and understanding Christians? Especially if they are the majority? I always come across the judgmental and hateful ones.

        November 2, 2012 at 10:35 am |
    • konrad_k_kay

      I'm religious and fascinated with science for each new advancement brings me a bit closer to comprehending the mind-numbing horror that is Great Cthulhu!

      Our puny species must surely give His Loathsomeness a chuckle as he watches our stumbling efforts from his sunken city of R'lyeh but when He rises at last to devour all of mankind, those of us who believed in both science AND religion will have the great privilege of being eaten first!

      November 1, 2012 at 10:25 pm |
  53. rick

    i am one of those christians that belive god created everything such as the big bang look at all the paintings from the late 1400s and early 1500s shows god createing the stars and planets but now if we say that where going to hell seems wierd how we change how god made every thing guess the church wants you to belive only what they say

    November 1, 2012 at 9:21 pm |
    • Fred

      So? What the contribuition of believers for us to know how exactly the stuff works in universe?

      Sincerely? Nothing. Nothing.

      November 1, 2012 at 9:37 pm |
    • kyle80

      Amongst other things, God definitely created punctuation. Use it and make God happy!

      November 1, 2012 at 9:43 pm |
    • Dan

      It sounds like you would believe just about anything.

      November 1, 2012 at 10:08 pm |
    • It'sOK I'mfromEarth

      If you believe in telekinesis – raise my hand.

      November 1, 2012 at 10:16 pm |
      • Borzoi313

        So if I said $5.00 if you raise your hand does that count as telekinesis?

        November 2, 2012 at 12:22 am |
    • Redhawk

      You and many other people also believe that Jesus is white, just like he was painted in the popular pictures. Same people tried to paint God as a white haired, bearded older man. Same people tried to paint what they perceived and interpreted as the universe and its contents. So, like many Christians, you too were deceived.

      November 2, 2012 at 7:04 am |
  54. Steve

    Because gamma rays have a very long half life and the rate of decay is also detectable.

    November 1, 2012 at 9:19 pm |
    • Steve

      And measurable.

      November 1, 2012 at 9:20 pm |
  55. Bilbo

    Ugh...any data gathered from the 'Universe' is based on what can be observed.Mostly EM radation. In other words, anything beyond our range of observation is pure speculation. in OTHER words...we have NO IDEA, no clue whatsoever how big the universe is, how old it is, etc unless...we define 'universe' as that little soap bubble we see expanding from which we gather all our observations. Yes it's very big and we are very small...but even very big might be very small on a greater scale. Keep learning people...but stop presuming to know so much.

    November 1, 2012 at 9:14 pm |
  56. David M

    "Scientists used high-energy radiation from blazars to measure the light from the first stars".

    How do you know they were the first stars? I'm not trying to poo-poo science. I think it's fascinating. However, if you are going to make such a definitive statement as that, you need something of substance to go with it. You can't just make a statement and call if fact. Maybe they should have said we think it's from the first stars. Maybe the first stars are beyone reach or burned out, or for whatever reason, you're not getting light from them.

    November 1, 2012 at 8:54 pm |
    • simple simon

      What I question is how a measurement of the amount of light can be understood in terms of numbers of galaxies and their luminosity? You find how much light there was. OK, but how do you differentiate the light to determine these specifics?

      November 1, 2012 at 9:05 pm |
      • David M

        My point exactly. How do they know this? Or is it an assumption? I think there is a lot of assuming that figures in to this, especially when they said it has been attempted several times before but with no luck. I think one 'data point' does not prove this point. What if next year they do the same thing with a more powerful tool and gather more light? Hmm...now what do they say??

        November 1, 2012 at 9:08 pm |
    • Bilbo

      Simple...they DON'T know...but you don't get grant money for being wishy washy.

      November 1, 2012 at 9:16 pm |
    • kyle80

      I guess, you could just go out and read the scientific paper where they explain how they did it.
      That's the nice thing about science: everyone can read how they did it and point at the mistake if they think there is one.

      But before you should also read a bit of the 2k pages you would need to understand the current cosmological model of the universe. Or did you expect the journalist to summarize that in half a page?

      November 1, 2012 at 9:24 pm |
      • Rodel

        ha!

        November 2, 2012 at 1:41 am |
  57. Galaxy Prime

    Whenever a scientific discovery is made about our universe, why is it that religious zealots have to come here and try to contradict these findings by referring to a book that was written by a bunch of uneducated bronze age people who believed in demons and witchcraft? Give me a break!

    November 1, 2012 at 8:33 pm |
    • David M

      I understand what you mean about 'religious zealots', and I say that as a Christian. A lot of people, religious or not, make knee jerk statement that are unfounded and just plain borderline stupid.

      My question is, how can they be certain they measured the first starlight, and how can they be certain it's from the first stars? Maybe the first stars are no longer around, or so far away we can't measure them. They're not telling us what the facts are that they base this on.

      Science is based on observable and repeatable facts, not statements that we're supposed to accept as fact with no substance. I think it's fascinating stuff, but I prefer fact based science, not prognostication based science.

      Does that make sense, or do you put me in the religious zealots crowd?!

      November 1, 2012 at 9:01 pm |
    • Clausen

      I feel your pain man. But the same can be said about militant atheists who go on religion-related articles. Both sides have it's trolls I guess. I wish everyone would just relax and not get upset every time someone insults their beliefs. No one is converting anybody on the comments section of a news article. Getting fired up and posting what you think is a really convincing argument will never get the "Gee, your right!" response you want.

      That being said, I am Christian and I think this is a cool article. Scientists do well when it comes to working within their limits.

      You see? Some religious people are into science too. It's not just an atheist thing!

      November 1, 2012 at 9:14 pm |
    • Bilbo

      so....I'm guessing since you don't believe in demons you don't think there's any other form of life outside of earth....or is it you've arbitrarily concluded that yeah well maybe ET can exist so long as he doesn't have any of those 'demon' properties cuz only religious nutballs believe in that stuff.

      November 1, 2012 at 9:21 pm |
      • Clausen

        I believe in both demons and life outside of earth. Demons because of personal experience, and ETs because of evidence. I don't consider myself a "Nutball" because of either of those.

        November 1, 2012 at 9:28 pm |
      • Dan

        Life will thrive anywhere that has the right conditions so we are not alone. Religious people like to believe that the only living things are on this planet because they don't understand it. I'm not sure how you define demon or how you found a connection between the two.

        November 1, 2012 at 10:17 pm |
    • Fred

      Great Galaxy!

      November 1, 2012 at 9:39 pm |
      • photon

        i thing its should be great solar system.!...

        November 2, 2012 at 6:06 am |
  58. Carlos

    Thanks to Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon was translated from the golden plates with the aid of Urim and Thummim (the original google translator). So don't wisecrack about something as serious as this. Read the Book of Mormon and become enlightened on the subject. Any resemblance to those old utopian novels is purely coincidental.

    November 1, 2012 at 8:26 pm |
  59. Blazar Holograph

    So...where there are nuclie....there are....and then...and then what...spewing from where...dimensional wizards....Ye are Gods...
    then what?

    November 1, 2012 at 8:18 pm |
    • Dan

      The ramblings of a mad man.

      November 1, 2012 at 10:18 pm |
  60. jtucker4

    “I think it’s amazing to be able to probe our universe when it was so young..."

    Oh yea, I see what you did there.

    November 1, 2012 at 8:17 pm |
  61. Mormon Magical Underwear

    Did they find the planet Kolob? After all Mitt Romney believes that when he dies he will fly into outer space with his Mormon Magical Underwear and become a god once he reaches Kolob.He will meet his god Josoeph Smith and will live there in their paradise of polygamy.........What gives Romneys Mormon Magical Underwear Magical powers? Is it the skidmark? we will never know...........

    November 1, 2012 at 8:06 pm |
    • Dan

      It's just as silly as any other religion.

      November 1, 2012 at 10:20 pm |
  62. Mormon Magical Underwear

    Did they find the planet Kolob? After all Mitt Romney believes that when he dies he will fly into outer space with his Mormon Magical Underwear and become a god once he reaches Kolob.He will meet his god Josoeph Smith and will live there in their paradise of polygamy.........What gives Romneys Mormon Magical Underwear Magical powers? Is it the skidmark? we will never know..........

    November 1, 2012 at 8:05 pm |
  63. todd

    Lies, Lies from the deepest pit of hell.

    November 1, 2012 at 7:43 pm |
    • John

      Why?

      November 1, 2012 at 7:53 pm |
    • Nick

      Well... Straight from 10 billion years ago more or less.

      November 1, 2012 at 7:57 pm |
    • FifthApe

      Hey Todd – I'll have fries with that order..... thanks!

      November 1, 2012 at 7:58 pm |
    • Dan

      Todd, this article is not for you. Go put your head back in the sand.

      November 1, 2012 at 10:21 pm |
  64. Name*steve

    So if we finally discover the beginning is it possible that we actually are witnessing our end through the loop that space really is?

    November 1, 2012 at 7:27 pm |
  65. Markus

    I encourage the sane to abandon those who defend Bronze Age Palestinian mythology. Just stop reading their depressing, infuriating comments and dismiss them as unpersons. A 'person' is an individual with a mind. When a person dies something of value is lost: a novel combination of thoughts, never to be repeated again. If millions chant the same thing in unison what persons are there to speak of?

    These people love fictional characters more than real people. For this betrayal exclude them. Let them kill each other with bombs and uncured cancer.

    Corpses stay dead. Virgins don't conceive. People swallowed by whales drown. Your 'sins' can only be things that happened after you were born. Also, 2+2=4. Tolerate not the idiot who says otherwise. Remove them from your life, or your rare sanity will drive you insane.

    November 1, 2012 at 7:13 pm |
    • HailSatans

      Ok, bro.

      November 1, 2012 at 7:43 pm |
    • Luther51

      Well, Markus, 2 + 2 = 4, but 0 + 0 always = 0

      In other words, 0 (nobody) + 0 (nothing) cannot = Everything. Doesn't work in our math today and didn't work at the time of the so-called Big Bang.

      Odd that you think that something has to be billions of years old to be true, but if it's only 3,000 years old (the Bible), it can't possibly be true.

      Oh well, there's one in every comment thread.

      November 1, 2012 at 8:12 pm |
      • Markus

        Positive energy (light, mass by Einstein's relation) + negative energy (free spacetime, antiparticles) + dark mass (neutrinos, else) + dark energy (negative pressure on spacetime) = 0

        What else could be true?

        November 1, 2012 at 8:34 pm |
      • Darth Cheney

        You made Markus' point just as well as he did.

        November 1, 2012 at 8:54 pm |
      • Whoknos

        But Einstein himself described his theories as "the thoughts of god". The man that was intelligent enough to form these theories was also smart enough to know that the order of the universe didn't come about by chance or through a random series of events.

        November 1, 2012 at 8:57 pm |
      • Markus

        Whoknos:

        Einstein explicitly denied a personal god. His statement against Abrahamic faiths (the famous 'God letter' he wrote) can be stretched at most for deism, but this god may be as unpleasant as Cthulhu. Worship and morality do not follow from that.

        The universe is quite large enough to permit random chance as an explanation for many things. If the arena is large enough exceptional outliers are inevitable. Of course, there are plenty of patterns to study, but none imply intention by anyone. That's the unfounded leap of a conspiracy theorist.

        November 1, 2012 at 10:58 pm |
  66. Thang

    "According to this study, the galaxies observed directly via telescope accounts for most of the extragalactic background light measured. That means there cannot be much more light coming from fainter galaxies, Faucher-Giguere explains. This also puts limits on how many black holes and massive stars were in the early universe."

    Now, I may misunderstand the import of this statement, however my interpretation is that this approaches evidence that the universe (or perhaps just *this* universe) is indeed finite. This is an important outcome if correct. It somewhat resolves and supports Olber's Paradox by placing a limit on the number of light emitting objects.

    It actually scares me a little to think that the universe is finite. It would probably scare me more if proof emerged that the universe is infinite. I am not a religious person however I do believe that there is a prime mover and of all religious traditions, I really like the kabbalah and Luria's concept of the tsimsum – Ein Sof withdrew to allow "space" for creation such that Ein Sof could contemplate himself – the universe is a finite spacetime continuum (and much much more) within the infinite and the eternal, a tsimsum blip wherein all is divine but free will is permitted. You make your own luck in other words and if there is a damnation (which I doubt) you make that for yourself too.

    November 1, 2012 at 7:11 pm |
    • Karsanac

      My understanding is that, yes, the universe is finite, but there is no edge to it. I really believe that there is nothing infinite in this universe. Sort of like walking the earth expecting to find an edge. There isn't one, but the earth is finite. that is a 2D perspectinve on a 3D model. The universe is a 3D perspective on a 4D (possibly more) model.

      November 1, 2012 at 7:23 pm |
      • uh

        but.. we (the earth) are not on the surface of a sphere (universe). If we live inside the earth, then there is a boundary.

        November 1, 2012 at 7:35 pm |
      • Nick

        @uh
        @Karsanac is more or less correct. The universe is not in a 'box' somewhere with 'walls' or an edge or a centre.

        Exactly like beings 'trapped' in a 2D landscape, we are 'trapped' in a 3D universe (three dimensions plus 'time', actually), embedded in a higher dimension space.

        One Dimension = Line
        Two Dimensions = Square
        Three Dimension = Cube
        Four Dimensions = Hyper-cube... But what does that actually look like? It is impossible to say since we do not have access to that 'direction.' Google "Hyper-cube" to see a 3 dimensional analogy of that 4 dimensional shape.

        Find some materials by Brian Green or Michio Kaku. Be warned though... #1. It might make your head spin... and #2. They are both Superstring theorists, and experimental verification of that mathematical construct has been illusive – and my well be impossible in any practical sense. (But I am not a theoretical or experimental physicist, so my opinion does not count for much.)

        November 1, 2012 at 8:30 pm |
      • uh

        @Nick The age of this universe is finite (so far), therefore the 4th dimension (time) has a boundary. I wonder which dimension(s) is(are) infinite? if we can walk on a sphere back to the big bang, how can the universe be expanding? scratching my head..

        November 1, 2012 at 8:50 pm |
      • Nick

        The universe is not... I repeat... *not* expanding to a pre-existing space – like blowing up a balloon or a bomb explosion. *EVREY* point in space can be literally considered as the ‘centre.’ The universe is expanding in of itself. i.e. There is no ‘outside’ to peer back into and watch everything unfold.
        This concept is hard to get across I realize...

        We can observe distant galaxies with telescopes and analyze their spectrum (i.e. The specific frequencies/colours of light) which indicate what elements are present. Since each element has a unique signature, we can match the ones observed in distant objects to those from the same elements here on Earth. What we notice is that, compared to what we observe here on Earth, those ‘signatures’ from the same elements in distant objects are not in the same spots, but have been slightly shifted to the red end of the spectrum.

        Using ‘standard candles’ – such as variable stars or Type 1a, supernovas, we can ascertain the distance to those far off galaxies. What was noticed early in the last century was that there is a definite correlation between the distance of galaxies and the rates at which they are receding. The father out we look, the faster the galaxies are speeding away. i.e. Redshifted. It is similar in the way the pitch of a siren changes as it speeds away from you. The frequencies become longer.
        The technique works in the opposite direction as well. If the object is approaching you, the frequencies become shorter. i.e. Blueshifted. Using the analogy of the siren again, the pitch would go up as it nears you because the frequencies become shorter.

        November 2, 2012 at 12:07 am |
    • Carlos

      Of course the universe is finite, but there may be an infinite number of finite universes coming and going. It seems that there must be, illogical to be otherwise.

      November 1, 2012 at 8:21 pm |
  67. Nissim Levy

    The theory of gravity is just a theory so we don't know if Einstein was correct otherwise it wouldn't be called just a theory, right?

    November 1, 2012 at 7:10 pm |
    • Shane

      There are extremely few actual "laws" out there. Evolution, gravity, and relativity all have mountains and mountains of evidence behind it, but they are theories. This doesn't mean that they aren't correct.

      A theory is testable, and has been tested over and over again, to show that that theory is correct, and then it is tested some more.

      November 1, 2012 at 7:22 pm |
    • Ben

      Using the words 'just a theory' indicates that you don't understand what the word theory means. That something is called a theory is not a label that denotes a lack of understanding or knowledge. It means that what is labeled a theory is supported by evidence. That's the key point. A theory is the strongest of ideas. It is not just an imagining, it is not just an assumption. It is an explanation that both explains what data you have and provides you with a means to draw new conclusions, and design experiments to gather new data to support those conclusions. When you use the phrase 'just a theory' as an attempt to disparage, it only serves to highlight your own lack of understanding.

      November 1, 2012 at 8:20 pm |
      • Hadenuffyet

        Then define "laws"..

        November 1, 2012 at 8:50 pm |
      • Brian

        A "law" simply describes observed behavior. A theory attempts to explain that behavior.

        Laws and theories have two different purposes, and they are not interchangeable. Theories are not "unproven laws." Theories will never become laws. And they were never intended to.

        November 1, 2012 at 10:39 pm |
    • Dan

      Go jump off a tall building and find out.

      November 1, 2012 at 10:22 pm |
  68. bostontola

    Help please. If both extragalactic background light and gamma rays are bosonic, why are the gamma rays absorbed?

    November 1, 2012 at 7:01 pm |
    • billf

      balsamic...its spelled balsamic

      November 1, 2012 at 8:32 pm |
      • Michael John Antthony

        And "it's" is spelled "it's" when it's a contraction of "it is".

        November 1, 2012 at 9:01 pm |
  69. BurtsBees

    Silly, silly churches! Mindless lemmings have nothing better to do except place NOTW stickers on their Prius cars. I laugh at you. I know everything and have lived for 7000 years. I know where you sleep.

    November 1, 2012 at 6:52 pm |
  70. cpc65

    The Universe is curved, like being the surface of a bubble. It may look flat or straight to us, but that's because light gets curved too so it just looks straight. Everything is moving away from the "center of the Universe", where the big bang occurred, and thus everything is moving away from everything else, spreading outwards. But at the same time it is all moving back towards everything else on the other side of the bubble and will all come back together again causing the big crunch. This will restart the cycle of the Universe. Or nothing at all will happen. I'll be long gone, so.....

    November 1, 2012 at 6:36 pm |
    • cpc65

      That's "being ON the surface of a bubble". I hate not being able to edit these comments!

      November 1, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
    • Say What?

      What? I read a lot of physics authors, like Michio Kaku and Brian Greene, and I've never heard "But at the same time it is all moving back towards everything else on the other side of the bubble and will all come back together again causing the big crunch." I thought the leading thought at this time is that it will all eventually separate too far and stars will burn out and they'll call it the "Big Freeze". The evidence for this is that everything is actually speeding up and moving away from... well, everything, as Edwin Hubble showed.

      November 1, 2012 at 6:52 pm |
    • uh

      Do you mean on the other side of the bubble there is less dark matter causing the big crunch? Do you mean multiple universes existing at the same time?

      November 1, 2012 at 7:08 pm |
    • Toljaso

      Did you just invent "bubble matter"? (it can't be observed on this side of the bubble) It's a lot like inventing dark matter, so that you don't have to face the troubling reality of an ever and infinitely expanding, cold, lonely, universe.

      November 1, 2012 at 7:32 pm |
      • uh

        Does this universe's theory apply to another universe?

        November 1, 2012 at 7:47 pm |
    • Dan

      I don't know about your explanation but I believe the universe will continue to recycle itself.

      November 1, 2012 at 10:25 pm |
    • Nick

      Not really... Two teams of astronomers working independently in the late 1990's discovered that the universe is not only expanding as was theorized (by Einstein) and observed (by Edwin Hubble)... but it is actually *accelerating* in a runaway fashion. The 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for this discovery. A 'Dark Energy' force appears to be responsible... but exactly what the heck it is, nobody knows at this point. Even if you throw in Dark Matter (whatever that turns out to be) + the tiny bit of regular matter (i.e. made of atoms) that exists, they are not nearly enough to slow or reverse the acceleration.
      The runaway expansion is carrying off distant galaxies and will eventually drag them away so fast that their light will never reach us. Trillions upon trillions of years from now, an astronomer looking up at the sky will only see the stars in our galaxy and a few of galaxies in our Local Group. And that is it... Even the cosmic microwave background radiation will have been red-shifted to undetectably low levels. Any evidence of a Big Bag or distant galaxies will be washed away. In a sense, the astronomer will view the universe in a way similar to our pre-20th century understanding of the cosmos.
      As the last of the dim red dwarf and brown dwarfs run out of fuel, they will wink out one by one and cool to the ambient temperate, fractions of a degree above absolute zero.... Even black holes will shrink as they lose their energy (through Hawking Radiation.) The last of the supermassive black holes will disappear in flashes of x-rays and gamma-rays, something around a googol (10^100) years from now.

      Our present understanding of cosmology indicates that things will end with a cold... dark... whimper.

      But it is really nothing we will have to deal with The human species will have long since disappeared by then.

      November 1, 2012 at 10:30 pm |
      • Andrew

        Einstein's had his whole 'cosmological constant' back when Hubble was taking data, I feel it's a bit of a stretch to say Einstein had theorized an expanding universe. Instead, he simply recognized his equations mandate that the universe be expanding without his constant.

        He was, at least, quick to admit he was wrong. Although in truth it was only the wrong sign.

        November 2, 2012 at 4:34 am |
      • Nick

        Yes, I know. I was being a little too loose in my commentary. Einstein's added his cosmological constant to create a static model of the universe. His 'greatest blunder", supposedly... which actually may have just been the wrong value for Λ. (Well... unless Dark Energy turns out to be a different beast entirely.)

        November 2, 2012 at 11:59 am |
  71. Robert

    One really has to supress the truth that science points taword to use the word "evolve" when describing how the universe developed. When I design a computer chip, it DOESN'T evolve. (Caps for poking fun at the self-labotomists who think things actually evolve.) It is developed by a lot of work from an intelligent designer. And I emphasize the word "work." It doesn't happen by chance. And the universe is infinitely more complex than a computer chip. Issac Newton said that all science shouts out loudly for a creator. I don't think anyone here would have the nerve to go up against brilliance of Sir Issac Newton... at least not to his face, if he were alive today.

    November 1, 2012 at 6:24 pm |
    • Brandon

      That has got to be the most ignorant, unintelligent argument I've heard in a while. Newton lived in the 17th-18th centuries. A high school student has more knowledge of physics than Newton ever did. Newton will remain as one of the most important scientists in history, but compared to the knowledge the average 10th grader has today, he is nothing.

      November 1, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
      • Vato Man

        You really have that much faith in the average 10th grader? Most college students don't even know what mathematical proofs are or let alone, know what Calculus is?!?!?

        November 1, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
    • Mike

      Really? My take away from most of cosmology is that an "Intelligent creator" is not required.

      Of course, you are talking about "Truth" here, right? Which is not the same as "Evidence." And the evidence points quite firmly away from an intelligent creator.

      November 1, 2012 at 6:38 pm |
      • Mike

        Either that, or it points toward an intelligent creator of such infinite power that they could create the very laws of physics themselves.

        November 1, 2012 at 6:42 pm |
      • Mike

        I take it you are also a Pastafarian, Mike? We know He has reached down with His Noodly Appendages to subtle alter the readings on our instruments because he's got a sense of humor that way...

        November 1, 2012 at 6:59 pm |
      • Vato Man

        Let me guess Mike, you talk of what you read and probably never taken a course in physics/chemistry/math yet you claim you know the evidence. Read the books old boy, most of the stuff we know is theory. Keep reading and soon you will learn that what we can't see and what we can't touch are still tangable through the human mind! Mathematicians try everyday to measure and understand the other world they call "imaginary", in physics terms, "the multi-dimensional world". Yet they are able to a sense to measure and understand but in the our physcial realm, it don't exist...

        November 1, 2012 at 7:00 pm |
    • Tom

      "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text." - Albert Einstein

      November 1, 2012 at 6:43 pm |
    • John

      But he's not alive. He lived in a time that believed that no one could ever travel faster that 50KPH. They were wrong on that and By God, you're wrong with intelligent design.

      November 1, 2012 at 6:43 pm |
      • Dave

        "But he's not alive. He lived in a time that believed that no one could ever travel faster that 50KPH. They were wrong on that and By God, you're wrong with intelligent design"

        Regarding your clams on Albert Einstein (1879-1955);
        In 1898 (Einstein would have been 19 years old) Gaston de Chasseloup-Laubat set the land speed record travelling at 105.88KM/H. you sir, are wrong that he lived at a time where they though exceeding at travelling faster than 50km/h, perhaps you're also wrong about intelligent design???

        November 1, 2012 at 7:30 pm |
    • brian

      Brilliant people can be wrong (and are well known for being so).

      The idea the universe is just too complex, that means it must be designed, well that is fallacious. We just don't know and that logic is based more on beauty than evidence.

      November 1, 2012 at 6:48 pm |
    • Rob

      This is real bad... Real, real bad... Get a clue or a life or both...

      November 1, 2012 at 6:57 pm |
    • Jon

      He also believed in philosopher's stones.

      November 1, 2012 at 6:59 pm |
  72. Terrible_Ted

    Me and cousin Goober were just discussing this very thing the other day down at the filling station.

    November 1, 2012 at 6:04 pm |
    • joeknockz

      Let me guess – you and goober are voting for ol' Romney huh?

      November 1, 2012 at 6:33 pm |
  73. uh

    Did our Universe expand faster than the speed of light? If not, what about the original lights that have reached the edge of the Universe?

    November 1, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
    • Robert

      What edge are you talking about. Is there an end and it just drops off or is there a wall and what is holding it?
      You don't make any sense.

      November 1, 2012 at 6:16 pm |
      • uh

        If we can't define the edge, how can we define expansion? Just by star distance? Maybe there is no edge at all, then something must be traveling faster than the speed of light. Otherwise, the expansion speed is equal to the light speed.

        November 1, 2012 at 6:31 pm |
      • Mike

        If the universe, and all the mass in it, came from a single point, and if every object in the universe travelled to their current position over a period of time, and if all mass in the universe began their travel to their current position at the same point in time (i.e. the Big Bang), then there has to be an edge to the universe, because there has to be some amount of mass that was the fastest in traveling from its point of origin to its current position, and is thus farthest from that position.

        November 1, 2012 at 6:40 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      At the beginning, yes it did expand at faster than the speed of light. Who knows what's really at the periphery of spacetime? I don't. String theorists have some theories.

      Just in case that sounds weird to you, spacetime moving faster than light happens all the time. It's how we define the Schwarzchild radius of a black hole. Galaxies depend on it.

      November 1, 2012 at 6:18 pm |
      • uh

        mm.. I was just trying to compare object traveling speeds. Now I'm more confused about how time is involved in the expansion.

        November 1, 2012 at 6:52 pm |
    • Dennis

      Yes, it expanded faster than the speed of light

      November 1, 2012 at 8:00 pm |
  74. 2a godim

    To have been able to view that moment (from a safe distance) would have been awesome...................

    November 1, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Distance didn't exist until the moment of the big bang, technically.

      November 1, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
      • RagingDragon

        Yes and no, technically, T3chn0. In this universe? No. Distance didn't exist until the big bang, if there was one. Some current theories about the universe doubt that it ever actually compressed into a singualrity, but is a series of collapsing and expanding phases, in which case the universe would have always have had distance.

        Be that as it may, if one were to stand outside the universe and observe it from other dimensions, then it would have probably been spectacular, particularly since it probably wouldn't have expanded from an external perspective, since the spacetime of the universe would be separate from the spacetime of the location it was being observed from.

        I can only imagine what it would be like to stride amongst so many universes and look in on each, marveling at how the natural laws evolved from one to the next

        November 1, 2012 at 7:11 pm |
  75. rudix

    2 options, A. they are lying B. they dont know what they are talking.....out of big ego....all you can read at THE DIMENSION MACHINE...to know when the universe started....lol is a little to arrogant.....

    November 1, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • Matt123

      you are most likely the author of this "book" – I found it on Amazon with a one star rating. please refrain from joining intelligent conversations...

      November 1, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
  76. bhavilu2

    I say our universe is mind boggling old and whatever light they measured is from even older star that was recycled countless times over and made into many stars as well. Don't waste your time if you are about to measure age of the universe, you will die many times over but not get accurate answer. Keep trying scientists we applaud your work.

    November 1, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
  77. Thanosone

    Before the laws of nature..... sub atomic particles moved at rates much much faster than light....

    November 1, 2012 at 5:36 pm |
    • Karsanac

      Thanosone, have you been playing with the Infinity Gauntlet again? No subatomic particles move faster than light... Unless willed by the soul of Thanos!

      November 1, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
      • augustghost

        How can you be so sure? No one knows all the answers...I'm willing to bet that something out there travels faster than light. Perhaps we are nothing but a thought in someone's/something's head

        November 1, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
    • Robert

      Sorry, but you are so wrong.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      No, they didn't. It was spacetime that was moving.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:53 pm |
    • Mike

      They moved at the speed of Dark?

      November 1, 2012 at 6:46 pm |
  78. Evan

    I guess nobody here has ever tried to research the similarities between the bible and countless other religions before Christianity... The bible is a rip off story from dozens of other religions made up before it's time. Compare the similarities between Jesus and Horus for "christs sake."
    1.Both were conceived of a virgin.
    2.Both were the "only begotten son" of a god (either Osiris or Yahweh)
    3.Horus's mother was Meri, Jesus's mother was Mary.
    4.Horus's foster father was called Jo-Seph, and Jesus's foster father was Joseph.
    5.Both foster fathers were of royal descent.
    6.Both were born in a cave (although sometimes Jesus is said to have been born in a stable).
    7.Both had their coming announced to their mother by an angel.
    Horus; birth was heralded by the star Sirius (the morning star). Jesus had his birth heralded by a star in the East (the sun rises in the East).
    8.Ancient Egyptians celebrated the birth of Horus on December 21 (the Winter Solstice). Modern Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25.
    9.Both births were announced by angels (this si nto the same as number 7).
    10.Both had shepherds witnessing the birth.
    11.Horus was visited at birth by "three solar deities" and Jesus was visited by "three wise men".
    12.After the birth of Horus, Herut tried to have Horus murdered. After the birth of Jesus, Herod tried to have Jesus murdered.
    13.To hide from Herut, the god That tells Isis, "Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child." To hide from Herod, an angel tells Joseph to "arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt."
    14.When Horus came of age, he had a special ritual where hsi eye was restored. When Jesus (and other Jews) come of age, they have a special ritual called a Bar Mitzvah.
    15.Both Horus and Jesus were 12 at this coming-of-age ritual. Neither have any official recorded life histories between the ages of 12 and 30.

    November 1, 2012 at 5:36 pm |
    • CRC

      Evan, no other religion makes sense, only the oldest religion of all, namely Christianity. Nothing existed before Adam and Eve 6000 years ago. There is a common theme that runs through the Bible that no other religion has and it is undeniable. That thread is the plan of salvation provided for by Jesus Christ who came as God in the flesh. If you don't see this it is only because you don't want to or you haven't studied Christianity with an open mind. Many people have set out to disprove the Bible only to get saved in the process. The truth will set you free.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:44 pm |
      • griz5106

        If you actually believe that Adam & Eve existed, you seriously need to have your head examined. I guess we could ask the talking snake what he thinks...

        November 1, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
      • zachmarsh

        Wow. You're as crazy as the guy you are responding to. 6000 years. That's funny.

        November 1, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
      • Z Money

        Judaism predated Christianity – and indeed Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism

        November 1, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
      • Jeff

        "Many people have set out to disprove the Bible only to get saved in the process." – And many who were born into the church, read their Bibles like they were supposed to, got baptized like they were supposed to and sang 'Nearer My God to Thee' like they were supposed to have become atheists. :)

        November 1, 2012 at 6:01 pm |
      • Andy

        The oldest, ha? Wasn't Jesus a Jew first?

        November 1, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
      • ThaGerm

        Christianity is nowhere near the oldest religion. Christianity requires Christ by definition and even the Bible only puts that back 2,000 years; meanwhile, your old-testament is written from Jewish text dated to be 5,000 years old. Christianity is to Judaism what Mormonism is to Christianity. Each wanting so badly to be the one true faith and each nothing more than an extension of faiths that came before. Here is your vocabulary word for the day: Transmogrification. Transmogrification as used in a religious context is simply injecting portions of an older faith into the one your selling to garner support and increase conversion rates. This is why Celtic crosses have a circle (it's called a Sun Cross) and why your Jesus is born on the exact same day as many dozens of other deities before him, and that reason has everything to do with the winter solstice, you would likely call it pagan. I know you have placed all your eggs in the shut-your-brain-off-faith-based-belief-system, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to ignore the noses on our face!

        November 1, 2012 at 6:13 pm |
      • ThaGerm

        Oh yes and Jeff has a sweet point! I am one of those born out of the church. I lobbied my mother to allow me to take a bus to church when I was 7. By the time I was 14 I was teaching Sunday School to children, by the time I was 24 I woke up and realize what an absolute farce the whole thing was. Now at 38 I couldn't be happier. I am all good with God and we have a very personal relationship so save the whole pity trip and threats that inevitably come out of the mouth of your kind for the next sap that comes along.

        November 1, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
      • Old man from scene 23

        you know, whats interesting about that is that there is nothing but paganism for 2-3000 years based on your understanding of this generational mesurement. follow me here... so, adam and eve are created and thats year 0 in this young earth model –for those who dont know how you get 6-10,000 years from there is the 2nd 1/2 of genisis where so and so begat so and so, and the age of each individual is given, adam lives to be in his 940's, methusila lives to 1100 and so-on, and if you add that up you get 6-10,000 years depending on your math–anyhoo, after the fall cain is outcast and the last real act of god is marking cain.. he founds the caininites, but, while its unclear if cain retains his faith in what the rest of the bible calls god, he doesnt make a state religion of it, the caininites are baal worshipers, its actually quite a while until you get to abraham who founds the 3 current western monothiestic religions, the bible fills that gap with alagories and stories, and in the case of noah and lot individual believers, but judism takes a while, even in its own book, to get started.

        November 1, 2012 at 6:30 pm |
      • Thang

        I'd heard that there are people like you, who think dinosaurs and people walked the earth together 6000 years ago. Unbelievably ignorant and gullible – I mean, does the sun rotate around the earth, and the stars and galaxies are all illusions placed in spacetime 6K years ago as well? Can you read? You speak of an open mind yet you have the most closed off mind I have encountered. You, sir, are a numbskull and should not be permitted to breed.

        November 1, 2012 at 6:40 pm |
      • Mike

        Wait. What? You do know that Christianity is not the oldest religion, right? You do remember the part about Jesus being Jewish? The religion that proceeded it, and still exists? Not to mention any of the myriad other religions that presage Christianity.

        I'm tempted to think you just dropped that one for amusement's sake just to see who'd bite.

        November 1, 2012 at 6:48 pm |
      • Nisism Levy

        Christianity is not the oldest religion. Were did you get that misinformation from. Both Judaism and Buddhism are much older

        November 1, 2012 at 7:02 pm |
      • Shane

        As others have pointed out, Judiasm predates Christianity, but I'll let you slide on that one since Christians do use the OT in their religion (although still, technically Christinity isn't the oldest, and neither is Judiasm).

        There isn't much evidence to show that the Earth is only 6000 – 10000 years old, while there are tons of evidence that the Earth is millions of years old. And most of the Young Earth evidence barely even supports it without stretching. So either God is a liar, and is attempting to decieve man, or the Earth is older. What type of sick person would decieve their own children and leave no evidence behind of their existance just to see if they still believe in him? Sounds like a real bad psychology experiment to me.

        What about Christianity makes so much sense to you to the point that its the only religion that can make sense? Because I've read the Bible, I've studied the Bible, and it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense once you take the real world into consideration.

        November 1, 2012 at 7:19 pm |
      • Pappy

        Good ole Yahweh. He is without a doubt the greatest deceiver of them all. When he created the Earth 6 to 10 thousand years ago he was thoughtful enough to equip it with 25 thousand year old pottery and million year old stone tools. He laid down 400 thousand years’ worth of ice deposits in Antarctica, and provided a fossil record more than a billion years old. Not just any fossil record either. One that showed a steady progression through time from single cell organisms to what we have today. He included a series of human ancestor fossils to further muddy the waters. Then to make things really confusing he threw in a few vestigial organs like leg bones in whales and wisdom teeth. But the coup de grâce was without a doubt his thoughtful inclusion of retro viral insertions in the DNA of humans and chimpanzees just to make it look like we are related. Yep, good ole Yahweh. He always planned for me to burn in heck. At least that’s the only reason I can think of for him to provide all this evidence that’s contradictory to his story.

        November 1, 2012 at 7:49 pm |
      • Dan

        The bible is a silly fairy tale written by men and you are a fool for believing it. They tried to explain things that they did not understand. The earth is not flat, the sun does not revolve around the earth, and there is not an invisible man in the sky controlling everything.

        November 1, 2012 at 10:32 pm |
      • Dan

        In the original fairy tale, Eve was created first by magic of course. She had one testicle and Gawd removed it and created Adam with some more magic. That is why men have two testicles and women don't have any. They had two boys so there was some incest going on or the rest of us would not be here. This is just as silly as your story.

        November 1, 2012 at 10:35 pm |
      • Dan

        Please watch this and do not reproduce.

        [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU&w=640&h=390]

        November 1, 2012 at 10:37 pm |
      • Nick

        Oldest religion?? Wasn't Christ a Jew? The man was not even born until about 2000 year ago.

        Christianity is the oldest religion in the same way Windows 7 was the first computer program.

        November 2, 2012 at 12:18 am |
      • Darth Cheney

        wow. Wow. WOW. Um, hate to destroy your paradigm, but that Jesus dude was a RABBI.

        November 2, 2012 at 10:04 am |
      • AT

        Dear CRC,
        Saying Christianity the oldest religion just makes you look so stupid and makes your argument, well, more stupid. If you have a slight knowledge of Bible then you should have some clue about Judaism????? Also Buddhism started about 600 before the birth of Jesus. Buddha was born 2600 years ago in a country named Nepal, which I am assuming you may have never heard about (considering your intellect). And there is a religion called Hinduism which existed at least 7-8000 years ago, and yes there are proofs in form of books, arts and culture.

        November 2, 2012 at 11:48 am |
    • Bunsen Honeydew

      All this conflicts with the Wikipedia entry on Horus.
      Therefore, Christianity must be the Truth.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
    • Robert

      "Hey, Zeus!" the little Athenian boy said to the head Greek god.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
      • Thang

        Good one! Not many got it by the looks of it.

        November 2, 2012 at 4:35 am |
    • Evan

      You know... It is interesting to note that there isn't a single standing building dated back further than 6000 years ago... What can I say? I am a skeptic at heart for both ends of the argument.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:59 pm |
      • Z Money

        Tumulus of Bougon – 4700 BCE (6700 years old)
        Tumulus Saint-Michel – 4500 BCE (6500 years old)
        Barnenez – 4500 BCE (6500 years old)

        November 1, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
      • Evan

        Well see, that's all good and fine Z Money... But that could all be errors in the dating technology like the estimates from half an inch to a quarter inch. The fact that the dates of buildings coincide with what the bible preaches is an indisputable fact that cannot be dismissed and deserves some further looking in to. Believe me, I am against organized religion. I'd have to say I'm agnostic on the whole religion matter though. I like to take in both sides of the argument. If humanity did in fact exist before the bible preaches you would think there would be some sort of building that is still standing to prove that fact.

        November 1, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
      • Z Money

        Sure – but it likely relates to the fact that once humans hit a certain point to build and record history, religion started as well. So all the dates matching up might be correlated but not causative. Although, I have wondered how they can date something like rocks being placed on top of each other....

        November 1, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
      • Mike

        Evan, I would debate your claim that you are a skeptic at heart. Someone produces a counterexample, and your immediate response is "well, the dates could be wrong." The fact is there are numerous counterexamples of archaeological sites that are well over 6000 years old. Given the nature of construction, would you really be surprised there are no "standing buildings" over 6000 years old? Seriously. Even modern built buildings wouldn't be expected to last that long.

        Of course, none of this discussion addresses the original article.

        November 1, 2012 at 6:57 pm |
      • UrDumb

        Or, could it be that the earth's landscape changes drastically over long periods of time? How else do they find fish skeletons on mountain ranges, or the same exact creatures on different continents 1000's of miles apart at a certain period in history? Ever heard of Pangea? Or the Dinosaurs?
        By your logic, we should be cloning dinosaurs so we can promplty kill them off, bury them deep in the sand, and have more petroleum in a short 50 years.

        I'm so exausted from the back-woods close-minded religious bumpkins trying to drag us back to into the dark ages. The end of man won't be money, budgets, asteroids, or volcanoes; it will be retards killing each other in wars, spreading fear and hate about who is right and wrong, all over something that can't ever be proven true or false.

        November 1, 2012 at 7:00 pm |
      • Jerome

        Gobekli Tepe in Turkey was built 11,600 years ago. Near the town of Sanliurfa where the Prophet Abraham was born many years later, this is not fiction and much older than you 6,000 year fantasy. Back to the Dark Ages, Evan.

        November 1, 2012 at 9:03 pm |
      • Dan

        LOL. That is your reasoning?

        November 1, 2012 at 10:38 pm |
    • JIM

      Meri & Jo-Seph! Wow. That would be amazing except that you totally made it up.Horus was the son of Osiris and Isis. Please make your arguments without resorting to blatent lies that most folk might not recognize, since not everyone knows mythology.

      November 1, 2012 at 7:44 pm |
    • Fred

      Blble is only a book describing how toothless neolithics think about the life. God never appears to nobody.

      Bible is only a historical register of great ignorance of that times.

      November 1, 2012 at 9:46 pm |
  79. Georgie

    This might be a stupid question but we say that the universe is 13.75 billion year old. But we also say that time slows when traveling at fast speeds. Well…our galaxy is speeding through the universe. Does that not mean that 13.5 years for us on earth is nothing compared to someone standing still at the point of the big bang? Would not many more than 13.75 years have passed since the big bang for that person?

    November 1, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
    • Karsanac

      The short answer, to the best of my knowledge, is yes. That is, part of the reason, why some argue that the universe is really 18 billion years old. However, light theoretically traveling from the "center of the big bang" will reach us regardless of our speed. It will just have red shifted down in frequency. Weird, huh?

      November 1, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
      • Lber

        Wouldn't the shift (either red or blue) depend on the direction of travel (towards or away).

        November 1, 2012 at 5:33 pm |
      • Karsanac

        Lber, yes. But since all of the universe is expanding, all light is red shifted. The further away stars are from us, the faster then are moving away from us. So, I don't know of any observable blue shift. But, I'm not an astrophysicist. I could be wrong.

        November 1, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
      • entropy

        Since the Big bang created the universe. It actually contained the entire universe. The universe is everywhere, and so is the point at which the big bang derived. Nothing is static everything is in motion.

        November 1, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
    • PainCase

      How are the time estimates for the recombination epoch calculated without a proper model? Do they just say oh it was this and that so it was probably so and took 2 billion years. Hey Einstein.... Is the Universe static? Laughs and points.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:31 pm |
    • Thinkster

      Not necessarily – remember it's space (the vacuum) that's expanding – if you're carried along with the expansion, you're not travelling through space, but rather WITH space as IT expands – so aging is as normal for regular matter. Only the photons don't age – because they can't age in the first place – time doesn't exist for photons – they're massless and travel at lightspeed – the clock stops for photons. Hope it helps.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
      • Rosenstingl

        Very good point according to Einstein. First really smart comment in all this discussion. Furthermore the whole universe is a flat infinitely thin disk according to the same equations. so that not only time is oth zero and infinite but distance itself does not exist for light. Puzzle me that one out

        November 1, 2012 at 7:30 pm |
    • E

      By whose frame of reference?

      Are we talking special or general relativity here?

      November 1, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
    • Fisixs

      It boils down to Relativity. Everything is relative, but since we reside on planet Earth, in this solar system, in this galaxy then our perspective of time is relative to where we exist in the universe. So from our perspective the universe is ~ 13.75 billion years old...relatively speaking.

      November 2, 2012 at 11:32 am |
  80. JESUSCHRISTISLORD

    EVERYONE MUST READ THIS. DO NOT LISTEN TO SCIENCE, SCIENCE HAS NO HEART. YOU MUST SUBMIT TO JESUS. GOD WILL BRING YOU INTO HEAVEN AND THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS. EVERY SCIENTIST WHO ATTEMPTS TO UNRAVEL GODS GREAT WORK WILL PERISH IN HELL. IF YOURE READING THIS, YOU CAN STILL BE SAVED!!!

    November 1, 2012 at 5:15 pm |
    • Bo

      Oh, okay, got it. Thanks for the heads up, man.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
    • griz5106

      I think that I'll stick with the science. Hell does not scare me.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
      • Bo

        Uh, griz, you must've not realized that the comment was written in ALL CAPS. That's legit, son. You best recognize.

        YOU SHALL BE SMOTE BY THE LORD WITH A MIGHTY LIGHTNING BOLT! YOU SHALL BURN FOR ALL ETERNITY FOR YOUR INSOLENCE, MORTAL! REPENT! REPENT, I SAY!!!

        November 1, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
      • griz5106

        I don't know Bo, I just that much into that submitting and worshipping stuff. I'd rather believe in things I can see, smell and touch. Ocasionally I have to submit to my wife, however.

        November 1, 2012 at 5:32 pm |
      • It'sOK I'mfromEarth

        smote??. . .?

        November 1, 2012 at 9:35 pm |
    • Josh

      first off, His name was, and is, Yeshua. Second off, this is no way you preach to people. And finally, no, I don't believe the universe is billions of years old, I do believe we want it to be to find meaning in our lives, but don't we all? Nothing will ever change these mentalities. I'm a follower of the most high, while they follow after their beliefs... in the end, we will all know who was right and who was wrong... but too many days have been wasted bickering and fighting over this.. too many have died.. YHVH said to LOVE all people... and so I shall, even those I don't agree with. Science has saved so many lives, so I'm thrilled they're still seeking an answer, hopefully one day it will be that of mine, but if not, I commend them for doing something that us Christians don't... the bible says to "SEEK"... the bible doesn't say... read and be close minded. You have to search for truth... like the simple fact that most believes have the entire bible messed up... Yeshua said to FOLLOW the old law... INCLUDING the sabbath... all new believers are convinced that he destroyed it... but this is no place to debate such a topic. Wonderful work, space is beautiful, and I'm glad that we're still search.

      Be at peace brother.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
      • Bo

        Yeah, you're "the most high" alright...

        ZING!

        November 1, 2012 at 5:30 pm |
      • Josh

        your mockery only reveals your ignorance.

        November 1, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
      • the_third_chimpanzee

        The thing about reality and facts is that they don't require your belief to be true. The universe *is* billions of years old. Fact. Belief has nothing to do with it. Belief doesn't figure into the *truth* at all.

        November 1, 2012 at 5:43 pm |
      • big tex

        I weep for how ignorant our nation has become. The founding fathers would have given up had they seen the rise of the Bible-thumpers in the last 50 years.

        November 1, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
      • Andy

        Not everyone is seeking a meaning of life. Some just accept life as is. No long term purpose, no meaning. Rather liberating, isn't?

        November 1, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
    • science students

      Do those two really in conflict of each other? Plenty scientists are faithful. One uses heart to believe and the other uses mind to discovery and make sense of things...

      November 1, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
      • Josh

        Yes, because telling somebody they're damned is a wonderful way of pushing others away. I love science, and yet I'm a believer. Yes, mockery will come, but it doesn't really bother me.. my faith is strong nonetheless. However, it's just rough to see people like this, shoving hell and damnation down others throats. The bible is very clear on loving others, we're not better than you, though most church's would beg to differ. Science is the reason so many of my friends are alive, science I believe my God created. We just need to reach a middle ground, to accept each other... we're different, but that's what makes us human, and brings different things to the table. You can't prove theory, nor can you prove God. I can show you things I believe point to my God, and you can do the same with science... but how in anyway does it further our progression as humans? It doesn't... I'm so sick of fighting... Keep searching, no matter where it may lead.. for if one doesn't ask questions, one will never find answers... and you've blinded yourself.

        November 1, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
    • Vash

      Nice try, Atheist, posing as a Christian.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:33 pm |
      • dagon

        funny how quick religious folk attack they lack intellegengence they are scared of anything good they just like miserasble fire and brimstone and hate change

        November 1, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
    • ManOffTheMoon

      Scientists are not trying to unravel "God's " great work. The credit goes to the universe itself.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
    • Lber

      Whew! Thanks! I was wondering about all the strife around my life, time to hang up my biology degrees.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
    • Matt

      Which Jesus would that be? There are like 147 flavors.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
      • Josh

        none of them. Jesus, the name, never existed at the time. His name was Yeshua.

        November 1, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
    • Dennis San Francisco

      And your evidence?? No thanks pal, science makes more sense than religion. I was force fed all that gibberish for many years and then I learned to examine FACTS!

      November 1, 2012 at 5:46 pm |
    • FrontRowSeatInHell

      I'd rather spend eternity in Hell sitting next to Satan's big toe than spend one second anywhere else with these christian loonies.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:46 pm |
    • CRC

      True science agrees with scripture so science is not the problem. The only problem is the people who warp science to make it fit what they want it to be. Many many scientific facts point to an earth and creation of only around 6000 years which is what the Bible teaches us.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:47 pm |
      • FifthApe

        You are just nuts. With a mind like this you should not be in a position of any importance in a first world nation. 6000 yrs – what a joke.

        November 1, 2012 at 8:16 pm |
    • db

      Since God created scientists, I think He's OK with us. I'm not worried.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
    • Atheist

      I feel sorry for you.

      November 1, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
      • Dogon Master

        If you really felt sorry........... WELL anyway I'm so glad I live in the USA where you don't get persecuted for your nationality or religious beliefs. That's what we left Europe for. The freedoms such as religious freedoms the USA provides. Religions can be thought of as the first science, and they are intertwined with the understanding of science. So it is important to study religion and understand it in respect to how it ties in with science. I would feel sorry for those who do not understand this because it is the story of our collective humanity.

        November 1, 2012 at 11:35 pm |
      • paul321

        Dragonmaster – to propose an alternate perspective then perhaps the original settlers of the US ran away from Europe instead of being brave enough to stay and effect change in the system as those brave people who stayed behind did.

        November 2, 2012 at 11:58 am |
    • E

      No issues using the devil's technologies, though, huh?

      Savoring the irony of the Jesus post. Good troll attempt.

      November 1, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
    • gelli

      I think this is exactly what they said at Galileo's trial!

      November 1, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
    • brian

      I am a bit mystified. Why the war on science.

      Is there somewhere in the scripture where science is said to be wrong? Is there somewhere it says that god and science cannot coexist? Perhaps the truth is actually somewhere in the middle, and at the same time something no one has even considered yet.

      We live in a world enriched by both the bible and by science. We need "the golden rule" and prime commandments of loving thy neighbor, just as much as we need computers and electricity. Instead of trying to be "right", you should be following the words of Jesus and seek peace instead, and trying to understand what things you and the world of science have in common.

      November 1, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
      • paul321

        Why the war on science ? .... welcome to the USA and the ultra-conservatives. And it can only get worse – as the scientifically illiterate breed, their offspring are only exposed to ficticious religio-babble and are sheilded from the scientific process, rational thought and the desire to ask 'why?' .... and then unfortunately they get old enough to vote.

        November 2, 2012 at 11:55 am |
      • dconklin58

        >"welcome to the USA and the ultra-conservatives. And it can only get worse – as the scientifically illiterate breed, their offspring are only exposed to ficticious religio-babble and are sheilded from the scientific process, rational thought and the desire to ask 'why?'"

        And the wannabe's, but never will be, because they thnk that insulting others is the way to advance human knowledge.

        The critics remind me of this quote: "They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge." Thomas Brackett Reed, Speaker of the House, on his political opponents.

        November 2, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
    • Dan

      So where is hell besides in your brain?

      November 1, 2012 at 10:42 pm |
  81. Josh

    There is actually no scientific evidence that points to a young earth, only an old earth, and an extremely old one at that. The "young earth" mentality is simply just a doctrine and nothing more. They come from unscientifically opinionated people who have no regard for knowledge because they feel that it threatens God's image or what God has done. The problem isn't the old earth. The problem is the small box that people have put God in concerning a young earth. Simply remove the small box.

    Some people want to nit-pick at every single little thing that they say scientists have done by "cheating the numbers". Oh, so you mean how one of the individuals that was dug up in Jordan or somewhere that was on time magazine saying it was our earliest ancestors (can't remember for the life of me the scientific name, but the individual was nick-named "Lucy", as the digging team was listening to the Beatles when they were working) going back 5-6 million years or whatever was a hoax? The reality is, and the scientists confessed to this later, is that they wanted to publish as soon as possible so as to get more funding. They quickly redacted the claims and adjusted it to an appropriate couple million years or so.

    Probably the best way I could describe proof of an old earth would be that: the same science that can date pottery back to biblical times (let's just say 1,500-6,000 years ago was biblical okay?) and very accurately at that, is the same method used to date dinosaur bones. Do you know how old dino bones are? They start in the few millions and go up to the hundreds because dinos were that badass to rule for that long (I hope we as humans can hold our own for that long).

    November 1, 2012 at 5:13 pm |
    • super

      "dinosaurs" is a generic term like "animal." There are many different periods of "dinosaurs," the most well known being the Jurassic period which had the kind of dinosaurs we associate with dinosaurs. It is a way to look at the progress of evolution and the "dinosaur" years span millions of years, jurassic dinosaurs being just one of many.

      November 1, 2012 at 7:10 pm |
  82. GG

    Obviously the brighter stars are no contributing their fair share to the background radiation.
    And everyone knows that they had help in their stellar evolution,

    November 1, 2012 at 5:04 pm |
  83. BD

    This is a supremely elegant solution to an ancient puzzle. The first question that comes to mind is: what are the gamma ray sources and how were they created and in existence before the universe?

    Beyond that, these are the questions my relatively lay mind asks:

    What exactly is our definition of the age of the universe? Time since the big bang?

    Was there matter in some form before that and if not, how were electromagnetic particles distributed (asusming they existed, if not sub in the appropriate component that did exist, quark, string, etc) and what forces were acting on them?

    November 1, 2012 at 5:02 pm |
  84. Aaron

    LOL @ reporting made up numbers as factual information.

    November 1, 2012 at 5:00 pm |
    • religion; a way to control the weak minded

      I suppose you would think the explanation of "god did it in 6000 years" to be more acceptable right?

      November 1, 2012 at 5:02 pm |
      • lmillerut

        it always amazes me how much faith people place in science, especially modern day science. the human race has just begun to scratch the surface of what science is really all about. our knowledge is infantile, we know NOTHING. we only learned the secrets of airplanes and automobiles barely a hundred years ago for crying out loud.

        who knows, in 50 years scientists will probably have to admit that the reasoning behind carbon dating was wrong and the whole scientific community will be flipped on its head similar to when they realized the world IS NOT flat. remember that little mix up? the more scientist discover the more they realize just how little they knew in the first place.

        research has unquestionably yielded fantastic results for the human race but to turn our backs on religion because science offers "concrete" theories is foolish in my eyes.

        making fun of GOD is just as silly as making fun of science. neither can be fully proven. they are both left to personal opinion and faith.

        November 1, 2012 at 5:14 pm |
    • tigershark

      Wanna talk about made up numbers, scientist have peered as far as approx. 13 billion years away. The sun is about 4 billion years old. Lots of information that makes this important is blinded again by nonsense that is only a few thousand years old, with more loopholes to reality than our gov't paperwork...

      November 1, 2012 at 10:00 pm |
    • Dan

      Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that an invisible guy created everything 6000 years ago.

      November 1, 2012 at 10:44 pm |
  85. Sy2502

    Anyone who doesn't believe in the sorry state of our education system only needs to read some of the comments to this article.
    Doesn't anybody crack open a book any more? And no, I don't mean that pile of broze age garbage some of you keep bringing up.

    November 1, 2012 at 4:54 pm |
    • zipfan

      Your comments make me chortle in response; would love to have an adult conversation with you sometime

      November 1, 2012 at 4:56 pm |
      • RazorRamon

        Like an "adult" conversation?

        November 1, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
  86. God

    Um. Why wasn't I consulted on this? No..but seriously...this is way off the mark. What you guys are measuring (incorrectly I might add) is just THIS CURRENT CYCLE of the Universe. You see...the "ever expanding" universe .. from time to time... reverses and shrinks back into this giant ball I like to play with. When I get everything back into this "ball" I make it go bang again and start over. Kind of like your etch-a-sketch but on an infinate size and in 4D.

    November 1, 2012 at 4:48 pm |
    • BD

      Actually modern research has shown that the universe not only will continue to expand but will do so at an ever increasing rate.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:54 pm |
      • Karsanac

        I agree. Stephan Hawkings calls it the "Big Cool Down". Expansions until there is nothing left but black holes which will just take 100's of billions of years to cool off and dissipate.

        November 1, 2012 at 4:58 pm |
      • religion; a way to control the weak minded

        still all theories.

        November 1, 2012 at 5:03 pm |
      • cwestions

        Recent research has actually shown the contrary that the universe is indeed infinite. In such a scenario, the silly Big Bang theory doesn't hold water. Since the basics of science as we know it are based in that which is measurable, it rubs a lot of scientists the wrong way, but the concept of looking deeper into space as somehow looking closer towards our inception is a notion soon to disappear.

        November 1, 2012 at 5:10 pm |
      • Karsanac

        cwestions, Which scientific research? most recent research points to a finite universe without an edge. sort of like walking around earth. It's not infinite, but you never reach an edge. So, if this is some sort of round about way for "intelligent design" #fail.

        November 1, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
      • Chance

        Karsanac, to correct you intelligent design points to a finite universe one that has a beginning and end. To say the universe is infinite is not conductive to intelligent design. Remember intelligent design is pointing to a infinite designer. How could the theory hold claiming a infinite universe, if the universe was infinite no designer is needed. Thus modern cosmology corresponds with a finite universe.

        November 1, 2012 at 6:02 pm |
    • Leroy Jenkins

      Hi God, I was just wondering why you forgot to tell us about the dinosaurs in the bible, you know, the ones that were here just 5 or 6 thousand years ago? Leroy.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:35 pm |
      • Karsanac

        "DINOSAURS?! WHAT DINOSAURS? THESE AREN'T THE DINOSAURS YOU'RE LOOKING FOR..." **waves hand in old-jedi-mind-trick style**

        November 1, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
      • Chance

        Right the book should have also described the standard model and a unified theory of everything...Why wasn't the bible a scientific treasure trove...Why was it mainly about God's salvation plan for humanity...or better yet it should have just been a encyclopedia of dinosaurs. Thanks Leroy you really nailed it on what the bible should have been about.

        November 1, 2012 at 6:06 pm |
      • God

        Hi Leroy. I didn't write the Bible. Does that answer your question?

        November 1, 2012 at 7:23 pm |
  87. viranka

    it's not going to matter one bit unless we STOP OVER POPULATING our planet. our life span is short enough as it is, quit making it even shorter.

    November 1, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
  88. zipfan

    A tragedy that untold millions spent on trying to figure out what the Bible says in a few verses. Read Genesis.
    Save the money for real needs

    November 1, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
    • Bo

      Hahaha! Good one...

      November 1, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
    • Steve O

      I can't tell if this is comedic or tragic.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:55 pm |
      • Bo

        Unfortunately tragic, Steve O. I just pretend these people are joking to keep me from abandoning all hope for humanity.

        November 1, 2012 at 4:57 pm |
    • serana

      The Bible does not talk about the Big Bang theory, nor about the expanding universe. Otherwise the pope would not have hanged Galieo – Galileo preached the word to be round, not flat like the pope believed

      The Koran does, however say
      [79:30] He made the earth egg-shaped.
      [21:30] Do the unbelievers not realize that the heaven and the earth used to be one solid mass that we exploded into existence? And from water we made all living things. Would they believe?
      [51:47] We constructed the sky with our hands, and we will continue to expand it.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:00 pm |
      • Rami Henry

        So does the Bible (Isaiah 40:22); the Qur'an came with nothing new in this concept....pease do your reserach on Christianity before spewing lies. God bless you...

        November 1, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
      • doabitofhomework

        To @serana: Uuuuhh, Galileo didn't "preach" anything at all. He observed, noted what he observed, and wrote his observations and conclusions. He was a scientist, not a lowlife preacher.

        Your views are heavily skewed and not worthy of consideration, because you get facts wrong. Often deliberately, I imagine.

        Galileo was NOT hanged. He was condemned to house arrest, nothing more, and died there. You are ignorant.

        Don't even think of getting me started on Islam. I've been a scholar of it since 1994, and probably know more of it than you do. You obviously don't do any real homework, even about your OWN faith.

        Go preach your violent-god's mummery elsewhere. That's what the religion blogs are FOR.

        Leave this place.

        November 1, 2012 at 8:03 pm |
    • Aezel

      Can't tell if zipfan is joking or stupid..........

      November 1, 2012 at 5:07 pm |
      • RazorRamon

        Well, he wants to have *ahem* adult conversations about Genesis, so he's into some weird stuff to say the least..

        November 1, 2012 at 6:11 pm |
  89. Joe

    The important thing to remember her is that it doesn't really matter how much light there was 10 billion years ago just like it doesn't matter how much light exists in the universe now. It also doesn't matter how stars or planets were formed or how they die. None of this stuff really matters. But it is fun to know! Just be nice! Be nice all the time!

    November 1, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
    • Starluver

      It doesn't matter to you, but for an intelligent person like I am, it matters more than the gas price.

      November 1, 2012 at 10:45 pm |
  90. Anon

    How are gamma-rays absorbed by starlight? I thought only matter could absorb light (gamma-rays being high-energy light), not light absorbing light. Do you mean that the matter in galaxies absorbs the gamma-ray extragalactic background light?

    November 1, 2012 at 4:37 pm |
    • Starluver

      Your qestion is the most one about this article written by Mr. Potatohead. I am a physics PhD and I don't know at all how gamma ray is absorbed by visible light. Yahho should remove this misleading article.

      November 1, 2012 at 10:44 pm |
  91. Tony

    What existed before the universe popped out. Nothing? What is at the edge of the expanding universe? Nothing?

    November 1, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • cwestions

      Not. It's infinite (that's of both time and space) There can be no "edge" of space. Reject the Big Bang theory for all that it's not worth. Just because our infinitesimally tiny corner of the universe experience a bit of heating, a bit of cooling, and a bit of coalescing does not mean that the rest of the universe is experiencing different stages. All one has to do is pay attention to the wide variety of Galactic shapes and sizes out there to determine that. Even if you wanted to believe (as theory is close to faith) that our known universe began with a bang, why is it that no one can explain what the bang was, why that collection of mass existed, or what set it off.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:16 pm |
      • Karsanac

        Cwestion, Sort of like my response to your other post. The universe doesn't need to have en edge to be finite. I posted a 3D example in my previous post. But, the universe is in a 4D plane of space-time (maybe more!) So, curving of space time creates an illusion of infinity because we see in 3D AND the size/scale of the finite is unobservable by us. Nothing is infinite in this universe. Sorry.

        November 1, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
    • Knuckles Nuclear

      God's lunchbox. He left it there after he got done working.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:19 pm |
    • DoDaDrew

      Nothing travels faster than the speed of light, it's a theory within the big bang.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
    • theBmoll

      What goes on between your ears? Nothing...1

      November 2, 2012 at 5:57 am |
    • Badly-Bent

      What's at the end of the expanding universe? nothing. But, you believe its there. Right?

      November 2, 2012 at 12:00 pm |
  92. Bob

    So how does this work, that light is still traveling to us? I thought originally all energy/matter was at the same point in time. That being the big bang. If that is the case then our matter, some billions of years laters light years away would be our Sun/earth. How would we see light that had already past us, since our matter can not travel past the speed of light?

    November 1, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
    • Karsanac

      I might not answer your question completely... You're asking how can we see older light? It probably took the first stars a couple of billion years to form, first off. But, more complex is the notion that universal expansion CAN happen at a rate greater than the speed of light. This is because the law of relativity states that you can not travel faster than the speed of light while in time-space. The expansion of the universe can happen faster than the speed of light because it is essentially expanding into nothingness. A second after the big bang, the universe was probably already billions of light years across.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:34 pm |
      • gf

        What a though, expanding nearly instantaneously. That's fast. Oh that would really be so awesome to be able to wrap my mind around all of that. Or better yet, if I could really explore how all of that works ... like if I had a front-row seat to it all happening. It's tough when my curiosity wants to know it all, but I'm constrained in such a tiny mind on such a tiny planet compared to the vast expanses of the universe.

        November 1, 2012 at 5:03 pm |
      • cwestions

        Once again, the newest models suggest that the universe is infinite. The "Big Bang", if it occurred at all, was probably only a speck of a phenomenon that occurred in our tiny corner of the universe.

        November 1, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
      • Karsanac

        Cwestion, please see my other posts to your post. Which research are you allegedly quoting? MOST research points to a finite universe without an edge. 4D folding (which is mathematically calculable) creates many possibilities. More importantly, more and more research (out of stanford and cambridge) point to a multiverse view of existence. Many universes, all finite. Google "multiverse" and read the wikipedia entry. Well written.

        November 1, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
      • gf

        Honestly, none of that makes sense to me ... "infinite universe" or even "infinite number of finite universes" or "a finite universe in an infinite emptiness". I really don't understand things that can't be calculated or quantified, unless they be emotions. I can say I do, that I know that numbers keep going, the universe never stops, etc ... but really all of my experiences have a beginning & end and are wrapped within a finite boundary, so that's what I understand. I understand based on my experiences, even if I can spout out knowledge that goes beyond my experiences or understanding.

        November 1, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
  93. A-Rod

    I've seen Uranus and it ain't pretty!

    November 1, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
  94. the_truth

    How do you know this? Were you there? The Bible says the Earth was created in 6 days 6000 years ago. The Bible is the inerrant word of God.

    November 1, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
    • Karsanac

      Unfortunately, the bible was written by humans. The bible has great lessons to be taught, but it was never meant to be taken literally. The dead sea scrolls (early versions of the bible) while having many similarities to a modern day bible, has a lot of changes and discrepancies.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
      • the_truth

        It was written by humans, with divine inspiration. People make up these phony stories about "billions" of years because they don't want to be held accountable for their sins. All scientific evidence points to a young Earth, about 6000 years. Check out Answers in Genesis if you want the truth.

        November 1, 2012 at 4:32 pm |
      • zipfan

        Written by humans but inspired by God Himself. The Bible doesn't say exactly how old the earth is but that isn't the issue. The problem is we spend millions upon millions to TRY and figure our how the universe started, how the planets formed, etc. Just read Genesis and you will see the light, otherwise you are living in darkness and that is a very dangerous place to be (read Revelation to find out what will happen in the end....)

        November 1, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
      • Bo

        "All scientific evidence points to a young Earth, about 6000 years..."

        Said no scientist ever.

        November 1, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
      • Chris

        Exactly. As a Christian myself, even I know that the Bible, and particularly the Old Testament, cannot be taken literally. It was written to explain difficult concepts in a way that people with extremely limited understanding not only of the greater universe, but their our own world. The concept of billions or even millions as numbers alone, much less the thought of numbering years in that many, was something people at the time couldn't grasp.

        God gave man life, free will, and the ability to reason. To stick fast to an idea in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary is, in my opinion, to brazenly toss aside the latter.

        Faith and science are not anathema to each other. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool or has an axe to grind.

        November 1, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
      • gf

        @Chris,

        It gets tricky when you start saying you'll read and interpret the book you believe in as you will, with your own reason, choosing what to and not to take literally. For example. Can men walk on water? Now there's actual empirical evidence that "No, of course not". So what do you do with that? And as a general rule, when people are actually dead (for like 3 days), they don't come back ... again, empirical evidence. So that's a tricky place for you to be in. You should probably look at what you really believe and why.

        The Big Bang isn't so much based on empirical evidence as it is a theory, the same way the Plasma Theory is a theory. No matter how much they try, they can't reproduce that, and we've never actually observed a Big Bang. What they do is observe what are thought to be results or effects of the Big Bang. That said, there are still very brilliant scientists who think the Big Bang theory has too many holes in it and opt instead for the Plasma theory. That's really just saying that with these theories, they try to understand what's going on, but it's a vast thing of near infinite size (the universe, at least near infinite from our perspective) that we're trying to wrap our brains around.

        Faith and science are not anathema to each other. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool or has an axe to grind.

        November 1, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
      • Kevin

        The philosophies of faith and science are absolutely, inherently at odds. Science seeks to identify and fill gaps in human understanding, which is completely incompatable with the idea of "taking something on faith". Faith is the assertion that you know something to be true without proof, or, worse, the idea that you can't know something so don't even try.

        That doesn't mean religious people can't be scientists. It just means that they haven't taken the fundamental difference between the two to it's logical conclusion.

        November 1, 2012 at 5:33 pm |
      • Andrew

        Plasma theory?

        Listen, the big bang is the natural conclusion of solving the Einstein field equations, it's supported by the expansion of the universe, and after the COBE results from the 1990s, any further denial is lunacy.

        That's entirely ignoring the WMAP data, or heaven forbid what happens when we look at Planck satillite data.

        Or hey, what about the whole 'mass percentage of helium to hydrogen matches theoretical predictions', bit? Honestly, since your god could quite litereally set the universe up however he wants, chooses a strange ratio of hydrogen to helium to lithium to byrillium to carbon to nitrogen to oxygen etc. It corresponds quite oddly well with the ratio's you'd expect if the universe was once in a dense hot state that expanded rapidly. Physics explains these things quite well with a big bang... but they're really quite remarkable to see if the big bang is all a lie.

        But hey, call it a 'theory' like 'plasma theory', whatever that is. I'm sure you're FAR better versed in physics than I am, correct? This is child's play to you, I don't have to teach you all about recombination and decoupling and the like, right?

        November 2, 2012 at 4:32 am |
    • Tony

      And all kinds of other mythical stuff from people who lived in the desert without technology.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:31 pm |
    • just a guy

      To you. To me, the Bible is a load of crap, fairy tales for the simple-minded who are too afraid to accept the reality of the universe. There is no God, there is no heaven, when you die, it's lights out oblivion. That is the truth.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:32 pm |
      • the_truth

        You are going to hell, my friend. Unless you repent and accept Jesus Christ who died for your sins.

        November 1, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
      • zipfan

        Wow, feel sorry for you. Jsut for fun read the book of Revelation and find out what will happen to you in the end... if you don't belive it that's fine but where you go is for ETERNITY; worth the risk?

        November 1, 2012 at 4:55 pm |
      • cybercmdr

        So for the mistakes of one lifetime, your loving deity will torture people over billions of years? Sounds pretty sadistic to me.

        November 1, 2012 at 5:05 pm |
      • gf

        Just to be clear ... are you saying that all people who believe in something like God/god are simple minded? Are you then stating that you are more brilliant and know more than every person on this planet who would profess such a belief? That is either a really bold claim, or else an admission that you're even more simple-minded than some of those you claim to be simple-minded. How tragic for you.

        November 1, 2012 at 5:06 pm |
      • Karsanac

        Zipfan, You know the book of Revelations was written as a political statement against the warring tribes at the time of its recordance? I'm not being a jerk, but it really wasn't meant to be a prophetic book, more of a political satire written in a way so that he would keep his head. He really couldn't write, "Tribe so and so are a bunch of jerks" because that would be a death warrant. Hope that enlightens you!

        November 1, 2012 at 5:46 pm |
      • gf

        @ Karsanac,

        I'm not sure how to reconcile what you said, about it not being intended as prophecy, with what's written at the beginning of Revelation:

        Revelation 1:1-3 clearly says that it was written "to show his servants what must soon take place" and it was referred to as "words of this prophecy". It's irrelevant whether it's believed to be true, rather what the intent was. It seems that if the author clearly gives the intent, as prophecy (even fake prophecy can be intended as real prophecy) ... are you saying rather your word should be taken instead? How do you justify such a claim?

        Just a few lines further, Revelation 1:4, it says, "To the seven churches". Not sure what you're getting about warring tribes. Please do enlighten further. It seems if you speak with such authority as it's so obvious, you should have a reason that can be backed up ... otherwise there's just a lot of fiction going around and your words are part of that.

        November 1, 2012 at 6:17 pm |
    • Quid Malmborg in Plano TX

      "The Bible says the Earth was created in 6 days 6000 years ago." So, "The Bible" is WRONG. Not much of a "bible" now is it?

      "The Bible is the inerrant word of God." Which one (deity, that is)?

      November 1, 2012 at 4:33 pm |
      • bhavilu2

        How about TRUTH be told; how old this galaxy and its creator are.
        (155,521,971,961,600 in 1998 A.D.)ADD more years as years go by.

        http://www.encyclopediaofauthentichinduism.org/articles/53_chronological_chart.htm

        Download English Vachanamrut and read page 662 Khagol Bhugol (which describes realms in Milky way Galaxy and time to attain a human birth. There is god and you are not carbon based human. Your true form is "Soul."

        November 1, 2012 at 4:49 pm |
    • george

      Thank god for Darwin.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:38 pm |
      • RazorRamon

        Haha.. That's confusing!

        November 1, 2012 at 6:18 pm |
    • sonic10158

      yawn, unrelated bible bashing. Never seen that before.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
      • george

        You should get out more often. Excersize is great for that tired feeling and you might get an education at the same time.

        November 1, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
    • SixDegrees

      No, the Bible doesn't say that.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
    • griz5106

      How do you know that? Were you there?

      November 1, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
    • Not On Drugs

      Hey jabroni ...one word "Fossil" specifically dinosaurs 100s of millions old.Now go back and stick your head back up where the sun dont shine

      November 1, 2012 at 4:49 pm |
    • zipfan

      Almost 100% correct; the Bible does not clearly state how old everything is; just says 'In the beginning.....'

      November 1, 2012 at 4:52 pm |
      • RazorRamon

        You seem to be well-informed Zipfan, so I had a question for you that I've wondered about for a while:

        If Adam and Eve only had sons, where did all the people come from? I can only think of one possible answer, and it ain't pretty.

        November 1, 2012 at 6:21 pm |
    • Steve O

      The realities of the universe do not depend on your ability to understand them. Keep your mythology. Ignore the trappings and miracles that science and technology have brought you, get off the internet, move to the desert to live out the rest of your days as a bronze-age nomad. And PLEASE stay out of education and politics. That's where the adults do work.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:52 pm |
    • cybercmdr

      When a book of religious stories contains many, many contradictions with measurable reality, you can either accept the fact that the book is not "inerrant", or refuse to acknowledge the reality you live in. Of course, denying the science is easier if you have only a rudimentary understanding of the basics, which is all too common today.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:01 pm |
      • Fumantis

        Very well said cyber.

        November 1, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
      • gf

        Very mediocre-ly said.

        You said: "Of course, denying 'the science' is easier if you have only a rudimentary understanding of the basics, which is all too common today" ... I understand that. It's easy to deny what we don't understand. That's almost getting close to the implication of a sweeping claim that either all people who believe in God deny science, or that all people who believe in God don't understand science, not taking into account that many brilliant scientists and scholars (even currently) do believe in God. So please, do clarify the intent of your comment. Is that what you're implying?

        November 1, 2012 at 6:24 pm |
    • Rami Henry

      It's so sad when people take one verses, or even a couple, out of context and proclaim some rubbish. First of all, it is very well known since the Apostolic Age, that a day to the Lord is a thousand years, and a thousand years is a day (2Peter3:8) Of course, even that thousand is a metaphor to a whole lot of years. So no, the world was not created in six literal days...

      Second, the Bible never was, and never will be, a scientific book, and that's just fine, because the Bible is God's personal (not scientific) message to each and every one of us, regarding the story of humankind, and how wretched it was even though He created it, and the need for salvation, for everyone but for you personally too (this is a completly different topic, but I invite all to read the Bible from that angle; a personal message)....

      Nontheless, any facts stated by the Bible are true and have always been. For example, in the Book of Isaiah, 40:22 the prophet speaks about a round earth! How did he know so? There are tens of different examples in the old testament like this, but I remembered this one off the top of my head; I invite you to investigate this angle too!

      Why do I feel this always happens in 'Western' cultures, whatever that word means; on the one side, I find narrow-minded, limited-world-view Bible thumpers who have no idea what they're talking about, and on the other end I find the Bible-bashers who don't even give theirselves a chance to truly read it and research it, especially using Orthodox or even Catholic sources? It's so sad that nobody stopes and does their research and critically analyzes.....

      Any and all scientific advances do not undermine the Bible; on the contrary, it supports the Bible immensely...The first 'day' of creation for example 'Let there be light' was not the sun (that was another 'day'), then what was it? It might very well have been the Big Bang! If the Big Bang is to be discredited (I doubt it, but let's say that happens), then whatever other hypothesis/law that is formulated won't undermine the Bible. Science discovers the beautiful laws of physics/chemistry/other sciences, which God, in our belief as Christians, initiated, so why should there be any contradiction?

      It is true that some denominations of Christianity misused the Bible immensely (read: the Middle Ages) but please do your reserach on Christianity, Christ, and His Bible; widen your scope, read books from around the workd, ask questions to the non-right wing nuts who misread and misuse the Bible, and above all, pray that God shows you His personal message, which is the whole reason for the Bible.

      To those who do not believe in the Bible, I respect you, however plz do your research before bashing the Bible, when it's there for you personally....

      Pray for me, God bless you all...

      November 1, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
      • Rami Henry

        CLARIFICATION: "how wretched it was even though He created it" is due to humans' free will that God gave to them and their misuse of it....like a teacher who allows their students to make mistakes on their own so that they learn, except this time these students went seriously in trouble and the chance of salvation was given (the cross)...again, a different huge issue but I invite u to read St. Augustine and Pope Athanasios (20th Egyptian Pope)'s explanations regarding this issue...

        November 1, 2012 at 5:41 pm |
      • Knuckles Nuclear

        Thank you, Rami.
        You have said the most reasonable comment concerning science and Christian belief here. I have never understood why some Christians chose to conveniently ignore any and all scientific knowledge they feel contradicts their literal interpretation of the Bible. As you said it is religious text, not a book of science. The writers were not modern day physicists.
        But some Christian believers decide it is and pick and choose what modern science tells them. They call study of the Big Bang wrong even though all the same science and research went into making the computer they are typing on, the TV they are watching, the car they are driving, and the medical achievements that keep them alive.

        November 1, 2012 at 5:49 pm |
      • Patrick

        Oh come on. What a total cop out. Nothing in the bible squares with science. You can talk all you want about metaphors, but it seems that what is metaphor and what is literal is completely arbitrary. The religious are great salesmen, as soon as science refutes something in the texts, they have a convenient, if completely dishonest rebuttal in that "Oh, it was just a metaphor and not to be taken literally". If this keeps going, soon the entire bible will be metaphorical, which it alreay is of course. It's all about power and control!

        November 2, 2012 at 8:44 am |
      • Rami Henry

        @Patrick: I respect what u say, but I ask u to not listen to the idiotic people who take from the Bible what they want as metaphors. I invite u to read, critically analyze early church fathers' sayings....expand ur horizon and u'll find the truth...

        November 2, 2012 at 8:58 am |
      • narfzort

        i don't misuse the bible. it was made to be a backup to toilet paper if you suddenly find the roll has finished, and that's what i use it for.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:17 am |
      • dconklin58

        >"If all you religious people are so anti-science, throw out your computers :D"

        The fruit of science proven yet again. Can't "win" an argument, can't use reason and logic in a discusssion so they whip out the juvenile remarks.

        November 2, 2012 at 9:27 am |
      • Rami Henry

        @dconklin58: what is juvenile in what I said? :)

        November 2, 2012 at 10:27 am |
      • dconklin58

        >"what is juvenile in what I said?"

        Your quip: " throw out your computers"

        November 2, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
      • Rami Henry

        @dconklin58: I neither said nor meant any such notion....please quote one of my previous posts to prove ur claim :)

        November 2, 2012 at 3:37 pm |
      • dconklin58

        Rami,

        I was responding to:

        Sane Person

        If all you religious people are so anti-science, throw out your computers :D
        November 2, 2012 at 9:19 am

        Why you thought I was talking to you I don't know.

        November 2, 2012 at 3:48 pm |
    • FifthApe

      The bible is bronze aged myth. Garbage written by goat herders. Just read it. Deut 25 11-12.

      November 1, 2012 at 8:19 pm |
    • Dan

      No intelligent person believes that the earth was created by some invisible guy 6,000 years ago or that the bible is anything more than a fairy tale.

      November 1, 2012 at 10:50 pm |
  95. Geek

    Someone show me the calendar that says that

    November 1, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
    • Karsanac

      Calendar for what? The age of the universe? Some people say it's 18million years old because the distant light gets distorted due to gravity (there by slowing it down).

      November 1, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
    • Steve O

      That's like saying you don't believe in Jupiter because there's no Rand-McNalley roadmap to it.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
  96. JJC

    Truely amazing.

    "That means there cannot be much more light coming from fainter galaxies..."

    Does this mean that we can observe most of the galaxies out there? Are we closing in on observing all the way back to the earliest observable universe?

    November 1, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
  97. Karsanac

    Thanks Elizabeth for a great article. I wish CNN allowed more of these types of articles!

    November 1, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
  98. Brian

    How does the red shift enter into this? Reminds me of Olber's paradox.

    November 1, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
    • Karsanac

      I'm not an expert, but since the universe is expanding at a crazy fast rate, a lot of light is red shifted into the non visible wave lengths. Also, I don't think the universe is it infinite. It just doesn't have an edge.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
  99. elandau

    Hi RealSci, the universe is about 14 billion years old. But the scientists are able to estimate how much light there was when the universe was only 4 billion years old - that is, all of the light that there had been in those first 4 billion years.

    Thanks for reading!

    Elizabeth Landau, CNN.com

    November 1, 2012 at 3:19 pm |
  100. RealSci

    I think they mean 14 billion years ago, not 4 billion. The Earth is slightly older than 4.5 billion years old, so how can the Universe have it's first light at 4 billion years?

    November 1, 2012 at 3:16 pm |
    • Person

      The article essentially said "When the universe was 4 billion years old, it was still young." They didn't say "The universe is currently 4 billion years old."

      November 1, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
    • AstroRoy

      The universe "at 4 billion years old", that was ten billion years ago. They didn't say 4 billion years ago.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:19 pm |
    • Lee-Anne

      RealSci,
      I have to say your comment makes no sense. They were talking about when the Universe itself was 4 billion years old.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
    • sonic10158

      you missed a word

      November 1, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
      • dagon

        eh i just see it pointless to argue science vs religion.... science can be measured and tested religion trips on its own self trying to explain itself

        November 1, 2012 at 6:18 pm |
1 2

Contributors

  • Elizabeth LandauElizabeth Landau
    Writer/Producer
  • Sophia DengoSophia Dengo
    Senior Designer