Mystery asteroid may be Earth’s baby sister
The origin of the asteroid Lutetia may have been solved, scientists say, and the new information could help them understand how Earth was formed.
Lutetia, a 62-mile-wide space rock resembling a giant dented potato, currently resides in the main asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Scientists used to think objects found in the asteroid belt were born there, but Lutetia looks different.
Astronomers from France, Germany, the U.S. and Canada analyzed images taken by the European Space Agency’s Rosetta spacecraft in July of 2010 and combined them with data from European Southern Observatory’s New Technology Telescope at the La Silla Observatory in Chile, NASA’s Infrared Telescope Facility in Hawaii, and the Spitzer Space Telescope.
They found that Lutetia had a lot in common with a class of meteorites found on Earth.
"There is a specific class of meteorites called enstatite chondrites which have properties which are very similar with Earth's rocks," said Pierre Vernazza, an astronomer with ESO and the lead author of a new research paper on Lutetia.
Lutetia’s properties are nearly identical to those chondrites, which are thought to have formed close to the young sun and may have been a major building block of the rocky planets including Earth, Venus and Mercury. Lutetia’s similarity to the chondrites implies it likely formed much closer to the sun rather than in the asteroid belt, Vernazza’s research indicates.
If Lutetia was nearby when Earth was being formed, the asteroid may hold the long-sought material from which the terrestrial planets formed.
"With this work we have possibly tracked the first building blocks of the Earth," Vernazza said.
So how did Lutetia end up in the asteroid belt?
Researchers have a couple of theories. Maybe it was scattered by newborn planets or swept away by Jupiter as it migrated to its current spot in the solar system.
Vernazza says what we’ve learned from Lutetia gives us a picture of how the Earth looked when it formed and shows the baby steps of planet formation.
He hopes his team’s research will help spot the best asteroids to get samples from in hopes of tracking the origins on life on Earth.
“Obviously the most exciting thing would be bringing back a sample (of an asteroid) that would carry organics and the necessary components of life."
@CNNLightYears on Twitter
People in Orbit
Expedition 36 Commander
Expedition 36 Flight Engineer
Expedition 36 Flight Engineer
Contributors
-
Elizabeth Landau
Writer/Producer -
Sophia Dengo
Senior Designer
Magnificent items from you, man. I have remember your stuff prior to and you're just too fantastic. I actually like what you have acquired here, certainly like what you're stating and the way in which you say it. You're making it entertaining and you continue to take care of to keep it wise. I cant wait to learn far more from you. This is really a great website.
Very Nice site I stumbled upon it on the search engines , have you been using wordpress for this blog? or some different?
The last thing I expected coming here was to find deranged fundamentalist Christians spewing non-falsifiables, and misquoting and misinterpreting men of science to desperately and hysterically buttress the decaying and failing structure of their constant apologism.
The Asteroid belt where two or more planet collide and broke up. Lutira look no different than the surface of other barron planet.
ummm all this argument over a big rock..........we are truly doomed.
Perhaps the asteroid belt is what remains of a long destroyed planet or two ... meaning collision
occurred, and some of that debris may have actually hit the Earth millions and millions of years ago
the larger objects ending Dinosaurs ... and the other creating a HUGE impact on the planet Mars.
To the aptly handled "Praise God"... Jesus Christ indeed. There is no point in talking to someone like you, you will never EVER be open to any kind of a discussion that doesn't agree with your theistic ramblings. As for the ridiculous mangling of pseudo-scientific quotes you tried to string together to support your "position", nice try, but you, like most ID and creationist nitwits pick and choose whatever "science" you like off the buffet table to fit whatever inane nonsense you're trying to ram down people's throats. Much like your "theology", you take whatever you want and discard the rest in order to maintain that incredibly fragile illusion that everything in the universe is happening according to your particular version of the interventionist diety's "plan". But, as has always been the case, the blindly religious will vehemently stomp their feet with every single iota of scientific progress until the point that it is irrefutable. THEN you jump on board and say, "Oh yeah, wait a second... That was really "god's" plan all along!" Aye carumba. Kiekkergard was right folks, the "leap of faith" is one that is never made once, but has to be repeatedly made since "faith" alone is never sufficient. And, how could it be? Deep down every theist knows that it is truly man made propoganda, but they just WANT to believe it SO badly that they'll keep comprimising their position with every single leap in an attempt to square the circle and somehow reconcile things.
But, for the love of "god", please don't start talking about entropy and time symmetry; you come off as an even bigger moron than when you just spout your fairy tale wish thinking. You remind me of the last "christian" I tried to talk to; when I asked him what religion he would have been if he had been born in a completely Muslim or Hindu country he didn't miss a beat... "I'd be a 'christian' from day one, whether all of my family was something else or not."
Man, it is truly amazing that people can have these kind of psychopathic delusions and not be locked up in an instittuion somewhere. Truly, there is "safety in numbers". Like Samuel Clemens said... "One of the proofs of the immortality of the soul is that myriads have believed in it. They have also believed the world was flat."
Have a nice life waiting for what will never come... Too bad you're going to miss this one in the process.
so well put. and that "what religion" question is a killer. did you think that up yourself? if yes, you're a genius. i bet no true Christians will ever have the guts in admitting that they could be serving another god in a "what if" scenario, regardless how absurd that claim may be. the opposite of that is also true for that matter. if a muslim ever admit that he/she might be a Christian, hell will be waiting. LOL.
Thank you, sir, I likewise wish you a nice life too. As far as the rest of your long-winded rant, I notice it consists of various insults as to my not being open to a discussion or supporting only what I already believe. The irony is, sir, I have actually quite coherently presented you with something that has been called one of the most underrated and important discoveries in the history of physics. If you're not familiar with Roger Penrose, please don't blame me. He is a world leading physicist on par with Hawking. His argument for low entropy in the early universe is quite stunning and actually quite beautiful to those scientifically inclined. I notice you didn't bother responding to it at all. Yet you accuse me of being closed to the discussion. Sir, I have nothing to prove to you, but suffice it to say you don't know me. If I told you my education, for example, or any number of discussions I have had – openly – with others, you would simply discover I quite enjoy a good discussion on such topics. However, indeed as you quite well point out, there is little use talking about them with someone who is quite closed minded. And far from "ramming" anything at anyone as you falsely accuse, I indeed responded to a direct question from another poster. In fact since my response was directed to that poster, I find it odd that you and hello God took it upon yourselves to read the response at all. And as you were under no compulsion whatsoever to continue reading any of it, your claims that anything was rammed is quite again a false accusation.
So yes indeed, you will pardon me if I kindly decline your advice to not talk about entropy and asymmetries in the early universe. For while you obviously quite fancy yourself much more learned and knowledgeable about the topic, it is readily apparent such is not the case. If you wish to have an actual discussion on entropy in the early universe, feel free. I won't hold my breath, however. Have a great day and God's blessings to you.
So what if Christians believe that the Almightly created the universe? The Bible clearly states the "Who" . Science only deals with the ""How". I personally see no conflict here.
You also have proven the Bible to be true. Only fools mock God.
I know this isn't realated directly to the article but it is related to the comment section....
To all creationists (and any other person who believes in god), just think about this for a bit and please respond..
'Of course god exists, just think, if the Earth had just a slightly different chemical composition then there would be no Earth quakes, no tsunami's, and fewer hurricanes and tornadoes!'
If god really did exist, don't you think he would have made the earth such a way that it wouldn't randomly kill a large group of the the people he supposedly created?
Look into science,physics, biology, and math, and if you can understand it all then you will see how rediculous it is to believe in such a thing as a god.
And to those who say it takes just as much belief to belive in an infinite universe as it does to believe in an infinite god, I dissagree. The universe doesn't need a consiousness to slowly and randomly have humans grow on one of an infinite number of planets.
Greetings, sir. You asked for a response. I can give one, but I admit I know almost nothing. In fact though, I think it's a good thing to admit I know so little. Another man who admitted that was nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman. Great sense of humor. I think you might consider when you tell people you have studied physics and biology and it is ridiculous to believe in a God that there are a lot smarter and better scientists than you who do believe in God. Really your post sounded more like you're here to bait people. Tell me, what if someone came along and did give you evidence? Would you believe it?
Look up Roger Penrose and the entropy of the early universe. In fact for a phase space to exist to reach the point we are at now the universe would have had to have begun with such an enormously low entropy as to be mathematically beyond our comprehension. By entropy the universe is headed towards heat death. Even black holes per Hawking will dissipate. It is a scientifically known principle order comes from greater order. The universe in fact began highly ordered. So highly ordered it is again beyond our minds to imagine the number. This is the so called big bang, that Penrose calls the big boot as in possibly reboot like a computer. In fact it is extremely mysterious indeed how the universe is not just in motion, but could be in between states of creation and heat death. In short the very order of the universe is direct evidence of it being created from higher order. If in fact galaxies were simply clumps of local order, they would not be governed by the same laws throughout the universe. Yet the Andromeda, Milky Way and other galaxies are governed by the same laws. And so the universe is ordered and the entire universe was set out from a higher order, with unimaginably low entropy allowing it to progress to where it is now, low entropy like a wound up clock.
Why do genetic diseases and viruses and tornadoes and volcanoes exist? For the same reason stars and planets and gravity and cells and kidneys and brains exist. The physical laws governing all the good in the universe by nature allow disease and storms. Why doesn't God stop each disease and storm? Maybe He has a reason. Maybe it is for us to truly seek Him. In fact Jesus did not heal the paralytic until it was to show the Pharises that He had authority on earth to forgive sins, an authority granted only to God. Do you think the concept of sin is ridiculous? In fact in the universe one might think sin is a very very real thing indeed. If the universe is governed by laws those laws would be violated at a cost. Indeed it may well be such violations would need to be paid for.
@Praise God, you sound pretty coherent and intelligent (hope it's not all from Googling today). for me, if IRREFUTABLE evidence is presented, of course i'll become a believer right on the spot. but please, don't substitute "incomprehensible observation/deduction" for irrefutable evidence. science is perpetual jouney of discovery to understand the "incomprehensible", to come up with new theories that fit the observations, and NOT to believe in something as true without irrefutable evidence.
of course, all of these are dependent on today's technology. something that we believe as true today may be proven false tomorrow with better telescopes or sensors, but that doesn't discredit the scientific premise. WHAT YOU ARE PROCLAIMING, is that if there is something "incomprehensible" to your (or anyone else's) mind, then it MUST BE god's work. that logic doesn't fly in the face of science. it doesn't count as evidence at any level, let alone irrefutable.
as for your entropy arguments, which you repeated in different post at least 3 times, it sounds convincing to the uneducated, but it isn't even a very good argument. why would you EXPECT the initial universe to have a high entropy to begin with?! where did that expectation come from? it's the beginning of a universe for crying out loud, where would the disorder come from?
and, back to your initial question. if irrefutable evidence IS presented, it's not presented by "SOMEONE", but only by god itself. not even the pope can substitute god when it comes to evidence presentation. LOL.
@hello God, thank you for your thoughtful response. First of all, it is incorrect to say I claimed it was irrefutable evidence of God. I never said it was. You can simply say it was astronomically, unimaginably lucky. As far as repeating it, I noticed you and others repeat your points as well. However, despite already posting, I noticed someone else posted at the top making a specific request they asked even for a response so I gave one. But in general, overall, your words simply miss the mark. You don't seem to get why Penrose's argument is significant, and then all you do is wrongly accuse me of claiming it is irrefutable evidence which I never said it is. Guess that's about all I can say. Lol. Have a great day.
I have heard about the low entropy at the beginning of the universe, but that doesn't really go against anything in science. In theory, the universe was as structured as possible without breaking Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, this goes in accordance with everything we know now about physics and this universes natural laws. It also means that it wasn't perfectly structured whereas if it was a god that did it, it probably would have been.
The heat death thing I might have bought if the universe wasn't expanding the way it is. The universe is expanding faster than the entropy is rising so this would allow the universe to cool faster than it's heating up. If this isn't what you meant by heat death, sorry, I haven't heard this before and didn't look it up, but if it is what you meant then this is my theory on it.
Also, if someone brought me evidence that there was a god then I would become a believer on the spot, but it would have to be repeatable and objective evidence. Believers try and give subjective evidence all the time and say that it's proof, which is why us atheists usually get so mad.
@I'm the best, thank you for your response. We both agree the entropy of the early universe is very much in accord with science. And indeed many arguments, including from Boltzmann in the 1890's have simply pointed to that despite the statistical unlikeliness, it is simply that unlikeliness. And given enough time, it would eventually occur. I just think it is quite something to note, as Penrose dose, what that unlikeliness is. He estimates 10 to the 10 to the 123. It is truly a staggering unlikeliness certainly beyond my ability to imagine such a number. Various essays have been written, suggesting to put it into terms of flipping a coin and even coming up with a billion heads in a row. Then to go to that many in a row. Yes, in the end one can simply make the same arguments that simply given enough time and randomness it is achieved. You are welcome to let that satisfy as it satisfies others. I am well aware it is not definitive proof of a creator. I just think it is interesting there may be many people unaware of how special and ordered our universe is and how "lucky" that is.
As far as heat death, it is a bit of a misnomer. It is a cold heat – something like the cosmic microwave background radiation or actually even a good bit lower if it were ever reached. But the argument is simply by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, even given Boltzmann's tweak, that entropy is highly unlikely to decrease. Thus the universe is headed towards eventual "heat death" or perhaps more descriptively towards equilibrium of temperatures – a cold soup. That is also assuming it is a closed system. But again that simply highlights how the universe began from something much more like a wound clock – with very, very low entropy – allowing the unwinding so to speak to continue 15-20+ billion years.
I can see how looking at it that way would lead to a belief in god, but, although it may be very unlikely to happen, the more times you try it, the more likely it becomes. If you try your coin example 11 trillion times then eventually you'll get a string of heads happen many times in a row. Now string theory suggests there are many more deminsions than the ones we see, 9 to 11 depending on what theory you look at. But if you look at this as you would look at 3d space, where there is an infinite number of 2d planes within that space then you can probably say the same about 3d volumes in a 4d space. My point is, the universe at the big bang could have easily "tried" every possibility there was in how to structure the laws of physics as well as how to structure the initial big bang itself. I'd say almost all of them would be pretty useless without even matter clumping together to become anything but some would lead to planets and others would lead to planets that could support life.
This may sound like a reach to not believe in a deity, but knowing enough astrophysics to understand how the planets formed after the big bang and knowing enough biology (albeit not much) and probability to have a pretty good grasp of how life could have began and evolved, I see no reason for any god to be a part of the universe at all after the big bang so why should there be one to start it.
And I can see, and as I said I agree is perfectly acceptable, that even incomprehensibly unlikely situations can simply be imagined to be the result of enough time and chance. I certainly respect your right to always use just that argument as is done. I'm quite aware of and fascinated by string theory, including M-theory, and the postulation of 11 dimensions. There is still much unknown, beautiful and fascinating in physics indeed. I'm also fond of astrophysics and in fact my undergraduate degree is in biology so I am certainly aware of much in the field of evolutionary biology. I have in fact been very fortunate to meet and even work with some fascinating individuals.
But in the end, let me summarize what has really occurred here because I think it is very worthy of note. You began quite indeed erroneously by stating that it is ridiculous to even believe in a God. You stated that if one was aware of knowledge of astrophysics and biology one would not believe in God. Now that I have in fact presented something to you which the best science can do is explain as being staggeringly unlikely, you simply believe by choice which is your right to say it would eventually occur by chance. At the very least I will point out that this is indeed a long way from your original postulate that believing in God is somehow unscientific. In fact it is not at all, and greater scientists by far than you or I have believed in God. I have simply shown one of many scientific reasons to say that the universe is quite ordered and special. I have never said I would prove God's existence though proofs have been put forwards by others. But perhaps I achieved something else which is to reveal more clearly what your position is. Your position is in fact mere assumption that something staggeringly unlikely would happen by chance. I would dare say from such a position, one could quite also easily postulate far more staggeringly unlikely things than our universe have occurred prior to 20 billion years ago.
I agree with what you're saying, mostly. My real point is when you look at the grand scheme of things, you can see that, life does not need a god for it to begin, humans do not need a god for them to evolve, the earth does not need a god to form, the universe does not need a god to opperate. So why, after everything not needing a god so far, would you look at the big bang and say, it had to have been god because it's very unlikely to have happened that way. If you look at the entirety of the universe, adding a god just raises more questions such as "where did that god come from?". The idea of a god originally arose to help explain why things happens, now all it does is get in the way of when science tries to explain how and why things happen.
These are the reasons I'm saying with enough background in these sciences you would come to the conclusion that there is no god. If he isn't needed to explain almost everything, why use him to explain anything? And with just a little background in psychology (and I mean very little) you can begin to understand why humans would create an almighty being in the first place.
I truly appreciate the honest discussion. I will say too with religion in particular it can be a very personal matter and I certainly do not mean to push any of my personal ways of seeing things and apologize if I have or been in any way unkind in the discussion. Regarding the topic of Occam's razor and simplicity, it is always a very good point. I didn't know if you would pick up on it, but I had it indeed in mind at the end of my last post when I suggested that if we accept chance and time as explaining things of 10*10*123 unlikelihood, then in fact I think we ought to accept that given a theoretically unlimited or infinite amount of time and chance, there would come up in fact far more staggeringly unlikely things than that. It might indeed become highly unlikely, given a theoretically infinite amount of time and chance, that a being far more advanced then ours would arise. In fact, you can make a philosophical/metaphysical argument as I believe is similar to Anselm's ontological argument, that that very infinity of possibilities does prove God for indeed God is related to that very infinity. At the very least, as a scientist, you will need to acknowledge that if you attribute our universe to chance occurrence, that you have postulated far more than the occurrence of 10*10*123 likelihood. It becomes in fact I believe 50% of that number factorial to consider having a 50% likelihood of it occurring. Again given unlimited chance, you could easily postulate far more things existing and in fact you could almost say should exist.
I will still come back to what Penrose is saying though, which by the way as you may know Penrose calls himself an atheist so no I have all along realized there is no reason this is a proof for God, but it shows the universe to be something much more than an asymmetry. It is really quite fascinating what low entropy entails. Penrose in fact went so far to explain it as the universe is part of a cycle of big bangs and big reboots, as it would at least explain the universe getting such a start with so much packed order. It is one way of explaining it. I just think a lot of people to this don't realize the implication. It is more than the universe just began expanding from a point and asymmetries ensued. There remains something much more left unexplained.
So let me see if I have this.... You're saying that givin an infinite amount of time, it could be that instead of the perfect situation for our universe, there was a perfect situation for a conscious mind to develop and that is what we consider to be god? A conscious mind that, because it is outside our universe, can do anything and doesn't have to go by the physical laws of our universe.
I guess I could see that. But there's always the fact that to interact in our universe, this conscious mind would have to alter the physics of this universe to interfere with it. This has never been seen, you may say the bible, but that is not irrefutable evidence because we know almost nothing about the writers and how reliable they were. Since we have no real proof of this we fall back to Occum's Razor leading us to say that there is no god.
And a ball of energy coming together and creating the universe because the energy was packed together in a crystaline way is much less of a leap of faith than saying that it came together in such a way to create a conscious being. Your idea is like a tornado going through a junkyard and building a 747, whereas what I'm saying is it's more like a tornado going through a junkyard and all the components for the 747 end up in the same pile. Both are unlikely, one is just much more likely and easier to believe.
Again I appreciate the discussion. In the end, no matter how beautiful, ordered, functional and unlikely our entire universe may be, without definitive proof of God one can continue to maintain all is random chance. I hope someday if it is God's will to better understand and be able to articulate some of what I do have glimpses, if it is meant to be. Or perhaps God only wants to give us evidence and not proof. Perhaps we are meant to have faith for a reason. In terms of again the razor and simplicity, and your analogy, I will simply say that your belief presupposes and necessitates enormous if not infinite amounts of time and random chance. You are willing to explain anything by reference to this seemingly unlimited possibility. If you consider our very perception of time and our spacetime universe as a closed system, there could well be beings that essentially stand outside of spacetime. Why postulate something "more unlikely?" I think it follows in fact with simplicity from the preconditions you are granting for the existence of our universe. In fact there is no reason at all to suppose our universe is "just at the limit" of time and random chance. That would hardly be simple or likely. It would indeed almost be the coincidence of coincidences wouldn't it? At least I am fine with anyone with the agreement that there is certainly nothing in science that disproves God. Indeed I do take much on faith I do not deny that at all. I cannot say my belief in God came directly from cosmology. There is a lot more that can be said however as evidence in the universe and cosmology and perhaps we can continue later.
I'm not saying that science can or has disproved god, what I am saying though is that with enough lack of evidence, you can say the probability of a god is so low that to believe in one would just be foolish if not border on delusional. And what I'm saying is that a universe with only as much chaos as Heisenburg's Uncertainty principle would allow would take infinitely less amount of time than that same processes happening in such a way to create a single sentient being that lived outside of our space-time universe. And in fact, I would think that a ball of energy with as little chaos as possible or as much chaos as possible would be more likely to happen than something with just enough chaos to creat a sentient being.
Now I'm not saying that it's impossible for that process to create a sentient being, but even if it did happen, our universe is (as far as we can tell) a closed system thereby not letting any energy of any type in or out. This means that even if there was a god-like being outside our universe, it couldn't intervene at all because to intervene it would have to add or remove energy from the closed system thereby making it no longer a closed system. So my belief is that there is no god (or sentient being), but even if there was, there would be nothing it could do, except possibly watch the universe as if it were a movie without having any way of affecting the outcome.
I would like to respond more later specifically with regards to your claim of "lack of evidence." However, a few thoughts for now. First you speak of a probability so low as to be delusional and yet indeed per Penrose you believe in a 10*10*123 at minimum. Moreover again you make a set of preconditions for your assumption that one must truly question as to what possible rational basis could exist to say if that number is possible that a higher number is not. Less finite time hardly seems relevant if you have allowed by precondition the possibility of the infinite. Or again what basis could you claim to say there is some magic cut-off just beyond that number?
Now when you bring up Heisenburg's uncertainty principle you ought to well know you are stepping out very much into the unknown and unproven. String theory may indeed be the place for the discussion and much is hardly known or worked out. Quantum mechanics hardly provides anything close to a complete description of the early universe.
So I will take issue and disagree on quite sound footing that science has any place whatsoever to say against religion or God. I believe the rational mind and I do not fault you for it by any means, once to adhere to this notion of explaining as much as possible mechanistically. And yet, perhaps ironically, even the very most "advanced" theories of quantum mechanics leave us with interpretations such as many worlds or no local realism. I appreciate where you are coming from and to proceed that way in science is not what I question. I do question though the scientist who declares something that science does not. And science in no way declares anything against God. The contrary is true. And to that we come back and I hope later to the evidence there is in the universe for our universe being created.
I'm starting to get the feeling that you aren't completely sure what you're trying to say. I may be wrong though....
Anyways, you keep bringing up Penrose like that's the lowest probability of anything. "First you speak of a probability so low as to be delusional and yet indeed per Penrose you believe in a 10*10*123 at minimum" Even if that number is right, (it may be I haven't looked too much into Penrose) what I'm trying to say is that the probability of the pre-universe coming together to create a sentient god-like being has a MUCH smaller probability of happening than Penrose's probability. Maybe even 10*10^12300000 (no calculations just a number off the top of my head). My point is, as a man of logic, I go by what has the highest probability, and since science is pushing the probability of god smaller and smaller, I believe in a universe without one. And the Penrose probability is actually much higher than the probability of a sentient being just occuring and then deciding to design his own universe.
And these aren't small differences in probability either, it is much more likely that there is no god and the universe just happened.
I'm afraid I could say the same about you. And in fact, however, it would be a healthy realization for each of us, to humbly admit there is so much we don't know. It is perhaps why I'm such a big fan of Richard Feynmann. I truly love it when a genius, a nobel-prize winning physicist can admit he doesn't understand and knows very little. I will say when you throw out Heisenberg uncertainty principle I well know that quantum theory does not have a complete description of the early universe by any means. So if we are indeed to be men of logic, we must acknowledge our logic should make use of those principles we may state. It would not be sound logic to proceed from unproven ground to a certain conclusion.
But my point on probability I'm happy to clarify and I do see it as quite logical. We begin with the notion that the visible universe is a smaller unlikelihood than what may be beyond it, and we agree to Occam's razor. We then move to your postulate – that the universe began by chance with the entropy state it did by chance, which per Penrose (I think you should defer to him here) is a probability of 1 in 10*10*123. In fact I think it is much lower but that is besides the point. You would like to conclude that other universes, other existences carry an even lower probability. That in fact may be true. However, Occam's razor does not say to reject the least probable. It says to accept the simplest explanation. To accept that a probability of 1 in 10*10*123 could exist BUT no lower probability could exist is to me (and this is me attempting to be a man of logic) an absolute absurdity. What possible explanation could you give to make our universe the magic cut-off? We live in a universe we believe 20 billion years old by OUR local arrow of time. The assumption that you make – I wonder if I could make an analogy to geocentrically (or flipping the first two letters egocentricity) – is so based on our limited perspective. Proposing as you do that less probably should not exist at all is hardly simple at all.
Again I assure you, I am not trying to prove God to you scientifically. Rather I simply know as fact that you as a scientist may say whatever you like, but science and logic do not say these things. It is simply your desire to step beyond science to conclusions indeed based on your own motivations too. I don't know if it was you who spoke of people being afraid of death. Perhaps people are afraid of other things too. In fact in surveys more people are afraid of public speaking than dying. Perhaps we fear being tricked into believing in a false idol because someone says it is so. I assure you I have great, great respect for such a desire which forms the very rational basis of healthy skepticism and as Carl Sagan put a healthy "baloney detection kit." I suggest then we examine Christ more and the claims that are made. Perhaps that indeed would have scientific merit.
Occam's razor isn't always right though, it should always be considered but when the probabilities are vastly different as in this case, then the higher probability is what should be used. I'm not saying that less probability shouldn't exist at all, but we can rule it out if the probability is low enough. And statistically, a higher probability is more likely to happen before a lower probability so our universe should happen before some kind of god is randomly created.
Also, with the quantum physics not explaining the big bang, I agree, but within the first few miliseconds of the big bang, quantum physics should be able to explain it and at that time it should still be nearly perfect, very close to what it was when only something like string theory could explain it so Heisenburgs uncertainty principle applies at that time showing that the big bang would have happened from as close to perfect energy as possible.
Well, I have to go and probably won't be back on this thread unless I get the urge tomorrow sometime. Great discussion though .
Thank you I enjoyed this discussion very much and indeed learned and appreciate the challenges. I hope you'll forgive my saying I thank God for all that is good in it. You certainly have my respect as I believe you are of the desire to be honest and seek the truth while holding to scientific principles. I'd just leave a last suggestion that indeed some of the great scientific discoveries are made by people open to some of the great mysteries. God's blessings to you.
Interesting questions you ask. Some were even asked in Biblical times so these questions are nothing new and haven't changed much.
Also interesting, as man explores the universe and learns more, the theories of creation change.
oh god I see everybody takes joy in discrediting things they just don't understand, there is no god? Do you guys really believe there isn't stranger things , other HUMANS, other lesser CREATORS, ancient masters in genetics, out there in existence..remember this isnt reality this is EXISTENCE, I hate when i hear read etc some arrogant, ignorant, "thinking he knows science" type of person type in there lame opinions only meant to just hate gosh find something to believe in, it's equally retarted to suggest that human beings are designed so perfectly and beautifully out of the random, stop discrediting a book thats been around for so long and has far more knowledge within it than any of u marks yapping about how stupid it's symbolism is, you think your smart act smart and open your mind to possibilities instead of thinking our physical bodies'l just rot, physics alone is proof of something greater and much more likely stranger laws who knows our brains just might be interconnected with some other reality, grid etc just like the way an antenna works, we ARE antennas only percieving the little our bodies can put up with, think of this if we were blind matter wouldn't even exist to us repeat TO US
Your Bible does well enough discrediting itself not to be taken seriously... we just point out the obvious.
You're either a Creationist or a Westboro Baptist Church member. Either way, subtract 75 IQ points from yourself.
It's not really a Baptist Church. It's a large family that calls themselves a church and goes around acting like Atheists.
I've watched this discussion progress on and off for the past few hours (which included a trip to Home Depot and cleaning the leaves in the yard). I'm surprised I haven't seen this...which you've probably seen this posted on a friends wall on Facebook.
"FACT! If the Earth were 10 feet closer to the Sun we would all burn up. And if it was 10 feet further we would freeze to death. GOD IS AMAZING!"
Then by all means, avoid getting on a ladder taller than eight feet because you're going to catch fire.
Back in reality, the average distance form the Sun is 93,000,000 miles. Throughout the year, the distance goes from roughly 91 million miles to 94.5 million miles. That's a difference of 3.5 million miles...which is 18.48 BILLION feet. And again, god has nothing to do with it. The orbit, as I've said before is elliptical, not circular.
Theism, agnostic theism, agnostic atheism, apathetic agnosticism, IGNOSTICISM and atheism aside, this is still pretty cool!
Reposting this so it's not buried.
@ JihadJoe
Condensed matter physics – amorphous solids.
You took that question directly from "List of unsolved problems in physics" from Wikipedia. It's just above cold fusion and cryogenic electron emission.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics
You can certainly do better than that, Joe. Granted, it's been a very long time since I've applied any of the knowledge I learned back then - Google is still my very best friend. 🙂
I think there is no reason for a comment section on ANY article! Most of the time it's a bunch of jerks or imbeciles who want to make stupid, offensive or condescending remarks. It's awful how people treat each other these days...
Hmm...so calling them " a bunch of jerks or imbeciles" is not offensive or condescending on your part?!
No, it's descriptive. Calling a jerk a jerk isn't an insult.
How about averyone sticking to the topic????
There are recent theories in quantum physics that postulate that consciousness creates matter, not the other way around. I am not arguing for the invisible man in the sky, but much of quantum physics is definitely counter-intuitive with regards to long-held scientific beliefs. Observations in the cosmic background radiation make a lot more sense if the universe is infinite, and multi-dimensional. Experiments are being planned to prove parallel universes.
Would you believe that scientists are actually discussing the possibility that our universe is a computer-generated program, and and trying to determine mathematically how large the computer would need to be to accomplish the "Illusion"? Science has hardly determined that there is no "creator".
I will take it one step further and say that no "matter" is actually created, the wave only decoheres on observation but otherwise always remains in a superposition of states.
true, but this is largely because it's impossible to DISprove a creator. If you can't find a way to disprove something, that also makes it impossible to prove it.
I too find quantum mechanics to be mind-bogglingly thought provoking, but it's nowhere near providing evidence of a creator.
Ah yes, the Quantum Enigma, very interesting stuff.
Science may not ever be able to definitively say there is or there isn't a god but it is pushing the probability closer and closer to zero, even if it can never reach it. With enough lack of evidence science takes a stance that whatever it is with the lack of evidence doesn't exist. For me personally, science has already reached that point, and I do believe that if everyone read and understood most of the scientific break-throughs lately, including quantum mechanics, evolution, astrophysics, and other math/science/physics related fields then almost eveyone would also come to the same conclusion.
Atheists favorite words:
Self-replication
Self-assembling
Spontaneous generation
Natural
As long as it is prefixed with a "self" or a "spontaneous" or "natural" they are all OK.
Get off your self-righteous high-horse Brad.
Actually as an Atheist, I just ask a simple question. IF there is a creature who allows the deaths and starvation that occur to happen and he/it had the power to stop it, why doesn't he? IF he/it knows that the majority of the conflict happens because he/it has not proven he exists and still refuses to prove his/it existence, then personally even if he/it does exist, I really don't give a dam n since such a being is more of something I'd find on my shoe rather than worship
Theist favorite phrase:
"Looks hard – don't understand – god dun it"
Science too hard? Try religion!
Science. It works, bitches.
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
Those are available in both tee-shirt and bumper sticker form.
"Science confirms much of Genesis – first nothing, then seperation of water/ land, plants, animals, humans – in that order. "
Wrong again.
....I'm Batman
YOU ARE NOT BATMAN AND I AM NOT ROBIN. THE ASTEROID IS NOT THE SISTER ANY MORE THAN THE MOON IS A BROTHER. WE EXIST IN THIS CLAPTRAP JUNGLE OF SPACE JUNK BY SOME REASON OF THE CREATOR. LIVE WITH IT
OR NOT--JUST KEEP THE FAITH. NEVER BELEIVE WHAT YOU READ OR HEAR OR SEE. THAT IS WHAT FAITH is all about.
I read the Bible and definitely don't belive it. Good advice.
Time for your meds. Bruce here was just trying to inject a little levity into a thread which has deteriorated into the usual 'Lightyears blog' fistfight.
Good god.. a 62 mile wide asteroid? I'd like to see the crater it could create
We will not be around to see it, though.
it would annihilate the earth, a 1mile asteroid would devastate us
Maybe it's filled with oil and natural gas. DRILL BABY DRILL!!!!
Basically, they don't have a clue. They just guess and try to sound intelligent.
Thanks... I see this same comment on EVERY science article written. Its always nice to see it again.
But, the big difference is that they DO sound intelligent, you don't.
it looks more like a sister of the moon
Good point! Like the moon, it may have originally been part of Earth; it has too little gravity to hold a significant atmosphere; without atmosphere it can't have water in a liquid state; and it does look like it's been beaten with the Asteroid Ugly Stick.
wow scientist found a rock in the asteroid belt that may or may not originated from the asteroid belt that may have the same properties of rock on Earth and for a couple billion dollars we can send a probe to the asteroid so that we can investigate the origins of the rock. I understand the need to expand and explore but don’t you think the money spent to look at this rock could have been used help solve our energy crisis…………
Ahhhhh shaddup. Why don't YOU go solve the crisis?
you're right. We should follow your example and bury our heads in our own rectums and stop wondering about things.
Becasue applying the technology used in space exploration has never benefited us , right?
Just 'cause there is a rock out there that may or may not contain similarities with earth does not mean a God did not create the earth and put it here. What do you think the earth was made from? Nothing??
Following your logic, what made your god?
Following your logic, what "made" nature? In "natural selection", who is "selecting"? I don't see this entity called nature, all I see is trees and rocks and plants and animals and microorganisms. That's all.
We made God and God made us. Oh great, another chicken or the egg problem!!
Gravity and time. These made the Earth. Not God.
What made gravity and time? If Einstein is right gravity is curvature in spacetime. Why do we experience the arrow of time? If following natural laws because of the arrow of entropy. The universe is headed in the direction of increasing entropy. Hence as Roger Penrose (one of world-leading physicists) postulates the world must have begun at low entropy. This is in fact quite mysterious. It is like a wound up clock with natural laws.
@Praise God, be careful what you say. Every time you cite natural laws, god kills a kitten.
you are correct in saying that entropy increases over time. However, this does not disprove the progression of some things from lesser to greater degrees of organization over time. The increase of entropy is in a closed system, and for these purposes, the extent of the system as a whole is the universe.
Looking at the universe as a whole, as far as we can see at least, most of it is in a state of much greater entropy than our little pocket we call home. Localization of organization can also be observed right in your own back yard, with your own two eyes. See that bug that just fell in a puddle? Does it have the same degree of entropy vs. organization as the water it is in? How about the air it fell out of?
Increase of entropy is not at an even rate. Progression over time of forms from lesser to greater does not violate the progression of entropy in the system as a whole. Example: In the baking of a cake, you are taking base materials to a higher degree of organization than they currently exist in– however, you are expending work and generating heat (the lowest level of organization) in the process. What discrepancies there are will even out in the universe, the system as a whole.
Why would God kill a kitten for my posting what is in fact discussed by leading physicists? Do you mean Schrodinger's cat? Are you saying I am making a choice for the live kitten so somewhere else a kitten is dead? Lol. I have a very cute cat named Lady at home I think she is fine. But I answered you below. In fact the universe can be seen as a system first of all since scientists postulate it is – it began and expanded. Is it a closed system? Thank you ! Not necessarily at all – but IF it were, the tendency is towards increasing entropy yes on the macroscopic scale. Again Hawking postulates black holes dissolve eventually from entropy. The universe does approach the heat death. But you miss something when you talk about local order. It is not as you say. Galaxies throughout the universe demonstrate the *same order* the same *natural laws* (see I said it again no kitten died) exist throughout the universe or the Andromeda galaxy would not be governed so similarly as the Milky Way. No there is more to the entropy argument than you seem to realize. Look up Penrose universe beginning from low entropy and you'll see.
......and yet it still doesn't prove a goddidit.
The lack of education/intelligence in walking primates never ceases to amaze me. Gods and devils and heaven and hell. Sighhhh what tripe. Make sure you head out to Pastor Eddie Long's church this Sunday, Oh and brings lots of cash. He has all the answers, like Joel Osteen and his adorable wife. LOLOL
Maybe we watch too many movies and begin to think our imagines are gods. In our imaginations we make movies where angels and devils are tiny human shaped things. Why? God is far beyond our comprehension. Can there not be other spiritual beings in dimensions and realms we cannot see with our eyes? Actually there is indeed reason to think there would be.
According to your fantasy faith, the earth WAS made from nothing.
Wow... It never ceases to amaze me at how deeply ingrained is the homo sapiens need for "stories" and "illusions". The irony is that natural selection forged the brains that have such a hard time seeing things for what they really are. The reality is this: science and theism can NEVER be reconciled. Period. Alex Rosenberg's new book "The Atheist's Guide to Reality" sums this up nicely...
Is there a god? No.
What is the nature of reality? Just ask physics.
Does the universe have a purpose? There is none.
Why am I here? Just dumb luck.
Is there a soul? Are you kidding?
What about free will? Not a chance!
The arguments about the veractiy of the bible are just ridiculous and have been utterly refuted for hundreds of years now by the most intelligent of our species. Religion is completely and utterly man-made, period. However, if you're one of those unfortunates who needs to believe in fairy tales in order to live your life then by all means go ahead. But, if you take your emotional affectation out of the mix and just look at it... well, I think the Cleveland show summed this up pretty well when Junior professed to be an atheist. According to Cleveland:
"But christianity makes sense! A virgin had god's baby who then grew up to be murdered by the... ahem, Romans, so you and I could be forgiven for eve eating that apple she got from the talking snake. Three days later jesus rose from the dead to tell everyone he was coming back some day to fight the devil. Then he flew up to his mansion in heaven where he sits in judgement of the gays. How can you not believe that?"
'nuff said.
Last thing to leave you with: Why is it always the case that the people who seem the MOST afraid to die are the ones who believe in an afterlife? Curious, don't you think? Every single atheist that I've ever known or have knowledge of is totally at peace with dying as a natural process, but the majority of Christians, who should be positively running for the afterlife door seem absolutely terrified of death. Could it be because deep down, under the veneer of illusion and myth they really know that its all a bunch of nonsense dreamed up by a group of sun-addled desert dwellers who lived in the bronze age and had no knowledge of anything past their own horizon?
It just sucks that when you believers finally DO die and there IS nothing there will be no way for you to even know it, because you will have disassembled back into your component fermions and bosons; no brain, no consciousness. No consciousness, no anything.
Have fun kids! Santa is coming!
Once again, that is your understanding. Until I can have proof that you are a real walking talking hairless ape, you are simply a computer generated program designed to cause unrest umonst the other hairless apes. I can read your words and I can associate with some, but you aren't real.
Enjoy
Just by posting on this site, there is more proof for his/her existance than for ANY god.
@ I'm The Best!
Prove it!
Proving to YOU a fact doesn't constitute it as proof. The ability to provide proof by any individual that cannot be refuted constintutes proof. The OP can fly to your house and tell you what he said but that doesn't mean they will.
Yes... I know I misspelled. Give me my grammar and spelling lesson.
You too have failed the Turing test.
I'm sorry, proove what? That he originally posted? Because I would think you could see that for yourself, just scroll up a bit.
Lol that was rather comical. Good thing you're the most intelligent superior person on here. All hail you and your astounding intelligence oh wise one. You are so smart and have the answers to everything.
Vote 2012.
Boring and predictable how christians resort to bashing intellect when the frailty of their religion is exposed.
What an amazing comeback. How could anyone recover from that.
thumbs up!
I don't believe your thumb exists, either. 😛
Hello god, I am VIFAM! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQyAzgLRGZM
drew: "The reality is this: science and theism can NEVER be reconciled. Period."
It's unsurprising, of course, that someone who makes dogmatic assertions like also this founds his anti-religious beliefs on unsubstantiated conclusory statements, ad hominems, and ludicrous fallacies.
My condolences to your intelligence. It died long ago.
"NEVER be reconciled"
Nah. Theism only has to do with the existence of a god. Science has to do with the physical nature of the world. Religion and theism are not coextensive. Hence, if a god was necessary for the existence of the world, the two are reconcilable without ever appealing to religion.
It's painfully obvious you know nothing about the intersection of theism, physics and philosophy.
Sounds like Drewski just finished freshman philosophy requirement at university.
Why is it you must believe in the supernatural? You will say and do anything to keep a myth alive, its the lack of education on your part. Science will one day prove, there is and never was a god, of any kind. History is full of 'god garbage'.
pockets: "Science will one day prove, there is and never was a god, of any kind."
Ah, yes. Hume's fallacious progression argument.
You admit, by necessity, that science has not proven a god does not exist, and yet you believe - without any foundation - that science will prove in the future that he never existed at all.
And because you have no foundation for the belief, you must believe it by faith alone, don't you?
tsk tsk. For shame.
Why so much hate? Why should it bother you if people want to believe in God and Jesus? Go back to your little pathetic life and leave the Christians alone.
If christians and other religions want to be left alone then they should stop trying to regulate my behavior at the ballot box. Leave us alone.
Regulate your behavior at the ballot box? Uh – don't vote for them....that's how the system works. If you dont' like what the person stands for, vote for somebody who does. Seems ratehr simple.
Like the Jews and Palestinians, there is too much hate on both sides, and too many people invested in winning and being right.
Hey WOW: Where is the hate? Please show me. I think its all in your mind (like your god). You sound like another delusional theist.
drew: "Is there a god? No.
What is the nature of reality? Just ask physics.
Does the universe have a purpose? There is none."
Alas, more conclusory statements with no substantiation.
If a religious person says, for instance, the following:
Is there a god? Yes.
What is the nature of reality? Just ask physics, it requires a god.
Does the universe have a purpose? If a god gives it one.
Why am I here? God wanted you to be here.
Is there a soul? Yes.
What about free will? Yup.
Has he thereby proven that a god and soul exists, and that there's a purpose to the universe? Hardly.
So why do you believe it proves your position instead?
God is unfalsifiable, you doofus! You can't say that He is there as much as you can't say he is not there. To say that there is no God is as good as saying you looked everywhere in the frickin' Universe and came to the conclusion that there is no Goid, where as in reality the farthest a manned vehicle has gone is to the moon, which is like next door to us.
So believing in something with no shred of evidence in the thousands of years this beleif has existed is the same as not believing in it for the same reason?
Being impossible to disprove also makes something impossible to prove. If you can't postulate a condition under which god does not exist, then you can't prove that god does exist.
Accepting the observations of the natural world doesn't disprove the existence of god. At worst, it refutes the literal interpretation of scripture.
Which is the greater, god or scripture?
Which is more important, belief in god and god's rules for living, or adherence to a book that has been written, rewritten, amended, translated, mistranslated, edited and interpreted for thousands of years?
Your ability to believe in whatever you chose to is, among many other rights and privileges, what makes this country great. I take no issue with your assertions. Have at it... However, I find it curious that your anti-religion rant is geared to the Bible and Christianity alone. No negative comments were raised about, or otherwise riduculed our Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist....among others...friends. Why is that? Easier to make fun of Christians than it is Jews or Muslims? The last I checked, Christianity was not the only religion and in fact, is not the largest religion on the planet, but for some reason, it seems to be that which you take issue with the most. If you are going to go a rant about the evils of religion (organized or not) take it all on..... Be consistent, have some guts, call our Jewish neighbors foolish for practicing their religion, tell our Muslim brothers that their beliefs in the after-life are not worth the paper their Koran is printed on..... Afraid much?
Great point.
I can hear wiccans and other pagans laughing all the way from here.
Very well said. Bang on.
What do asteroids have to do with a magical sky fairy? Did the h0m0s offend him again?
Test.
.. it might be Miley Cyrus.
When scientists took a closer look at the satellite photos, they saw tent cities and thousands of protesters demanding an end to corporate greed. One protestor, Stephen Applegate, 24 of Bronson, Missouri commented on the location. "We figured, hey, this was part of earth, so we had a right to be here." Police later moved in to clear them from the frigid, earthlike rock.
makes me laugh
In other words; they found life there, and just like life on Earth, it ain't so great.
Ba-dum-bump-TSHH!
Asked what they intended to accomplish with their protest, the spokesperson claimed that he couldn't respond due to a lack of atmosphere on the asteroid.
I feel sorry for all those who are so wrapped up in Biblical literalism that they can't appreciate what has been and is being revelaed about the way creation is formed and functions. They're missing out on the beauty of what is to cling to what never was.
Being able to comprehend something about the fundamental particles and interactions, big bang and stellar nucleosynthesis, planet formation, and the evolution of life only magnifies and glorifies anyone who might have had a hand in creating the universe.
Literalists demean the very idea that someone hand a hand in the form/functioning of the universe. They declare that God must be and do only what they want.. in other words, they speak of God as though God works for them and that, my friends, is called IDOLATRY.
Yowza.
Folks who believe in leprechauns haven't launched holy wars over the past centuries, resulting in oceans of blood being shed. I have no problem with people believing whatever they want. Buts when they insist that everybody must either share those beliefs or die, then yeah, I have a problem with those people. Of all the causes for all the wars ever waged on this planet, the ones waged in the name of "god" are the ones who have been the most violent, the most bloody, the most devastating.
FOR THE LEPRECHAAAAUUUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
People of the United States of America and the World,
What I always like to contemplate and it always gives me a "Brain Freeze" is where did empty space come from before the supposed "Big Bang". Also, what/where/how was there before empty space came int exsistance.
That's a Brain Teaser.
Heh! I used to think about the same thing. Now I'm fixated on the question of whether the idea that ours is the only universe is just another product of the human ego and our seemingly inate desire to be the center of things. The idea that the universe might exist within some much broader space in which there are as many or more "pocket universes" as there are stars and galaxies. There's been some contemplation of this amongst physicists, and evidently the math indicates that its a possibility. The idea of it blows my mind because it obliterates all the seeming "edges" and "horizons" and opens up the possibility of infinity.
Ok. Now my mind is swirling again.. off to read.
That is a puzzle isn't it? Lazy people gave up thinking about it long ago and decided, just like lightning and everything else that they didn't understand, that invisible beings must be responsible. Some gods have already disappeared from human memory, someday they all will.
Hey, thanks for making an interesting, thought-provoking point!
How said it is at all the hateful comments towards those who believe in God. You people must be really angry to post such negative comments. Also, I don't understand the hate towards something you don't believe in. If someone were to try and argue with me that leprachauns exist, I'd simply point out their errors and move on. You seem rather insecure in your beliefs if you really need to relentlessly attack those who don't believe the same as you. Let go of the anger, be a decent human and lets try to help out others, regardless of belief or lack thereof.
The word God MUST be capitalized, GJ that you didn't offend the LORD
we don't hate you, we just despise the worst of you. religion, and religious institutions, are the ones that persecutes science, not the other way around. hope i don't have to recite history for you here. the religious right is the one that try to force their morals upon everyone else in this country. the extreme muslim radicals are the ones that blows up everyone else who they call "infidels" (and that includes you). get your facts straight.
The anger comes out of frustration with how superstition drives politics in America. It also derives from the destructive influence of fundamentalist religion throughout history. People are angry because their lives, rights, and livelihoods are dramatically impacted by people afflicted with beliefs that defy logic. Surely you can understand that.
You are the Kwisatz Haderach!
@ reality
"it was just a coinicidence that the earth was in the perfect orbit , the perfect distance from the sun"
Yes. However, earth is not in a perfect orbit. The orbit is elliptical. The distance from the sun varies greatly throughout the year.
"at the perfect rotation (with 12 hours of night and 12 hours of day)" We could have just as easily have had a 31 hour day. The actual length of a day is 23 hours 56 minutes 4 seconds.
"with a perfect satellite at the perfect distance from the earth,to allow life as it is known to crawl out of the ooze" just happened to get caught in the gravitational well of Earth.
"what are the idiotic odds of that happening." Quite high considering the amount of stars in our galaxy alone (200 to 400 billion) let alone the other billions of galaxies with roughly the same number of stars in it.
"further more ,why do people get so angry when someone offers divine intervention as a explanation," Because it's a lame answer to everything. We require proof.
Very well said.
Very well said and thought out.
lol, well said. i especially love the part of when so many believers always just plead at the end "why not divine intervention?!" and at the same time they say they're scientific. ah, just love em.
"Who are you so wise in the ways of science"
I am Arthur.. King of the Britians!
You cannot calculate the "odds" what was right for the creation of life on this planet is put very simply.
Life as we understand it <- We don't understand anything except the primal effects we have and our enviroment has upon one another, and sparingly at that.
You can't survive underwater, yet it covers 75% of the planet you dwell on.
Life is far more complex than any of us have yet to deduce.
Needing / Requiring / Wanting proof is a simple human desire to understand that which we do not. Again, the world was flat! EVERYONE knew that! Yet here we are.
Looks just like Earth...yep...probably her sister.
More like the ugly gawky sister that you never wants to leave the house.
Rosetta Stone? LMAO
Funny,
I think forums are meant for actual conversation as opposed to bashing what other believe. @ all the God / religon bashers, really?? Take your trash somwhere where it is apropriate. The almighty upward walking inventor of electronics knows best .. right? Psssh.
Odd, according to popular theory the Solar system was formed by rotating masses that drew in all other matter around them and formed Planets and moons, those larger bodies pulled inthe smaller bodies and thusly we have the solution of the Solar system. If that is correct, how did a large portion of the system go untouched? The asteroid belt just simply escaped all of that, or according to another (idea) it somehow (in a large group while traversing the universe) managed to find its way into out system and take up orbit – beside the largest planet with the most pull second only to the Sun. ... Seroiusly? I call shananagins!!
The theory that makes the most sense is that it (the asteroid belt) was indeed a planet that was ripped apart for what ever reason. The counter is there isnt enough material to comprise a planet. The reality is if a planet destructs, the mass would eject in all directions. Gravity would hold or pull the rest and keep it in place while some material would escape into space or bombard other masses. This isn't rocket science.. lol, it is simple deduction.
This also goes to show in any graph of space time or Gravitational mapping how and why the effect changed the rest of the planets in our Solar system. Why the Earth was tropical and why Mars has flowing water on its surface. Displacing an object with mass would cause Gravity to readjust the masses effected by it. So where as the Earth was effected by the Gravitationl push/pull, it would have been closer to the Sun. Creating the enviroment of an entirely tropical planet able to support large cold blodded animals like oh I don't know.. Dinosaurs maybe. Mars as well would have been closer to the Sun also creating a warmer climate explaining why we know there were flowing water ways on its surface. Take that mass out of the equasion, the masses effected my its gravity would fall away from the Sun in order to adjust the Gravitational field and you have the explanation of why several puzzling events occured and also why there is a mass of loose material floating around a Solar system that somehow vaded the creation process.
As far a God, you do not know. You can not explain or even theorize about it. All you can do is chalk it all up to how silly the other talking monkeys are.. right? When and if there is definite proof to discalim the existance of God, then you can make jab's at it. The world was once flat you know, until someone proved otherwise!
Check the link below for more reality and reason.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/11/solar-system-may-have-lost-fifth-giant-planet/
Cell phones don't have spell check. Make a million and invent it.
My phone has spell check.
You do realize that the burden of proof for the existence of something is on the parties proposing the existence, right? That they must provide actual evidence of its existence, which can be tested and examined, to determine its possible existence. When such testable evidence is actually given, then it can be examined by the scientific community in the normal course of scientific discovery. The default position MUST BE skepticism of the existence of something, until evidence is brought forward. Putting the burden of "disproof" onto the skeptic is silly. Please disprove that the Loch Ness monster exists (you would be countered by thousands of people who either believe it exists, or claim to have seen it in person)? Please disprove that Santa Claus doesn't exist (you would be countered by millions of kids – if so many of THEM believe in him, he must exist....right?)
So, once we actually get some evidence of the existence of a deity/Force/god, then we can test the claims. That's how science works. Claiming that such a being exists without scientific discovery is unscientific at best, and disingenuine at worst.
...please disprove that Santa exists (sorry, typo) 🙂
Your Answer:
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/humaneye.html
And in your own words, It must be subjected to test and trial? Really, the almight walking hairless apes have spoken!
Have to agree with you about the proof and hold your beliefs as for scientifc proof. What I find interesting is that the Bible takes all of that away. If you know and can prove the existence of a diety, you can't go to Heaven. John 3:16 states that whosoever believeth in Him – note the key word. It's based on belief, not knowledge. If you know, you don't have to believe. So there are no miracles (would be prrof of existence and therefore not require belief) and no divine intervention as so many proclaim – can't be as that would provide proof of existence and therefore make the Bible meaningless. So basically, you have to believe what you can't possibly know. Which goes against everything that I was taught.
And your degree in astrophysics was from?
University of Rolla. I also hold a degree in electrical engineering...and of course, astrophysics because those two things have been my passion in life.
Now I own many rental properties and have retired from corporate America. I just turned 38.
Satisfied enough?
I studied at Queens Phil, If you have studied as you claim then this should be easy, what am I describing? What is the nature of the glass transition between a fluid or regular solid and a glassy phase? What are the physical processes giving rise to the general properties of glasses?
@ JihadJoe
Condensed matter physics - amorphous solids.
You took that question directly from "List of unsolved problems in physics" from Wikipedia. It's just above cold fusion and cryogenic electron emission.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics
You can certainly do better than that, Joe. 🙂
For most rational beings, the burden of proof for truly believing in anything lies with its existence, not the lack of its existence. Otherwise we are left cluttered with a miasma of conjecture and superstition that would have left us back in the dark ages ... where, in my opinion, most religions would have preferred we had stayed.
that is so true!
Ummmm nooooooooo, who died and made you God of the Message Boards? :::wink:::
Does your scolding of the “religious bashers” also go for those who slam me for being Atheist and tell me I am going to rot in hell?
People like you keep insisting that there is a God. I say prove it. That’s how it works.
Going for rational, civil debate, eh? Best of luck.
by your lack of logic, you must acknowledge the possibility that any cocamamie B.S. line anyone hands you could be valid, because you can't disprove it either. Therefore, you'll have to admit that, acording to the great prophet Tolkien, there was once a great wizard named Gandalf, who knew, personally, the king of the elves, a great and wize old elf named Elrond... which implies you must also believe in (or at least acknoledge you can't disprove the existence of) elves, wizards, magical powers, etc. But why not, if you believe in magic creation faries and evil damnation punishment faries, why not also belive in the tooth farie, in faries that kill a kitten every time you masturbate, honest politicians, and corporations that manage to be both altruistic AND profittable in perfect competition with non-altruistic corporations also seeking to maximize their profits. Do you seriously wonder why non-theists think believers in made-up stuff like gods... are morons?
Your words offend the followers of the great prophet Tolkien! For Elves and Fairies, united we fly!!!
CHRISTARDS.
god is imagianry. com
Is that really the way to spell that website? Really?
In my experience when we mock a person or group of people its because of our own insecurities and fears. I would be willing to bet you are the person that struggles the most with his beliefs in God on this entire comment section.
Nice spell job Atheitard.
not all athiests are smart or can spell, just as not all religious people are morons. but that is the way to bet.
I am so damn tired of dogmatic atheists and dogmatic christians being such total dicks on this blog. Hello, Socrates? Dialog is dead. Mind if I join you in hell? I miss a good conversation.
LOLOLOL!!!! X-D
Science confirms much of Genesis – first nothing, then seperation of water/ land, plants, animals, humans – in that order. Read it and see. Time is a man-made thing – for God, there is no such thing as "time". Read the New Testiment – Jesus was real. Even historians at the time aside from the Bible confirm his existance. But read the Gospels/Old Testiments before saying it's a fairy tale! Don't make science the god it's not – science will refute what it said a day ago – science is very wishy washy.
When I contemplate the Old and New Testament it is a light of clarity upon how our universe looks. The universe is in fact believed to be only 20 billion years old, starting from a point, yet expanding to all this order? Please look up the 2nd law of thermo. Then look up Penrose. The universe began at low entropy – it was ordered ! And what do we see in Genesis? God separated the light from the dark ! God brought order from chaos ! Jesus is God entering His own universe. Incarnated. Joining with man. We could not comprehend God. If anything Jesus gives us a human face so we are not so frightened. Jesus came to do so much more than heal the sick. Left alone the universe progresses towards equilibrium, maximum entropy, game over. Michio Kaku thinks a type 3 civilization will control galaxies? Good luck. God who is far greater than the whole universe has come to save His creations in the midst of it. Just look at the order in the universe and ask where did it come from? Do not blindly assume it is random chance ! Why should natural laws exist at all ?!
Order localizes. Look at macrostructures. See all that empty space, containing little besides waste heat and cosmic background noise? That's entropy. Wave at it from your localized order.
I want to avoid an argument and probably both of us could go look some things up and learn. This is an interesting topic, debated by some of the world's leading physicists. I will say there is no reason at all for local order besides order. Famous example is tilt a box of ball bearings – they order into cubic packing arrays. Ah but they only do so because they are already ordered – perfect spheres of the same size. The fact is without gravity, strong and weak forces and no doubt other natural laws, there is no reason for the local order we see. In fact again it is evidence for underlying laws that the whole universe is not as you say the vast empty space with a few degree Kelvin heat death. Though in time, even Hawking postulates black holes will dissolve from entropy. The local order cannot be explained by chance including by the very fact that galaxies look similar in many parts of the vast universe shows the underlying order exists throughout the universe. Order comes from greater order.
The incredibly small time frame and area that you are looking at is meaningless is you want to declare the state of the universe accurately. Vaste areas of dead space and continuous , violent transformations seem ordered to you? The earth was already relieved of it's last inhabitants as will happen to humans in either a collision or the planet maturing into a non-lifesupporting body. Order? I think not.
So you say that science confirms much of the Bible, but then say science is wishy washy. That's the problem with using science to claim it proves some obscure fact from the Bible. Today you say this scientific fact proves Christianity is right, then tomorrow the science changes. You can't have it both ways.
...cept the very next chapter in Genesis it talks about man being formed out of the dust, then plants, then animals being created for Adam to name as helpers. So...man came first, then animals?
Seems like you hav a contradiction there.
Science is wishy washy... but science proves the bible? If science is so useless, why are you citing it as proof of your beliefs?
Oh those wacky "christians"
SCHAUMBURG, Ill. (CBS) – A teacher at a suburban Christian school has been charged with a felony, after he was fired for allegedly masturbating behind a podium while teaching class...Schaumburg police said he might have been doing it for the past 10 years or more.
"Science confirms much of Genesis" – TAM you are just plain delusional. A sad commentary on the education system of today.
Bruce Willis... Hell I saw Michael Jackson, and he was doing the Moon Walk!!
In all seriousness. Please explain to me the concept of the "chicken and the egg". It is also scientific fact that most dinosaurs were egg layers also.
Yup. The egg came before the chicken.
I thought I saw Bruce Willis on that Rock!
Check out the alien on the rock, I see him! And I think he is giving us all the one finger salute!!
...and laughing his ass off at some of the insane crap in this thread!
Too much debating and arguing over God and Science... Why Jesus huggers have to discredit all science when they're healthy and then beg for it when they're sick is beyond me. If God is all you need then have him remove that Tumor, its as simple as that. And lets me honest, nobody wants to go to Heaven with a bunch of uptight @$$holes anyways
I believe in science; I believe in evolution, modern medicine, and that the universe originated in the Big Bang. I believe science can solve many of our problems and explains many of our mysteries. However, I am also a Christian. I don't know why you atheists find it necessary to disrespect the beliefs of those of faiths just because you happen to disagree with them. I also don't know why you assume that you have all of the answers and that nothing can possibly exist that is not explained by your nihilistic philosophy. Please get a clue and an education and realize that the term "Christian" is not monolithic. There are many different beliefs that are covered under the umbrella of Christianity. Many Christian churches embrace the teachings of science and teach evolution is not incompatible with Christian beliefs. Just because you thing fundaMENTAList Christians are medieval, don't assume that we all practice that extreme version of Christianity.
It only really matters if you are true to the nature of science, that things that are shown to exist exist because there is evidence for their existence, and that the forces that affect the universe are there because they are there, not because they are put there as part of some weird, divine plan.
Science questions, posits, investigates and comes up with a best theory for things that are observed and have evidence in the universe. Putting a supernatural, untestable element into that mix shows a "hole" in the pursuit of science, that ultimately what you believe, is that where science does not _yet_ have the answer, to you the next most rational explanation is a supernatural being did it that way.
Belief in a supernatural being is only incompatible with science if you are trying to be honest to the rules of scientific discovery. If you don't care whether or not science as a system actually works, then it's ok to believe whatever you want.
Because we pity people who believe the lies that have been taught to them, past down over the generations of people who want to control you.
Veritas – Does your scolding also go towards the Christians who bash my non-belief and tell me I am going to rot in hell?
Athiests, myself included, don't disrespect your beliefs. Well I shouldn't generalize. Most don't, and will leave you free to believe what you want, much in the same way that we want to be left to believe what we want.
I think that the very some religious people do get offended when athiests simply _reject_ the beliefs . I think ti's a matter of the belifs being so ingrained in the thinking, and the ego, that people get offended when someone else can simply come along and say 'No, I don't believe in your religion'.
Simple rejection or dismissal is not disrespect. It's just saying 'no, your way isn't my way'.
Awesome!
The shouting of dogmatic positions from both sides drowns out the people who might otherwise try to have a rational discussion of science in the context of faith, or lack thereof.
I have always been a man of science and a man of faith. I love scientific exploration and discovery, and gravitate to these articles. I have no problem arguing science versus faith, because it's never been a problem with me. However, I have always had a problem with science being over-preoccupied with origins. Science is observation and explanation. We have nearly a 100% record when we observe and report, but when we deal with origins, it goes way down. The whole idea that we can know whether an object was formed near to the sun or far from it makes the scientific community look bad, because these things are quickly disproved.
Before we found exoplanets orbiting other stars, we thought that Jupiter was the rule, not the exception: that gas giants were cold and far from the sun. Most that we have observed in other systems are actually hot and close to their suns. So we had to change the rules.
I lament that so little exploration is being done, and what is being done is only by robot or remote control. We are humans. We need to put our hands on it, walk on it, and see it with our own organic eyes. We can only take so much surmising. I'm not near as interested in a time table for the Big Bang as I am about the possibility of seeing a human colony on the moon or Mars in my lifetime.
But true scientific observation and discovery do not threaten my faith; they enhance it. I think the latest data: 100 billion stars in our galaxy, 100 billion galaxies in the universe, is too small an estimate. We have only scratched the surface. This universe is huge, and older than we ever imagined, and will be around a lot longer than we can predict. And I believe in a Creator who is above and beyond all that, one that was unknowable and unimaginable, but chose to present Himself in human form for a time so that we could know Him. I look forward to the eternity ahead, and what I personally will be able to observe in this universe.
Why would eternity include a vision of this universe?
Just remember to tell people. To be a man of faith (believing in a god or trillions of gods, like me) does not mean you have to believe in religion. Religion is man made, made by primitive beings. This is why there are so many, and so many bibles written and rewritten in so many ways, so many times. If people could relinquish religion, and just believe or not believe, it would all be much simpler. Human needs to evolve a bit more for that to happen, unfortunately.
Religion is what is holding back humanity. Religious faith is an outdated human thought process that has no place in the future, at least predominantly in the future. Considering that the majority scientists are non religious I would imagine the first person stepping on Mars will be a non religious person. I am talking about religions where people believe in a higher being that controls destiny and universe.
Not all religious people believe that their destiny is controlled.
@Prescott. you're NOT reconciling the two – science and faith – you're compartmentalizing them. you simply don't realize the self-contradiction within you. you think that you strive to embrace science, but you really aren't. you educate yourself scientifically simply to satisfy your ego of being "open minded". in reality, science to you is already categorized as just a manifestation of God's power. you've already ignored the fundamental difference between the two. that's not reconciliation.
I do agree with much of what you say, with the exception of this:
Before we found exoplanets orbiting other stars, we thought that Jupiter was the rule, not the exception: that gas giants were cold and far from the sun. Most that we have observed in other systems are actually hot and close to their suns. So we had to change the rules.
This is the way that science advances. If we never revise the rules, we never make progress scientifically.
Precisely. Another example: 400 years ago, it was thought that Mars had canals, based on the telescopes of the time. They just didn't know... couldn't have known what's really up there. Same thing today, we've advanced to know more. But it's not even a fraction of the possible reality.
I thought all asteroids looked like giant dented potatoes...
They all do.
all potatoes look like bloated asteroids. all kidding aside, asteroids were here first. the potato is the knock-off, not the original. we expect asteroids will file for an injunction against potatoes any day now to stop their infringement on asteroids trademark shape...
How about the fact that what was written thousands of years ago has never changed once, is geographically proven, and no hard evidence can deny it......yet scientisct are constantly changing their minds on whats really right and always proving each other wrong....oh...and their all "THEORIES"....Go ahead and believe in your ROCK while I believe in the MINE.
JESUS IS THE ROCK
youtube.com/GDChampions
Your head is the true rock.
Ha ha
And I am sure you want to explore it.
It's always nice to meet someone who can present an intelligent, concise argument that is so convincing. You must have a doctorate or something.
Actually no bible told you that there were other planets in our solar system. No bible told you about the hundreds of trillions of planets that we can determine, and the other solar systems which we found containing these planets. He never told you how earth was formed. So we can come to the conclusion that perhaps if there is a god, or one trillion gods, that these gods wanted you to discover them for yourself, and discover how all of it was made. Religion is no good, regardless, as it is completely man made.
Because it does us so much good to know about a rock floating around somewhere. The Bible may be man made (you can gather that fact by reading it, as the Authors were MAN), however the truth behind it is as real as these planets. The difference is that these planets won't save you, or make your day any better. Look at all the hate written in these posts, you will see every bit of it is done by people TRYING to deny God. I, on the other hand, have found an entertaining way to make my workday go by a little quicker. Go ahead, and take the stress you have from these posts and use it to win your video game.
Actually the exploration outside of earth makes lots of people happy. They are not stressing out trying to figure out how we got here, what brought us here. The bible stresses people out, as they decide whether or not to believe it or not. Doesn't really matter if you do. A god did not tell you how we got here, or if there are other beings, whether there are other planets, what is outside of earth. To him, this could be one great big game. If there is a him. Think about it. There are hundreds of trillions of planets out there, that we know of. That shouldn't change your view on god, since no where in any bible does it say "if you believe in other life or other planets, you are going to hell". Evolve. Relinquish religion. Choose to believe in a god, or one trillion gods, or no god at all.
Never changed once? Are you drunk again, silly? That Bible's been changed, rewritten, mistranslated and misunderstood almost from the get-go.
You're so funny – I love that about you. I also love how special you are. Needs to wear a helmet kinda special. Why don't you go play in the safety room with the rest of the little tykes, and let us grown ups continue to adapt and evolve our understanding of this infinite universe as we make new discoveries. We'll be sure to come get you when it's snack time, okay?
Sure thing, "TransHuman". Keep evolving and adapting, apparantly you are still working on that.
Best....Comment....Ever.
You really do know how to miss the point, don't you?
What is your point? That you have no worthwhile true comment to make, so you have to talk trash to somebody you have never even met before?
Between your comment and the fit2fat2fit guy... It is excellent to have people say and do such amazing things. Thanks for brightening my day.
Seeing as to how you are living in complete miserable darkness, I can see how even the smallest of things can brighten your day. What has happened to the world? Since when is unhappy the new happy? Why must you hate yourself and hate others more?
apparently God failed to teach you grammar.
Apparently science failed to teach you who cares.
Science can tell us who cares, study Cognitive and Behavioral Neuroscience to learn more. Go to church and bury your head in the sand to not learn more.
Science also tries to tell us how worthless we are as humans.
Hey, DietieyWarrior: Are you flippin kidding me right now?! There is absolutely nothing about the statement that you just made that is even remotely accurate. I know I should just let you ruminate in your own caldron of stupid, but you got under my skin. For starters, the bible has been rewritten and mistranslated dozens of times throughout history, manipulated and misinterpreted to fit any number of political ideologies and social climates. It is so disjointed and inconsistent that it can be used to justify just about everything. “We hate same sex marriage because Jesus said so” “we hate republicans because Jesus said so” “We hate big government because Jesus said so” “We love our country because Jesus said so” “we never defy our parents because Jesus said so” “we defy our parents because Jesus said so” “we beat our children because Jesus said so” “we love everybody because Jesus said so” “we make war because Jesus said so” the list goes on and on and on. You want consistency? Try the scientific method. You want disjointed farcical $hit, go to church and make a monetary donation and hope the priest keeps his hands off your son.
How about the fact that what was written in the Bible thousands of years ago is wrong? How embarassing to believe that the rainbow was put there to remind us that a god would never cause another global flood (which actually never happened). In Science, we are able to refine theories based on scientific evidence. You are right that the Bible does not change. That is a problem because the Bible simply gets things wrong. The universe was not created in 6 days.
Wow, you sure have some anger there brother. Actually no one can prove or disporove the flood theory so thats your first fail. Im not religious myself but your anger and attack on the believers is far from a positive or gives any credibility to your arguement. Maybe the God some believe in has days that are not exactly 24hrs, I dont know and you dont either. science is constantly disproved and changes it theories very frequently, Most standard religious beliefs in whatever religion saty pretty constant, not saying they are right, but Im also not arrogant enough to say their wrong when i can prove it.
Grist... Actually it might have been created in 6 "days". Of course to get around this, the Bible says that to God a day is like a 1000 years and a 1000 years is like a day. In other words, it took 6 of some random counting of time.
"How about the fact that what was written thousands of years ago has never changed once" WRONG- the King's James version of the Bible is just one of many edited versions.
"is geographically proven, and no hard evidence can deny it." WRONG No one has yet been able to accurately place many events (stories) in the Bible as they are clearly not meant to be taken as FACTUAL Historical events. Take the creation myth of Genesis for example- even the Roman Catholic Church (you know the church that assembled the bible from many different sources) continues to teach and stress that such stories are NOT meant to be taken literally. Jesus taught in parables; why is it so hard for some "christians" to understand that some stories in the bible are similarly not factual historical events?
"yet scientisct are constantly changing their minds on whats really right and always proving each other wrong" It's called learning. God has gifted us with brains that are curious and we explore and learn. Take your computer for example- the one you're using to write such drivel- that came about because smart men and women (scientists and engineers and electricians that you so snobbishly deride) learned how to create and build such a fantastic device. They didn't just find it under a burning bush. It's called learning and growing. You might try it some time.
"Go ahead and believe in your ROCK while I believe in the MINE." The mine? What mine? Gold mine? Well at least here is photographic evidence – produced by SCIENCE (choke on it) of the "rock"- I don't have to take it on "faith" I can see it here with my own eyes. Go ahead and believe in your myths. Charlatans and liars will bilk you out of everything you own and get you to believe anything. Did you believe "revered" Camping and his end of the world claims too? Do you think you can pray away a burst appendix? Or would you go to a DOCTOR; another type of scientist to heal you? Jesus would weep at your ignorance.
Wow, your video game must have really frozen pretty bad for you to have time to write all that. I'm going home now. My wife and children are waiting for me. Thank God for them. Oh hey.....BLESS YOU, BROTHER!! Hope your haters enjoy rubbing it to your post.
What does geographically proven mean? It makes no sense to me.
ge·o·graph·ic (j-grfk) also ge·o·graph·i·cal (–kl)
adj.
1. Of or relating to geography.
2. Concerning the topography of a specific region.
geo·graphi·cal·ly adv.
Adv. 1. geographically – with respect to geography; "they are geographically closer to the center of town"
proven [ˈpruːvən]
vb
1. a past participle of prove
2. (Law) See not proven
adj
tried; tested a proven method
provenly adv
Adj. 1. proven – established beyond doubt; "a proven liar"; "a Soviet leader of proven shrewdness"
proved
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
You know, Geographically Proven.
AMEN!
Jesus is the CEO of the largest scam in the world. He is not a rock.
assuming that particular jesus ever existed... some people are now saying that the entire story was fabricated... way easier that way, when you think about it.
Hate to rain on your parade but if you're talking about the bible... Dude there are so many vastly differant versions, it has been edited, abridged and added to over the years sorry. You'd have a better shot at making those claims on the koran or the old testiment but yeah the NT... Sorry to break it to you but you should crack a history book....
Yes, geographically proven, which is why we can all go to Mt. Ararat and tour Noah's ark.
What, you didn't? It's just right of the Garden of Eden, or didn't you get the map?
TO HELL WITH THE DEVIL. 777.
\m/- -\m/
oh its changed countless times, you just don't know because you've been ordered to believe it hasn't and you believe whatever you're told to because you lack the basic critical thinking skills to figure anything out for yourself. oh, btw... your fellow religiots also point out that the bibble was written by many people over a wide swath of history, which means it has been added to. this also means it has in fact changed. surprise. additionally, there are multiple versions, some of which for example say that your phony-balogney god-man turned water into booze, others say it was grape juice. at least one version suggests it was water into purple colored high-fructose-corn-syrup beverage with artificial grape flavoring added. they are mutually exclusive and therefore cannot all be right... happily however, they CAN all be wrong. 🙂
Really? Which story changed? Editing is not a change. Translation is not a change. I have seem the tomb of Jesus. I have been to Trier and seen the Holy Tunic of Christ. I ahve witnessed the power of prayer. You can argue and whine until you bleed and you will never convince me and millions of others of any different. I suppose your going to say now that Star Wars changed because a few differences were made for the BluRay. No, it didn't the story is the same. The movie Titanic did not change the story of the Titanic, it only added another story to it. The Bible has not changed. Maybe a few scenes, yes. I have been around the world and when I talk about any part of the Bible, no matter how it is told, each story in it is the same. If you, and three people went fishing in a boat, and all three of you went home and told somebody about your day, would the storyline be exactly the same? No. Does that mean that you didn't really go fishing? No, it means that the same story was told in four different versions, but it was still the same story of the days events. Now, talking about locations in the Bible, do you realize how much the Earth has changed in these 2000 plus years? It would be impossible to accurately pinpoint all the events. Let the hating begin.
At least no one blamed George Bush for this.
Or Obama. Wait for it.... wait for it...
Bush and Chaney want nothing to do with this until they find oil on it.
I blame Sarah Palin...
And well you should. After all, they did find evidence of a trailer park on that asteroid.
I am deeply disappointed in the majority of the posts here. They reflect quite badly on our nation and our educational system. As someome who holds both belief in the existence of God and acceptance of the creation of the universe billions of years ago through the Big Bang, and as someone who finds it incomprehensible that so many lack the understanding to grasp the conception that both propositions are compatible, it deeply saddens me that so many of you would engage in such pettiness and ugliness. There is so much more to the universe, to philosophy, and to our existence, then can even be dreamt of or imagined by the discourteous and ill-educated louts who have posted here. Please deepen your learning and your humanity before abusing others with your ill-considered and shallow posts.
You seem pretentious. Who really cares? I mention this because we are limited on this Earth, and we ALL soon die.
Welcome to the spiritual/intellectual DMZ.
*Like*
Thank you!
Apparently, you are the "Chosen One".
Very well put. I encourage anyone too to look up Penrose and the "big boot." I think we are truly coming to a place in science where it becomes clear the evidence that the universe was ordered prior to creation or the "big bang." By entropy the universe heads towards equilibrium. Penrose already postulated the universe must have began (somehow mysteriously) at low entropy. If order comes from greater order, then the universe's singularity was like a seed containing packed information opening to a flower. Does it not even make sense that God would have to pluck His creations out of a progressing universe? Left alone the universe would progress towards maximum entropy, equilibrium, game over. In fact it makes so much sense the way we see it. The universe is indeed ONLY 20 billion years old. Is that so long? Yet enough time for us to fully form and then God come and take us. In the mean time, we can see and understand. Oh let us not blindly assume it is all random chance ! Science ought to tell us it is not !
I cordially invite you to read this article in its entirety.
http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/bootingup_universe_divine_feat_or_random_act
This article is a pretty typical and relatively unbiased examination of Roger Penrose's "big boot" hypothesis. If you follow this line of reasoning, you will see that while a creator is not disproven, the dynamics of the system do not require a creator.
Penrose's position requires that the universe be bounded and finite. The problem is that this may not be the case. At this time, there is evidence that the universe may be finite, but unbounded. Being unbounded, there is no reason for entropy to remain steady over many "reboots".
I hate to say that it also logically follows that if this universe is the latest in a series, and entropy was at its lowest state at the "big boot", there is no reason to assume that entropy was at its lowest state at the beginning of THIS universe, or at its highest at its end; therefore the increase in the level of entropy over a mere 20 billion years does not prevent the formation of life or intelligence. There is plenty of order still left to go around.
I also hate to point this out, but Roger Penrose himself characterises himself as a humanist, and uncertain about god. Nowhere in his "big boot" hypothesis does he say that this first cause has to be god. This is the same problem that Aquinas has; you can postulate a first cause, but there is no requirement that the first cause has to be god.
It really all boils down to this. God is ultimately based in faith, and exists outside of provability or disprovability. God is outside the scope of science. I'm sorry, but you can't prove the existence of god using science.
here we go, finally true evidence of the existence of God!!! i give you God himself, who chose the name T.S Rood. everyone else here is shallow and ugly compared to him, the only one who does not need to deepen his own knowledge and spirituality. hail to T.S. Rood!
I will post a scientific question for you. Which came first? The Chicken or the egg?
That is really a trick question. The egg came with a chicken in it and the entire bundle came from something that it evolved from. Everybody argues about when life begins. I think it began billions of years ago and it just keeps rolling.
How in the world is that scientific? Also, is this "Chicken" some major deity, or a friend of yours? Otherwise, it's "chicken". Small "c". I'm assuming you skipped grammar along with science class in favor of Sunday school, along with the rest of the primitives.
Easy question. Chickens(male and female) came first and reproduce because chicken is sexual reproduction. Unlike many think egg came first but if one really understand how the egg comes about, and the condition to have produce a successful egg and its developing cycle, one can come easily come to the understanding the God made them both male and female chicken from the beginning.
You are an idiot, and a "male chicken" is called a rooster. I wonder how some of these people are able to use a computer.
So what were all those birds laying before chickens came along? Marbles?
Never mind... god did it. Can't beat that.
Contrary to popular belief, the question of the chicken and the egg has been resolved. The chicken (actually, dinosaurs) came first. Like mammals, they were born without shells. Naturally, they were too exposed and fragile. Millions of years later evolution added an external layer that kept on getting thicker and harder.
The egg came first.Two birds mated long ago,and the result was a chicken egg.The mother cared for them,thus the chicken came into existence.All chickens came from eggs those chicken eggs mating with different birds other than their own kind ,but compatible for mating & through through mating with different birds of the time before some became extinct we have what we have now.Life itself? It was preplanned.Ask yourself what the universe is expanding into,(infinity) and give it an intelligence and you have an idea of the complex creator of everything.
Lets put this question to rest once and for all...
The egg, just like how if you cross breed dogs to make a new breed you start with x and y end end up with z.
So the first Z had to be an egg with X and Y parents.
Our little sister? The bigger question here, beyond religion and science, is...how did they determine the sex of the asteroi?.
Best comment of the day!
Planets are personified as females in the same way that ships are usually referred to as "she" or "her".
Does the name of the planet come into this designation? Just wondering, if Venus had actually been named after a male Roman god, would it have been our "brother" planet? Or would it still be a sister planet...
See that big hole....?
Large things are considered female. Take ships, for instance.
What you bible lovers must understand is that if there is a God, he never tells you how he created earth or the hundreds of trillions of planets that we know of. Just think, we only know of hundreds of trillions, that is as far as we can reach and determine. There may be infinite planets. Your God never tells you this, so he could have created our little big bang (one of trillions), he could have created anything, so to deny that is just as foolish.
Religion is the biggest scam in the history of mankind
Yes religion is, but if you tell people that they won't have a convo with you. Doesn't mean there is not one god, or one trillion gods though.
You "god" people make me sick. Who is to say your god is better than then anyone else’s? Because a book told you? Many books tell people the god they pray for is the true god.....
God "the real one" is not a person with a face, or an object that make choices, the REAL God is what we do not understand, Nature can be a god, so can the powers of the universe. God was to help people understand that they do not understand everything and there are powers at work that are beyond anyone’s understanding. What that means to you is your vision on God.
To say people will "burn in hell" because they do not believe YOUR god shows how some religion has drained your brain matter to the point you are a mindless god zombie, or god warrior, either way you are like a cancer on the rest of us.
So go real your Bible again, real slow, understand that the stories are fables, stories to tech you lessons all men/women go through, it is a guide to being a better person. Not a tool to separate people and say "My god is better than your god, na na na na na"
I think "God" would be ashamed of the people who sit here and think that "God" is going to punish us the people who look in to the universe and see beauty.......
Hypocrites
Religion is the biggest scam in the history of humanity
Well put SgtSerge! Free thought vs. mindless subjugation is what this all boils down to.
They want to put the "fear of God" in you so you don't question what they can't explain.
What ancient people couldn't explain they made supernatural. Free and clear thinkers
search for an answer, sometimes finding it, sometimes not, but the search for truth is
not answered by a book. It is found through exploration, experimentation, and questioning
the norm and pushing the envelope.
Enough with the bashing already. Stop making yourself part of the problem.
Why do people feel the need to involve God in scientific discussions? God is based on faith. Science is based on facts and testable theories. Spaghetti monster or periodic table. Take your pick. Remember...science is in that medication you take, the surgery you undergo and the pistons that move your vehicle. God doesn't give a crap.
Religion is the biggest scam in the history of the world
So we just happen to live on a planet with everything needed to sustain life, just happens to be the right distance from the sun, just happens to be angled correctly, just happens to rotate at the right speed and just happens to be no other planet in the vicinity like it?? Sure....you go on and live in the lie I will trust in the obvious fact of creation!
Yes, all that has more of a possiblity than a magic man snapping his fingers and making this world appear.
Obvious fact? I think you chose to believe it because it’s easy and requires no thinking. it also gives you that warm fuzzy feeling because you are part of a community that chooses to believe the same things, regardless of their irrationality. Who really wants to second guess their social circles and elders? It’s safe and comfortable, that’s why you do it. Critical thinking takes effort and my rock the boat. Better not do that!
Nice choice of names 🙂
But anyway, your argument is ridiculous. You can't use the rarity of our existence as proof of anything - there's so many hundreds of billions of stars and planets in the universe that our existence is inevitable, as long as it's possible.
You want proof of creation? Find proof our existence is impossible.
Who says we even exist?
What is impossible today may not be impossible tomorrow.... hence science 😉
"facts of creation"? Name one provable, testable fact of creation, I dare you.
For something to be a FACT it has be able to be PROVEN. Where is your proof that a mysitcal being popped up and created us? Better yet, if you believe in creationism, and accept it as the origin on mankind and the universe, who/what created your god? If we had to be created out of nothing then it is just common sense to assume that god had to be created also. Isn't that what you believe, that nothing comes from nothing? So where did your mythical being come from? Until you can answer any of these questions factually with verifiable facts I will continue to believe in the truth.
uhhh - many things are needed to have a planet that can sustain "life" as we know it - it's just happenstance - it wasn't "created" with a specific goal in mind - it just is what it is - it's fine, live your lie, believe in it - but here's a fact....every species on this planet has evolved from something earlier, that means evolution is a fact... because evolution is a fact, then there was no adam and eve, no adam and eve means there was no original sin, no original sin means there's no reason for god to send his son down to die for our sins because humans are not inherently sinful just by fact of birth, no jesus dying for our sins, then the entire basis for christianity beliefs fly out the window. These things are absolute fact - but if you want to be delusional because it helps you pass the time away, have at it - but keep it to yourself!
Circular logic (not that logic was your intention). If we evolved to exist and thrive in any other condition (e.g. an ammonia atmosphere), you would still say the conditions were "perfect" and evidence of God.
It's called infinity: this tends to increase the odds of, from time to time, a planet developing life. But you go ahead and keep on believing in your giant magic bearded man in the sky. Because that's so much more plausible. Just please don't breed.
Religion is the biggest scam in the history of the universe
@Me. ha, see, your post is exactly like your name, everything is about you. you're so special.
ever heard of the Drake equation? oh com'on, don't start Googling now. the Drake equation is an attempt at estimating the probability of life happening on other planets (or probability of life in general in the universe). it may be one out of a septillion (if you don't know, that's a really large number) solar systems that happens to have one planet with the right conditions to support life such as those on Earth, simply due to probability. but if those life forms become intelligent enough to start question their origin, does that invalidate the probability itself? of course not. simply because you exist doesn't mean some almighty power had to create you with his magical hand.
even if God exists, i don't think he would've wanted to create something as unintelligent as you, who really posts a lot on this subject. LOL.
Your fallacy is that you are arguing from effect. The counterargument is that conditions where we are are ideal for the formation of life, therefore the chance of life forming here are very high. It's like arguing that of all the sperm in your daddy's ejaculate, the one that made you is the one that connected. This is logical gibberish. You emerged from the union of that particular sperm and egg; you won that particular lottery, therefore you exist to ask that question in the first place. If you didn't exist, you'd never have asked.
So they could have other beings living on that Asteroid. To them it is normal flying through space like that. Just as earth, it is normal to spin around and we never see it with our eyes even though we make a revolution every 24 hours.
I can't see Washington D.C. when I spin in my chair. It must have been invented by scientists.
Good one!
Well, not likely. Amino acids and other organic compounds have been found on asteroids, but so far nothing we could say is alive. The "sisterhood" they're talking about is chemical and geological composition. Life is much more likely to arise in the presence of gravity, atmosphere, and liquid water, and this asteroid is just too small and too far from the sun to have any of these.
No there is much we can not see with our own eyes. You would be very surprised.
If you don't know how it happened then it must have been made by an invisibile man in the sky.
It doesn't matter how much scientific evidence is thrown in their faces, there will always be those who will continue to believe in that great science fiction novel, the Bible.
I think the Bible is fantasy, not Science Fiction. Science Fiction has a duty to at least sound plausable. Fantasy is based in magic. Remember, Jesus was magical, not scientific.
Yeah like you actually read it...
Dear Brain Surgeon,
Congrats on your research at Troll University with emphasis on not understanding what you're talking about. The Bible is about God, not science, and therefore the two are not mutually exclusive. I invite you to read the Bible a little, especially the parts where Jesus invites everyone into the Kingdom.
... or you could just ignore it and burn in Hell. Your call. Hope to see you on the other side, but if I don't, hahahhahahahahhahahahhaha!!!! Nanner-nanner!!!
In order for something to be, it has to exist. For something to exist, it has to be physical. Where is this "kingdom" you speak of. Can you get there by car, boat, plane, space shuttle? It doesn't exist!
Not to state the obvious (since you missed it), but the science fiction comment was a play on words considering this is an article regarding science. The Jackdaw is right though, the Bible is a fantasy piece of fiction.
I was raised Christian and have read the Bible. It’s an entertaining piece, but only the gullible would believe in such outrageousness. It doesn’t matter how much scientific proof is shoved in your face, you will never wake up and see the proof of how ridiculously impossible your beliefs are. The Bible made sense hundreds and hundreds of years ago when people believed the earth to be flat, but mankind has come so far since that time. You really believe that some magical guy in the sky created Earth and now rules from above? Really?
Hell? Sorry, there is no such place. I have some news for you Sunshine, when we die, you, me, and everyone else will just rot in the ground.
From your reply, I would say that you have probably read it, but failed to grasp what it was truly saying, and will probably have a very rude awakening when the time comes. I hope not, but your reply would leave me to think that you may be the one wondering "why" on judgment day.
the idea of eternal torment amuses you. nice religion
"Nanner-nanner!" may be the greatest closing line of any argument, on any thread, ever. It's brilliant. It sums up, in a quite lucid manner, how crippling your argument was. No one can recover: you've "nanner-nannered" them. Amazing. Sir, take a bow at your computer, you've discoverd the ultron-closer. The zenith.
Still, consider the children. Why, if the kids in the playground ever hear that phrase, they might start using it on each other. The horror of a bumch of, oh I don't know, 5-year olds using "nanner-nanner". The next thing you know, they'll be telling us all that the Easter Bunny isn't real, or that the Hannekuah Harry is simply a made up response to another made up character named Santa Claus. We all know _they're_ realy. Don't we?
Excuse me, must go – something is touching me with its noodly appendage. It tickles so good, it must be a god.
Science wasnt even a word when the bible was written. Its just fiction.
Did I get your attention? Lol. I find it fascinating even a bit surprising to come down to the comments section and find most to do with religion (or more precisely mocking the Bible). Isn't that amazing yet not surprising. In fact isn't that very very much the question people are interested in when we think about cosmology. One of the simple facts of the universe is there is order. From Bode's law for the planets and asteroid belt, to the natural forces (why should they exist at all?) that allow protons and neutrons to combine. Indeed order comes from greater order. Per entropy the universe heads towards equilibrium and hence why Penrose answered the entropy paradox with that the universe must have (somehow mysteriously) started at low entropy. It is quite clear natural laws exist. If you read the Bible, God is much more than a healer of the sick. He brought forth order out of chaos ! There is nothing incompatible with God creating the and setting up the universe and indeed having the very power to join with and preserve His human creations. There is nothing incompatible with finding space rocks that formed in the early solar system and Jesus Christ's incarnation. Rather the very existence of order by science shows us the universe began from greater order.
Thanks for being a voice of reason on the firing line.
I have no problem with the entropy argument. The truth is that no one know and no one can explain what happened at the moment of the Big Bang.
The problem is that you make a ridiculously long leap to relate this to the bible. You say that God initiated the big bang and then jump to Jesus is great. You missed the parts in between. That is why people mock those who treat the bible with such undue reverence. It is not a credible source of information to us. It is not compelling and people like me find your insistence on its validity to be (frankly) kinda stupid.
Brett, indeed I at least get your question. I am not saying there are no leaps of faith involved. But at least I am glad if simply we and I hope more can agree there is direct evidence for a powerful intelligence, indeed well beyond our understanding, setting order to the universe. The evidence for this creator being the same creator who chose and revealed Himself to the Jewish people is compelling but it is more a question of religion then. This same God indeed may be as others have believed in a creator. If we seek the Truth, I believe we may come to know with great confidence. That may be unsatisfying to those who seek full evidence through science. And yes, I even recognize the fear that we would blindly agree to a false god. So I do not tell you or anyone what to believe. I believe we seek the Truth and God will show each of us. I have sought though and have well come to believe Jesus Christ is so much more than the narrow-minded portrayals you see here on this message board. Jesus told us He existed long before His incarnation. I hope we are simply open to the Truth.
The most plausible scientific theory as to the origin of matter in the universe is now based on the "brane" theory. In other words, two "membranes" of space time in different dimesions collided and produced an energetic reaction. As part of this theory, the matter from the other dimension "leaked" into our dimesion in an event referred to as the "big bang". So, if the majority of astrophysicists agree that matter did not originate in our observable universe, why is it so wrong for an equally plausible creation theory to be considered. Science has been repeatedly revised as new data is acquired and associated theories proven. God is the only element of astrophysics that has never been disproven.
God can't be disproven, at least not to your satisfaction. That's why God is considered a supernatural construct.
How can you disprove something that can't be proven in the first place.
There will never be a scientific proof of God's existence (other than the fact that everything exists). Many noted scientists know that God exists, many say He doesn't. People who try to concoct "science vs God" debates are generally keyboard warriors, and their efforts are as misguided (and offensive) as the Bible Thumpers who try to use the Bible as science.
@jon. yes, scientific models and theories do evolve and are revised many times over time, but they're revised based on scientific observations that can be reproduced. name one Creationism observation that can be independently verified without presuming the existence of your God. you sound more intelligent (or scientific) than the average religious nut, or at least more open-minded, but you're still clinging to that last hope of salvation.
God is not an element in astrophysics.
Alright, somebody's got to do it.
Insane in the mem-braaaaaane! Insane in the brane!
Alright, that's over with.
Why do they put stories out like this. I think it makes scientists look foolish and whimsical rather than seekers of truth. We don’t know where that asteroid came from originally, how it was created or when – we only know some of the materials its composed of, its velocity, approximate mass and its path. For all we know most of space is littered with terrestrial objects made of the same stuff as Earth, Venus and Mars – Stuff like this could account for 90% of the total mass of the Universe – nobody knows.
Exactly, everyone knows "God did it" is the answer to every question.
No, everyone does not know this. There are quite a few of us who don't believe in fairytales.
That's not what he's saying. He didn't mention god at all. What he's saying is, it's very speculative. Myself I'd prefer if they'd start articles like this with, "Wouldn't it be neat if... ?" instead of the current "Flash news with an amazing FACT!" style.
"Stuff like this" is not the work of scientists. This is the work of reporters looking for something interesting to report. Science has many grains of interesting facts and ideas floating around. Until you read about it in a scientific journal, its just fluff.
Well Joe ordinary matter constitutes only 4% of the observed universe, so I don't think you're right.
The universe is comprised of dark matter as well. If the universe was comprised of material (like this asteroid) by a percentage of 90%, then it would be extremely crowded.
Science is a process. We have to narrow the list of possible explanations of our origin from infinity to a few plausible theories. Science rarely claims that it is 100% correct – more like 95-99% correct. Scientists leave room for uncertainty and take comfort in not knowing (job security).
Religion is an emotional process. It relies on ignorance and the lack of information to gain your support (and your money). The bible mocks those who seek proof (poor Thomas) of its claims. Truth come packaged in tissue thin paper with a plastic cover (and the words "Made in China" stamped on the back) and cheesy, painted on gold lettering.
Go back the the Faith message boards. You don't belong here.
This is simply nonsense. These "experts" have no evidence regarding the origin of this asteriod. Their theories are less than speculation, just WAGs. I'm an engineer and scientist; if my work was as "good" as this, I'd be canned in a minute. How these people get paid for such worthless opinions is mind boggling.
I agree.
If you were really an engineer/scientist, you'd be well aware this isn't a scientist's work. It's a reporter's sensationalism for a story. Give discredit where discredit is due. It's simply poor reporting.
It's not even reporting. It's a blog. Even so...
Janet: This is how science works: The one described is the best explanation SO FAR. It is a hypothesis. If you have a better one, feel free to propose it, instead of cropping over your fellow scientists.
I'm sure it would be mind boggling to you, if you had one.
I would cite the bible but for some reason it would likely incite a riot. Either way, keep believing this faux "science". In the end you will know the real truth.
I wasn't going to say anything...until I read your comment.
It is a FACT that the planet was formed in the solar system billions of years ago. There is evidence ALL around you that proves it. You can choose not to believe in fact and you can continue believing in the greatest fiction book of all time. The choice is yours.
Many, many billions of years ago, a larger star occupied our region of space. It eventually blew itself apart and what remained behind eventually found it's way back to the center by gravity. When gravity and matter condensed enough to reach 18 million degrees our sun was born.
More material began coming together to form the planets.
The sun is made of hydrogen (74%) and helium (about 24%). The remaining amount is made of iron, nickel, oxygen, silicon, sulfur, magnesium, carbon, neon, calcium and chromium. In fact, the Sun is 1% oxygen; and everything else comes out of that last 1%.
All of those materials can be found here on Earth and many are found in the atoms that make you what you are.
We are connected to each other biologically.
We are connected to the sun chemically.
We are connected to the universe atomically.
Sorry, but god had nothing to do with it.
And you know this for sure how??????
Do you have video footage of all this?? If not then it's not fact
Me: You show me your video of God creating the universe and I'll show you my video of it doing it itself. You go first!
@me do you have video of everything or anything, for that matter, that happened in the bible? Oh, its all fake then according to your logic, right?
I know this because it's observable across the galaxy in regions that form stars. We've actually got quite good at finding it.
I don't need a video to prove it.
Do you believe that the universe used to be smaller? It was. I can prove this because we can see the expansion by measuring lightwaves. Therefore, it is easy to come to the conclusion that at one time in the distant past, everything was closer together.
It's elementary physics.
Wow. You are as far off from the widely agreed scientific theories as the creationists are. Scientists only believe the entire universe to be less than 14 billion years old – nowhere near the "many-many" billions of years you claim. At least biblical literallists who insist that Earth is only several thousand years old are within 4.54 billion years of the scientific estimate.
Me – Of course there is no video of these things happening. Your comment is nothing more than a sign that you have no valid argument in this debate.
There is no video, but there is vast scientific evidence to support the things Phil wrote. How do you dismiss those facts and under what basis? Because a book told you so? A book that includes things such as talking serpents, people turning to stone, and a boat that holds two of every animal? Really?
RichieP – 14 billion could easily be interpreted as “many-many” and definitely a lot more accurate than a few thousand years. How do you calculate that several thousand years old is within 4.54 billion years of the scientific estimate of 14 billion? HA HA! Do you know how many thousands are in just 1 billion? I think your math is off a bit.
@RichieP
Really? You mistake my many, many billions to equate to more than 14?
Many, many billions is fewer than 14 billion. The observable portion is only 13.75 billion years old. There may be more to it that we won't see for a while.
Good argument, bad conclusion. You can't say God had nothing to do with it just because it has a natural explanation. It's like saying the sun is yellow, therefore I have a red wagon. No correlation whatsoever
Interesting that you left out the part where life began.... What's your answer to that question? According to the article, scientists are still looking. There is actually more evidence missing to support the Big Bang and the beginning/evolution of life than there is supporting it. It takes more brain power to wrap your head around a creator (God) than it does to logically wrap time in a box in order to satisfy man's need to have a start and an end. Have you ever thought about the Universe and infinite it is? Can anyone even logically explain something that has no beginning or end, both in time or space? It's very difficult to do, and thus believing in God is no more or less "Crazy" or "Fiction" than believing in a infinite universe. Something that has no start, and no end, is fundamentally against human thought process, and yet most everyone chooses to believe in something like this (whether it is God, or the Universe). Humans have forever tried to understand and explain everything as a definitive start and end. How was the universe created? Has it always existed? How was God created? Has He always existed? How? Does it make sense? It's impossible to explain either of these, or to prove whether either one is definitely true. But faith, either Faith in a Creator, or Faith that the Universe is infinite (which we cannot prove), is a cornerstone of the human mind. So, to hear so many of you destroy, degrade, and bash groups of people who choose to believe in a higher power is essentially insulting yourselves, and the whole human race at the same time. You have the freedom to say what you want, without consequences behind a keyboard, but be cautious about your statements in the face of an educated, critical thinker.
@ JohnW
The sun is yellow, yes - and your wagon is red as a result of the lightwaves being absorbed and reflected off of it. Take that red wagon under the light of a different star that is much cooler or much hotter and the color will appear different.
Just saying.
it was just a coinicidence that the earth was in the perfect orbit , the perfect distance from the sun ,at the perfect rotation (with 12 hours of night and 12 hours of day)with a perfect satellite at the perfect distance from the earth,to allow life as it is known to crawl out of the ooze ......what are the idiotic odds of that happening.
further more ,why do people get so angry when someone offers divine intervention as a explanation,
@ Janeails22x
It actually takes less brain to believe in god than it does science. The believe in god doesn't challenge you. Trying to understand the origins of the universe does. Simply stating "god dunit" is pure ignorance.
We actually know more about how life started here than what you'd like everyone else to think. We evolved. It's not a "theory" in the sense that it's just a guess and can't be proven - it's a theory because it's still a work in progress.
How did the universe come into existence? "god" - requires no further proof or thought process.
How did the universe come into existence? "science" - requires proof and a tremendous amount of thought process.
The answer is in Rocks. Visit the UNESCO World Heritage site in Mistaken Point, Newfoundland and compare them to the rocks found in Morocco and you will the exact same. The evidence given by those fossils indicates an age of over 250 Million years.
Some of the oldest rocks in the world are found in Labrardor at nearly 4 billion years old.
http://www.paleoportal.org/index.php?globalnav=time_space§ionnav=state&name=Newfoundland%20and%20Labrador
http://www.heritage.nf.ca/environment/geology.html
Somehow the bible didn't mention these rocks....I don't know why..... I guess Jesus wasn't a geologist.
Phil, yeah, I gotcha, I'm just trying to point out that using a scientific argument to reach a religious conclusion is just as bad as using a religious argument to reach a scientific conclusion. They can't mesh.
I'd believe this science way over stuff written a couple thousand year ago by people that didn't understand the sciences.
It's not an "either-or", one can accept science, as I do, and the Bible, as I do.
One tells about God, the other tells about our Universe.
Why would you site it?
Why is a bible toting, God fearing, science denying, I believe the earth to be 6,000 years old, man walked hand in hand with dinosaurs and kept them as pets reading and commenting on a scientifc article???
Don't you have a creationism musesum somewhere to open?
Sarah Palin believes that early man rode dinosaurs to church on Sunday. They used to park them in the Roman coliseum.
I am formally raising the BS flag on you.
Either post links to where the Bible says people and dinosaurs coexisted OR links to where the Bible says the earth is 6000 years old (that's EITHER of your two assertions).
If you can't find links, then your post is BS.
"Thinker", he's making a joke.
...well, an exaggeration. Some creationists have claimed that man and dinosaurs coexisted. The only evidence they could pull out of the bible for it is the old "giants in the earth in those days" chestnut and the occasional mentions of dragons. the joke here is that he's making fun of the people who have made those claims, and kinda-sorta bent scripture to support their position.
Man, it just kills the humor to have to explain a joke.
Keep believing that nonsense. Now donate 10% of your salary on your way out.
Typical bible thumper. The only thing you teabaggers love more than the baby jesus is boinking your cousins. Oh, yeah. And nascar. Almost forgot nascar.
In the end, science will win because it works.
What you bible lovers must understand is that if there is a God, he never tells you how he created earth or the hundreds of trillions of planets that we know of. Just think, we only know of hundreds of trillions, that is as far as we can reach and determine. There may be infinite planets. Your God never tells you this, so he could have created the big bang, he could have created anything, so to deny that is just as foolish.
This would take away the "specialness" that people seem to want from the bible. It hurts them all the more to imagine other worlds, with other beings also made in god's image, with other saviors.
I counter, Is god not infinite? Can you put a shape on infinity? Next, is god's love not infinite? If god can love everyone on earth equally, then why not everyone in the universe?
This usually gets something thrown at me, so I can't really recommend it.
False,
Everyone knows that God just waved his magic wand and the entire universe was created, including humans as they are existing today.
Do you think it was a wand like Harry Potter's or a wand made from an apple tree branch?
Nah, its just Earth's long lost Excrement from ages past.
Its one giant coprolite huh?
What a crappy comment.