Mathematicians' Alternate Model of the Universe Explains Away the Need For Dark Energy

Fascinating stuff. Incidentally, dark matter and dark energy is found in the scripure if you know where to look. I mean if the Creator created all that we see out of nothing, maybe we should consult with Him more to help us understand His universe. Just a thought. . .

in the scriptures...right then. well when you get a chance to have a chat with "Him", let us know what "He" said...maybe even slip in a question about what the f "He" was thinking when "He" made the platypus.

That is a miss use of Copernicus. It is not "Earth does not have a unique place in the universe," but rather "Earth NEED not have a unique place in the universe."

So, even if we don't have to be in the center of the universe (relatively speaking) does not mean that we are not there by happenstance.

Though it is also possible to say that we MUST be in the middle, because it requires that level of stability to hold the fragility of life over so much time as life has been on the Earth.

The problem here is that you have one speculative guess that fits some, but not all, of the data fighting against a speculative idea generated to be the answer for all the missing and unresolved data.

interestingly, it was modern day creationists who have suggested a return to geocentrism. Russel Humphreys was the first to suggest this with his white hole cosmology.

It's pretty simple really. The universe revolves around me. Therefore, I'm at the center of it. I live on earth. Therefore, the earth is the center of the universe.

P.S. i2hellfire. Any god fearing person knows that "He" (maybe they?) made the platypus so that you would question your faith. Duh.

geebob, that's not "interesting" so much as *predictable.*

and it's funny that i've never seen dark energy mentioned in the scriptures... must be hidden in between all the rape, incest, and genocide.

please tell me there is some heavy duty sarcasism going one here (and i'm not talking about the article)

geebob, that's not "interesting" so much as *predictable.*

much like your pointless comment.

buckrodgers
No matter where you are relative to infinity, there is always the same amount of it around you in all directions. So we are always in the center of our existence. Maybe this is why man is such a self centered being?? Space is just a measurement of relative position and time a measurement of relative existence. I guess Einstien was right. All things are relative.

Cool idea. The Bible burns like any other book. If He didn't like it, he'd strike me down, but he hasn't yet. So is He just busy cooking up that party in the next leap year, or was he always a proponent of freedom of expression? In that case, American history would have been less ugly.

Geocentrism is tarded. We're just a happy accident.

@25th Scientist
We've been trying to consult with Him for thousands of years but we keep getting his voicemail. I left a message: "F*** YOU, give me my 3 wishes." Do you have his private number? Please email it to me at getalifeyoureligioustoolshed@gotoschool.org

poopshoop, do you know anything about God? Really? He isn't a genie! Everyone seems to have this view that God is sitting up in the clouds smitting the unfaithful and granting the prayers of the "good" people, but that couldn't be any farther from the truth! He is in the clouds so to speak,but that's because He's omnipresent, meaning He's everywhere at the same time. So He is in your room or house or mind all at the same time. And God's desire isn't to go smitting everyone. He wants to love you, not kill you for your sin, although death is what we all deserve.

And may I also point out that here, ONCE AGAIN, is a biased article. Last time I checked the "BIG BANG THEORY" was just that, a THEORY!!! Popsci, please remove these biased articles, at least use proper terminology, don't talk about the big bang as though it really happend unless you're willing to talk about Creation as though it really happend (paragraph 5, sentence 2). Though it has been accepted by SOME scientists, the big bang THEORY hasn't been accepted by all scientists, and it isn't the only theory out there. And Popsci, I have also seen attacks toward people who do believe in other theories in some of your articles. This is not right!!! people have a right to their opinion but please stop or prevent these attacks on personal beliefs in future articles.

buckrodgers
poopshoop, You are an intelectual idiot, pardon my English.
You missed my point. Right over your little head. I never
said there was no God.If you had any type of intellectual prowess you would see the Bible for what it is"knowledge".
Science only can see through observation and measurement.
There are things that may exist we cannot see ie. "dark matter" yet scientists believe it exists. There is evidence of a devine order all around us. There are different things expressed by spirtual prowess that cannot be seen yet Christian's beleive exist. Does this make belief in this have any less credibility. We can only see things in the physical world relative to other things we coexist with; therefore, everything in our limited existence is relative to where we are in OUR individual physical existence. Relative to others I know your existence is pretty limited.

Geocentrism is tarded. We're just a happy accident.

like a comment on a thread were two mathematicians cite it's virtues in solving problems with physics?

and no, we aren't discussing the theory where the sun revolves around the earth. pay attention to the news item you are posting at for crying out loud.

How fast a comment stream can get degraded from discussing the merits of a new theory to bible bashing. Why do some feel such hatred for religion. Blame religion for all the evils inherent in man (and woman, we must be inclusive) these same evils have always been with us, before Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, neolithic fertility worship. Religion has formed a focal point to control these evils, not the other way around. There are some few very moral people who would act morally without religion, law, or social taboos. But those are very few indeed.

Well, a couple of fellas wanted to point out the relevance of this issue to religious considerations, (the first post I disagree with by the way... and for that matter, I never even claimed to agree with the perspective I brought up) and then come the knee jerk reactions from those beaten too many times by nuns in their catholic schools or just found their extreme fundamentalist church too simplistic.

Usually comments are enlightening but there is always an exception to the rule. I've always been amazed at how grown men and women can fight like kids. So many people hate God because they don't understand Him, nor can they imagine why a Supreme Being would send us here. A person ignorant of the scientific method would criticize the many many mistakes science makes and they would continue to do so until they understood that science only has little knowledge to work with and mistakes and critiquing of the research is inherent and required. A child ignorant of the parent's knowledge might reject counsel, not being able to see very far ahead. Nine times out of ten, our parents were right.

Just because you don't understand something, be it God or science, doesn't mean it is foolishness.

geebob, your skin is very, very thin. I never even criticized you.

I merely noted that OF COURSE creationists would be the first to advocate a return to geocentrism. That's their bread and butter. ergo, "predictable," not "interesting."

btw, what are people who don't believe in science even doing reading this magazine? practicing for the Westboro Baptist forensics team?

deegeezee, what's wrong with having thin skin when you have it yourself?

Why toss out a backhanded comment if you don't want it handed back to you? And then you go and dish out more!

hey criticalscience, religion is a theory. You douchebag religious faggot. You can't prove your crappy religion any more than the scientist can prove the big bang. so take that self righteous pompous stick out your rear and kill yourself with it.

buckrodgers
Faith, Love, Hope, thoughts, memories, spirit these all exist but try and measure them or quantify where they originate or where they go. They have no substance but control the physical world as we know it. We see the results on the very essence of humanity but still cannot get our hands on them and control them. They will always control us. The Bible states the all that is manifest in the flesh is first manifest in the spirit. This is where these initially manifest themselves before entering our realm of physical existence. Infinite "Knowledge" we choose to ignore. A theory such as in this article is interesting yet is bases on a very very limited amount of knowledge or as I would like to say the real truth.With our limited existence we may never know the truth but to seek it out is honorable in the eyes of God.

criticalscience: I love your view on god, as if it was any more valid than any other.

We have to remember that a science journalist has to strike a fine balance between a) accuracy, and b) marketing his article. Note the mathematical model says that "...the Earth sits NEAR the center" (supposedly), NOT that it is pointblank at the center. At the scale of the Universe, this fuzzy region is probably the Local Group of galaxies which our Milky Way galaxy belongs to. So if there are other intelligent lifeforms in this Group, then we can fight it out as to who the universe was made for (sarcasm intended).

geebob, it wasn't backhanded. i think this is a failure to communicate... i obviously don't speak fluent troll.

if you're incapable of debate without flipping out, don't post in a comment thread. well, at least until after you graduate from junior high.

*that* was an insult.

have fun studying creationism!

I can’t believe some of the comments here, calling POPSCI Biased? It’s a Scientific Magazine. What do you expect; I don’t see religious Magazines talking about the Big Bang.

Good Job PopSci on telling us new happenings in the world of Science, Keep up the good work!

I think I'm seriously going to stop reading the online portion of POPSCI. Some of you guys are so ignorant it doesn't make any sense.

I can't believe that there are grown men on this site calling people who are holding science and religion on the same accord "faggots" and other derogatory names. It's so sad. Like, grow up, seriously.

Out of all these comments, the only person that made a decent amount of sense is

orangebloodedal .

It's just not necessary to call each other names and argue over something that we just may never know. How can you be so demeaning towards someone who realizes that these theories are only theories and trusts in the divine order of things THAT WE SEE EVERY SINGLE DAY???

Some of you really need to grow up. Anyone with true intellect and love for science would understand that as scientists, we find success in proving ourselves wrong, and accepting different views and theories opens the door for growth.

Who knows, this being that we call GOD, The Great Spirit, and The Unmoved Mover, that we cannot see or directly prove it's existence, could indeed be a combination of what scientists have come to call Dark Matter & Dark Energy.

geebob, it wasn't backhanded. i think this is a failure to communicate... i obviously don't speak fluent troll.

no, belittling someone's point of view that you don't know much about is not backhanded. No it's not a backhanded statement when the same thing is said to you and you flip out.

if you're incapable of debate without flipping out, don't post in a comment thread.

I didn't flip out. the voice you read my posts with were your own.

and why are you posting? If you can't debate without flipping out, according to you, you shouldn't post.

The "Copernican principle" really? Come on! Until SETI starts broadcasting the Alien version of Seinfeld....the Copernican principle is just unfounded and blind faith.

To criticalscience and all other religious types who enjoy critiquing people and articles on this site:
Please check the title of this magazine... it says "Popular Science". Last time I checked, the popular scientific theory about the origin of the universe in western cultures is the Big Bang Theory. Also, consider Matthew 7:1-5... the Lord said, "Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged." Remember, the Bible was written by Men 2000+ years ago to understand how God created and resides in the universe as they understood it.Perhaps you should consider looking at modern science as the continued search to study the intricacies of God in Nature in the most accurate means possible. God did not give the human race a mind and a desire for understanding to let it waste.

oh, geebob. the "i'm rubber and you're glue" method of debate you employ is beneath even the Bible-thumping pseudo-scientists you obviously idolize.

but i'm going to end this discussion, since you're clearly not up to it; i recommend you stick to the kiddie pool from now on.

I just don't understand the reason for all the bickering between the science and the religious factions. In almost every science forum I hear the same rediculous arguments. Kinda like trying to force a square peg in a round hole. The two don't mix - they are completely different lines of thought.

But they need not be mutually exclusive. Religion is a primitive science. Science was first put into use by religion. They can co-exist. They just cannot explain each other!!!

The earth need not be the center of things for a God to exist. Neither does humankind need to be his greatest creation. And I'll bet my last dollar that both factions are wrong in many ways. I'll also bet my second last dollar that both are right about many things. If the religious would just admit that science (it's brainchild) has merit, then they would not see it as a force of evil trying to disprove the existance of God. God cannot ever be disproved! it is an impossibility so stop worrying! And if the scientific community would just admit that there are some things (e.g. how can all this be here from nothingness) that just cant be explained without invoking some unknown force or energy. "Dark energy"? ooooo! sounds like a mystical force to me! God will not punish you for exploring, so stop worrying!! Aren't they ultimately "believing" the same line of thought? That there are powers out there beyond our comprehension? And yes, maybe someday dark energy will be known, but there will always be some other unknowns out there. I just used the current unknown as an example.

The only real difference is that science tries to explain the unknown (theory) while religion excepts the unknown for what it is and uses faith to satisfy its mystery (theology). There is nothing wrong with either method. Both are examples of higher thinking that have brought us to where we are today. If you do not understand one or the other it is not the fault of the method but a lack of knowledge. Evolution, to some who do not understand it, is as mysterious as a belief in God is to those who do not understand Him. Both science and religion have brought both war and peace. They go hand in hand. No need to try and disprove or ridicule one nor the other. They both carry many triumphs and many guilts. Do not degrade the other cuz your method is just as ugly.

Finally, I must say that the argument is completely fruitless. No amount of science will ever disprove God so STOP TRYING!! And no amount of faith in God will ever reveal all of the universe's great mysteries so STOP TRYING!! Scientists - continue your discussions. Faithful - continue your faith. carry on....

Today's magic is tomorrow's technology.

Science is religious. The argument is never science vs religion, it is always this religions science vs that other religions science. Science is all about taking a set of axioms, building up a model and checking to see if it can be disproved. If it can be disproved then you make changes you need to or scrap it all together. There is no proof in the positive since all those axioms are taken by faith. The hard core 'atheist' is still religious in his atheism. He cannot prove his position any more than the theist or the pantheist or whatever other group you want to talk about. At best they can disprove the others scientific model.

You can see how the nature of science is often misunderstood even in the article.

"But cosmologists say that the new expansion theory has problems. First, observations of the Big Bang's afterglow also indicate the existence of dark energy. Simulations also fit rather well with the observed universe expansion when dark energy becomes a factor. And then there's the counterargument based on the Copernican principle that Earth does not have a unique place in the universe."

"First, observations....indicate..." Observations don't indicate anything in the positive. If you make a model, and the model predicts one thing, and you observe that. You're model isn't given a gold star and you know it's the right one. All you have is that it wasn't disproved. That model had no scientific, or intellectual advantage over any other model which predicts the same observation. The observation itself has no meaning, it needs to be interpreted in the context of a scientific model first. Here they use the Big Bang Model, now Temple and Smoller's model is not disproved, nor should it cast away because observation fits with the predictions of the BigBang model it should only be cast away if it makes predictions contrary to observation that has been interpreted through their model.

Further they reference the Copernican Principal, now this is a basic axiom held to by many naturalists. However, there is no logical reason to pick this. I understand there more religious reasons to pick this, but certainly nothing based on observation to suggest that a scientific paradigm built w/o it is lesser. I mean, as it stands (even with knowledge of extrasolar planets and the like) we are the only known life in the universe...right here on earth. Logic would say that until we are shown otherwise, we are in a unique and privileged position in the universe.

@deegeezee & geebob

I find both of your attack on religion to be both deplorable and unbecoming of people of a supposed enlightened understanding of Earth and the universe as a whole.

Furthermore, I find it insulting that you categorized EVERY person that identifies with a religious faith to be "Bible thumpers" or so guided by irrational thought or ideals.

I identify myself as a Christian who believes in Creationism, but not the same "created in 7 days" type. I submit that I also believe in Evolutionism. I sincerely believe in creationism by Evolution as there is no way to ignore scientific facts and there is also no way to ignore the presence of intelligent design. This is the only logical conclusion.

My intention is not to come on here to attack either of you or to be attacked for my views. My intention is only to submit to the both of you that you are generalizing and attacking religions and even people that you know nothing about and who also do not deserve the level of contempt that you assign them.

I would think that ones such as yourselves who claim to be so educated would not stoop so low as to criticize the beliefs of others. After all such actions are just as childish as what you are accusing each other of doing.

Natural laws could never be understood, since they are nature itself and cannot be manipulated in any way. So nature or god, both concepts are something we can study and observe, but never fully understand.
We are talking about two diferent things here. One is theory of big bang, the other is dark matter and we use same observations to study both.
Let's suppose, all objects in space are moving under the same rule, that is to find an empty, unocupied space, considering sum of all forces acting on them. Since there is an unlimited amount of empty space around the universe, all objects would spread apart indefinetly or merge together, if atracting forces are to strong. If objexts are spreading apart equally, it would apear they fly away, from whatever point inside its structure we obseve other objects.
Another thing is how all matter came into existence. I can hardly belive that all subatomic particles allready merged into elements and the proces is complete. More likely proces of forming matter and its basic elements stil goes on somewhere in the universe and there could be something lighter than hydrogen, that we can't observe yet, producing force field effects, we don't understand.
And there is a real and solid proof of god in scientific theories, so they must be wrong in some way. We are alive, created and asking questions about it, aren't we?

jaydub,
If you have studied were the term "Christian" came from, you would realize the it IS a derogatory statement! It means-'Little Christ',meaning ,to put it plainly, someone who acts like Christ. Thus if you believe Christ was a good teacher, then you show your stupidity because he said the bible was ALL TRUE AND HE WAS GOD! Thus a Christian is ALWAYS a extremist, thus a "Bible-Thumper".

Though I myself am a Christian, I do believe the Big Bang COULD happen, but evolution(that is macro-evolution as Darwin put it) is not true. To think that amino acids would form from atoms then string into DNA then condense to form a living being make no sense to me. Of course Darwin did not know that DNA existed then. But why is evolution treated a a law is schools when it is ONLY A THEORY!

We do not know what dark matter is but I would love to find out! The Bible (that means 'the book') says God streaches out the heavens & holds the sky in the palm of his hand. Maybe dark matter is really gods hand? Anyway to create time, space, and matter (Threefold!) you would have to be out side it. Thus a different dimension?

Please help enlighten this high schooler to 'The Theory of Evolution' and to the other matter this article discusses.

Oh a note to my previous statement is that the bible ,as we know it was finished in 99AD by Paul (formerly Saul) in the book of Revelation. The parts I was referring to was written many generations before that. That's 3000 years before dear Mr.Hubble!

I think that this whole hunt for dark energy may be a dead-end. Lets consider an analogy; If a cannon were fired strait up, the projectile, obeying the laws of gravity, would continue to the point where its momentum is nullified and then it falls back to earth. Imagine that we are riding on that cannonball. Everyone of the cannonballs following after us would appear to be going faster because they would be closer to their initial velocity than we are. Due to relativity everywhere we look in the universe is also backwards in time therefore the farther back in time we look the faster objects appear to be going because they are closer to the initial velocity given to them at the big bang.
Jim

All this talk about religion aside, the story of creation in Genesis is a good poetic interpretation of the big bang. And if the timeline were adjusted for relativistic effects it matches pretty well to the scientific theory and creation would have occurred in 6 days, from the point of view at the origin.
Jim

Ya know, everyone races to come up with the most intelligent sounding theory every time something suggests to us that there MAY be something or other we didn't notice. Seriously, they race. Then if the guesser has any real support in academia, that's the new pablum for this week, here's yer Nobel, now go try to teach it to those kids over there whether it's right or not, oh, yeah, by the way, did you hear the buzz? Dark Matter DOESN'T exist, after all. Sorry, quantum mechanics and particle physics majors, just learn this new flavor whether it's right or not, and you still get to graduate. And poof, a PhD on the kids lunchbox, and the kid has no idea what his PhD is in. And the new Professor Emeritus makes up a new theory...

And besides, Dark Energy, and Dark Matter are both cooler than yer stinkin Higgs Bosun. I worked out the theory to prove it.

We are just starting to like our dark energies. Leave 'em alone.

Or maybe someone will throw dark matter on you.

some.person

"Oh a note to my previous statement is that the bible ,as we know it was finished in 99AD by Paul (formerly Saul) in the book of Revelation."

Dude, I think you mean John.

Or maybe someone will throw dark matter on you.

At least thats one way to prove it exists!

@some.person.is.me

Why do I need to enlighten a punk HS kid on things he/she already knows everything about? I mean obviously, you know everything right?

A Bible thumper is one who throw's the Bible into a non-believer's face at every opportunity to show how right they are and how wrong everyone else is.

As to extremeism, the only religious extremeist commenting here is you.

btw...
Revelation was written by John, Christian.

@Jim761

Thank you, exactly my point. The Bible is many different areas is not literal, it is figurative. Different areas need to be taken in context. As is the case in Revelation. In the context of Creation and the universe being created in 6 days, the Bible describes God's perception of time as much different to ours. It all boils down to interpretation. There is nothing wrong with believing in both Creationism and Evolutionism.

Jaydub-You're welcome. I also agree with you that there really is no conflict between creationism and evolution. One describes who while the other addresses how. The real bottom line is that it doesn't matter. Believing in religious creationism or believing in pure atheism are both the same. Each belief rests upon an absurdity; one belief rests on unseen and magical beings while the other belief rests on life springing out of lifelessness and a part of the universe is becoming aware of itself. That is tantamount to a molecule in your little finger becoming aware of you. So I think Budda was right when he said "follow the middle way" Either belief is not entirely right but also not entirely wrong at the same time.
Jim

Jim761, there is absolutely no proof that things we can't detect don't exist. What happened that gave you the authority to proclaim the absurdity of spiritual beings?

Comments from a Bible-thumping fundamentalist.

matson:Jim761, there is absolutely no proof that things we can't detect don't exist. What happened that gave you the authority to proclaim the absurdity of spiritual beings?
Comments from a Bible-thumping fundamentalist.

Well lets see. proclaim the absurdity of spiritual beings? I have all the authority I need to state my own opinions. Just because you do not agree does not make me wrong and nor does it make you right.

Bible thumper? I have read the Bible. And the Bhagavad-Gita. And the Koran. And the Dharmapada. And the Vedas. And the Shariat ki-Sugmad.And the Upanishads. Guess what? They all say the same thing.

All the worlds religions are right and all are wrong at the same time. It is only mankind's incredible egotistical self-importance which leads him to believe things without proof. Do You actually think that you will be rewarded for all eternity or punished for what you may have said or done in your one short puny little life? Its just like it is said in Ecclesiastes"Vanity, Vanity, all is Vanity"

Matson-Just in case you did not understand me, I was not saying that spiritual beings are absurd or that they do not exist. I was saying that to cling to a belief without proving that belief is complete foolishness. If spiritual beings do exist prove it. If it cannot be proven then it may or may not be true but it is unknown. I will not just take it as faith. The real problem of this world is that people are willing to believe things without proof and then kill their fellow man to defend their beliefs. Any perceived attack on their belief system is an attack on their identity and they are willing to defend the faith to all costs. Why are people willing to act so irrationally? It is because they think themselves to be so important that they cannot accept the fact that them may be wrong.It is not just religion that enjoys this defense. It happens all over the place; politics, science, academics, sports, everywhere.Jim

Jim761, everyone, including you, makes assumptions and makes decisions based on those assumptions. I would like to know what you think all those "holy books" say in common. From what I know, the Bible and the Koran have very different messages. By the way, faith is not belief in something you cannot prove. It is reliance on something you know to be true. Imagine you are in an airplane, and it is going to crash. You are given a parachute. You know that the parachute is going to get you safley to the ground, but it still takes a lot of guts to jump from the airplane. When you jump out of the plane with the parachute strapped to your back,you ae putting your faith in the parachute. That is not "blind faith."

Comments from a Bible-thumping fundamentalist.

I would like to know what you think all those "holy books" say in common. From what I know, the Bible and the Koran have very different messages.
*******************************************************************
Ok since you asked I will use the Bible and the Koran as an example. If you haven't read it, the Koran is considered to be the 4th and final word of God. The new testament was the 3rd. the old testament was the second. The torah was the first. A great many of the same stories told in the Bible are repeated in the Koran i.e. Adam and Eve, the fall from grace, Noah and the ark, etc. Jesus is prophesied to return again with Mohammed at his side. Jewish people are referred to as "the people of the Book" The foundation of the Muslim religion is the surrender to the will of god, hence the name"Islam". Jesus taught the exact same thing and even went so far as to demonstrate it. The "self" must be crucified to know the kingdom of Heaven. The Buddha said the same thing. It is the pride of the individual ego wherein a man thinks he is one being and god is another separate from him that keeps him separated from the truth. All religions are rooted in that deep primal urge for self preservation.
You say that it is not blind faith but reliance on something you know to be true. HOW do you know it to be true? Because you read it in a book? Because you were taught it in sunday school? Because somebody else said so? Because it just feels right to you? All of these are just beliefs which you have become attached to. They are all irrelevant.
I am not saying that you should abandon all your beliefs, but you should hold them more lightly so that you can prove them to be true or not for yourself, and yourself only. And if something proves worthwhile keep it and discard what does not work but always remember there are close to 7 billion other people on the planet who are each on their own path, what ever they conceive it to be and they are no more right nor less right than you are.

If some 'punk HS kid' gets in your face , I don't care who you are, but your likely to knock him out. But if a teacher says that Abraham Lincoln was a homosexual, the teacher may only get 'corrected'. Not fired for slandering a president based on a rumor nor for teaching false information. But if a teacher teaches the Bible and says its true . . . . fired. Do the publishers of a textbook get fined for saying that the big bang did happen even if it's ALSO stated as a theory? No. To say that the big bang happened you have to rely on some amount of faith, because its not proven. Science is the observations of the world around us but religion is the interpretation of science. To believe that this world is real requires faith. Have you been able to PROVE it exists? Don't get me wrong, I don't thing we should go kill people because its possible we don't exist. Now, if someone wants to believe the Koran, let them - its their their choice. But if you want to say that Christianity and Islam teach close to the same thing, your WRONG!

If one is to say the bible is true then one is to say that Jesus is god. Jim, since you say(implied) that the Bible is 3rd installment in a 4 book series then you're admitting the Koran is indirectly saying Jesus is God but also saying he is only a prophet.

If we do find what black matter is and were it came from we will have made a great discovery. My point in writing this is not to say 'Your wrong and I'm right' but is to say that if you say, because someone believes something is wrong, that they're a moron is not wise. We do not know what is correct or incorrect we just have to apply what we have learned through first and second hand accounts. We should all apply ourselves to find what we should put our faith in, whether it be God, Nature , or whatever. This faith determines who we are as a person and it solves all of lifes questions for us. That is our 'RELIGION' - what we put our faith in. If you believe something do not force it upon someone, but instead make them informed. Tell them what you believe why you believe it and why they should believe it. Otherwise you are committing one of many follies.

Sincerely, a informed punk bible-thumper HS kid! ;D

Jim761, the statement that the Koran is the fourth book is implied only in the Koran and other Islamic writings. When you read the Old Testament and the New Testament, you can see many prophecies about the Messiah in the Old Testament that are fulfilled by Jesus in the New Testament.

There are a few places in the Bible that muslims claim as prophecies of Muhammad, but, when you really look closely, there are certain qualifications that are not met by Muhammad. One example is in Deuteronomy 18:18 "I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I command him." The muslims claim this as a prophecy of Mohammad, while Christans claim it is one of Jesus. The reasons it coud not be of Mohammad is because God says "from among their brethren". Muhammad certainly was not from among the Israelites' brethren.

There are also several major differences between the message fo hte Bible adn the message fo the Koran. The central tenant of the New Testament isthe death and ressurection form the dead of Jesus CHrist for the payment fo the sins of the world. In First Corinthians 15, Paul says that if Jesus Christ is not raised from the dead, then the Christian faith is in vain. Koran 4:157 says, "That they said (in boast), 'We have killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messanger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucifed him, but so it was made to appear to them [or it appeared so unto them], and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they klled him not: Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is exalted in Power, Wise." In there, the Bible differs from the Koran in an area that the Apostle Paul implies is foundational to the Christian faith.

Comments from a Bible-thumping fundamentalist.

Do the publishers of a textbook get fined for saying that the big bang did happen even if it's ALSO stated as a theory? No. To say that the big bang happened you have to rely on some amount of faith, because its not proven.
**********************************************************************
I think you are a little confused about what constitutes science and what constitutes religion. Yes the Big Bang theory is a theory but it arises from proven mathematics. Also as a theory it makes predictions that can be tested and if proven true the theory is upheld. If the tests do not yield the correct results then the theory is flawed and a new theory must be developed to replace it. There is no faith involved.

But if you want to say that Christianity and Islam teach close to the same thing, your WRONG!
**************************************************************************
Actually I am not but that is your opinion and you are welcome to it.

If one is to say the bible is true then one is to say that Jesus is god. Jim, since you say(implied) that the Bible is 3rd installment in a 4 book series then you're admitting the Koran is indirectly saying Jesus is God but also saying he is only a prophet.
**************************************************************************
There is no God. There is a God state of awareness. Jesus attained that state.

If you believe something do not force it upon someone, but instead make them informed. Tell them what you believe why you believe it and why they should believe it. Otherwise you are committing one of many follies.
*************************************************************************
On this point we are in complete agreement.
Sincerely, a informed punk bible-thumper HS kid! ;D

Matson- There is no reason to quibble about the details. You are not quoting Jesus. You are quoting Paul who came after him. Thats the same as not quoting Einstein but quoting his understudy. The fact that you do not see this is proof to me that you are fixed in your opinions; which is fine with me as long as it makes you happy. However it was yourself who has chosen to interject religion into a discussion on cosmic physics. So one has to wonder if your opinions are fixed then why enter into debate particularly on a non religious topic? Could it be that deep down inside you think that you have a lock on the truth?
It is really true what they say about the more it changes the more it remains the same.
Jim- An islamic christian jewish zen buddhist heretic.

Jim761, there is reason enough to quibble about the details if those details mean the difference between heaven or hell. Whether I quote from Jesus or Paul does not matter; I was qouting from the Bible and the Koran to show the obvious differences in what they claim to be truth in response to you saying that they both say the same thing.

You said that there is no God, but "it" is a "sense of awareness;" do you have any proof of that? I have not read any of Jesus' sayings that show that He "attained" a supposed state of godhood. None of what He said even seems to indicate that we can do the same.

There is a good reason to enter into a debate if my opinions are fixed: to convince others of what is truth. Maybe my opinions aren't as fixed as you seem to think. If you could prove me wrong in what I say, maybe I will change my mind, not that you care anyways. God bless you.

Comments from a Bible-thumping fundamentalist.

You said that there is no God, but "it" is a "sense of awareness;" do you have any proof of that? I have not read any of Jesus' sayings that show that He "attained" a supposed state of godhood. None of what He said even seems to indicate that we can do the same
*************************************************************************
If you go back and read your Bible you find the story of Jesus walking upon the water. And he took Peter's hand and Peter walked with him. But then Peter looked down and doubted and began to sink. Later on Peter raised Dorcus from the dead.
That to me proves that it is a state of awareness that an ordinary man can achieve. The basic flaw in Christianity is that it puts Jesus as god separate and apart from mankind, which if true diminishes his achievements and serves to put it all out of reach. When Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the father but by me". He didn't mean that if you believe him to be god and you'll get into heaven. He meant that you attain that same level of mastership. You actually become the Christ.

With the horror of a man who thinks he has stepped upon a snake and his relief when he sees it was only a stick, I discovered that the self, which I thought was so real, was only an illusion.

I have no interest in proving you wrong or right for that matter. It would be like trying to explain calculus to one who has only mastered arithmetic. I would have to explain geometry, then algebra, then trigonometry first, and everything you know is absolutely true at each level.

The one problem with thinking that you know the truth is the assumption that that is all there is to learn.

.Jim

f you go back and read your Bible you find the story of Jesus walking upon the water. And he took Peter's hand and Peter walked with him. But then Peter looked down and doubted and began to sink. Later on Peter raised Dorcus from the dead.
That to me proves that it is a state of awareness that an ordinary man can achieve.

Jim, I am sorry to say this theory is flawed. In John chapter 8:50-59 it says:

50 I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51 I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."
52 At this the Jews exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death. 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"
54 Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."
57 "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

See if Jesus was able to reach "an awareness" then he would have to do it before he was born unless that was figurative but he states "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!".

A whole-hearted, science-lovin', Jesus-freak

See if Jesus was able to reach "an awareness" then he would have to do it before he was born unless that was figurative but he states "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!".
A whole-hearted, science-lovin', Jesus-freak
****************************************************************************
Actually everything you have quoted supports my point. In my understanding of christianity Jesus was an Avatar or otherwise known as a Boddissativa. A being who has been through the round of reincarnation and has attained the God state but who choses to return to lead others to salvation. Like a man who is crossing the desert and finds an oasis but instead of staying there he goes back out to the dessert to lead others to the oasis. Everything he said was true from his point of view because he had complete recollection of all his past lives.To attain the God state one becomes one with the god state. There is no longer any separation between the being and the Being. You see in 536 AD there was an ecumenical council to decide the then split in the early Christian church between the Gnostic teachings of the metaphysites and the Originalists. The Originalists won and the references to reincarnation were declared to be anathema. So there are lots of references in the Bible which don't make much sense until you see them from another perspective.

As some.person.is.me quoted from John 8:58, "'I tell you the truth,'Jesus answered, 'Before Abraham was born, I am!'" When Jesus said "I am", He meant He is, He always was, and He always will be in the state of Godhood. He never became God, and He never told anyone, at least as far as His words are recorded, that He became God or that they could become God (or gods).
I would like to ask you an odd question, what do you do with your guilt? Why should someone who claims to be able to attain a perfect state of "godness" have guilt for wrongdoing in the first place?
Luke 16:31 "And He said unto him, 'If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.'"

Comments from a Bible-thumping fundamentalist.

As some.person.is.me quoted from John 8:58, "'I tell you the truth,'Jesus answered, 'Before Abraham was born, I am!'" When Jesus said "I am", He meant He is, He always was, and He always will be in the state of Godhood. He never became God, and He never told anyone, at least as far as His words are recorded, that He became God or that they could become God (or gods).
*************************************************************************
That is exactly correct because there really is no one to become God. That is the point that I am trying to make! The very idea that there exists a self is the illusion at its core.

I would like to ask you an odd question, what do you do with your guilt? Why should someone who claims to be able to attain a perfect state of "godness" have guilt for wrongdoing in the first place?
***************************************************************************
Once you eliminate the self the guilt felt by the self is eliminated with it. Guilt is just another manifestation of the ego. It is self importance to think that you and your actions are somehow important.

Luke 16:31 "And He said unto him, 'If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.'"
***********************************************************************
I hear them as I hear all the prophets. I just understand them differently.

Do you know what a hologram is? A hologram is a three dimensional image created by lasers on a two dimensional plane. The interesting thing about them is that if you smash a hologram into a thousand pieces each and every piece you pick up contains the whole complete image. Each one from a different point of view. We are to God as the pieces of the hologram are to the complete image.

Comments from;
Jim- the heretic

Jim761, in one of your earlier comments, you said in reference to a "God-state of awareness", "Jesus attained that state." Now you seem to be saying that everyone is already in that state.

As you said, when you look at one of those pieces of a hologram, you still can ee the whole picture, just the same as from any of the other pieces. If that is a logical analogy, then we should all see God in the same way, as we can all view the same image in the same way through defferent pieces of the hologram.

Jesus never talked about "eliminating the self", but about eliminating selfishness. In the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew chapters 5-7, Jesus spoke of doing good deeds, and of "being holy even as your Father in Heaven is holy." It doesn't sound like He belived it was self-important to think that what you do matters.

Comments from a Bible-thumping fundamentalist.

Jim761, in one of your earlier comments, you said in reference to a "God-state of awareness", "Jesus attained that state." Now you seem to be saying that everyone is already in that state.
****************************************************************************
Not quite. Everyone has the ability to reach that state but is not in that state now.

As you said, when you look at one of those pieces of a hologram, you still can ee the whole picture, just the same as from any of the other pieces. If that is a logical analogy, then we should all see God in the same way, as we can all view the same image in the same way through defferent pieces of the hologram.
****************************************************************************
It isn't just that we can see god from our own viewpoint. It is that we are a part of that whole. Each piece of the hologram contains the whole image FROM A DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW. No two pieces show the same view. Look at an elephant from the front then the side then the back. If you only had one view, each of those views would be completely different and yet they are completely accurate from the viewpoint they are observed from.

Jesus never talked about "eliminating the self", but about eliminating selfishness. In the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew chapters 5-7, Jesus spoke of doing good deeds, and of "being holy even as your Father in Heaven is holy." It doesn't sound like He belived it was self-important to think that what you do matters.
****************************************************************************
To truly be unselfish is to be willing to give up the very idea of the self. But this is not easy to do. If it were we would all be enlightened. Even your previous statement shows this when you say "then we should all see God in the same way, as we can all view the same image in the same way through defferent pieces of the hologram." The underlying assumption is that the one who is doing the observing is different from that which is being observed. Take it to its logical end: If there is no self then who is doing the unselfish living? The answer is that it is god who is doing the living. It is god who is the observer and the observed at the same time. All that lives is an expression of god. There is no"I" It is an "eye".
Comments from a christianjewishmuslimbuddhisthinduneopagan heretic.

i got something better for pop sci to do, ban these stupid idiots that still thank that everything in the bible really happened, for f-k sakes, it's the twenty first century everybody has access to the information to take there mind's out of there dark age's mindset, and realise that god didn't create shit nothing (that was for only those who believe the bible true).....if you use it as something to draw inspiration or anything else other than where to get scientific fact from then go ahead and keep worshipping you've managed not to let your religion cloud your mind to the possibilities and the wonders of REALITY.

I think some of you Darwin-thumping fundamentalists, need to learn some basics in reasoning. You start with a set of axioms you take on faith, and are then able to reason from there. Now after you can reason you can form a scientific paradigm, this paradigm is formed AFTER you've accepted those axioms on faith. So that scientific paradigm is contingent on those axioms.

What you seem to constantly fail to realize is that other people with other basic axioms will come up with other scientific paradigms. Because of this they will have different interpretations of observed data. They will make predictions about what else they should see, and their predictions can hold. If multiple paradigms each predict the same observations (even if the interpretation is wildly different) you won't be able to judge one to be false just based on those observations.

This is where the Darwin-thumping fundamentalists always go wrong. They seem to think that conclusions they draw from their own paradigm falsify entire other paradigms.....that's poor logic....and if that is the kind of logic they use.....well how good of a scientific paradigm can they actually have?

This is where the Darwin-thumping fundamentalists always go wrong. They seem to think that conclusions they draw from their own paradigm falsify entire other paradigms.....that's poor logic...
*******************************************************************
This is true. For example; I hypothesize that life is the result of evolution which was intelligently designed and guided by extraterrestrial alien beings. Nothing found so far refutes that assumption.

Jim761, do you believe in panspermia, and, if you do, where did the ETs come from? Did they evolve on their planet, or did their planet get seeded just like ours?

Spartacus, the Bible's historical veracity is constantly being confirmed by archeology's discoveries. Years ago, the only knowledge of the Hittite empire was found in the Bible. Many sketics claimed it was a fictional nation made up by the authors of the Bible, but, about one hundred years ago, archeologists found proof of their existence. Did you know that the Bible contains many references to astronomy that appear to way ahead of their time? When the bible was written, the learned people believed that the Earth was a huge disk floating on water, but in the Bible, in Job 26:7, God is said to "hang the earth upon nothing." In Isaiah 40:22, the "circle of the earth" is mentioned. The word that was tranlated "circle" was also used in reference to spherical objects. This was written when everyone believed the Earth was flat. The Bible is clearly no ordinary book.

Comments from a Bible-thumping fundamentalist.

Jim761, do you believe in panspermia, and, if you do, where did the ETs come from? Did they evolve on their planet, or did their planet get seeded just like ours?
************************************************************************
Actually I am not familiar with the term "panspermia" so I can't respond until I look it up.

the Bible's historical veracity is constantly being confirmed by archeology's discoveries. in Job 26:7, God is said to "hang the earth upon nothing." In Isaiah 40:22, the "circle of the earth" is mentioned. The word that was tranlated "circle" was also used in reference to spherical objects. This was written when everyone believed the Earth was flat.
****************************************************************************
I too am fascinated by some of the things found in the Bible but it isn't the only such book in existence. Have you ever read "the Tao of Physics" or the Indian"Mahabarata" Both contain stories and descriptions of things way beyond what was thought to be known at that time. As I have said earlier in this thread the tale of creation in Genesis is a pretty good interpretation of the big bang and even the timeline fits.

Matson- Having just read the encyclopedia on panspermia I am of the opinion that it is a valid theory. I think life is like a weed. It will take hold and grow almost anywhere. From that point of view it is certainly conceivable that it developed elsewhere in the universe as it did here. That being said, it is still only conjecture that life evolved elsewhere to the point where an intelligent civilization developed and then mastered space-flight let alone interstellar travel. At this point in time there is a lot of anecdotal evidence but no scientific proof that anyone else has been here-yet.
Jim

Do you know about the incredible requirements for a planet to be able to support life? A planet must be in the right place in a galaxy, the right distance from a star, have the right kind of star, have large outer planets, have a large moon, be a rocky planet, have a thin-enough crust for plate techtonics, have liquid water, and have an oxygen-rich atmosphere, among other things, to be even habitable by complex living organisms. (BTW, a simple living organism has yet to be discovered) How do you know "life will take hold and grow almost anywhere"? If Earth was indeed seeded with life by super-intelligent aliens, I'm sure they would have been careful to have chosen an eligible planet, but where did those aliens come from?

I believe that all this theorizing about the possible existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence who could have seeded this planet with life, or at least the ingrediants for it, are only fallen man's feeble attempts to provide an explanation for the existence and incredible complexity of life without having to invoke God into the equation. Humans realize that the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient God Who created the entire universe and everything in it would cause them to be morally accountable to a source outside themselves. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the result of a man trying to reconcile the terrible death of his dear son to the existence of a good God, giving up, and finally resorting to attempting to provide an explanation for life that did not require His existence.

Comments from a Bible-thumping fundamentalist.

Do you know about the incredible requirements for a planet to be able to support life? A planet must be in the right place in a galaxy, the right distance from a star, have the right kind of star, have large outer planets, have a large moon, be a rocky planet, have a thin-enough crust for plate techtonics, have liquid water, and have an oxygen-rich atmosphere, among other things, to be even habitable by complex living organisms. (BTW, a simple living organism has yet to be discovered)
*********************************************************************
First of all these requirements relate to life as we know it. They would be different for other life that we do not yet know.

How do you know "life will take hold and grow almost anywhere"?
*****************************************************************
I follow the evidence. Life was discovered around deep sea hydro thermal vents. Totally without sunlight they evolved chemosynthesis not photosynthesis. If it developed there it will find a way almost anywhere.

If Earth was indeed seeded with life by super-intelligent aliens, I'm sure they would have been careful to have chosen an eligible planet, but where did those aliens come from?
*******************************************************************
Obviously from some other planet in another star system.

I believe that all this theorizing about the possible existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence who could have seeded this planet with life, or at least the ingrediants for it, are only fallen man's
******************************************************
Fallen? fallen from where?

feeble attempts to provide an explanation for the existence and incredible complexity of life without having to invoke God into the equation. Humans realize that the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient God Who created the entire universe and everything in it would cause them to be morally accountable to a source outside themselves.
**********************************************************************
And I think the belief in God is also a feeble attempt by man to face his own mortality. The moral accountability you refer to changes over time as we evolve. It was once thought to be morally correct to engage in human sacrifice. Now it is not. What happened to all those people who thought they were doing the right thing then?
Belief systems change as mankind changes. You system too will pass in time.
Jim- the heretic

Do you know about the incredible requirements for a planet to be able to support life? A planet must be in the right place in a galaxy, the right distance from a star, have the right kind of star, have large outer planets, have a large moon, be a rocky planet, have a thin-enough crust for plate techtonics, have liquid water, and have an oxygen-rich atmosphere, among other things, to be even habitable by complex living organisms. (BTW, a simple living organism has yet to be discovered)
***************************************************************************
This is a classic example of a fallacy of composition. It is actually the tail wagging the dog. We didn't get here because these conditions are such a good fit. We are a good fit because these are the conditions we evolved in. If these conditions would have been different we would be different also.