+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 08/29/2015 04:36 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
   Top News Science
Huge Gold and Silver Reserves Found Underneath Volcanoes
Ancient Greek Palace Unearthed near Sparta
Tropical Forests Almost the Size of India to Be Axed by 2050
Study: Couples Who Share Childcare Have Better Sex Lives
Researchers Develop New Drug That Protects Against Nuclear Radiation Effects
Study: Contact Lens Wearers Put Their Eyes at Risk
Coffee May Reduce Risk of Colon Cancer Recurrence
Toxic Chemicals Discovered in Birds Outside of Superfund Site in Georgia
more News
out of this Channel...
  ShortNews User Poll
Is Donald Trump likely to win the 2016 election?
  Latest Events
08/29/2015 01:21 PM
edie receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Huge Gold and Silver Reserves Found Underneath Volcanoes'
08/29/2015 12:42 PM
edie receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'TV Shows Make CPR Look Twice as Effective as in the Real World'
08/29/2015 12:17 PM
edie receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Cow Gets Head Stuck in Chair'
08/29/2015 11:52 AM
edie receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'U.S. Pilot Killed in Plane Crash at NY Air Show Practice'
08/29/2015 11:25 AM
edie receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'TSA Agent Charged for Molesting Woman During Fake Screen'
08/29/2015 08:41 AM
walter3ca receives 20 Points for Comment about 'White House Urges Congress Action on Gun Control'
08/29/2015 03:15 AM
flatdog receives 20 Points for Comment about 'Trump: Illegal Immigrants "Have to Go"'
08/29/2015 02:12 AM
phobos_anomaly receives 20 Points for Comment about '49ers Linebacker Charged With Sexual Battery, Former Niners Defensive Indicted on Rape Charge'
08/28/2015 06:14 PM
dirshma receives 20 Points for Comment about 'Homeopathy for Menstruation'
  3.411 Visits   2 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
12/05/2010 03:31 PM ID: 86685 Permalink   

The "Big Bang" May Not Have Been the Beginning


Radiation ripples show that the "Big Bang" that science has referred to as the beginning of the universe, may not have been the real beginning. The "Big Bang" may only have been a step in a range of many and more are maybe yet to come.

Scientists have found rings of radiation in the cosmos that may be older than the "Big Bang".

"What would normally be regarded as a probable entire history of our universe, starting with its Big Bang... is taken to be but one aeon in a (perhaps unending) succession of such aeons (sic)," the scientists said.

    WebReporter: alisha rose Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
I was wondering when they would make a discovery like this, as the proposed age of the universe seemed far too young when compared to the age of our own planet and solar system
  by: theavenger8     12/05/2010 04:38 PM     
the age of our solar system, all planets and life included, is still part of the current big bang, as in, younger than the current big bang. So whether there was 1 big bang or 1000, we still only required the timeframe offered by the current bigbang to form.
  by: kmazzawi     12/05/2010 05:04 PM     
Very cool. Does this theory suggest that each big bang like annihilates the matter from the previous one, or would it start wherever and just blow everything outward... If it just keeps blowing everything outward again and again that would put a new perspective on infinite universe, lol.

Maybe black holes are the matter sinks that feed the next big bang. Once they collectively suck up some critical mass boom, spews it all out again.
  by: joshjje   12/05/2010 06:58 PM     
  I wonder  
if this explains the findings that suggest that some stars appear to be older than the universe.
  by: VermiciousG     12/05/2010 07:52 PM     
there goes the significance of me belly button fluff
  by: alisha rose     12/05/2010 10:37 PM     
From What I understand from Hawkins and Michio Kaku (I find him easiest to understand) the universe as we know it is like the ripples on the surface of the water the focus point(where stone is dropped) being the point where our dimension an another ´bump´ the suggest that the ´bump´ is caused by the Dimensional Planes ´flexing´ in and out when they both go in they ´bump´ releasing a universes worth of stored energy. So the Story implies, going back to the stone in water metaphor that at the point when the ripples on the surface of the water start to fade another stone is dropped on almost the same spot setting off a new set of ripples, combining with the now dissipated energy of the older ripples. I didn´t see them cover it but I think that the theory allows for some of the older ripples continuing to travel in an outward direction keeping in front of the next ripple. which would make the universe constantly expanding

[ edited by veya_victaous ]
  by: veya_victaous     12/05/2010 11:50 PM     
be a big bloody rock!
  by: alisha rose     12/06/2010 12:02 AM     
  People are easy to dismiss religion....  
and state chatagorically that the current scientific explinations are the ultimate truth and if you don´t believe it you are stupid.

Then some other scientist comes along and throws that scientific viewpoint in the trash for a newer one and it starts all over again.

You gotta laugh.
  by: MalcolmB   12/06/2010 06:54 AM     
I´ve yet to hear anyone propose that any scientific explanation is the "ultimate truth". That´s what the religious might have you think. Fact is, scientist are most likely to humbly admit that it´s just a theory they´ve developed based on what evidence they have. And they would also admit that it can easily and readily change with the introduction of new evidence.

The thing to laugh about is that human beings tend to submit that there are 2 choices: Big Bang or Omninpotent creator. And if it´s not one, it must be the other. The religious feel that if the Big Bang theory was proved wrong that would give merit to their ideas. Fact is, it doesn´t. It just means that there may be a possibility we haven´t thought of yet, or lack the evidence to support at this time. And, honestly, we may never know the truth.

Bottom line: The beginning of the universe could have happened a number of ways we haven´t even thought about. An invisible creator, who seemingly came from nowhere, is just less likely to be the case.
  by: Dayron   12/06/2010 07:30 AM     
the Creator may not be invisible and two may not have come out of nowhere.
Anyway there is more than two schools of thought! Three Hinduism etc. Plus many more just can´t be bothered thinking of them all.

Anyway it is expected of the religious to provide answers for their convictions without deviations from these convictions or they are most probably going to be labelled wishy-washy or flakey or some thing.

In the meantime and ´critic´ of a ´known scientific fact´ is ridiculed as unthinking or the like. when there is a change in that ´known scientific fact´ the ´big guns´ come out - ´well we know that it is all just a theory at this stage!´

Evolution as a whole may well be proven by scientific research that it was a load of crock.

Maybe then it would go around the loop again...maybe even start back up again with a search for all the missing links.

Then maybe we would not have to put up with crappy answers like I read the other day on this site.

Someone said to say we are related to the monkeys is old dis-proven science and said straight after that, that we are merely cousins. Where I live a cousin is a relative.

[ edited by alisha rose ]
  by: alisha rose     12/06/2010 08:11 AM     
The creator being invisible seems to be a well accepted idea. After all, the alternative is that he´s in another dimension (may as well be invisible), or what? That he´s way up in the sky somewhere? Generally when people have a religious experience, they tend to remark that "God is here tonight". Well, if he is, he´s either very tiny, or hiding behind a pew. But most would agree that they just "can´t see him". Which makes him... invisible.

I don´t like to even give too much thought into an invisible creator. Because, well, it seems like such a waste of time. Who wants to talk about implausible things with no evidence to observe? People who don´t mind wasting time, it seems. Answering the question of the universe with an all powerful creator called "God" is flawed on a number of levels. The most simple being, "Where did he come from?". So, while religion believes they have given us an answer to the origins of the universe through mention of God, they have, in fact, only brought about more questions that no one can answer. That´s not really progress, but a very good way to go in circles.
  by: Dayron   12/06/2010 09:35 AM     
Thanks Veya. I read up on a ton of topics related to this but I can hardly recall it all, lol. Kinda sounds like string theory. Anyways, what made me think of the black holes feeding the next one or whatever is the theory of "white holes", opposites to black holes.

Any way you put it neither religion or science has all the answers. And if you say that one or the other is the ultimate truth, you are truly naive. The fact is humans wrote all the bibles and religious documents and they aren´t infallible.

What I dont get is why most people think that it is either science OR religion. Why cant it be both? It very well could be that there is a God and he created a big bang, etc, etc, etc. Does proving science exclude the possibility of a creator? No.
  by: joshjje   12/06/2010 09:56 AM     
is a great word meaning every where present.
God has no beginning because God is the Creator.
As far as cyclic arguments go one could say the same about the ever growing domain of scientific discovery i.e

"I´ve yet to hear anyone propose that any scientific explanation is the "ultimate truth". That´s what the religious might have you think. Fact is, scientist are most likely to humbly admit that it´s just a theory they´ve developed based on what evidence they have. And they would also admit that it can easily and readily change with the introduction of new evidence."

Don´t get me wrong I am not saying there is anything wrong with scientific discovery or what you have said only that there is still the element of the unknown and as yet intangible. However no-one would deny that it worth while setting out to discover and there is
nothing wrong with something being invisible so to speak.

(I have never been to the US but I am sure it is there somewhere. I however believe it exists.)

Anyway looking around us and at the complexity of design there should be no problem in realizing that a Creator of it all would have to be amazing and Omnipotent and Omniscient.

You could put that down as scientific reasoning.

My bugbear is that the agenderish sounding argument of some is that they perpetuate the idea that science and the idea of a creator are mutually exclusive when they are not.

How ever if there is a God then the designs of the Creator are becoming more and more evident before our eyes (through true scientific discovery of the invisible even.)

The agenda comes from presupposition based on the pretext that there is no God.

Obviously not all scientists do.

An incomplete comment but I must stop my ´religious rant´right there. The circles would not be complete without the totally scientific (not) comment that belief in a Creator is crap.

[ edited by Lizzie ]
  by: Lizzie   12/06/2010 10:09 AM     
Anyone saying that the idea of a creator is "crap" should be scrutinized the same as a religious zealot who claims the same about science. There is absolutely no one on earth that can say for sure, with evidence, what our complete origin is.

There is only probability and opinion. At least that stands true for me. I think religion was a nice shot, especially for people who didn´t have an understanding of things at the time. But I think it´s time to make other more plausible considerations, especially if we´re going to push forward as a race. Christianity will come and go, just as dozens of religions have before it. So will the rest of the more popular (and profitable) religions. That´s the way of things, and we can say it with almost absolute certainty, if we consider history as any example.

I do think there´s something amiss when something seems "invisible" though. It usually means it´s not there. But I suppose if religion was ever held accountable for any burden of proof, it would cease to exist, so it sides with the "mystical", which helps to perpetuate it.
  by: Dayron   12/06/2010 10:36 AM     
doesn´t mean intangible.

All that is around us even us is comprised of what is intangible and invisible to our naked eye. Basic science teaches that!

There are elements visible and invisible.

God is called the Almighty for a good reason.

Everything is naked (visible) to God even the intentions of the human heart.

How visible is the evidence that the scientists that are featured in this article have ´discovered´?

How are the calculations made? From the invisible or the visible (to the naked eye and our current every day experience)?

Do not believe in the invisible is to be unscientific!
The un-mystical invisible is there trust me or should science just give up? Scientific discovery is the invention of God!

[ edited by Lizzie ]
  by: Lizzie   12/06/2010 10:43 AM     
I don´t want to get hung up on the word "invisible" here. It´s not that important. I´m in no way going to dumb myself down and start arguing about the possibility of something "invisible" actually existing. That´ll take us nowhere.
  by: Dayron   12/06/2010 10:47 AM     
Don´t mix "unobservable with the naked eye" as "invisible". That´s not the same thing. God is not something that is so tiny we cannot see him, as the elements you´re referring to are.
  by: Dayron   12/06/2010 10:56 AM     
"I don´t like to even give too much thought into an invisible creator. Because, well, it seems like such a waste of time. Who wants to talk about implausible things with no evidence to observe?"


"I do think there´s something amiss when something seems "invisible" though. It usually means it´s not there. But I suppose if religion was ever held accountable for any burden of proof,"

Don´t like to even give too much thought into an invisible creator but, believers must be held accountable for any burden of proof!

Sounds like a philosophical twist with a little bit of science!

"The thing to laugh about is that human beings tend to submit that there are 2 choices: Big Bang or Omninpotent creator."

Well then there is nothing unscientific about not believing in the ´big-bang´ and it is not scientific to believe in a Omnipotent creator.

Good to hear some one admit it from the ´big-bang´ crowd.

I was not saying that God is tiny just that invisible does not mean intangible!

[ edited by Lizzie ]
  by: Lizzie   12/06/2010 10:58 AM     
Would you care to elaborate on what you know to be invisible, yet tangible?

I don´t remember ever aligning myself with the "big-bang" crowd. That´s something you decided to presume yourself, again, based on no evidence. If you can find where I ever provided the notion that I´m a "big-bang" kind of guy, I´ll definitely tip my hat to you.

I´m a "beyond reasonable doubt" sort of guy. Meaning, I´ll believe in a story of origin when the evidence is rock solid. None of the current theories provide me with much confidence. Least of all, the invisible sky-god theory. But hey, who knows for sure, right? Not me anyway.
  by: Dayron   12/06/2010 11:07 AM     
sceptisism is great! Dayron, it is good that you have it. After all you did say "It just means that there may be a possibility we haven´t thought of yet, or lack the evidence to support at this time. And, honestly, we may never know the truth."

So, yes you did in fact say that you do not subscribe to the big-bang theory or in the case of this story multiples of big-bangs!

Some times the problem is that the posts are not always in correct order because when one is replying the other may have put a few short posts inbetween weakening the context of the comments.
I guess on the back of this article and the comments that follow it is easy to think of the comments as being either for or against. A presumtion of course.

It is like a ´scientific´ person presuming that a ´believer´ is not interested in scientific thought and viki verka.

Of course there is always a chance that the convo´ will stop dead in its tracks as soon as another summary catches peoples eyes and then that means people can rush their argument or side and.....
some times one can just get lazy and stop.

Re the "beyond reasonable doubt" thing I gave up on a plan b a long time ago. Set really! Still I have considered that healthy and it has been.

[ edited by alisha rose ]
  by: alisha rose     12/06/2010 11:31 AM     
"So, yes you did in fact say that you do not subscribe to the big-bang theory or in the case of this story multiples of big-bangs!"

Er, I know that. That´s exactly what I said.
  by: Dayron   12/06/2010 11:40 AM     
Yeah, I wouldn´t be audacious enough to presume a "believer" wasn´t interested in "science". In fact, if I were to do that, I would think very little of believers, as it would be pretty clear they were living outside of reality. Anyone who´s answer is, "God did it" to every complex situation they can´t understand, is, well, something I want to believe doesn´t happen often these days. I could be wrong though.

I have plenty of family and friends who invest their beliefs in a creator. They´re not idiots. They just have a different view. I´m not going to slap someone across the face and call them "stupid" because they think the color yellow is better than the color green. So why do it when we disagree about anything else?

  by: Dayron   12/06/2010 11:49 AM     
the elements individual only or integrated? In my ignorance I thought it was the integration of the elements that made them tangible.

I guess I meant that because God is omnipresent(not minuscule)so God can be everywhere present even if God sits on the throne outside of time. God being eternal is hard for us to understand because we cannot fathom eternity while we are alive in time.
This not that as big a jump as it may sound however when compared with the premise described by the scientists in this summary.

I wonder how the tangibility of their theory is measured without the integration of all elements to pass on information with a reliable dose of "beyond reasonable doubt" and accuracy.

It could get a bit deep trying to address the question -"Would you care to elaborate on what you know to be invisible, yet tangible?"

Especially when there is evidence of confusion re what invisibility actually means.

A very simplistic point but camouflage in nature is a good example because a creatures invisibility is relative yet real to a predator. Invisible does not mean non-existing.

Mankind has often written or spoken about aspirations to be invisible. Never has it been a desire for non existence but purely a blending in with the elements. (Metaphysics)
  by: Lizzie   12/06/2010 12:01 PM     
Re ("So, yes you did in fact say that you do not subscribe to the big-bang theory or in the case of this story multiples of big-bangs!"

Er, I know that. That´s exactly what I said.)

I was siding with you on that one because Lizzie had lumped you into the ´Big-Bang´ brigade. I know you said it! Could get confusing that one, sorry.
Probably should not have made it a seperate paragraph after quoting you. I was trying to make it not look monolithic, you know a wall of words.

[ edited by alisha rose ]
  by: alisha rose     12/06/2010 12:08 PM     
  I was just reading some of the comments by  
the religious idiots in here and it made me laugh at how ignorant some people are! Saying things like, "Oh, now scientists think the universe is even older. They cannot even make up their minds. Science is obviously wrong and god is the answer to everything!"

When I see such comments, I always just think to myself, stupidity grows like rampant weeds on this ball of dirt we call Earth. If the fools actually grasped the concept of the self correcting scientific method, they would understand that science is always changing much like their reviled enemy, evolution. Science "evolves" new ideas and older ideas are passed aside when we determine better theories.

Science is self correcting and is always in forward motion. Unlike these religious imbeciles that want to move us further into the dark ages if they had the option...
  by: slavefortheman     12/06/2010 02:03 PM     
"the elements individual only or integrated? In my ignorance I thought it was the integration of the elements that made them tangible."

Tangible, yes. But there are other ways to tell if something is there without touching it. Many elements are identified by the light spectra they produce(it´s like an atomic fingerprint). It´s how we know what the sun is made up of.

Likewise, we can also use the effects of matter´s properties on other matter to tell. Electromagnetic charge is a great attribute, as is mass. For instance, we know that electrons are negatively charged due to their behavior in a magnetic field. We know how much mass our galaxy has by measuring the rotational velocity of it.(incidentally, this is a major point of contention, since our spectra analysis indicates less mass that the rotational calculations, resulting in the theory of "dark matter")

I wonder how the tangibility of their theory is measured without the integration of all elements to pass on information with a reliable dose of "beyond reasonable doubt" and accuracy.

"Especially when there is evidence of confusion re what invisibility actually means."
Typically, invisible just means "does not release/reflect visible light. But, with the exception of Dark Matter(if it exists), all substances release light in some form, whether it´s ultra violet, infrared, radio, X-rays, etc.

The key difference about science vs religion is that, in science, we hold ideas to be untrue until we can prove (or come reasonably close) that it is an inherent law of nature. Science is based on interpretation of natural phenomenom.
Religion is, by requirement, faith in the unknown. It never seeks proof, never searches for evidence, never questions the rules.

[ edited by Zyste ]
  by: Zyste     12/06/2010 03:10 PM     
Sorry about the confusion. I thought you had misread or something. =) No harm done.
  by: Dayron   12/06/2010 04:07 PM     
I see what you´re saying, but my definition of "invisible" is pretty simple. Because the human eye can´t see something, does not make it invisible. Camouflage doesn´t mean something is invisible. When I say "invisible" I´m talking about things someone might claim exist, yet we have no way of detecting. When a psychiatric patient screams about the ghost or demon in the room, THAT is an invisible force they´re conjuring up due to some disorder. And in that same manner folks say, "The Lord is in this room tonight". Nobody see´s him. But he´s there because they believe it, and some might claim to "sense" it. But there´s no test or tool on earth that could reveal evidence of it, and so, for the time being, that force is invisible and it can be reasoned that it´s just as conjured up as the idea of a ghost.

People claim to see things all of the time. Children will say they saw a monster, or a ghost. Adults will say they were abducted, or that they, too, saw a ghost. We know those things aren´t real, so what are they? Invisible, conjured up forces. And God may as well be one too.

Well, I promised I wouldn´t expound further on the "invisible" matter. So, apologies, please. But without further evidence, the Christian God Jehovah, as well as many other Gods from the same era, will remain, to me, invisible sky-gods.
  by: Dayron   12/06/2010 04:20 PM     
It is a bit irritating when that happens. I guess every generation finds itself born in a time when only a few theories are prevalent at a time. And in that situation, we can feel compelled that we must take a side. And then we run the risk of saying, ´Well, if it´s not "A" then it must be "B".´ But let´s face it, it could be "C".

The best thing about science is that it does not exist to pollute the world, and it does not destroy the wonder in our universe, as some would argue. I think it magnifies it. I heard a Christian once say, "We don´t know how rainbows are made", and I was blown away. How could someone be so ignorant? How could they have missed that one? In the end, as it turned out, that particular person would not accept the scientific reason for rainbows because they felt it destroyed the wonder of the rainbow. To them, the rainbow was a promise from God, one that he made hundreds of years into the lives of mankind. The scientific explanation, on the other hand, would have meant that rainbows have always been, as long as the right "ingredients" were present. And that was just unacceptable to this person.

Anyway, I got way off track there telling that story. But I just wanted to agree on the point that science is not as boastful as most of those who are religious. It doesn´t get riled up if a theory is wrong. It just moves on. Christians and other religious groups become delighted when a theory is unproven, yet they have gained nothing. In a backwards way, they are PROUD of the failure of knowledge, and believe that any scientific failure is evidence to their idea. Weird.

I suppose when Thomas Edison went through the dozens and dozens of failures to come up with the lightbulb, he should have just stopped and said, "Well, this is going nowhere."

Nah. He tried, and tried and tried. And when his assistant made a comment about Edison failing dozens of times, Edison replied that it was not a failure, but that now they know what DOESN´T work.
  by: Dayron   12/06/2010 04:54 PM     
I am going to have to steal your quote:

"In a backwards way, they are PROUD of the failure of knowledge."

It sounds too true and too dead on to not use this saying again.
  by: slavefortheman     12/06/2010 05:03 PM     
  @Edison quote  
"I have not failed 700 times. I have not failed once. I have succeeded in proving that those 700 ways will not work. When I have eliminated the ways that will not work, I will find the way that will work."

To be honest, there are several variations of this quote. But the point is clear and true, regardless. Most all major accomplishments are only eventual, experiencing failure along the way. Today and tomorrow will be no different.
  by: Dayron   12/06/2010 05:04 PM     
  Too many theories  
The only thing I don´t get about science is this:

Every time you look at a picture of a star, 99999999999/1000000000 (not sure if the 0´s are right, but you get my point), it´s "an artist rendering". NASA and all these countries are taking all these pictures of spaces and what not, but will never offer any kind of REAL raw footage or pictures.

Yes, I know there are some out there that are like x-ray based or infrared, blah blah blah.. But, why can we just get a (basically) "naked eye" view of stuff?

All I get from scientists are excuses because most of their stuff are theories. Lots of facts in science, that´s why people, including me love it, but when it comes to things like "our creation and the universe" there are too many ifs. But hey, look how big the universe is, and will become.

Religion, I don´t want to get started on. After I die here on Earth or Mars if they let me go... I hope to all heavens there´s an afterlife where I can think, live and react in. Any kind at all. The fault of religion is, while many may have the creation story and after life story, and many are similar, none of them can agree on anything and "their religion just HAS to be the one that´s correct". Fact is, I don´t trust religion because religion can´t trust itself. The world reacts when a Pope says something, yet, he´s not a part of every religion. Why would they even think of agreeing if they don´t follow him? (Let´s not even get into the fact a Pope could just snap his fingers and say "If you EVER molest a child, you´re banned from ever being ANY major role in ANY church and we´re damn well going to make sure everyone knows".

  by: Rokkumon   12/06/2010 05:59 PM     
Just a note:
science is a process or system or method by which you arrive at the most probable answer to a question.

It is not an entity. It has no intelligence. It has no religious bias neither does it have any personal feelings.

But as any method/process/system, it is man made and serves the man who invented it. Therefore, the process/method/system tends to give the answer the man preferred. But the slant tends to start by question itself. That is how through history these methods have always justified the statu quo.

[ edited by mexicanrevolution ]
  by: mexicanrevolution   12/06/2010 08:44 PM     
"it´s "an artist rendering". NASA and all these countries are taking all these pictures of spaces and what not, but will never offer any kind of REAL raw footage or pictures.

Yes, I know there are some out there that are like x-ray based or infrared, blah blah blah.. But, why can we just get a (basically) "naked eye" view of stuff?"

The only time you see an "artist´s rendering" is when the object is so far away that we barely get any type of "image" of it(poor resolution), short of some light waves that we can do spectral analysis of.
Many pictures taken now are high enough quality to publish. For instance,

That´s a site with ton of images from just Hubble.
  by: zyste     12/06/2010 09:33 PM     
  by: MannyisHere     12/06/2010 09:51 PM     
I hope it never does fail.
Theory, the invisible force may it truely come out to the light of day.
Most of all may we never tire of sharing with each other what we believe to be true.
And above all I hope that we are never all the same as each other.

[ edited by alisha rose ]
  by: alisha rose     12/07/2010 08:35 AM     
above all that, and that, and that may we stop smart arses that say much but say nothing.

I here by announce the death of this here poor attempt at a stoush!

[ edited by alisha rose ]
  by: alisha rose     12/07/2010 08:41 AM     
  Nice pointless religious debate here,  
I can see the day that traditional religion is viewed as obsolete. It is happening today, every time the church reinterprets things a bit or some guy commits murder-suicide in the same of a god. I don´t think we´ll ever know what we´re living in, but it sure isn´t a human god´s creation.
  by: H. W. Hutchins   12/07/2010 09:13 AM     
what a ´nice´ dead world it will be too!
Imagine a world without God and one day you will have it for yourself. I have no doubt of that!
  by: alisha rose     12/07/2010 10:28 AM     
Heheheh, just kidding - but I just stumbled in to this one and don´t have time to read this entire debate right now at work, but I just love these. The good old SN science vs religion debates. They´re heartfelt and passionate on both sides... nothing ever really gets accomplished and I doubt if many minds are changed but it´s still a beautiful thing.

I think it´s funny that when an article like this is published religious folks tend to chime in that "See?!?!? Scientists can never make up their minds about anything, first they say this and then they say - no, we were wrong it´s really like this. But I know the truth because my religion says how it is and that´s fact".

All religion is based on symbolism. It employs symbols, allegories, metaphors. Yet it´s followers always subscribe to the allegory as being carved in stone fact. The religious can´t question their beliefs because of the fascinating clause of FAITH. "According to these stories a bunch of guys wrote and some other very questionable math some other guys did, I´m told that the planet is 6000 years old, that people walked with dinosaurs, that Noah put two of every animal, bird, insect, etc in the ENTIRE WORLD onto a big ass boat to survive extinction, etc, etc. I can´t question any of this because it will undermine my faith!"

The concept of faith is the biggest cop out in the history of human thought. The beauty of science is that it´s always reassessing itself. Checking and rechecking. Coming up with the best solution to fit the data at the time. The data changes or new data comes in and perhaps a different solution is required to fit.

If not for this we´d all still be living in mud huts. Not that there´s anything wrong with mud huts, I´m just sayin´. I still think there´s room in life to hold a high reverence and romanticism for mystery, the unknown, the unexplored frontiers within and without, and I personally believe that for all we know consciousness itself may be an intrinsic all-permeating force that we all share a spark of, somewhat akin to what a Buddhist might consider God. I personally don´t feel that science doesn´t allow for the concept of a "God" but I feel that this "God" would have to be far different than we could even conceptualize. Not some chap in the sky you can haggle with and make deals "Please God let me _____ and I´ll never _____ again!!!". Or ask for money to pay the rent. But more like a universal collective.

I look at it like this. I think of myself as a singular entity. But apparently I´m made up of countless numbers of living cells. They perform certain tasks, some well others not. They go about their business performing their allotted tasks and they live work and die within their allotted lifespan. Are they conscious? Maybe not in the way we would like to think but they are alive. If they were conscious, they would have no idea about "my" existence. I am the whole, they collected comprise me but even if they wondered if there was a power beyond them making choices for the whole, they would have no way to prove or disprove me - they would have no frame of reference to even conceptualize me. They wouldn´t be able to see the forest for the trees - I would practically be in a different dimension than they, but yet they actually comprise who I am.

If there is something similar to a god, we are just cogs within it. It wouldn´t care if we´re good or bad, healthy or ill, happy or sad... it is the total of our experience, the culmination of energy and matter, coiled up into an infinite omnipresent consciousness.

...Or something. I dunno. Bless anyone that actually attempted to read that. That wuz muh two pence. Love you guys.
  by: spiggy   12/07/2010 05:28 PM     
Given infinite space and infinite time, the possibilities are infinite!!!

  by: Trevelyan   12/07/2010 09:54 PM     
the atheists done a good job of turning this into a religious site or what?
I love how they say something as if they have the weight of the crowd behind them. They probably do but, there is no escaping that, this is how they speak. Gobblers unite! Smug, sly and parroters. Maybe the outspoken detractors are non-thinkers....mmmm by the sound of it all....Yes.
  by: alisha rose     12/08/2010 08:42 AM     
most significant steps towards ´modern society´ were made by Christians. And most significant break throughs have their basis in original Christian thought.
The thoughtless just followed along.
  by: alisha rose     12/08/2010 11:24 AM     
  by: syoware   12/08/2010 04:56 PM     
  @ alisha rose  
That´s the only kind there pretty much could be, because others risked their lives by giving the wrong answer to the god question (even if it was the wrong denomination). But ultimately mankind didn´t start to advance that much until the churches lost monopoly on truth (and education)... values of enlightenment.
The thoughtless? You mean the sheep? That doesn´t allow for much originality, dogma seldom does.

Most people who follow ideas such as the big bang and all other different kind of hypothesis knows that these are not set in stone. We´ll get closer and closer to the truth as time passes on as we gather more data. How is it with religion? Well, those books will remain the same.

[ edited by Kaleid ]
  by: Kaleid   12/08/2010 05:50 PM     
but act as if they are and at least the gobblers do not know the difference so they object anyway usually miles beyond the new marker. I.E obsolete organs of the human body, finding missing links blah, blah, blah.

Mostly I would look at such people as none thinkers...yes!

Yes of course the inter-denomination differences occur. Some people have the nerve to align themselves falsely with God...Jesus Christ made that painfully clear!

You see I do not look at God as depicted in the Word as wanting unthinking Plebs. Thus the whole idea of faith. Faith not being faith unless it can stand up (even personaly) against testing. I love going into the fray. Because when it comes down to it if what i believe is true. It is a war. Not a war of i am right and you are wrong but a war of desire to see my fellow man redeemed (liberated from debt before God).
Hey I don´t care about looking like a fool and even more so i am not at all desiring to be in the gobblers club.

My Faith is tested all the time. It remains strong not from resistence to what people say but because it is strong enough to withstand the rigours of testing...without flinching. Yeah, I tire of the vain attempts at undermining that people use like the name calling. Hey, but, kids will be kids.

And even though scientific thought may change the fundamentals remain the same. Correct me if i am wrong. Set principles what Christians are ridiculed for/ what scientists count on.

[ edited by alisha rose ]
  by: alisha rose     12/09/2010 09:10 AM     
  But it can´t be tested..  
If I claim that I´m God, you have no way to disprove it. I could simply say that I choose the very very human like.

This is why faith is so useless and get´s you nowhere.

As for name calling, well, we non-believers get that all the time. It´s the main reason I started studying religion and became an outspoken non-believer. One get´s tired of hearing that non-belief makes me a sinner, immmoral and someone who is destined going to hell. I won´t have it.

Notice also that a woman speaking against religion is facing death as a penalty. Blasphemy laws are still highly common in this day and age. This is thought crime, of a horrid Big Brother type.

World Cup 2010: Somali football fans executed for watching matches

UK students taught how to chop off hands: BBC

Scientists do not set embassies on fire or fly aircrafts into buildings because of disagreements.
It´s because science is not dogmatic and doens´t make absolute truth claims. If some of the findings are not what you think it is then the tools of science are there for you or anyone to work hard to disprove those claims. There is no superior method than this when it comes to knowledge.

Today I´m going to read a book about different sects. Hundreds of sect leaders who supposedly have a direct line to god. This is absurd...madness. And must be opposed.
  by: Kaleid   12/09/2010 01:53 PM     
  Religions evolve...  
All religions were invented by man, and as such they evolve over time. We all know Jesus was a Jew, that Christianity evolved out of Judaism, and Muslim thought evolved out of the same pot. Muslims consider Jesus a prophet, and all 3 religions share some holy figures such as Moses. The father of Judaism was Abraham who was a nomadic Sumerian. The Sumerians actually believed that every family, and then later every person carried with them their very own God. There is an ancient Sumerian version of Genesis that was found in the Nag Hammadi scrolls, the wording is different but it´s very obviously the same story.

Jesus was not mentioned by historians living at the time. No one has been able to prove his existence as a singular physical person. Jesus was a symbol of the solar deity. His birthday, virgin birth, death and resurrection, etc are all echoed in many other religions and cultures.

Alisha, as you like testing your faith because it makes it stronger, do this for yourself... Watch the first third of Zeitgeist the movie. What I would do is bring up the page, hit play and then hit pause to let the movie buffer to completion before starting it. You can skip the first 15 minutes or so if ya want because that´s all one long introduction. What I want you to do is to watch the first of the 3 sections starting where he begins "The sun..."

Alisha, you seem like an intelligent gal, so at the very least you should find this interesting even if you don´t believe it. And if you challenge any of the info you can download the source guide which is available on the main site It will list all of the sources he´s citing for the info so you can do the research yourself if you disagree.
  by: spiggy   12/09/2010 04:19 PM     
  re: Evolve  
Yes, the beliefs of religions evolve with time as Dawkins correctly points out in the God Delusion...everything moves along in the moral zeitgeist, for better or worse. (Evolve does not have to mean better)


The books never change, which is why there will always be fundamentalists around.
  by: Kaleid   12/09/2010 04:29 PM     
That´s when you lop off some heads, start a couple of wars, and write another book. Amen.
  by: spiggy   12/09/2010 09:33 PM     
  Does anyone know  
... whether this explains the giant cloud of gas that erupted from Uranus?
  by: Ben_Reilly     12/09/2010 10:53 PM     
That´s it. Pencils down. Ben wraps up this thread with a nice little red bow on top. Well played sir.
  by: spiggy   12/09/2010 11:04 PM     
tongue in cheek that this thread is ended because usualy by the time one gets going there is some one anxious to shut it down. I play that card for my own fun at times.

Mainly because apart from the last post it is the one on my mind for now i will address the one previous to the last one. Well not that one, the half intelligent one @Kaleid re "The books never change, which is why there will always be fundamentalists around." how come the more critical amoungst us would say that the current versions of the ´Scriptures´ go along way from the original texts?

I would consider myself a fundamentalist (though that title has been getting a bit of a bad rap) and fundamentaly I trust in my life choice to be a Christian and all that should mean.

Part of what I have been saying is that faith being faith should be and will be tested. Just as a theory of science should be tested. However the every day punter who simply wants to side with the winner or percieved winner is in a circumstance as I am (they can simply reel of empty platitudes or well worn phrases...mmm like a fundamentalist...mmm like in the same vein as they are speaking against.)

Much to some decry I have simply made a choice at one stage to back what I view as the ´winner´ and that is my choice. I did at one point experience my system of ´belief´ being tested once (and not by others but internally) and made a choice of ruling out option B whatever that is or maybe.

I can see and understand how ´fundamentalism´ has rubbed so many people up the wrong way. In the most part I would say Yay to the detractors because at least they show some passion coupled with at least some knowledge.

Anyway why would anyone want to hear what i have to say? What does it have to do with the news summary?

Well when there are questions it a desire of mine to reply, but, once again what is the point?

I have not realy indulged in the forums yet, maybe I should!

My problem is that I am an epic thinker and there is not enough room to even get my stride. When I try to the focus goes on diction, grammer, comprehension, and of course spelling.

Hey, I´ve even experienced a challenge for debate and a total shutdown in the same post (in re-buff).

[ edited by alisha rose ]
  by: alisha rose     12/10/2010 07:12 AM     
any other questions or replies or baggens out. Give me the go ahead of a loooong post without focus on slight errors then I would love to reply.

Hey I´ve put myself out there at least I should ask that.
  by: alisha rose     12/10/2010 07:21 AM     
I know this is my 3rd post in a row but i think i just noticed a contradiction in your post there Kaleid.

"Yes, the beliefs of religions evolve with time as Dawkins correctly points out in the God Delusion...everything moves along in the moral zeitgeist, for better or worse. (Evolve does not have to mean better)


The books never change, which is why there will always be fundamentalists around."

The belief systems change but the books don´t but a fundamentalists to be a ´fundamentalist´ does not change with the times otherwise they would not be a fundamentalist.

I guess what happens is that there is pressure applied for ´believers´ to move with the times but when they do the response is like ´aha´ see you have changed!


I guess when it comes to one belief system against another the aim is to target the foundations.

The foundations of the Scriptures (or the Bible in this case...umm...mine) is a belief system that stems from the heart with God as the centre and everything coming out from there. Or replacing self as the true centre with God as the true centre.

That is like saying that there are some principles that are established beyond a shadow of doubt and are the foundations of whatever comes after. In the case of science one of those principles would have to be observational evidence confirming a theory (data needs to be interperted) A simplistic example but without it science would not be worth a cracker.

[ edited by alisha rose ]
  by: alisha rose     12/10/2010 07:42 AM     
fundamental belief systems do ultimately impress upon individuals what the interpertation is going to be.

If that is not correct then one would have to say that ´science´ is relative.

Yes, findings and discoveries surface just like any relationship.

Most brilliant ´discoveries´ in turn have not been because of research exactly. They have been the result of a ´chance´ encounter. Like buzzies stuck on a sock leading to the invention of velcro.

Same with faith in God.

The testing of faith is not like, go out and find whatever makes it shake.
It is to test that the foundation/ fundamentals are in place.

In short, the truth is out there, on what basis do we choose to see it. That is where unbelief and belief part ways.
Awesome....that means choice. Exactly why God does choose to camoflage and blend with the elements. Because the elements are held up or consist by the power of God.

[ edited by alisha rose ]
  by: alisha rose     12/10/2010 12:53 PM     
Ask a christian what he or she believes about x, y, z. Compare that a to a christian who lived a couple of hundred years ago. Chances are very high that the viewpoints are different on many things.

Fundamentalists however are as literalist as possible, and will likely follow their book closer than a modern christian, who ignores a lot what the bible says. (And I would add, the closer you follow there holy books the crazier it becomes, because they are by large outdated by todays standards. I´m reading some analysis of the Koran atm, and it does say very bad things about people who leave the religion etc.. but I was in Tunisia this summer and got into discussions, and few cared about my viewpoints. Would they still see themselves as muslims. Yes of course, but are they really, since they believe it´s the word of god shouldn´t they follow it as close as possible. God certainly seems to see it as important. But he seems to get nothing more than lipservice really. Fundamentalists however, like in Uganda see homosexuality as a crime, and they might soon have a law which states that repeated offenders should be put to death. They are better believers in a way, as they are more - sheepish).

There´s no contradiction. It´s just what people in general see as important today is not the same as people used to see as important.

Yes, the books change - somewhat, but it´s mostly the language which is updated since old translations would be too difficult to understand otherwise. As far as I know, current bibles still say that you should keep the sabbath holy. Does it happen? No. Should women keep quiet in churches? No, some denominations even allow female priests... religion becomes better as more of it is ignored. It becomes - domesticated.

That non-believers change their viewpoints is not important, as it is mainly about rejection of the supernatural and "holy" scriptures. Us atheists do not have holy book which we must subscribe to. We know that science is not 100% all the time, and we´re fine with new data getting out books to become more updated. This is why again, science is superior to dogma.
  by: Kaleid   12/10/2010 01:06 PM     
You watch any of Zeitgeist yet? I´m just curious as to what you might think about the section on religion. I´ve never really had a conversation about the movie with someone who was religious and would love to read any input you have.

I´m not an atheist by the way. I´m a devout agnostic. LOL. I´ve read people saying that agnostics are the least sure of their convictions, and nothing could be farther from the truth to me. I believe very strongly in the possibility of a superconsciousness beyond our own, I just don´t personally have enough evidence to completely support or deny it either way. I think agnosticism is the most honest anyone could be with themselves. I would probably have been atheist if it weren´t for all the philosophy I read as a kid mixed with the truckloads of acid I ate as a young man... one has epiphanies, experiences unexplainable synchronicities that just give you an unshakable conviction that we are all the same, and there is some underlying current pervading everything that we tap into at times. I know, far out man. Heheheh.
  by: spiggy   12/10/2010 03:56 PM     
  Kaleid & spiggy & other thinkers  
I appreciate you taking the time to reply and to make posts and continuing the thread.
I will get to the point, and this is the point that I have eluded to many times. Ready - I am not very succinct!
There I have said it. This being the very reason that I have been getting a lot out of SN. Man, I need it.
By the time i get rolling I can see that the slight possibility for meaningful debate dies fairly quickly on this site.

I have never had to ´justify´ my thinking at great length.

There has been a change in I will say ´supposed fundamentalism´ in a lot of ways because of the lack of thought and the mindless following of a figurehead.

The reason the true problems with fundamentalism becoming extremeism is the same.

For example
1. "Ask a christian what he or she believes about x, y, z. Compare that a to a christian who lived a couple of hundred years ago. Chances are very high that the viewpoints are different on many things."

Obviously a person does not have a complete knowledge of what ever they are a follower of.
Somethings take time to gain a conviction of (or just to lazy)
A lot of people these days especially ´followers´ of a religion do not like to admit that they do not know all the answers or may not have thought through everything. In the modern age we are what I call gobblers. I guess it would be the same for those out there that could have made excellent science minds in previous times have become good at Googling. Only have to go into a half decent sized ´Christian´ bookshop and you could read a book on just about any subject. So they don´t have to think they know its there some where. They could go on a thinking journey of their own hey they might even know of a ´Christian´ version of Google...By Golly or something.

At least some atheists on this site start talking instead of simply asking "Source?"

See what I mean I suck at short. Here I am at the end of my post and I have only written one half of one point. I´m like a giant arsed HOMEWORLD ship that takes ages to turn around.

[ edited by alisha rose ]
  by: alisha rose     12/10/2010 08:41 PM     
"Fundamentalists however are as literalist as possible, and will likely follow their book closer than a modern christian, who ignores a lot what the bible says."

OK let me put fundamentalists into 2 catagories -
1. Ardent rule followers
2. Followers of the heart of the rules

Jesus Christ was also critical of fundamentalists in the first catagory.
He said something like ´you strain out a Gnat and choke on a Camel´ or major on the minors at the expense of the major (LOVE & MERCY).
I was thinking about this and trying to take it out of the religious sphere.

I imagined an expert mountain climber and his/ her disciple or trainee.
The knowledge is passed down on how to climb safely. Follow the instructer and you don´t end up looking like a jam rag swinging from a string. It comes to the ´graduation´ and the pupil is so sure that they are going to pass and the teacher says something like "Well you would pass but you have forgotten the most important rule!" the pupil replies "But, I have followed the rules to the letter!" The teacher replies "You have not realised the reason for following these rules and principles!" The pupil asks in frustration "what else do you expect?"
The teacher replies "To enjoy the mountain!"

I guess where I as a ´funamentalist´ part ways with a lot of ´fundamentalists´ is there.

Hey, what I have is about freedom not rules for the sake of rules.

[ edited by alisha rose ]
  by: alisha rose     12/10/2010 09:06 PM     
of political correction have over time lost the fundamental right to remain fundamentalists. The reason that the modern day fundamentalist Christian in the most part is different to fundamentalists of 100 years ago is because they have caved into political correction. Political correction is mostly about replacing the moral conscience that is based on faith with a moral compass governed by the evolving political climate. In turn political correction and its fundamentals are continuously being eroded as people express themselves freely without ´moral´ constraint. Basically because political correction when it is tested, especially in the area of freedom of speech (and religious freedom), legislation is introduced to restrain that freedom. Political correction is exactly that - conditioning.

Over time the conditioning persuades with the perceived weight of the majority to quell the voice of the ´vocal´ minority, even as it declares that it is aiming to defend the rights of minorities.

The freedom from religion or at least the freedom to be without a moral compass is a lie!

The truth is even though some may say that the Bible is no longer relevant they are incorrect. Really we have not moved anywhere. Sure we have more gadgets but that has more to do with an accumulation of knowledge. Same with ´advance´ in scientific progress.

What does not work is using that progress to rule out the need for an absolute truth. The problem is this - rightly or wrongly a lot of Christians have moved with the times in such a way that to still adhere to what the Bible says only adds to the confusion and the desire of the masses to pivot away and aim at being ´politically correct´

[ edited by Lizzie ]
  by: Lizzie   12/11/2010 12:34 AM     
Copyright ©2015 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: