Does Dark Energy Really Exist?: Or does Earth occupy a very unusual place in the universe? (LOL!)

Scientific American ^ | March 2009 | Timothy Clifton and Pedro G. Ferreira

[GodGunsGuts]

Does Dark Energy Really Exist?

Or does Earth occupy a very unusual place in the universe?

Scientific American, March 2009

By Timothy Clifton and Pedro G. Ferreira

...

Most of us are very familiar with the idea that our planet is nothing more than a tiny speck orbiting a typical star, somewhere near the edge of an otherwise unnoteworthy galaxy. In the midst of a universe populated by billions of galaxies that stretch out to our cosmic horizon, we are led to believe that there is nothing special or unique about our location. But what is the evidence for this cosmic humility? And how would we be able to tell if we were in a special place? Astronomers typically gloss over these questions, assuming our own typicality sufficiently obvious to warrant no further discussion. To entertain the notion that we may, in fact, have a special location in the universe is, for many, unthinkable. Nevertheless, that is exactly what some small groups of physicists around the world have recently been considering...

[hosepipe]

[ God might have created a world without mosquitoes or other biting insects, without diseases and parasites, with more edible plants, a milder climate, and fewer predators. The fact that all of these hazards exist, that life is in fact a "Darwinian struggle" rather than a Garden of Eden, shows that no benevolent God created Earth - rather Earth evolved species in competition with one another, of which humans are one. ]

Thats quite a tale..
Science fiction must be very logical...
Reality need not be so logical.. nothing to prove..

[MrB]

God DID create a world without diseases & mutations, with a perfect climate, and multitudes of plants that required no labor from the first humans in order to eat them and thrive.

Then they done messed it up for everyone.

One thing about Science and God. Science constantly changes its interpretation of reality. God never does.

This line, in particular, struck me funny:
“On closer inspection, however, this evidence may not be so conclusive.”

A common theme in “science”.

[GodGunsGuts]

Yes, I saw that. It’s called CYA.

[Natufian]

OK, you mean you pick and choose the bits to circulate depending on your agenda. Creationists have a long history of quote mining so at least you’re following tradition.

[atlaw]

As can be readily seen from the article, the evo-cosmologists are still committed to finding ways to paper-over the special home that God has created for us.

And while those dastardly scientists are still busy doing science (how dare they!), your so-called "God-honoring creation scientists" are still busy bilking their followers -

"Just say no to evil education! Science is hard, and you'll never learn anything anyway! Just send your money today, and we'll send you, yes you, ten pamphlets for the price of one, two DVDs, and a free bumper-sticker! So open a bag of chips, boys and girls, and settle into your La-Z-Boys for some Truth TV!"

[GodGunsGuts]

Ummm...I posted the ENTIRE article. It’s not my fault that God’s creation is forcing the evo-cosmologists to admit what creationists (as per God’s word) have always known.

[Natufian]

You’ve been repeatedly posting the graphic without a link to the article in support of claims that science is now abandoning evolutionary theory despite the fact the the magazine specifically states that no such conclusion is intended nor should be drawn.

That is the same as quote mining and is false witness.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Most of us are very familiar with the idea that our planet is nothing more than a tiny speck orbiting a typical star, somewhere near the edge of an otherwise unnoteworthy galaxy.

This is a stupid statement. We're the only known place in the universe with life. And there's a Dairy Queen down the street from me.

Now I remember why I don't read this magazine anymore.

[Durus]

Talk about absurdly ignorant...

Look no further then climate science to see that there isn't much scientific method to their theories as there is blind adherence to another principle. What do you think that principle is? Modern sciencentists have become little more then the clergy in the church of secular humanism.

For those of us that don't wish to be ruled by the beliefs of others, no matter their intent, it is very disconcerting to have some branches of science seemingly ignoring logic and reason.

[atlaw]

Global climate issues have been politicized by certain factions, and there is disagreement amongst scientists concerning the scope, source, and effect of global climate change.

Therefore, all scientists are frauds and “have become little more than the clergy in the church of secular humanism.”

And because all scientists is stupid fraudulators, I’m going to a witch doctor for my pancreatic cancer, and the world is really only 6,000 years old.

Makes sense to me.

[Buck W.]

Thank God only science is taught in science class.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Thank God only science is taught in science class.

I’m not sure what science class you are referring to. If a science class teaches goo-to-you evolution, they are teaching historical inference and conjecture, not science.

[Buck W.]

Your problem seems to be with evolution, a theory that is supported by observation and evidence. Furthermore, as a theory derived by a scientific method, it is falsifiable. If you can collect, verify, and present real evidence to the contrary, it will be discarded. Can you say the same about creationism?

Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible. Thank God creationism is not taught as science (except, perhaps, in certain private or home school environments where recess includes such activities as kickball and snake handling).

[Durus]

I never used the term "all" but spoke generally with climate change scientists as an example. There are scientists that actually practice science, but with the witch hunts that occur more and more frequently within that community, it's hard to tell the blind adherent from the heretic from the scientist. Asking for there to be more science in science isn't unreasonable is it?

A reasonable and intelligent person with some training in the scientific method could look upon much of modern science as little more then modern witch doctors.

If you can't see any truth to this then your beliefs have blinded you to reality like any true believer.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Your problem seems to be with evolution, a theory that is supported by observation and evidence.

When it comes to origins, even if you start with the first proto-cell, all the evos have is conjecture and inference. And that’s all they can have, because they are dealing with the UNOBSERVABLE, UNREPEATABLE past. Surely you can grasp the obvious????

[Buck W.]

“When it comes to origins, even if you start with the first proto-cell, all the evos have is conjecture and inference. And that’s all they can have, because they are dealing with the UNOBSERVABLE, UNREPEATABLE past. “

The past is not repeatable, but the evidence of past events remains. That evidence conclusively supports evolution. There is no comparable body of evidence that supports any other method.

Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.

[GodGunsGuts]

==The past is not repeatable, but the evidence of past events remains. That evidence conclusively supports evolution. There is no comparable body of evidence that supports any other method.

If you’re up to the challenge, I would be glad to rigorously debate you on any subject relating to origins. Indeed, you can even pick where we start. Are you game?

==Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.

The Bible is specifically campatible with biblical creation. Whereas, there is no mention at all of evolution anywhere to be found in the Bible, and plenty of verses that specifically contradict Darwood’s materialist creation myth.

[Buck W.]

Of course, but I don’t see the point. You don’t seem to understand the fundamentals of the scientific method.

“==Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.

The Bible is specifically campatible with biblical creation. Whereas, there is no mention at all of evolution anywhere to be found in the Bible, and plenty of verses that specifically contradict Darwood’s materialist creation myth.”

I said that evolution was perfectly compatible with Christianity, not with a literal reading of the bible.

[GodGunsGuts]

OK, pick your poisen, where would you like to start?

[Buck W.]

If you have a point, make it and I’ll respond.

[MeanWestTexan]

Ouch.

[Buck W.]

Well done!

[oldmanreedy]

"If you’re up to the challenge, I would be glad to rigorously debate you on any subject relating to origins. Indeed, you can even pick where we start. Are you game?"

I will, I will! Our subject: information theory and evolution.

Starting place: creationist contention that evolution is impossible since mutations never add new "information" to the gene pool.

[GodGunsGuts]

Sorry old man, one person at a time. But if you like, I will be glad to debate you on the subject (including your inexact understanding of the creationist position contained in your “starting place”) once I demonstrate to Buck W that goo-to-you evolution is sham science.

[reagan_fanatic]

Evolution happens. Every educated, conservative Freeper knows that. Mr. Darwin was correct.

Micro evolution (adaptation) is indeed a fact and has been proven. Macro evolution (goo to you) has NOT been proven and you know it.