It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Stuffed
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
Blind worship of ANYTHING is just that, blind. As for if it's insanity I'm going to have to say no, seeing as how many people do take part in blind faith/worship (insanity being abnormal mental or behavioral problems)
As for your comment of Darwinism, this is not about evolution, it is about cosmology. Just because the very nature of science is to question its' validity and to test it resulting in either proof or disproof, doesn't mean that all scientific theories should face the same intensity of questioning as the actual theory in question. If you claim there is no evidence of species to species in evolution you're just choosing not to look at the evidence. If you on the other hand of another theory that would explain this better present the evidence, or present the evidence that would shine evolution in the negative light you feel it needs to be shown in.
Back to the topic at hand, this is pretty amazing, i love it when something upsets current knowledge. Getting rid of as many as possible false beliefs is the goal here people. Truth is Truthedit on 15-12-2010 by Stuffed because: typo
Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Originally posted by Stuffed
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
Blind worship of ANYTHING is just that, blind. As for if it's insanity I'm going to have to say no, seeing as how many people do take part in blind faith/worship (insanity being abnormal mental or behavioral problems)
As for your comment of Darwinism, this is not about evolution, it is about cosmology. Just because the very nature of science is to question its' validity and to test it resulting in either proof or disproof, doesn't mean that all scientific theories should face the same intensity of questioning as the actual theory in question. If you claim there is no evidence of species to species in evolution you're just choosing not to look at the evidence. If you on the other hand of another theory that would explain this better present the evidence, or present the evidence that would shine evolution in the negative light you feel it needs to be shown in.
Back to the topic at hand, this is pretty amazing, i love it when something upsets current knowledge. Getting rid of as many as possible false beliefs is the goal here people. Truth is Truthedit on 15-12-2010 by Stuffed because: typo
Many members here intermingle the theory of evolution and the big bang theory. Using one to provide evidence of how accurate science is. Kind of like, if this one is correct, then the other one is too - type of illogical thought pattern. I, myself, have had this type of argument thrown at me many times.
Well, while it is still early, it sure looks like the big bang theory is going to be proven false.
Which definitely would undermine these members argument.
Just because all of our current knowledge implies evolution, does not make it so.
Based on the very nature of science to keep testing the validity of every theory, isn't it foolish to accept any theory as a fact?
Just like all of our current knowledge before today implied a big bang - but after today it does not.
So may our future knowledge of specie development be upset by some new finding.
Since this is the nature of science, wouldn't you say that this is true?
So please do not force feed the big bang theory, or the theory of evolution, or any other theory down our throats or more to the point, don't try to stop other theories from being taught.
The truth will come out in the end. Just be open minded. After all, the Truth will set you free.
Originally posted by stumason
Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
It is amazing just how many scientific theories are embraced and cleaved unto as fact, just to be disproved later. Makes you wonder if blind worship of ANY scientific theory is a sign of insanity????
If you speak to most sensible scientists and those that are of a sciencey mind, no one has a "blind belief" in anything.
They have their theories (and please don't use that word to mean something is just an idea - a scientific theory is based upon observed data and is on "fairly" solid ground as opposed to "I have a theory my wife is shagging my brother") and they then seek to either prove or disprove these.
If they disprove it, they will work up a new theory or alter the previous one to fit the new observed data. At least with science, they try to find answers, rather than the idiotic cop out of "God did it"...
Originally posted by whoocares
reply to post by Rocketgirl
ok.. where to begin...
you obviously missed the point..they didnt mean it literally...
they are correct that 'it shouldnt exist' with the way we think today (todays standard)
but guess what? it does...so now we need to look at things differently to begin to understand...
get it?
The findings appear in The Astrophysical Journal, published online Nov. 24 in advance of print publication on Dec. 10, 2010. "We have found a relatively large number of very massive, highly luminous galaxies that existed almost 12 billion years ago when the universe was still very young, about 1.5 billion years old. These results appear to disagree with the latest predictions from models of galaxy formation and evolution," said Tufts astrophysicist Danilo Marchesini, lead author on the paper and assistant professor of physics and astronomy at the Tufts School of Arts and Sciences.
If half of the massive galaxies are assumed to be slightly closer, at redshift z=2.6, when the universe was a bit older (2.5 billion years old) and very dusty (with dust absorbing much of the light emitted at ultra-violet and optical wavelengths), then the disagreement between observations and model predictions becomes only marginally significant.
Originally posted by iSHRED
yes isnt it odd how nearly every religion teaches love, yet no one does it.
anyways back on topic. There are still countless things we dont know about earth, it would be foulish to think you know anything about space. New studies will continually contadict previous "theories" about space. It's almost a waste of money studying it (other then seeing if a giant astroid is headed our way). All that money should go towards improving transport to and from space and colonizing the moon and mars. Then from there we can work our way outward.
Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
reply to post by Arken
Could it be that when two universes bump into each other, if sufficiently similar in physical laws, perhaps a galaxy or entire cluster from a much older universe could be transferred to a much younger universe at the point of maximum congruency?