Dark Energy - God?

[james bond]

and when I ask for clarification, you go back to ad hominem attacks

No, I clearly and directly explained why what you said was stupid. Then i called you stupidm I did not rely on the fact that you are stupid to make my point. You should not use terms like ad hominem, when you dont know what they mscientis

Even I know there is more than one explanation of dark energy and dark matter.

Which has zero bearing on the comments to which you responded,to wit, that your comment about regions of the univetse beyond the horizon was stupid and irrelevant, and that scientits think our own galaxy has plenty of dark matter.

All science is atheist, dumbass.

Last point first, all science is not just atheist science. We also have creation science with God in it. Finally, you are seeing and agreeing that it is ATHEIST science today because of systematic elimination of God, the supernatural (Genesis only) and the Bible.

Do I need to provide a link of where I got dark energy as that which is on the far reaches of the universe? It's one of the theories -- Top 10 Theories About Dark Energy - Listverse

More funny is the following vid explains TLDW the reason why you are you and didn't watch the vid below.



Thus, I asked for clarification but it doesn't matter does it? In the end, having "faith" in evolutionary thinking does not matter in life because it's based on false science. In the past, people believed in an eternal universe and Piltdown Man their entire lives. You believe in dark energy and dark matter. It's like aliens. You guys will end up dying without finding an alien. Book it. At least, one will die without knowing why insects interact socially?

Finally, I thought you were going to say I got it from creation.com, so here is what they've got to say about it haha. I ♥ Johh Hartnett. Is he part of creation.com? I'll have to read more often then.

".. there is no need to assume the existence of dark matter to explain dynamics of galaxies in the cosmos. Further, it is shown that in this cosmology the cosmological constant or dark energy is a property of space-time."

"This can be interpreted in a creationist cosmology as the power of the Lord giving a boost to the expansion of the fabric of space as He stretched it out. He is the unseen force in the universe. By the correct choice of field equations, the motions of the galaxies are described without the need to resort to exotic particles. This description fits a finite galactocentric universe, and is consistent with a creationist cosmology." Good stuff. I got more ammo now

Dark matter and a cosmological constant in a creationist cosmology? - creation.com

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

all science is not just atheist scienc

Science is a process. And it is atheist always.

 

[james bond]

all science is not just atheist scienc

Science is a process. And it is atheist always.

You lied and you are wrong. You said evolution is a fact. Evolution is not science tho.

Science is not atheist always. It is creation science always.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Dark Energy - God?
⁜→ Fort Fun Indiana, james bond, et al,

No → No! This is incorrect. Science is NOT a rejection of belief in the existence of a hierarchy of beings that culminate in a "Supreme Being."

Not only are they not equal, but they are not in the same realm to be compared.
Faith is in the spiritual realm, whereas science is in the physical realm.
​

I may not know (or understand yet) the implications of "dark energy" or "dark matter:" but, I do know that science is not a faith-based effort. It cannot take part and has no relevance in the argument of Theist versus Atheist. Science is both secular and religious indifference. No matter how advanced science becomes, it will never be in true competition with any faith-based belief.

all science is not just atheist scienc

Science is a process. And it is atheist always.

(COMMENT)

In the time, even before that of Gaius Julius Caesar, the religious belief [(faith) that [(Genesis 1:1) ("In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.")] Genesis 1:1 was as unaffected by science then as it is today.

As the knowledge of science increases, so does the magnitude of the faith and powers of the creator increase.

Just My Drachma worth of Understanding,
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

RE: Dark Energy - God?
⁜→ Fort Fun Indiana, james bond, et al,

No → No! This is incorrect. Science is NOT a rejection of belief in the existence of a hierarchy of beings that culminate in a "Supreme Being."

View attachment 251133
Not only are they not equal, but they are not in the same realm to be compared.
Faith is in the spiritual realm, whereas science is in the physical realm.
​

I may not know (or understand yet) the implications of "dark energy" or "dark matter:" but, I do know that science is not a faith-based effort. It cannot take part and has no relevance in the argument of Theist versus Atheist. Science is both secular and religious indifference. No matter how advanced science becomes, it will never be in true competition with any faith-based belief.

all science is not just atheist scienc

Science is a process. And it is atheist always.

(COMMENT)

In the time, even before that of Gaius Julius Caesar, the religious belief [(faith) that [(Genesis 1:1) ("In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.")] Genesis 1:1 was as unaffected by science then as it is today.

As the knowledge of science increases, so does the magnitude of the faith and powers of the creator increase.

Just My Drachma worth of Understanding,
Most Respectfully,
R

But the process of science is purely atheist. You're not going to put words in just the right order to change that .

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Dark Energy - God?
⁜→ Fort Fun Indiana, james bond, et al,

Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of the powers and entities of the Spiritual Realm, all-inclusive and ascending to the concept of a Supreme Being.

Science is the systematic evaluation of the structure and behavior of all that is observable, detectable or affecting our senses.

No → No! This is incorrect. Science is NOT a rejection of belief in the existence of a hierarchy of beings that culminate in a "Supreme Being."

View attachment 251133
Not only are they not equal, but they are not in the same realm to be compared.
Faith is in the spiritual realm, whereas science is in the physical realm.
​

I may not know (or understand yet) the implications of "dark energy" or "dark matter:" but, I do know that science is not a faith-based effort. It cannot take part and has no relevance in the argument of Theist versus Atheist. Science is both secular and religious indifference. No matter how advanced science becomes, it will never be in true competition with any faith-based belief.

all science is not just atheist scienc

Science is a process. And it is atheist always.

(COMMENT)

In the time, even before that of Gaius Julius Caesar, the religious belief [(faith) that [(Genesis 1:1) ("In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.")] Genesis 1:1 was as unaffected by science then as it is today.

As the knowledge of science increases, so does the magnitude of the faith and powers of the creator increase.

Just My Drachma worth of Understanding,
Most Respectfully,
R

But the process of science is purely atheist. You're not going to put words in just the right order to change that .

(COMMENT)

The Scientific Process has nothing at all to do with the belief. Some of the best scientist in the history of man was very religious.

Religion can retard the advancement of science by controlling the atmosphere in which it is practiced.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Leo123]

all science is not just atheist scienc

Science is a process. And it is atheist always.

It is possible to have a belief in a higher power and provide an objective scientific analysis of the reality around us. Ask Albert Einstein, Arthur Compton, Blaise Pascal for starters. How about Galileo Galilei? Mendel, Marconi....The list goes on and on and on......

 

[Hollie]

and when I ask for clarification, you go back to ad hominem attacks

No, I clearly and directly explained why what you said was stupid. Then i called you stupidm I did not rely on the fact that you are stupid to make my point. You should not use terms like ad hominem, when you dont know what they mscientis

Even I know there is more than one explanation of dark energy and dark matter.

Which has zero bearing on the comments to which you responded,to wit, that your comment about regions of the univetse beyond the horizon was stupid and irrelevant, and that scientits think our own galaxy has plenty of dark matter.

All science is atheist, dumbass.

Last point first, all science is not just atheist science. We also have creation science with God in it. Finally, you are seeing and agreeing that it is ATHEIST science today because of systematic elimination of God, the supernatural (Genesis only) and the Bible.

Do I need to provide a link of where I got dark energy as that which is on the far reaches of the universe? It's one of the theories -- Top 10 Theories About Dark Energy - Listverse

More funny is the following vid explains TLDW the reason why you are you and didn't watch the vid below.



Thus, I asked for clarification but it doesn't matter does it? In the end, having "faith" in evolutionary thinking does not matter in life because it's based on false science. In the past, people believed in an eternal universe and Piltdown Man their entire lives. You believe in dark energy and dark matter. It's like aliens. You guys will end up dying without finding an alien. Book it. At least, one will die without knowing why insects interact socially?

Finally, I thought you were going to say I got it from creation.com, so here is what they've got to say about it haha. I ♥ Johh Hartnett. Is he part of creation.com? I'll have to read more often then.

".. there is no need to assume the existence of dark matter to explain dynamics of galaxies in the cosmos. Further, it is shown that in this cosmology the cosmological constant or dark energy is a property of space-time."

"This can be interpreted in a creationist cosmology as the power of the Lord giving a boost to the expansion of the fabric of space as He stretched it out. He is the unseen force in the universe. By the correct choice of field equations, the motions of the galaxies are described without the need to resort to exotic particles. This description fits a finite galactocentric universe, and is consistent with a creationist cosmology." Good stuff. I got more ammo now

Dark matter and a cosmological constant in a creationist cosmology? - creation.com

That long cut and paste is nothing more than a desperate appeal to lend credibility to religious dogma.

There is no science in “creation science” as any and all conclusions are predefined.

What we believe - creation.com

(B) BASICS

1. The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

You’re presenting an entirely predrefined conclusion to an argument you won’t engage in. That works in your favor because you feel free to make outrageous claims but you don’t recognize any responsibility to support those claims. You know your position is indefensible so you make no pretense toward holding to the standards that science is held to.

Your dogma, (as it’s employed by those to support a religious belief), is among the most hopeless of positions that can be used to argue the mechanics of science investigation. Dogma delivers essentially nothing of true utility. It can be used to support virtually any position since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of the powers and entities of the Spiritual Realm, all-inclusive and ascending to the concept of a Supreme Being.

Which is a fundamental principle of science: determinism. No godly powers and no intervention. Once you leave determinism, you have left the realm of science. In fact, inherently, you could never produce evidence of such a thing, as evidence requires determinism.

 

[ding]

Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of the powers and entities of the Spiritual Realm, all-inclusive and ascending to the concept of a Supreme Being.

Which is a fundamental principle of science: determinism. No godly powers and no intervention. Once you leave determinism, you have left the realm of science. In fact, inherently, you could never produce evidence of such a thing, as evidence requires determinism.

You mean I couldn’t use scientific principles to study something you created to learn things about you?

 

[Leo123]

Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of the powers and entities of the Spiritual Realm, all-inclusive and ascending to the concept of a Supreme Being.

Which is a fundamental principle of science: determinism. No godly powers and no intervention. Once you leave determinism, you have left the realm of science. In fact, inherently, you could never produce evidence of such a thing, as evidence requires determinism.

Determinism is itself a belief that all behavioral actions are caused by preceding factors and thus predictable. I does not seem to preclude a higher power.

 

[james bond]

I do know that science is not a faith-based effort.

It wasn't so much before the 1850s, but today it is "faith-based." The facts are made to fit the theory. It's evolution of the gaps.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Dark Energy - God?
⁜→ Leo123, et al,

It is more accurate to say that the scientific process neither includes a belief in a higher power (the supernatural, Deity, Supreme Being), requires any specific available body of concepts or information not in evidence (key), or precludes a belief in a higher power (the supernatural, Deity, Supreme Being) as a necessity for the test and evaluation of findings and conclusions.

Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of the powers and entities of the Spiritual Realm, all-inclusive and ascending to the concept of a Supreme Being.

Which is a fundamental principle of science: determinism. No godly powers and no intervention. Once you leave determinism, you have left the realm of science. In fact, inherently, you could never produce evidence of such a thing, as evidence requires determinism.

Determinism is itself a belief that all behavioral actions are caused by preceding factors and thus predictable. I does not seem to preclude a higher power.

(COMMENT)

The key is in the fact that the "supernatural" plays (absolutely) no part at all in the use of the scientific process as a means of exploring that which is "natural."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[james bond]

The key is in the fact that the "supernatural" plays (absolutely) no part at all in the use of the scientific process as a means of exploring that which is "natural."

You are making an assumption that the scientific process only explores that which is natural. This was not true before the 1850s and if you assume that, then you make errors.

Life itself is spirit and not natural. The process of life may be, but not the life spirit itself. Today's science believes it just sprang into existence through nature and we are alive because our cells are alive. You can't even create a living cell nor a single blade of grass.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Dark Energy - God?
⁜→ Leo123, et al,

I do know that science is not a faith-based effort.

It wasn't so much before the 1850s, but today it is "faith-based." The facts are made to fit the theory. It's evolution of the gaps.

(COMMENT)

Obviously, I don't understand your usage of the term.

The term faith-based is a neologism, mostly current in American English, to describe any organization or government idea or plan based on religious beliefs, specifically Christian beliefs. The term commonly refers to associated organizations such as Catholic Charities. Such "faith-based organizations" typically deliver a variety of services to the public, such as caring for the infirm and elderly, advocating justice for the oppressed and playing a major role as NGO's in humanitarian aid and international development efforts.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

I do know that science is not a faith-based effort.

It wasn't so much before the 1850s, but today it is "faith-based." The facts are made to fit the theory. It's evolution of the gaps.

The tools and methods of science have become more exacting since the 1850’s. We are in a transition away from the superstitious beliefs thanks to the ever expanding, impossible-to-refute success of science and technology. The idea that science and reason are subordinate to fear and superstition is self-imposed blindness.

Tell us how the “statement of faith” at your fundamentalist ministry will ever find an objective truth.

 

[james bond]

Obviously, I don't understand your usage of the term.

First, atheism is a religion. It's non-belief in gods. Today, we have atheist science as secular science because they systematically eliminated God as creator.

Christianity is a religion which can be separated through the Bible into people parts and science parts. Creation science uses the science parts, God, the supernatural (only in Genesis) and the science parts of the Bible, i.e. non-people parts.

What has happened since the 1850s is God as creator has been removed from science. Prior to it, secular scientists believed that God created the universe and everything in it -- all the material and natural world. This has been systematically eliminated by that which you previously said since the 1850s through ideas of atheist James Hutton and Charles Lyell through uniformitarianism and subsequently ToE by Charles Darwin.. Darwin was a pupil of Lyell. Since the 1850s, secular science eliminated God based on not having evidence, but that is not the case. For example, we have the universe and everything in it including "nature" existing. Other evidence is life exists as a spirit. We cannot create life as I stated before. Only that which is already living can create life.

Anyway, it appears that you only take a narrow view of science as materialism. Thus, you have bought into the false science taught today lock, stock and barrel. It means that which you find in museums is not all valid anymore; It's based on false evidence and many people have bought into this as science. Today's creation scientists cannot participate in peer reviews anymore. They could lose their jobs if they use the Bible or base their findings on creation. In effect, secular or atheist scientists have eliminated their competition and this is not what I was taught as science. Science is the search for the truth and finding evidence for it. It has always been about best theories and arguments. Today, there is no argument as facts are made to fit ToE and evolutionary thinking and history.

Thus, today's atheist science is faith-based science based on belief in no gods.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I does not seem to preclude a higher power

I don't disagree. But it leaves no place (and especially no need) for one in the process of science.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Dark Energy - God?
⁜→ james bond, et al,

Oh, this is wrong on so many levels. But since it is moving off-topic, I'll just make three small comments.

Obviously, I don't understand your usage of the term.

First, atheism is a religion. It's non-belief in gods. Today, we have atheist science as secular science because they systematically eliminated God as creator.

Thus, today's atheist science is faith-based science based on belief in no gods.

(COMMENT)

◈ Atheism is NOT a religion; it is a disbelief in the existence of God or gods. Being an "Atheist" does not affect the application of the scientific process, if the process is done correctly (is both sound and valid).

◈ To be an "atheist" is to be mentally unaffected by religion in disciplined thought.

◈ Atheist science (no such discipline) is NOT faith-based science (no such field of study as a curriculum).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[james bond]

RE: Dark Energy - God?
⁜→ james bond, et al,

Oh, this is wrong on so many levels. But since it is moving off-topic, I'll just make three small comments.

Obviously, I don't understand your usage of the term.

First, atheism is a religion. It's non-belief in gods. Today, we have atheist science as secular science because they systematically eliminated God as creator.

Thus, today's atheist science is faith-based science based on belief in no gods.

(COMMENT)

◈ Atheism is NOT a religion; it is a disbelief in the existence of God or gods. Being an "Atheist" does not affect the application of the scientific process, if the process is done correctly (is both sound and valid).

◈ To be an "atheist" is to be mentally unaffected by religion in disciplined thought.

◈ Atheist science (no such discipline) is NOT faith-based science (no such field of study as a curriculum).

Most Respectfully,
R

It certainly is a religion that does not recognize the Abrahamic God nor gods. You simply are ignorant of RoccoR and it is telling from what you write. In the communist countries, atheism is a state religion. You will be persecuted if you go against it with another religion. Aside from that why don't you read how Australia, Japan and France treat atheism? I think the US used to give tax breaks to atheist churches, but this may have changed. It is recognized as a religion, but it may not be free from taxes from state to state.