Science Still in the Dark about Dark Energy

ICR ^ | April 28, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[GodGunsGuts]

Science Still in the Dark about Dark Energy

by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

Evolutionary astronomers have a problem. The universe is expanding at an ever-increasing rate, but if general relativity is an accurate cosmological model, and if the universe is made up of the kinds of matter and energy that are directly detectable (like atoms and light), then its expansion should be slowing. Astronomers “fixed” this problem by theorizing that “75% of the energy density of the universe exists…as dark energy.”[1] This non-detectable dark energy allows the man-made model to match astronomical observations.

However, scientists are aware that dark energy itself has problems: “Nothing meeting the description of dark energy [matches] fundamental particles… It is a substance that has not as yet been measured directly, has properties unlike anything we have ever seen…. In short, we are very much in the dark about dark energy.”[2] At the urging of mainstream cosmologists, millions of government dollars are being spent trying to detect and characterize dark energy, whose supposed existence is only one of the assumptions required to make standard cosmological models “work.”

Another of these assumptions is...

[OneVike]

Your point?

[atlaw]

One of the most popular cartoons of all time, “The Flintstones,” was based upon the idea of Darwin’s theory. While the governments of the world are prepared to bow down to an offshoot of evolution, the “Rreligion of Global Warming”

And the heartbreak of psoriasis. That has evolution written all over it. And elevator music. Pure evolutionary evil. And static cling. And childproof caps that make aspirin bottles impossible to open with a hangover. And tofu. God, don't get me started on the evolutionary madness that is Tofu.

[antiRepublicrat]

I’ll hedge my bets upon a Creator. If I’m wrong, then when I die, I’ll simply cease to exist. If I’m right, then my spirit will live on as was promised by God. Athiests, on the other hand, have nothing but the blackness of death to look forward to, with absolutely no hope of anything beyond that.

Pascal's Wager is actually much more complex and is a well though-out early invocation of decision theory within its context and using its preconditions. But simply stated in this way it invokes a false dichotomy, and is thus illogical. More gods than just the Christian God have been claimed by other religions, so the infinite reward is no longer applicable, and the wager fails. This doesn't even count the denominations within Christianity that mutually say the others are going to hell.

[aruanan]

This doesn't even count the denominations within Christianity that mutually say the others are going to hell.

I've never heard of any Christian denomination claim that the other Christian denominations are going to hell. Even under the Baptist Bride of Christ teaching, "friends of the Bride" go to heaven. Of course, you may be defining "denomination" to include groups as diverse as Christian Science, Russellism, and Smithism.

[dmz]

You’re LOL-ing at your fellow Evos.
______

I’m pretty clear on where my laughter is directed, GGG.

[OneVike]

More gods than just the Christian God have been claimed by other religions, so the infinite reward is no longer applicable, and the wager fails.

All other religions pale in comparison to Christianity. Christianity is the only religion who's God became man and died a humiliating death to atone for the sins of mankind. There is nothing for the follower of Christ to do but believe.

All other religions have you accomplishing something to pay for your way into an eternal presence with their god.

And do not even bring up any religion that claims the same as Christianity, or that they had the idea of a god becoming man first and Christianity copied them. They have all been proved wrong and actually made up long after Christ was born lived and died for mankind's sin.

So you are wrong and Pascal was correct.

[DevNet]

Why not share your source?

[OneVike]

I wrote this about 5 years ago, but I will look for my source. When I find it I will ping you, I promise. I realize I should make sure that I keep my sources closer to my articles or remove the reference from my article.

That being said, even if I cannot find my source and I was forced to take that one sentence out of my article, it does not take away from my point.

Personally I want to find it though because I know I am correct.

However, as you can see, my desk is very, very cluttered, but I will look closer.

[antiRepublicrat]

All other religions pale in comparison to Christianity

That opinion is irrelevant to using the wager to provide a reason for an atheist to convert. An atheist applies the same level of validity to all religions, IOW, none. Therefore any wager must take into account all religions, because you're telling an atheist not just why he should get religious, but why he should choose Christianity over the other relgions. But that invalidates the wager.

[dmz]

One of the most popular cartoons of all time, “The Flintstones,” was based upon the idea of Darwin’s theory.
_________

That’s an interesting position to take, but a little problematic given that the theory of evolution posits that dinosaurs and humans were separated by millions of years.

In The Flintstones, dinosaurs and humans were contemporaries (c.f., Dino, their pet dinosaur).

So if you would like to say that the Flintstones was a very popular cartoon based on a cartoonish understanding of the theory of evolution, I could live with that.

[OneVike]

Good point, I would first convince the atheist that their own heart cries out for more than this world has to offer.

But I digress.

My point to you was just answering your claim that Christianity is like all other religions. It is not. Christianity is unique in it's own self. As for getting an atheist to accept Christianity, as I said you must first get them to realize they need more. After they realize this world has nothing to offer, than one can work on convincing them who is the right and only God.

Two exclusively different point to be made.

[dmz]

The only way to have a stone age was to have evolution because the whole premise was based on millions of years not thousands.
________

You are speaking as though all Christians, in order to be Christians, must be young earthers. There are many Christians, good solid ones at that, who do not believe as you do.

[OneVike]

OK, I'll accept your point and use your suggestion and change the sentence. As I said it does not change the premise of my article.

Like I said my desk is very cluttered, so are you now satisfied. LOL

[OneVike]

That is another argument all together and a whole can of worms I do not have time to tackle right now.

Maybe later, I need to get back to work, but I will ping you for a discussion on it at another time.

Deal?

[dmz]

Look up what the creators say. They admit it.
_______

Hanna Barbera absolutely were evolutionists, I guess. After all, they featured talking bears and squirrels on Rocky and Bullwinkle. No way to get there without evolution. And a talking dog in Scooby Do.

[Larry Lucido]

It’s an evolutionary asterisk.

[OneVike]

One last thing before I leave. This Sunday I will be using the information in my old article in a sermon I have been asked to post on POST SCRIPTS. Most of it will be the same but I will update it to fit in 2009.

If you like, I will ping you when I post it there. The web site that I am locked into for my article is, Post Scripts.

They have the rights to all my articles, I then link them to FreeRepublic. I enjoy the national discussions I get at FreeRepublic.

[CholeraJoe]

Hanna Barbera absolutely were evolutionists, I guess.

Given that statement can you explain the Smurfs? Did they evolve from Hobbits or Orcs?

[freedumb2003]

>>One of the most popular cartoons of all time, “The Flintstones,” was based upon the idea of Darwin’s theory. While the governments of the world are prepared to bow down to an offshoot of evolution, the “Rreligion of Global Warming”

Not much point in reading after that, folks. That sentence alone has more inaccuracies, word for word, than any other anti-science post I have seen in quite some time.

[freedumb2003]

You found the Designer’s desk?