Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

How Hubble Killed God...

stuhasic.wordpress.com — March 9, 2004: NASA releases a single image taken by the Hubble Space telescope that proves a fatal blow to the concept of God, but despite the compelling evidence, many simply don’t comprehend the significance of the image.

Bury

spasms 1 year 238 days ago, made popular 1 year 238 days ago

2687 diggs
digg it

395 Comments
Who Dugg It?
Blog It
Email It

stonr, on 10/12/2007, -31/+338But what about the BANANA?!
- AllenS, on 10/12/2007, -55/+245"Logic has no place in organized religion"
- scott1, on 10/12/2007, -36/+58After thousands of years natural selection and mutations starting form a single celled organism the banana evolved into the banana that we know today. Their is no "intelligent" design involved in the existences of the banana .
- consonance, on 10/12/2007, -60/+12They're all clones!
  
  This is exactly what Bush was defending us from!
- detrate, on 10/12/2007, -11/+64for those who don't understand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiTna_a4TCI
- lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -14/+126Scott1: Actually there is intelligent design in the banana. You might have noticed all those black spots that is inside the bananas. Those used to be seeds but are now totally incapable of functioning for reproduction. This because the seeds used to be so large they would fill up the whole shell leaving only space for a small amount of fruit meat. We breed the banana for our needs and hence the banana we eat are intelligently designed.
  
  The original was not though!
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -31/+250I don't understand how a telescope can 'kill' God.
  Iff there is a God, you can't disprove it with anything, At most, what you can do, is disprove some religion, but God is not religion.
- ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -48/+15"If Man is the reason for Creation, why has intelligent Man’s existence only been for the last few thousand years?"
  
  If Man is the reason for Creation, why was it last in line on G-d's to-do list in Genesis?
- anonym41414, on 10/12/2007, -49/+77"If Man is the reason for Creation, why was it last in line on G-d's to-do list in Genesis?"
  
  If the purpose of your house is to sleep in it, how come you lay the foundation, build the walls, put on a roof and install carpet before you put your bed in?
- Lobut, on 10/12/2007, -25/+52"If the purpose of your house is to sleep in it, how come you lay the foundation, build the walls, put on a roof and install carpet before you put your bed in?"
  
  And what does that hafta do with why God created all those galaxies? Do we need those galaxies to exist?
- wacki, on 10/12/2007, -7/+62Georges Lemaître, the guy that founded the big bang, would roll his eyes at this article.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
  
  The age of the universe didn't kill god in his eyes. That being said the people that believe the earth is 6K years old like Ted Haggard are nutcases.
- LucerinRed, on 10/12/2007, -60/+96I love how supposedly science is supposed to disprove God. If anything, I think that science is actually further proof that a God does exist. To have a universe so vast and so complex, all of it obeying the laws of physics that we can understand and breakdown to the simplest of forms. To me that just shows me even more and more that there is a God. Instead of disproving God, I think scientific study only proves his greatness. Only an idiot believer would say that science has nothing to do with God.
  
  And actually there is scripture in the bible that says the earth was around before Genesis.
- bongo, on 10/12/2007, -12/+26I agree with radu79, you can disprove religion, but you can't disprove God. They are two very different concepts.
  
  By the way, did anyone else check out the "proof" that the earth is 6,000 years old that was linked to in the article?
  http://www.independencebaptist.org/6,000%20Year%20Old%20Earth/6,000_year_old_earth.htm#Proof%20of%206,000%20Year%20Old%20Earth
  
  I just love that he "proved" this using the bible. Very scientific!
- flernk, on 10/12/2007, -22/+102Not everyone who believes in God also believes that the world is only 6,000 years old. Buried inaccurate.
- becominglumberg, on 10/12/2007, -16/+32Nag for a strong argument: the picture denies Genesis, not God.
- dimitrisokolov, on 10/12/2007, -10/+37
  Well, if there is a God, you realise that God could create a trillion zillion galaxies in an instant because that's what it means to be God. That would be trivial.
- covertbadger, on 10/12/2007, -13/+60@radu79
  
  "I don't understand how a telescope can 'kill' God."
  
  I dunno, the Hubble telescope is pretty big and has a bit of heft, I reckon if you get a good enough swing and connect cleanly you're going to do someone a deal of damage, god or not.
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23I accept the possibility that you can disprove the concept of god, but first you have to understand the concept of god, and the concept of the Earth and Universe being only 6,000 years old is most definitely not the concept of god, nor is it a widely held belief among those who do believe in the concept of god. Why did this get 600+ diggs again?
- unfinity, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18@hackwrench:
  
  It got 600+ diggs (now sitting at 780) because while the title and description are flawed, the article itself is rather interesting.
- an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9@radu79
  
  "I don't understand how a telescope can 'kill' God."
  
  Well, if you give him hit points...
- fixorater, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16All that the Hubble Deep Field Survey proves is that some naive notions of God are untrue. I think most scientists would find the argument that Hubble could potentially disprove the existence of God as a weak one.
  
  Personally I see the images produced by the Hubble as an awesome testament to God's artistry. I tend to see science as discovering the mechanisms by which God chose to create the universe. Though I'll fully admit I have no way of backing this belief up with evidence.
- Mengoxon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8The author of the article is using the same type of "logical" argumenting that fundamentalist Christians use.
  Quote: "If Man is the reason for Creation, why has intelligent Man’s existence only been for the last few thousand years?"
  "If there is no God, why is the banana perfectly shaped for human consumption?"
  If the universe looks like it was created for humanity - it would still not prove god, if the banana looks like it was not created for humanity - it would still not disprove god - unless we assume that god follows human logic...
  ...anyway, that's why it's called belief
- Fhqwhgadss, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3@ dimitrisokolov
  
  Not only would this be a trivial for God, but Hubble actually uncovered irrefutable proof of God's opinion of us earthlings:
  http://nerdling.net/stuff/cosmicfinger/
  
  Unfortunately, the article misjudges the source of communication as alien life forms. This is patently absurd.
- Jonty, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9We know - I believe Genesis is metaphorical. Think about it - what would people thousands upon thousands of years ago think about a "big explosion" from which all was created. And besides - that can't be the ultimate cause - it is perhaps even beyond even our comprehension.
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@ lobut
  "And what does that hafta do with why God created all those galaxies? Do we need those galaxies to exist?"
  
  I need all those galaxies -- to support my transcendental geometry, that explains all, without having a materialistic ontology.
- gandalf239, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5Um, check http://www.reasons.org for a testable creation model. No digg here
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2@ dimitrisokolov
  "Well, if there is a God, you realise that God could create a trillion zillion galaxies in an instant because that's what it means to be God. That would be trivial."
  
  While your juvenile, positive 'faith' is admirable, I suppose -- yet you are presuming to know "What it means to be God" -- which is the height of arrogance!
  
  Still, I guess, children must start out with such man-made concepts relating to the eterrnal, infinite, etc ( ...including the concepts of eternity and infinity), as the only way to approach ... that which can't be qualified (and even saying "that which can't be qualified" is incorrect, inadequate .)
  This very truth is expressed in the first verse of the Tao Teh Ching of Lao Tsu.)
  
  "the tao that can be told is not the eternal tao."
  
  And even that telling of it is incorrect at the same time, and is beyond correctness and incorrectness.
  
  Logically, we are looking at : Not 'A' ,Not 'B', not 'either A or B', and not 'neither A nor B'.
  
  I just say FIVE! lol
- kozie, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9As far as I know, this also bring in a problems for the bigbang theory... Can't remember, can't believe no one else thought about that.
  
  Also, for those christians who believe that Genesis 1 through 3 are metaphorical, they need to look at the sentence construction and language usage in comparison with the rest of the hebrew texts.
  
  I'm not saying the earth is 6000 years old. I'm just saying that that is what the bible says, if you analyze it linguistically.
  
  This is the big reason why certain fundamentalists "have" to believe in a young-earth creation because that is what the bible says. And in fact, if you actually take the time to look at the words used (in 1 through 3), then you'd realize the same.
  
  It's still up to you if you want to make it part of your religion or deny how the book was written.
- Brewdaddy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@ Waterdragon
  
  How is it arrogant to say, "God would be all-powerful, thus God could do X"?
  
  "While your juvenile, positive 'faith' is admirable, I suppose -- yet you are presuming to know "What it means to be God" -- which is the height of arrogance! Still, I guess, children must start out with such man-made concepts relating to the eterrnal, infinite, etc."
  
  You're sounding rather arrogant and haven't even contributed to the discussion.
- spiffytech, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6I fail to see how this is a "fatal blow". The 6,000-year time period is never explicitly stated in the Bible, but inferred by scholars. Christianity is based on much more than how long the earth has been around.
  
  Besides, you don't need a telescope to use the speed of light to disprove anything. Why is this any different now? Anyway, there are several theories to deal with this within Christianity, anyway. There's the theory is that God created the Earth fully prepared and pseudo-aged in the beginning, so that everything would already be in a stable state. The other theory relates to the verse "in the beginning, the earth was formless and void". Some take this to mean that the universe existed in some form, for an undefined amount of time, before God did anything with the Earth. This leaves plenty of room for light to reach us.
  
  P.S.- yes, that banana video was a bit silly with it's statements, but not all intelligent design logic works as poorly as that :)
- shihchiun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"As far as I know, this also bring in a problems for the bigbang theory... Can't remember, can't believe no one else thought about that."
  
  Such as?
- jiggleflop, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10Who cares? Everyone should be smart enough to know god, gods, goddesses, Zeus, Ra, the big zit on my ass is nothing but bull.
  
  No Easter bunny, not tooth fairy, no Santa, no god...
  
  Quit tying to prove/disprove something everyone knows does not exist and get on with being humanist.
- flashboy131, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5According to Genesis 1, the Sun was not created until day Four. Cute explanation yes I know, but we measure days by the sun. So I don't think "Days" in that sense is literal.
  
  I am not a hardcore christian, but I take the bible as a guide not strict dogma.
  interesting read: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/answersbook/sixdays2.asp
- MusicalGenius, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Why waste your time doing nothing but trying to show how you think there is no God. I believe strongly in God and yes I do believe my religion is the only true one.
  
  BUT I NEVER waste my time trying to convince someone else of how wrong they are. Hey guess what all Jews.. you are all wrong and I can prove it. One, it's not a great way to start convincing anyway. Two, it's a waste of your life. Why don't these idiots realize that science doesn't disprove God or as they say "The god concept".
  
  Einstein believed that science showed more and more that God existed. Was he an idiot? For a scientist to say that he has something which proves that God could NOT exist would be unscientific. To say that you cannot be disproved. This is idiot. I LOVE science but why can't a Scientist and a Priest just get along. It's annoying when people bicker about how right they are and how wrong so many others are. At least say you disagree and move on. Rather, they decide that they MUST have an argumentative attitude. I guess ALL SCIENTISTS who believe in God MUST be wrong....
  
  Yes, I guess you are just as justified as saying that the Earth is flat because no one who believed that was wrong then....
- ToastBusters, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5It's interesting that no one has noted that the bible has changed over the years, and is not considered "accurate."
  
  Think about this for a second. Monks used to hand write copies of the bible. At least fifty manuscript copies are still is existence, and no two are alike. Some are drastically different. It was off of one of these that the King James version that we have today was translated. Do you think the copy we have now even closely resembles the original work, as intended by the prophets who supposedly wrote each work? How many prophets do you think wrote entries for the bible that were omitted later by monks who thought them unnecessary?
  
  So is this disproving Genesis? In it's current form, possibly, but it is not disproving the existence of god nor is it disproving the fact the the bible is based on a work that, if you go back far enough, was correct at some point. In fact, if you think of it this way, this image isn't even disproving Genesis because we know that the version we have isn't the original text. We don't have original text, and unless the Dead Sea Scrolls unlock some secrets or we find something else, we probably never will. I'll rank this right up there with that bafoon who claims that the banana fits in a human hand because of intelligent design.
  
  So lets put this in context a bit more. How do you know we're the only ones god created? How do we know there aren't aliens, and they are here for the same purpose? Their bible will obviously be very different, as there will have been different authors and different events that teach the principles that their people need, but I'm sure it will still teach of god, have commandments, etc. They'll probably even look similar to us, just different ethnicities. If not, then you can fire up the "disproving god" engines.
  
  So why have more than one galaxy? For all of gods other children. Does the bible ever say that earth is the only world god has children on? Chew on that if you will.
- badkins13, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7If you read Genesis 1:1-2 you'll notice that it doesn't say the universe (heavens) and earth were formed at the same time.
  
  Verse 1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
  
  Verse 2: The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
  
  There is no indication of how much time passed between verses 1 and 2, and then the rest of Creation. If I were to interpret this based on Genesis I would say the matter for earth was created when the universe was created (long time ago), but not actually formed or shaped into earth until Creation.
  
  The rest of the chapter covers the creation of the land, sea, sun, moon, plants, animals, and Adam and Eve. So the earth wasn't FORMED until 6,000 years ago. Verse 2 clearly says it was formless.
  
  If anything this Hubble picture gives us a glimpse of how long ago God created the universe, which is kind of cool to think about when you consider how long a light year is.
  
  This article made me think for a second, then I read Genesis and saw what was really written.
- kozie, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1@badkins
  
  Check my post up a bit. If you are a christian, and you think the earth is billions of years old. Please look at the language being used. Those are 7 literal days, and even atheist hebrew scholars can tell you that.
  
  And a light year is, well, one year long.
- kozie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@shihchiun
  
  I'll look it up for you quickly.
  
  I think it's called the horizon problem.
  
  Check it out here. (the article just points out that it is a 'problem' for both sides and both sides have proposed solutions to it)
  
  http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp
- Esstee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@kozie
  Please look at the language being used. Those are 7 literal days, and even atheist Hebrew scholars can tell you that.@
  
  Are you trying to say that Hebrew scholars are depicting the original Hebrew texts rendition of the creation account as literal days?
  You must really be leaning on the thought that everyone reading this thread are uneducated. You don't need to be a scholar to discover that the context of the creation account was not remotely close to supporting literal days.
  
  ------------------------------------------
  
  Yom, the Hebrew word for "day", is "frequently put for time in general, or for a long time, a whole period under consideration... Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens" (William Wilson, in his Old Testament Word Studies). Some examples would be Genesis 30:14 (yom = wheat harvest time); Joshua 24:7 (yom = a long season); Proverbs 25:13 (yom = harvest time); Isaiah 4:2 (yom = a future era); Zechariah 14:8 (yom = summer + winter); and many references to the day of the Lord where it means "an occasion when God acts". A particularly significant verse in this regard is Genesis 2:4, "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day of their making" (literal Hebrew translation) where the word is used of the whole creation period. Also, the plural "generations" in this verse implies a lengthy period.
  
  The Hebrew word 'ereb, translated "evening", also means "sunset", "night", or "ending of the day". And the word boqer, translated "morning", also means "sunrise", "coming of light", "beginning of day", "break of day", or "dawning", with possible metaphoric usage. In other words, evening and morning refer to the beginning and ending components of "day", however it is used.
  
  It doesn't make sense to see the events of Genesis 2 compressed within a 24-hour-day.
  
  The uniqueness of the seventh day. There is no "evening" or "morning" mentioned for the seventh day. This suggests that this day has not yet ended. This is further implied in Psalm 95:7-11 and Hebrews 4:4-11. Though God is obviously still active in his creation, as Jesus indicated (John 5:16-18), his "creative work" of producing new forms of life has ceased. As biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich report: "The production of a new animal species has yet to be documented." One day this period of rest will end when God creates "a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness" (2 Peter 3:13).
  
  In describing the eternity of God's existence, several Bible writers compare it to the length of the age of the mountains or the "foundations of the earth." The figures of speech used in passages such as Psalm 90:2-6, Proverbs 8:22-31, Ecclesiastes 1:3-11, and Micah 6:2 depict the immeasurable antiquity of God's presence and plans. The brief span of a few-thousand-year earth history seems an inadequate metaphor for God's eternity.
  
  The Bible contains explicit statements of the earth's antiquity, such as Habakkuk 3:6 and 2 Peter 3:5.
  
  The Bible affirms that God reveals his eternal power and divine nature through his creation (Romans 1:20; Psalm 19:1-4). We are therefore meant to observe it and learn from it. In this sense the natural world could be described as the 67th book of the Bible. Would God want to deceive us by revealing truths through nature that were misleading?
  
  The Sabbath day for man, and Sabbath year for the land, are analogous to God's work week. Exodus 20:10-11 tells us that the seventh day of each week is to be honoured as holy, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth...but he rested on the seventh day." This passage is often cited as proof for the 24-hour-day interpretation. Evangelical Hebrew scholar, Gleason Archer, disagrees:
  
  By no means does this demonstrate that 24-hour intervals were involved in the first six 'days,' any more than the eight-day celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles proves that the wilder-ness wanderings under Moses occupied only eight days. The rest period for land is a full year
- 0o0Moylan0o0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"If Man is the reason for Creation, why was it last in line on G-d's to-do list in Genesis?"
  
  Where would he put you if there was no where to put you? can you see how it doesnt make any sense?
- kozie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@Esstee
  
  I admire your study of the texts instead of just saying "you're stupid"...
  
  I also actually have proof of what I'm saying...
  
  Firstly. A question posed to 9 universities (appropriate professors in each).
  
  "Do you consider that the Hebrew word yom (day), as used in Genesis 1, accompanied by a numeral should properly be translated as
  
  1. a day as commonly understood,
  2. an age,
  3. either a day or an age without preference?”
  
  ‘Oxford and Cambridge did not reply, but the professors at Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Toronto, London, McGill, and Manitoba replied unanimously that it should be translated as a day as commonly understood. Professor Robert H. Pfeiffer of Harvard added, “of twenty-four hours” to his reply.’
  
  If this is not sufficient. Let me do an analysis for you.
- silverfox98989, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2so wait, monkeys eat bananas... does this mean that we're all MONKIES?
- Esstee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@kozie
  While I am certainly not as versed or reputable as university professors I would like to address the notion why some people believe the time periods are literal and why they may be mislead into doing so.
  
  Concluding the review of accomplishments on each of the six days of creative activity is the statement, “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning,” a first, second, third day, and so forth. (Ge 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31) Since the length of each creative day exceeded 24 hours (as will be shown later), this expression does not apply to literal night and day but is figurative. During the evening period things would be indistinct; but in the morning they would become clearly discernible. During the “evening,” or beginning, of each creative period, or “day,” God’s purpose for that day, though fully known to him, would be indistinct to any angelic observers. However, when the “morning” arrived there would be full light as to what God had purposed for that day, it having been accomplished by that time.—Compare Pr 4:18.
  
  The Bible does not specify the length of each of the creative periods. Yet all six of them have ended, it being said with respect to the sixth day (as in the case of each of the preceding five days): “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.” (Ge 1:31) However, this statement is not made regarding the seventh day, on which God proceeded to rest, indicating that it continued. (Ge 2:1-3) Also, more than 4,000 years after the seventh day, or God’s rest day, commenced, Paul indicated that it was still in progress. At Hebrews 4:1-11 he referred to the earlier words of David (Ps 95:7, 8, 11) and to Genesis 2:2 and urged: “Let us therefore do our utmost to enter into that rest.” By the apostle’s time, the seventh day had been continuing for thousands of years and had not yet ended. The Thousand Year Reign of Jesus Christ, who is Scripturally identified as “Lord of the sabbath” (Mt 12:8), is evidently part of the great sabbath, God’s rest day. (Re 20:1-6) This would indicate the passing of thousands of years from the commencement of God’s rest day to its end. The week of days set forth at Genesis 1:3 to 2:3, the last of which is a sabbath, seems to parallel the week into which the Israelites divided their time, observing a sabbath on the seventh day thereof, in keeping with the divine will. (Ex 20:8-11) And, since the seventh day has been continuing for thousands of years, it may reasonably be concluded that each of the six creative periods, or days, was at least thousands of years in length.
  
  That a day can be longer than 24 hours is indicated by Genesis 2:4, which speaks of all the creative periods as one “day.” Also indicative of this is Peter’s inspired observation that “one day is with God as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.” (2Pe 3:8) Ascribing not just 24 hours but a longer period of time, thousands of years, to each of the creative days better harmonizes with the evidence found in the earth itself.
  
  The Hebrews began their day in the evening, after sunset, and ended it the next day at sunset. The day, therefore, ran from evening to evening. “From evening to evening you should observe your sabbath.” (Le 23:32) This follows the pattern of Gods creative days, as indicated at Genesis 1:5: “There came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.”—Compare Da 8:14.
- kozie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Estee
  
  I'm only going to give a small rebuttal to a small part of your information now. I will do the other bit a bit later. :) (have to run)
  
  "That a day can be longer than 24 hours is indicated by Genesis 2:4, which speaks of all the creative periods as one “day.” Also indicative of this is Peter’s inspired observation that “one day is with God as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.” (2Pe 3:8) Ascribing not just 24 hours but a longer period of time, thousands of years, to each of the creative days better harmonizes with the evidence found in the earth itself."
  
  Here the word day is not used literally. And this can clearly be seen from the text. It is not preceded by a number and clearly by any understanding of language can one see that it is not meant to be taken in the way that you propose.
  
  “one day is with God as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.”
  
  This logically leads you into a trap that it goes the other way around as well which leaves you where you started. Also meant in a totally different context.
  
  "Ascribing not just 24 hours but a longer period of time, thousands of years, to each of the creative days better harmonizes with the evidence found in the earth itself."
  
  Again, it doesn't ascribe longer periods of time, as is seen in the language used in Genesis 1.
  
  "with the evidence found in the earth itself."
  
  With this last quick section I will request that you do your research a bit more and see that the evidence that you speak of really is interpreted in the wrong way (scientifically) and that we don't need to reinterpret the bible around it.
  
  No death before the fall shows us that there can't be fossils before the creation period. This does leave us with a bit of a problem that the timeline after genesis doesn't really help us with.
- Myko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"We know - I believe Genesis is metaphorical. Think about it - what would people thousands upon thousands of years ago think about a "big explosion" from which all was created. And besides - that can't be the ultimate cause - it is perhaps even beyond even our comprehension."
  
  The Koran states that everything started in a gigantic explosion. Not saying the Koran is right or anything, but I do think that it is interesting that the big bang works for Islam.
spasms, on 10/12/2007, -37/+14You can't argue with Kirk Cameron... :)
- DooDooFace, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3He is dreamy
- mrwiggl3s, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1its the way god wanted it to be
YumYumKittyLoaf, on 10/12/2007, -49/+29Pretty cool, too bad I already knew that there was no god. I went to a christian school for 6 years of my child-hood life, k-5, yet i reject it because how could a god, so caring and intelligent than anyone else on earth, somehow feel it's right to send people to hell for all eternity?

Not to mention, if god was real, we were made out of his image, but the bible says humans can't compare to god, so trying to put human emotions and thoughts (like god throwing a big tempertantrum because you didn't follow him) would be stupid.

Back on subject, we need to make a space telescope that's further out, like at the end of our galaxy, and see what we can find there.
- Tamriel, on 10/12/2007, -23/+38I know how you feel, only I went to Christian schools all the way up through high school. Didn't take too long before I realized what I was learning in my religion classes was bogus. Still, The title is about Hubble killing 'God' which is kind of inaccurate. The arguments for and against an omnipotent (or at least omniscient) being are not either provable or refutable. But, it sure as hell killed the god of Christians who believe in the literal-translation of the Bible.
- skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -18/+95No, this picture doesn't "Kill God" (story marked as innacurate), all it does is kill the literalist theory that the Earth is 6,000 years old - a theory which almost NO Christians actually subscribe to anyway. You can't prove or disprove the existence of a God.
  
  Nice pic though. The Hubble telescope is truly one of NASA's most amazing accomplishments.
- Endemoniada, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5Skyshock:
  In the words of all the WoWers out there: "learn2digg plz kthnx!!!11"
  
  When you mark a story as inaccurate, you mark the digg itself and NOT the content of the article. Digging a story about cows and calling the digg "Wow! PS3 facts CONFIRMED!!!!!12" is inaccurate. This digg is as accurate as it could possibly be.
- wheremyarm, on 10/12/2007, -14/+9"a theory which almost NO Christians actually subscribe to anyway"
  
  Don't try to pull that "not a real Christian" ***** out, because that's exactly what follows that statement. All you have to do to find young earth creationists is visit the bible belt in America, they're ***** common down there. That, or find anyone who's home schooled. If anyone's not a real Christian, it's people who are embarrassed by their own holy book (and rightly so) and demand that the parts that are ridiculous nowadays be taken "metaphorically."
- cyberdash, on 10/12/2007, -11/+19There is no evidence in the bible that the earth was created exactly 6000 years ago. There are people that believe this, yet there are others that do not. The bible says that the earth was created in 6 days, but it could have been meant as a figure of speech, a metaphor. "Days" are also used in the bible to represent a period of time. We are just not sure. Also, f God is as powerful as Christians believe he is, what is to stop him from creating it all so it looked like this? The amount of time it took God to make the universe, or time in general in relation to this is irrelevant and insignificant.
- wheremyarm, on 10/12/2007, -16/+11Have you ever read Genesis? "And the evening and the morning were the first day" is how a day is described, and this is the same way the Babylonians did it, starting with the night and then the day, as opposed to how we see it now. This isn't a metaphorical way of describing a day, it's a quite literal one, and quite a common one in that time period as well.
  
  The 6000 year old date is gathered by creationists who use the genealogies presented in the NT and OT to trace back to Adam, of which there is a quite literal account of how long he lived. (I believe it's somewhere around 600 years, but I'd have to look it up to be sure) How are you going to say that a genealogy is supposed to be metaphorical, when Jesus is traced directly back to Adam?
  
  And as for imagining a god that would create a deceitful "old-looking" Earth? You really think a supposedly benevolent God would do that? I mean, aside from there being no evidence either empirically or in scripture to support the idea, it's nonsense.
- WhereAmI, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@ skyshock21
  "a theory[6000 year old Earth] which almost NO Christians actually subscribe to anyway"
  President Bush,Jack Thompson and every Christian in the state of Wisconsin. Idiots, all of 'em. I know, I am from Wisconsin, and have gotten in arguments about a 6k year old Earth. No one agrees the world is 5 billion years old. It is one step closer to accepting evolution.
- grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Hmm, let me see:
  
  And God said,
  Let there be .....
  [it was so]
  God saw ........ was good
  And there was evening, and there was morning—the ...... day.
  
  [repeat pattern 6 times]
  
  Clearly the passage takes the form of a standard scientific document, so we should interpret it literally rather than read as poetry or any crazy idea like that.
- RicktheBrick, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I agree that a caring God would not condemn anyone to an eternity in hell. No one could possibly do enough evil in any lifetime to justify such a sentence. Even if one could live for a billion years, eternity is still a much greater amount of time. I believe that if God did create a human that was worthy of condemning to hell than it is just as much God's fault as it would be the human. If God had done a better job at creating the human God would not have to condemn it. I believe that there is nothing in this universe that can be proven. We all depend on our senses for any information that we get. All of our senses could be fake and reality could be something very different than what we think it is.
smoothmedia, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25To view this article in dramatic form see http://atinyglimpse.ytmnd.com
cainrok, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25Very large image (3100 x 3120 pixels - 4073k): http://www.on.br/site_edu_dist_2006/site/conteudo/modulo2/9-estrutura-larga-escala/imagens/hubble_ultra_deep_field.jpg
- D4r7h3v1l, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire_collection/pr2004028b/full_jpg
  
  Ultra Deep Field: 13.86 MB 6672x6340
- Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Some Numbers:
  Hubble estimates there are 125 billion galaxies
  Our galaxy contains 200 to 600 billion stars.
  Assuming other galaxies have 200 to 600 billion stars, there is an estimated (125 billion * 200 billion) to (125 billion * 600 billion) solar systems out there. Or
  25,000 billion solar systems (25,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 solar systems)
  to
  75,000 billion solar systems (75,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 solar systems)
  
  Each solar system can contain several planets. Ours have 8(9 if you count pluto). Needless to say, there's a ***** of planets that life can form on. We were pretty lucky when life evolved here on Earth. I'm sure there's life on other planets as well. The only problem is trying to find them.
- dodgyc, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6@Alphabet: ever heard of Standard Form?
- DutchGuilder, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Some more numbers...
  
  The Schwarzschild radius is the minimum radius a mass can be compressed to before it turns into a black hole. For Earth, the radius is 9mm. For all the mass in the universe the radius is 3x10^11 light years. That is really, really big :)
  
  As a theory of cosmology the Big Bang is only a few decades old and has lots of problems; it also conflicts with the theory of quantum mechanics, which also has problems .
  
  A "better" theory, CQM, says the universe expands and contracts over a period of ~10^12 years. This theory is "better" because it predicts actual observations (accelerating expansion, dark matter, spectral emissions, masses of particles, etc.) and only relies on Newton, Maxwell, relativity, and 4 dimensions (rather than 23 dimensions and uncertainty). CQM starts with the postulate that an electron is a spherical field rather than a point, and the math just falls into place all the way from subatomic to cosmological scales:
  
  http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/theory.shtml
- Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3@dodgy
  
  why the ***** would I want to use standard form for? standard form is only used by hardcore math and science people. What would you rather see:
  
  7.5 x 10^22
  or
  75,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
- g4n0n, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Hmm, I'd prefer 7.5 x 10^22 since it's instantly quantifiable, as opposed to some number with oodles of trailing zeros.
- TheWedge, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I think all of those zeros packs a better punch, seeing scientific notation makes me feel like I'm doing my solid state homework... the horror...
- kurtu5, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8To be fair to both positions;
  
  The scientific exponent notation is for those with brains.
  The tons and bunches of zeros is for those with emotions.
  
  /Know your audience.
misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -2/+48I dugg this because that's an awesome picture and makes you realize how tiny we are.

But Tamriel (above) described the picture and the statement that God is killed perfectly: "The arguments for and against an omnipotent (or at least omniscient) being are not either provable or refutable," thus this title is sensational and the article is just grasping at straws.
- krackle, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6I disagree. How can any rational creature accept something that is neither true nor false or how about right or wrong. If you can accept that isn't it also true the religion (for religious people) is one of the driving forces that tells you what is right or wrong, but if you have to accept, on faith, that it is right or wrong isn't that a fundamental flaw in being religious?
  
  If you want to believe in god, or whatever that is your choice, but it certainly isn't rational, and in a society where rational is critically important this seems to be a big threat. Just look at the issues creationists have put on school boards in the Southern US.
- anonym41414, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0Paging Dr. Godel, Dr. Godel to the lobby please.
- Niffer, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4In my mind, when the first human being is perfectly cloned, God will be disproven. Why? Because it shows that there is no such thing as a soul and that faith is a survival function that comes your own mind.
- almightystoph, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Assuming we perfectly clone humans some day, why wouldn't they have a soul?
- carbonetc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5A clone is just an identical twin with a time delay.
- MateFrio, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2To claim there is no God is to claim an infinite wisdom of all things in the universe.
  
  So, you have proven you are God or just not as smart as you think you are.
- Nighthawke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It's not how tiny we are, it's how much potential, the massive opportunity we have as explorers. If the bible-beaters are as narrow-minded as the author portrays them to be, then when we go to the stars, we'll simply leave them behind to rot.
  
  We have little time left on this poor earth of ours, with the atmosphere destabilizing and all that. So let's get the show on the road, shall we? We got a galaxy to explore!
Zinite, on 10/12/2007, -14/+8That was the most interesting thing I've read in a long time, major digg.
Recuso, on 10/12/2007, -6/+69Uh, guess what. Not everyone is Christian, and not everyone who believes in god believes that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

In fact very FEW people believe, truly, that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
- Roppongi, on 10/12/2007, -10/+52Yes, the article should be renamed
  
  "How uniformed submissions are killing Digg".
- theragu40, on 10/12/2007, -8/+34I have to completely agree with you. The only people who believe the earth is only 6000 years old are creationists, whose beliefs are mostly shunned by mainstream Christianity (see: http://digg.com/general_sciences/Creationism_dismissed_as_a_kind_of_paganism_by_Vatican_s_astronomer).
  
  I am a Christian (Catholic, to be specific), and why should I not believe that the genesis story is nothing more than allegory (which is what I've always been taught), and that God merely did things in his own way? If God's way was to make trillions of stars and the universe is however many billions of years old, then so be it. Who am I to question how the big guy does things?
  
  This article (and the picture within) do nothing to disprove God at all. Disprove the argument of creationists? Yes. But then again, that isn't really that hard to do, now is it?
- rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5"and why should I not believe that the genesis story is nothing more than allegory"
  
  If nothing else, for the convenience, eh? :)
  Trouble is, soon there will be nothing left there..a bit like the "god of the gaps".
- Nydas, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6What makes you say god is a "big guy"? He, infact. could be a little girl!
- almightystoph, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5I think people need to remember the point of Christianity. If the world is 6,000 years old or 6 million years old it doesn't change the fact that there is still a God, there is still a Jesus, he died for our sins and by following him we have everlasting life. Christianity is about faith, not about how old the Earth is.
- Hegemony, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7According to some polls nearly half of the population believes that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. So unfortunately, it not so few.
- triblinator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1as a christian my entire life, i have never beleived in creation. the way i see it, everything around us is nearly impossibly unlikely and we are the results of that. what i want: someone do the odds on those hugee huggeee numbers of solar systems and galaxies and tell me, given the number of chances and the probability of the occurance of intelligent life, if it is likely that any of those planets have life. im not sure they do
rowlodge, on 10/12/2007, -20/+3getting all religious on us ...?

god exist.
BigManOnCampus, on 10/12/2007, -8/+44Disproving the Bible != Disproving the existence of God

In fact, depending on your perspective it might just prove that there is a benevolent God if the Bible were disproven. Lots of evil vindictive crap is pinned on God in that book.
- j3110, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6The two key arguments I'm seeing are:
  
  1) The bible is not meant to be taken literally.
  Then why bother believing that you literally have to repent your sins or even believe in God or that there is literally a heaven or hell. The Bible is pointless if not literal, and false if literal.
  
  2) One has to disprove God before the masses will stop believing.
  This makes the assumption that the masses are stupid, which I'll leave that up to someone else to argue. There only needs to be more evidence that there is not a God than there is a God. Even though we only know very little, nothing we have learned would suggest that there is a God. In fact, most of what we have discovered can be more easily explained with simple scientific theories than an intelligent being.
  
  Basically, if you are going to believe in a God in a logical manner, you would believe that he created the universe in a way that proving or disproving the existence of a God would be very difficult. In such a scenario, it is obvious that God would not want you to believe in the existence of a God, contrary to most religion.
  
  It's fine to believe in a God, or not, so long as you don't use God, or absence of a God, as an argument for what you do.
- Zanneth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@BigManOnCampus
  
  I thought God wrote the Bible.
Corgana, on 10/12/2007, -19/+11It's a really sweet image, But I prefer it when scientists focus on learning new things, not on proving others wrong.
- demea, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10"It's a really sweet image, But I prefer it when scientists focus on learning new things, not on proving others wrong."
  
  The two often happen hand-in-hand.
- Corgana, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I'm not saying science doesn't prove things wrong, I'd personally prefer the headline "Hubble takes amazing image" over "blogger uses another scientists work to argue pointless debate against religion."
- almightystoph, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5What I really love about us humans is how naive we can be sometimes... Do you really believe that God, who is omnipotent, could create the universe in 6 days but still be forced to subscribe to common laws of physics that we have today?!? Give me a break, as a creationist I don't doubt for a second that when God created the universe, he certainly could have placed photons anywhere he wanted and set them in motion.
  
  We cannot prove or disprove the existence of God and this article confirms that.
- MrFlibble1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Original text: "It's a really sweet image, But I prefer it when scientists focus on learning new things, not on proving others wrong."
  
  ---------------------
  
  The 'problem' with science is that it cannot, by its very nature prove anything. Science can only disprove things. Thus, when you have a whole set of theories* science sets about destroying all those that it can. Those theories that cannot be disproved, are de-facto accepted as fact by science.
  
  Thus, you may not like that science is constantly disproving things, but that is how it works. However, science cannot disprove god, because the idea of god put forth offers no disprovable facts. Science can disprove many segments of many religions, and much religious text, but the very idea cannot be disproved by the tools of science. However, by the same argument, god cannot be proven either. The idea of god is held in a logical sort of limbo. Having said all that, the majority of ideas covered by most religions can be disproved.
  
  Also note, that science does not go about disproving things to make people feel bad, or cause damage to people, but quite the opposite. Science proved for example, that wearing fashionable white powder in Elizabethan times as makeup was bad. Why? Because it contained lead, and lead in that form destroys the skin on your face. You could argue that the scientists are ruining the makeup world, or making people feel bad by not allowing them to apply makeup of this nature, but the consequence of using lead based makeup is bad.
  
  The same premise exists for the medical world, many diseases have been cured by science because the original "cures" were found to be lacking - or worse - harmful. Science throws away the "cures" that don't work, or cause harm, and leaves behind the cures that do work, and don't cause harm. I don't know about you, but I feel that that process is a good thing.
  
  *Note, I am using the word theory here in the true scientific definition, not the laypersons inaccurate definition. (If you don't know the difference, it is well worth looking up.)
- Corgana, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Okay, I'll explain myself one more time.
  
  There is a big difference between setting off in a scientific experiment to find *new* information versus setting off with the intention to prove someone else incorrect.
  
  Starting with the intention to prove something, not to learn something, is exactly what "Christian scientists" do, and it hurts when I see "atheist scientists" doing the same thing.
- Mirag3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@almightystoph
  
  dude, if hes ***** omnipotent, why did it take him six days? For that matter, why would god even be subject to time? And since WHEN does god need to ***** REST?
blobzorz, on 10/12/2007, -32/+29Marked as inaccurate.
- curtissthompson, on 10/12/2007, -20/+12explain to me how this is inaccurate...how do you justify claiming inaccuracy here?
  
  if you can justly prove it then fine, but don't mark as inaccurate because it is a logical opposing view point...just because you don't believe it doesn't make it inaccurate.
- dancrew32, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5you can't mark it as accurate either. lol
- rhesuspieces00, on 10/12/2007, -12/+42The author basically said: the universe is big, therefore God doesn't exist.
  
  I agree "inaccurate" isn't the best description of the article, but since "***** retarded" isn't an option, you have to make due with what you've got.
- theragu40, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19It's inaccurate because the picture does not "kill God". It just refutes the arguments of strict creationists, which most people already know and believe are ridiculously false.
- GoatBnnn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4he didn't say the universe is big, so god doesn't exist. He is saying if the universe was created (according to the bible) 6,000 years ago, then how did this light take longer than that to reach us. It doesn't disprove god, it disproves one sentence of the bible.
- curtissthompson, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3i know his final conclusion isn't necessarily a strong one at all....but neither is one for the belief in religion or god. this article does make many good points logical and factual points that can't be disputed. So I don't see any reason/justification to mark this as inaccurate. A view point that can't be disproven (though not proven either) can be deemed inaccurate. At least it brought a different reasoning to the debate, regardless of people's opinions on it. I will concur that some of his points are no better than those used to justify religion, but that doesn't make them inaccurate, but rather weak points of argument. either way diggers will do what they will, i don't care...people hear are far too closed to opposing thoughts/views in a debate here on digg. surely the title isn't a properly accurate one...but if you read the article he doesn't exactly say this is proven fact either...title's are always meant to be controversial so they attract attention, rarely are completely accurate.
- Endemoniada, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3Please people, you either bury or digg the digg itself, not the content of it. The digg is perfectly accurate, it presents precisely what the story is about. Nothing about it is inaccurate.
  
  Now, the story itself maybe way off, but that's none of Digg's concern. If you don't like it, just don't digg it. Don't abuse the system just because you don't agree with the article.
- jpwhitmore, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@ curtissthompson
  It is inaccurate because the image simply doesn't disprove god.
  Many people believe in a god and don't believe the earth is 6000 years old. Others believe that the earth and universe is 6000 years old but not physically so, appearing older.
  It is inaccurate because the title is hyped up to get more diggs
- rhesuspieces00, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4@Endemoniada
  
  The purpose of the Digg system is not to judge the merits of the summary. No one gives a ***** about the article summary. The article is crap, so it gets buried.
- jhshukla, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2f***ing retarded = lame. well not exactly but it is the same category. they didnt anticipate users would post such stories
- Endemoniada, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5rhesuspieces00:
  
  That's why you have a choice of NOT digging it. If you simply don't like it, DON'T DIGG IT!!! If the summary is inaccurate, then bury it as inaccurate. Is that really SO hard to understand?
- rhesuspieces00, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Alright Endemoniada,
  
  Even if the "inaccurate" mod was to be used based on the accuracy of the title & summary rather than the article itself, which it isn't, I would still mark it inaccurate. This would be an accurate summary:
  
  Title: Idiot Blogger With No Concept of Logical Reasoning Claims a Picture of Space Killed God.
  
  Summary: A blogger with too much time on his hands writes that because the Universe is big, God doesn't exist. In all likelihood, the author isn't actually dumb enough to miss the absurdity of this line of argument, but knows that by making wild claims about the death of religion he can upset many fundamentalists and generate a lot of traffic for his website.
  
  Buried.
- annonimality, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@rhesuspieces00
  
  What the author is saying is that if light from a distant galaxy has taken say 1.3 billion years to reach us, that means that that particular galaxy is at least 1.3 billion years old.
  
  Innacurate title, but very compelling article.
  
  Dug.
- Endemoniada, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Again, rhesuspieces00:
  
  The inaccuracy isn't whether the meaning of the title is true or false, it's whether it's accurate towards the article itself. 1 = 1 is accurate, even if you don't believe in the number 1, right? Equally, both title and summary *accurately* describes what the article is about. What on earth is inaccurate about that? Taste and personal preference has nothing to do about it, it's about what's fact and what's not.
  
  Fact: The digg is completely accurate, even if the article isn't.
waterdrop, on 10/12/2007, -33/+6I can't stand when people say "God Bless you".
- dancrew32, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23heaven forbid someone cares about you... if you don't like religion, at least be polite about it.
- bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12God damn you.
- SimonGray, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Science bless you, my child!
- jakem1, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7Why should you be polite to religion? Why should religion be protected just because people have believed in its fairy tales for a long time? Religion is just an excuse for stupidity and ignorance and it does nobody any good to be tolerant of it, especially given the fact that it causes so much misery and suffering in the world.
  
  Rather than being polite about religion rational, thinking people should stand up and question it at every available opportunity.
  
  Besides when was the last time religious people were polite about conflicting beliefs? I don't see Christians accepting Muslims, Muslims accepting Jews, people of any religion accepting atheists, people who believe in slightly weirder fantasies, socialists, etc. All I see is bigotry and hatred being (generally based on ignorance and superstition) protected by calls for religious tolerance and freedom of religion.
  
  One other thing. There are a lot of people here talking about disproving god. Well why should anyone bother disproving god - why not let all these religious people prove their god without falling back on that old chestnut "faith". All these religious people are happily crowing that god can't be disproven without offering a shred of evidence for their god other than that they believe in it or they once met/heard of somone who said they believed in it because they saw the face of god in a cloud or something. Hardly compelling evidence! Religious people have dominated this argument with their rhetoric for too long and it is time that the tables were turned and they were forced to prove and account for themselves using the same sort of reasoned evidence that society (with the exception of some obvious parts of America) would expect to find in a courtroom or a scince lab.
- anphanax, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Jake, even if you're positive other people are wrong, acting malicious and rude towards them doesn't do any good. I understand your intentions of improving the world, although I'm not really sure how you came to some of your conclusions. War will exist regardless of Religion. Civic Wars, World Wars, Imperialist Conquests and so on... will continue to happen regardless (and trying to predict changes of violence frequency for something that has never happened before [the erradication of all religion] is anything but trivial - you have no data to work with).
- cbergeron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I ***** hate it when people say, "Have a Blessed Day". I hate living in the South (with the exception of the weather).
  
  Don't tell me to "Have a Blessed Day", *****. You don't even know me. My response should become, "Have a ***** Day".
dielawn, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3hubble didnt necessarily(im still a little drunk from last night, so if i dont spell that right its okj) kill god, it just killed some religious beliefs.
- vudicarus, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3go lay down now
- texpundit, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2What do you think God thinks about you being drunk in the middle of the day? HUH, MISTER?
  
  >.>
  
  ;)
datagod, on 10/12/2007, -12/+16Pfff....

It does no "prove" or "disprove" anything. It is a picture of our universe.

The author of both the article and the digg story are morons.
- uberbohne, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I agree. This article does ask some interesting questions, but it does not kill the concept or existence of God. I honestly do no think the questions in the last paragraph were well thought out at all. If you take those questions in the context that there is an all-powerful and all-knowing God then I would think the answer would be, "because He wanted it that way." I'm not going to sit here and push my own personal beliefs on this subject on anyone here, but I will say that I was not present when the earth or man came into being by whatever means. For me personally, I think it would take more faith to believe that all of this happened by chance as apposed to someone planning everything out and setting it into motion. That is just my two cents.
- rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2One can't disprove god..but can at least show how it makes no sense to exist one.
rhesuspieces00, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31It seems like someone kills God every 6 months or so. You would think he would get tired of it after a while.

Sensationalist crap. Stop baiting the Christians. It gets old. No digg.
josev, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15Dugg down for the fact that the article was a complete non sequitur. Disproving a hyper-literal interpration of the Bible != disproving the Bible != disproving existence of God.
selkie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8There's an extremely well made version of this in video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw

It was posted on Digg earlier as 'The single post important image ever taken'.

It really puts a visual perspective on how big the universe actually is, rather than in terms of numbers. Oh yeah, there's a Pink Floyd soundtrack as well :)
Daiken, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21Buried for being inaccurate. All this does is provide evidence against the 6000 years old myth of some Christians. Doesn't even say anything to go against Muslim beliefs accept for trying to make some snide remarks about how it's all to convenient. God is not just a belief held by Christians.

Not to mention, this won't change the minds of those who are strong believers. If God is capable of almost anything, He is obviously capable of creating a universe that is already fully formed, including the light that we are seeing now from other galaxies. Now I'm not saying whether or not this is true, I'm just saying it's possible.
- Endemoniada, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2The digg is perfectly accurate. The story may not be, but that's a matter of preference. Bury the digg, NOT the story itself. Thank you!
- BasouKazuma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Sure God may have made a "fully formed" universe but why would he leave bones of prehistoric animals and make them look like they are millions of years old? Logic.
  
  That's what refutes the popular theory of creationism. This doesnt disprove God's existence though since God doesnt have fit the description that any religion offers. It just proves that most creationists are wrong.
- almightystoph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Thank you Daiken, couldn't have said it better myself
scott1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Creationist will never believe in this or the logic involved in this proof against the existence of god. They believe in faith not science.
Countdown to bury as inaccurate.
alecpriester, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7A literal six day creation, and young earth, and evolution not existing are not at all central pillars to the Christian faith, and if evolution is true, that says nothing about the existence of God.
ohgr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11If you look real close at the Hubble UDF image for a long time, you can see God giving us the Finger.
Nrvs, on 10/12/2007, -16/+4There is intelligent design. It can be seen all around us. There is at least one God. He set the universe in motion.
- GoatBnnn, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Intelligent design is the worst argument for god ever. Please stop it.
- anphanax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'm not sure what I believe in regards to this, since the intelligent design thing is logically troubling to me. We have so much "Junk DNA" [yeah, I know that's a misnomer] (e.g. things that repeat over and over and don't appear to have a meaningful purpose for our existance or survival - with the exception of the "padding" stuff that cancels out viruses that are in our DNA for some reason).
  
  I would like to hear from you again, Nrvs.
jonnierod, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Don't be an idiot, whether you're religeous or not read the Bible if you're going to comment on it. Don't listen to religeous nuts, the Bible NEVER says the universe is 6,000 years old. I dare you to find that scripture. If you walk around saying that you sound as stupid as the religeous nuts you hate. Get your facts right.
- hiscity, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3You're right, but the Bible does say how old each patriarch was when they had the next in the lineage all the way from creation through the flood -- to Abraham.
  
  In short, humanity was about 1000 years old when Noah was born and about 2000 years old when Abraham was born. Add around 1000 years more for David, and 1000 years more for Jesus, that makes humanity about 6000 years old today since Adam.
  
  I always enjoy watching atheists who are so insistent on facts misquote this.
  
  references:
  
  Genesis 5...
  1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
  
  2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
  
  3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: [130]
  6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos: [105]
  9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan: [90]
  12 And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel: [75]
  15 And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared: [65]
  18 And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch: [162]
  21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah: [65]
  25 And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech: [187]
  28 And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son: [182]
  29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.
  32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth. [500]
  
  Genesis...
  7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
  
  Genesis 11...
  10 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: [100]
  12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah: [35]
  14 And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber: [30]
  16 And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg: [34]
  18 And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu: [30]
  20 And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug: [32]
  22 And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor: [30]
  24 And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah: [29]
  26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran. [70]
  
  And Abram = Abraham
  
  http://www.biiible.com/dispchapt.php?instring=Genesis%205&ver=KJV&book=Genesis&chapter=5
  
  Of course, these are all blood line ancestors of Jesus Christ through Mary his mother.
ThisIsBob, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Why does the "God" who created all that stuff give a ***** about the dietary and sexual habits of a few bipeds inhabiting a small rock in the Milky Way?
Daindalin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8how can faith be proven/disproved when it takes faith to believe it? Lets keep evidence based science separate from faith based religion.
rowlodge, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0better here ..a little... for you *****'s....http://spamfreefun.com/index.php?option=com_zoom&Itemid=50&page=view&catid=38&PageNo=5&key=56&hit=1
alecpriester, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Continued, comment accidentally submitted:

The photograph, while amazing, certainly does not say "God isn't real because this photograph disproves an uninformed belief blindly perpetuated by His followers", like you did.

Christians may be uninformed about evolution, but you are certainly uninformed about Christian beliefs. If we could just be educated on both sides of an issue we could understand each other a little better and not be so stubborn and stupid sounding.

Once you choose a side you lose the ability to think.
lassel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3An excellent blog, but why did he have to bring god into it.
Surely there are many many proofs on earth that proves that humanity is more than 6000 years old.
kilps, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7There is no reason why God could not have created everything as it is and we just happened to fit in - organised religion can twist the truth and is never 100% correct - that is the danger of it.

I do recall hearing a while back that the word from which 'day' is translated for the creation of the earth can also be translated into 'age' ... which might make things make more sense ...
- Tbab, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5So God created light that would appear that it had been coming off those 1 billion-mile-away celestial bodies at the same time that he created everything else. He made those galaxies, made the earth, and made the light in between. It's a little hard to put into words, but it seems reasonable to me.
  
  I'd hardly consider this scientific proof that there is no God.
ub3rgeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." - Douglas Adams

Ahhh H2G2 best book in the universe.
- troller, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The Babel fish also triggered a joke about the existence of God, since the Babel fish was put forth as a fideist example for the non-existence of a deity:
  
  "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
  "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."
  "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
  "Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing."
madcat87, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4Anyone who believes in any religion is simply stupid.It is different to believe in god and to be part of a religion though.Maybe it is normal to believe that we ware created by some supreme being, but that the earth is 6000 years old and we were created from mud.....come on.... :)
- Endemoniada, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6You, my dear sir, are extremely ignorant. I bet you also believe science isn't a religion in itself?
  
  I'm an atheist, and damn proud of it. But every responsible person has a right to believe whatever he or she wishes, without being questioned about it. I believe in science, which means that I choose to believe in a theory until it has been either proven or disproved. Christians do exactly the same thing, the only difference being that for them everything is already proven in the Bible. The Bible is their fact, their truth, and they are as free to believe that as the rest of us are free to believe that carbon dating is both fact and truth about somethings real age. And I'm not even getting into the whole relativity thing, because who can prove that the universe is billions of years old? What's a year? What's a billion? And relative to what?
  
  Believing in science means believing in yourself and what you can sense around you. Everything else is just something waiting to be either proven or disproved. It's all about faith.
  
  So, show some respect and treat people the way they treat you. Don't attack people 'just because', especially when they're not even attacking you.
Lixie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Proving the universe is older than 6,000 years is like beating a dead horse.

Kills God? Well, I've got some questions. Which God? There is more than one religion, and consequently, more than one God, Not everybody is a fundamentalist Christian. There are many religions, and many gods, all with different creation stories. Young Earth creationist being only a small fraction of the religious community.

The picture proves the universe is billions of years old. But its title claims more than it actually proves. This article's title is rebuked simply: if I suppose the Bible is not meant to be taken literally, and therefore the Earth was created billions of years ago by God (as many Christians do), then the Hubble picture does not kill that God.

This picture only kills the God that created Earth 6,000 years ago. It does not kill the God that created the universe billions of years ago. Fundamentalists are the former, most Christians are the latter. This article says nothing to the latter.

But I'm agnostic, so the whole God argument seems like wasted breath to me. It just bothers me when people claim they've proved more than they have.
otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Ever heard of spirituality?

I do not believe in God because the universe is according to what it says in given Holy Book, no, I do so because I have faith in the unseen. This is a spiritual decision. Apparently, the author has no idea of what this is.

Idiotic article.
fonseca, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Many Christians acknowledge the universe may be billions of years old, and that really has no bearing on their faith. If anything the awesome nature of the universe only increases our faith.

You can't compare man's finite wisdom to God's infinite wisdom. It's that simple.
steely, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4This article gives a very limited and narrow view of what God can do.
No digg.
- covertbadger, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Yeah, the most impressive of God's achievements is influencing the lives of billions of people throughout history without ever having even ***** existed. Good trick, that.
dewdrinker19, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5I don't feel like getting into arguments. But the bible DOES state that God made light before he made the light source. It seems that an all powerful God would indeed be smart enough to realize that if he makes galaxies that far away then he should also make the light between earth and the galaxies so that they could have an effect on earth and that humans would be able to see them.

PLEASE don't flame, I am just giving you a little bit from the other side as well.
- Endemoniada, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I believe in science, but I'm not going to bash anyone that believes God created the universe either. Who says he literally created it 'just like that' out of nothing? Why couldn't he simply have been the force behind the Big Bang?
  
  Believing in God and the Bible doesn't mean you have to take it 100% literally. No story ever tells you the whole truth, there are always simplifications and generalizations. I believe, that if God created the universe, he simply made the Big Bang happen knowing it would turn out the way it did and that we, humans, would appear a number of years later. If you believe that, isn't that really the same as "God created heaven, the earth and man"?
msapirate, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11That picture actually makes my faith in God stronger. I am stunned by the beauty of his creation. There are signs all around us proving God exists and that picture is one of them. How can something like all those galaxies happen by chance?

Yes we are insignificant compared in size to the rest of the universe but to God we aren't. God has communicated with us by sending many Prophets to help us stay on the right path. Who can say we are insignificant in the eyes of God?

Muslims don't believe the universe is 6000 years old.
- Scott802, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3What about earthquakes, tornadoes and tsunamis? If a god made the earth for us, he sure screwed up. Why is the Earth so hostile to its tenants?
- AhmedOmran, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Scott802:
  
  Actually earth is a very beautiful and very friendly place. It's us with our pollution and global warming who grandly ***** the place up.
- covertbadger, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4@AhmedOmran
  
  Yeah, because before the industrial revolution there were no volcanoes, tornadoes, monsoons, disease, tsunamis, meteorite impacts, earthquakes, ice ages, or any of that. Everything smelled of strawberries and the north/south poles were all cotton wool instead of hostile ice.
Serifos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2New meaning to the words "A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away..."
Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2All I can do is look at the sky and wonder what questions and mysteries await.
- covertbadger, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Start finding out, dude. Don't just stand about staring, get a telescope and start learning. You'll never regret it.
- covertbadger, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Why the hell was my above post dugg down? I tell someone it's valuable to further their education in a subject that interests them, and apparently that's a bad thing? ***** me, but there's some idiots on this site.
duffman03, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Whoop dee do, another article bent at disproving ones beliefs. Will this ever get old? Buried.
Taorluath, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Who believes the world is 6,000 years old?
Scientists have disproved that YEARS ago. This article only claims to have "Killed God" so people would be more interested in it.

If you still believe the earth is 6,000 years old, you'd probably hate technology enough you wouldn't be reading this article. You'd be like amish or something...

Anyway, this doesn't "Kill God" in any way I can see.
fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5It seems some atheists' understanding of religion is about the same as a fundamentalist's understanding of science.
rjgutzeit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I'm a militant fundamentalist atheist, and even I can recognize that this is a piss-poor argument for the non-existence of God. Buried as inaccurate. The fact that Creationism conflicts with cosmology (and just about every other scientific field) is not news.
donloper, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6This doesn't prove anything one way or the other about God, it only proves that the Mormons are right about everything. Ha.

"And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. . . But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them." Moses 1:33,35
LinuxBoi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3This is comment is completely wrong "According to interpreters of the Bible and the Book of Genesis, there is proof that the Earth and Universe is only 6,000 years old.",. Maybe some people believe this but the common conception is that "they" believe that humans have been around 6000 ish years, not the earth and and the universe. The creative days that are described in Genesis are not literal "days", they are an extended period of time, thus god needed to prepare the world for animals and humans to live. Believing the earth and was created in a few days is stupid. As a Christian myself i have come to realise that God created Jesus first and they created the universe together over time. People say the bible is flawed and write it off without studying it themselves. Anouther point is that carbon dating is wrong because it assumes the atmosphere on the earth has stayed the same since the begining of its existance. Clearly in the bible it shows there was a time before the great flood that describes a canopy of water around the whole earth, people may say - "that is impossible", but think about it, its a common know fact that scientists do not even know how the clouds stay up in the sky. To me, looking at the whole world around me and the beauty and intricate details of flowers and animals, it is stupid to think everything started with a bang and everything just happened. Think of the emotions we have, and sight why do we see in colour, animals get along fine in black and white it shows we were created by a person that payed attention to detail and wanted us to enjoy life.
- cyberdash, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I agree with most of that. Although, what makes you believe that God created Jesus?
- LinuxBoi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What would make you think otherwise?
- BrotherGA2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4God did not CREATE Jesus...
  
  God begot Jesus---through Mary. If he had created Jesus, than Jesus would not be God. He would be another creation.
  
  This is what allows Jesus to be God's son, and God at the same time. ;)
  
  And they have existed eternally--God, Jesus, Holy Spirit. In the spirit realm, time more or less seems to transcend. Not created. That would make them no longer god and no longer the same.
phoephus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2You think we are small? You should see what's living on Uranus
DogmaticAtheism, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Marked as inaccurate.
Pacotheparrot, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Well I'm glad that crap like this is now considered "news" on Digg. The Creationist idea is totally based on belief in the will of an all powerful being to have made the entire cosmos in one week. It's a matter of faith for these people, not something easily shaken. I'm a Christian that (mostly) embraces evolution. Why should I care where we come from? There are other parts of the Bible Christians take metaphorically. Oh and what was the deal comparing Muslims to Christians. I'm a bit lost on this poorly written and poorly titled article.

This should be a big "duh" article for almost everyone.
tolldog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If you want to disprove something, you have to first understand what different people believe.

He is taking interesting generalizations of what different groups believe and lumping them together to prove a point he really wanted to try to prove. Unfortunately, its not something you can really do.

Creationism is completely possible as is a literal interpretation of the Bible if you take the position that if there is a God and this God is all powerful and all knowing, He could have created the universe in any state He wanted. If His goal was to create people, why would he set up some cooker that took billions of years to produce a planet where life is possible. Why not just create everything in to existence exactly how He wants it right then, with dead dinosaurs embedded in the earth and everything else that we look back on. Some say they were placed their to test our faith. Others say they are proof that God doesn't exist. All they prove is that either God is limited in how He can create or that our understanding of creation is not 100% accurate. If it sounds like a wishy-washy argument, its because you haven't completely defined what the understanding of God is to some people.

This argument can then be applied to intelligent design and evolution and many other areas where science and religion conflicts. Again, assuming the first step, that there is an all powerful God, then anything is possible. He could have created everything exactly as we know it, or he could have created the pot and the stove that all the life eventually spilled out of. You can not defeat a matter of faith with scientific proof. There will always be something in the faith to contradict, work around, or even include your proof or else the faith was never that strong to begin with.
- compboy1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2While I agree with you almost entirely, the statement that "You can not defeat a matter of faith with scientific proof," is (somewhat) absurd.
  
  For example: I could have complete trust and confidence that if I walked off a cliff, I'd float. Faith (by definition) that I could fly. Now we all know that, short of divine intervention (which is unlikely, even if you believe in God, which I do), the second that I set off that cliff, I'm going to fall to my death, and probably scream like a little girl on the way down.
  
  How do we know that? Well, for one, we've all dropped something and seen it fall. More importantly, Science has proven that, unless I get on an airplane, I'm not flying.
  
  In relation to the rest of your comment, I present a (short) recording of Dr. Kurt. P. Wise, Ph.D., on sunlight. (If the earth is 6,000 years old, and it takes light 10,000 years to get to the edge of the sun, how is it that we can see sunlight?)
  
  Link: http://www.kd8drx.com/media/summit/wiseedit.mov
- tolldog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2You are correct, some things of faith can be disproved. If one has faith they can float and do not, they have the opportunity to re-adjust their faith while falling to either, I can't really float, or at this particular time floating did not work (or any other argument they can come up with in the time for it takes for them to hit the ground). Falling to somebody does not disprove that their faith was in vain, just that at this particular time, their understanding of what they believe needs to be re-evaluated.
  
  I guess I mean faith in the abstract, not in the tangible absolute. The problem comes in what are the lines between the abstract and the tangible and how real is our understanding of things at any given point of time.
  
  And as far as the clip, that's great, reminds me of something I would have heard in college. I am not sure where I stand on what I think as far as young earth, old earth and what not, but I have faith that its possible (which, is an entirely different conversation, the difference between what you believe possible and what you believe is probable).
- Taorluath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1actually, there is a very small probability that you will float
Show 51 - 100 of 186 discussions
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

How Hubble Killed God...

Login or register to add a comment