The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken

Everything you said is right. But the nature of the human being is to dream, to hope; to believe in ferry tales cause some may come true.
If the world would be crated around your pattern, then our life would be much more depressing. Why not dream of living even after this life? Why not hope to have a friend in this universe other than human? Why should we live baring in mind the fact that we will die, our entire life, pictures, memories, friends were useless, and all that we'll become is a stone sticking out from the ground with our name on it... And that will disappear in 100 years. Why live knowing that nobody will know your name in 100 years from now, what was your profession or whether you were blond or brunette?
Dream! That is all we have that could make us live a happier life. Believe in perfect love, success in life even if that will never be. Don't live thinking that you'll S**t your pants or wonder how you will die. Live and believe in the imaginary. Be free and happy. Carpe diem!

I neither believe in religion, but I di believe in other forms of live. In something greater that has put us on this planet. Believe cause you have nothing to loose. But always make the distinction between unfounded BS theories and the story that may have some chance in becoming a reality some day. And hope that you will be lucky enough to live that day

I'm one of the biggest dreamers your going to find, I have a huge imagination and love to write stories and come up with ideas for stuff. I no mean to discourage anyone from dreaming, the point I was refering to was where some one comes up with an idea and because it makes sense to them they pronounce it as being fact and try to force it on other people.

I can hardly believe that there are such horrendously stupid people on our lovely planet - imbecilic morons such as koolsculptz, ad5290, et al – who have the audacity to post their totally uneducated garbage on a video of such beauty. Their minds have rotted with religious nonsense and all they can do is show all of us how badly they are educated, not even enough brains to realize it themselves. Science IS reality, all forms of religion is grotesquely delusional. I’m so glad that bit by bit, as sanity prevails, all this religious intoxication will wash away. Pity it will not be in my time, it may take a long time still, but the day will come when this wonderful planet of ours will be rid of the feable minded cretins – because you cannot F**k with science!!!

controversy about the reality of evolution among scientists, and there never will be. Only bible-thumpers try to sell you that crock of S**t .

I was totally blown away with all that supporting scientific evidence you gave with your statement. My hat is off to you oh wise one. Yes your word alone is all the proof I need.

Well obviously someone paid very little attention in their science class that taught about evolutionary theory. First of all, science has never been defined as fact not when the arabs invented the scientific method and not not after hundreds of years of using that method. That's right your beloved Christian scientists learned it from heathens, lol, which is why alchemy, algebra, alphabet etc. all start with the letters al. Back on subject, science is a method of moving closer to fact through theorization and observation. Simple math is black and white there is fact and fiction when refering to that. Science on the other hand is various shades of grey with the exception of a few laws that still seem to be brought into question on occasion. Everything in science is theory, albeit theory based on mountains of empirical evidence but theory nonetheless.

ooooh come on, i agreed with most of what you said except the stupid comment about algebra alchemy and the alphabet starting with al because they're middle eastern. Al is part of a tribal name and the al in alphabet comes from the latin ALPHA and continues...alpha beta...alpha-bet. not sure about algebra but im pretty sure its also latin based and alchemy definately is. dont tell people they should have paid attention in class when you weren't listening to your english teacher. Latin roots, believe it or not, doesnt mean someone who comes from mexico

LOL

You stated "theorization and observation" in that order. Theories are supposed to be based on evidence and observation, not the otherway around. Darwin observed macro evolution, changes within a species that no one argues exists, but Darwin never observed one species changing into another. The theory was formed with no observation and the hunt has been on since to prove the theory to be true. That's backwards science. When a detective arrives at the scene of a crime, he observes the evidence at hand and then formulates a theory of what happened - The detective does not show up to the scene with a pre concieved notion of what happened and then try to make the evidence fit the theory. It wasn't until Darwin theorized the earth must be billions of years old to accomodate evolution that there was ever even a question of the earth being more than thousands of years old. Evolution teaches the farther back we go the less intelegent we were, yet archeology continues to show the further we go back the smarter we were. Archeology isn't theory, its physical evidence, evidence showing languages being far more complex and intricate than what we use today, metalurgy that we cannot duplicate today, medical techniqes that we did not start using until the seventies are carved in stone from thousands of years ago. The scalpels they used back then were made from ebony which blade comes to a much sharper point than our metal ones, so much so that they devide the cells apart from each other rather than cutting them up making for faster recovery time. Physical evidence does not support the stupid ugh ugh ape man mentality, as a matter of fact I had to laugh because they just had a thing on the news that now they think that cave men may have had a spoken language. Gee who'd of ever thought. It needs to be observation of physical evidence then theory, not the other way around. How many times has the theory of Evolution changed since intruduced by Darwin? The only thing on earth that is evolving is the theory of Evolution, the facts keep getting in the way so they have to keep changing it. When it was found that the fossil records could not support a slow change over millions of years they switched to an instantaneous change going from one species to the next, well that one didn't stick. Oh yeah and just because you can draw a picture of it, doesn't make it real. Archeology is definantly not the evolutionists friend. One note I would like to make is I really enjoy discussing these things with whom ever would like to discuss them and I hope nothing I write ever come off as being offensive to anyone as that is not my intent, I love a good debate and welcome anyone to continue these discussions, to me its like playing a game of chess, you move and I counter move. I don't see there being a winner to this, but its good fun none the less.

Science is about evidence, not fact. Nothing is ever "proven" in science. There is evidence for, and evidence against. What non-scientists like you take to be "fact" is simply the tentative conclusion of scientists based on the evidence.

Yes, some things have so much evidence that it would be absurd to question them. Your example of water freezing is an instance of this. The truth of evolution is another. There is so much evidence for evolution that it would be ridiculous for a scientist to doubt it. We have seen new species arise. (Google speciation examples for the documentation.)

People fought against the notion that the earth was not flat, but they eventually lost. They fought against the notion that the earth goes around the sun rather than vice versa. They fought against the idea that lightening was just static electricity and not some god's way of striking small targets. They fought against the idea that diseases were caused by micro-organisms and not evil spirits. They lost all those battles, just as they will eventually lose the battle to deny the truth of evolution.

But they will keep trying, even though they look ridiculous in the process.

There are many beliefs out there and I'm not going to tell anyone they cannot believe as they choose, but the fact is, google or not there still is no proof that evolution has ever occured, we can track macro evolution in small changes within a species. Every mutation that we have observed is by loss of information, never a gaining of information. In order for something to become more than what it is, new information would have to be introduced, information far more complex than what is running the computer your using, and that is not going to happen by accident. There has never been any evidence showing one species turning into another, Darwin himself stated that if the fossil records could not support the theory, the theory could not be true. Thousands and thousands of fossils have been uncovered since then and not one has shown a transition from one species to another, or at least not one that has not been shown and a short time later been proven to be a hoax. Darwin aslo stated that with the complexity of the eye, that if evolution were true, that it was absurd to think it could occur with an intelegence behind it. There is no evidence, the evolutionary commitee even said so themselves when fighting to keep all the evolutionary evidence in text books that have been proven to not be true, that they said they had no facts to replace it with. If the evidence is so overwhelming as you stated, then how come they cannot come up with facts to put in the text books to replace the current information of which all has been disproved? I'm not even trying to fight this Biblicly, but on science alone which everyone keeps trying to say contradicts the Bible, only problem being if you go back every science that we have today was founded by a Christian, Kelvin, Newton, etc... were all Christians, but thats besides the point. Here is a piece of science for you - Our sun is disapating at a rate of 1/2 of 1% per year, no biggie, nothing we'll notice in our life time, but with that in mind that means last year it was 1/2 of 1% bigger and if you go back the year back and so on and on until you go back as little as 2 Million, note I said 2 Million, not Billion, going back 2 million years the size of our sun would be such that its radiation would cause the surface of our planet to be in a molten state. How could life have been evolving here for billions of years in molten rock? One last one then I will go. Everything lives and dies, leaving fossils, the fossils we dig up. The amount of life that would have lived and died on our planet in a period of 1 Million years would have left us with enough fossils to cover the entire surface of the planet ten fee high. Where did all the fossils go??? How come the fossil records do not support the amount of fossils that would have had to be here for things living and dying on this planet for Billions of years?

Fossils are destroyed by the elements and it is very difficult for a rock to keep its shape for millions of years. The fossils we find are just 0.000000001% of the total number of living creatures. Your 10 feet of fossils are actually everywhere, as dust, gas etc.

Fossils are destroyed by the elements? ok....then how do evolutionists claim that the fossils that archiologists have dug up of dinosaurs and other extinct animals are supposed to be billions of years old and they arent destroyed by the elements. According to evolutionists the fossils have survived just fine or are you saying that the fossils of Dinosuars and such are only..do I dare say it....only thousands of years old so that they werent destroyed by the elements? Sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it to, you can't say the fossils created over billions of years were all but destroyed by the elements and still claim that the fossils we're finding today are billions of years old.

What the previous guy said was quite clear and open, that the fossils we find are only a miniscule percentage of what actually lived or grew on earth. The rest were destroyed or eaten! Things decay and turn to dust, but fossils are things which were covered by sediment etc and so became part of the rocks that contain the fossils. Sorry to sound pedantic but you seem to need someone to open your ears and explain what is moastly clear to everyone else. I can understand you wishing to protect your theories as obviously others do. BUT they seem to base theirs on fact while you have virtually nothing to substantiate yours.
Creationists who say the earth was formed and man arrived just a few thousand years ago are typical of closed minded people who refuse to face the facts but choose nebulous vague scenarios to explain their beliefs.
I have no doubt there is a Higher Power such as some kind of universal law that controls the whole universe and governs our evolution in some way. But I can't seem to grasp the biblical concept that's thrust upon us and demands belief with noithing but blind faith.

aelwero_too has explained why there are only a few fossils here and there. They use radiometric dating techniques to know the age of the dinosaur fossils.

proving something to be true. Again theory is being used as fact. The same dating techniques they use to show dinosaur bones to be billions of years old when used on a living shell fish showed it to be over 10,000 years old. These techniques are no wheres near acurate. For a more acurate idea of the age of our planet look up the research they've done on core samples of our planet. The core samples show that there was a radiated material through out the formation of our planet as it was forming that is consistant as far down as they go. What difference does that make? It does not occur in layers its all the way down and this radiated material only lasts for a fraction of a second showing that the Earth formed and solidified in a matter of moments, not over thousands or millions of years. Facts are suppose to conform to evidence, not the other way around. Evolution is a pre-concieved belief that they are trying to make evidence fit to, when its supposed to be the other way around. We not only have fossils of human foot prints alongside Dinosaur foot prints there is even a fossil of a human footprint inside of a dinosaur footprint. Evolution doesn't teach that humans and dinosaurs were here at the same time. Like this supposed mystery of the crystal skull. What mystery? "They didn't have the technology back then to make something like that, so where did it come from?" Duh! The fact it exists shows that yes they did have the technology back then to make it. More and more things that we supposedly are discovering today, archeologists are finding that people knew how to do these same things thousands of years ago, everything from metalurgy to medical proceedures. There are Egyptian pieces of jewerly that have holes drilled through them to run the wire through that is so small that they cannot reproduce it today. Upon examination they found that King tuts golden sarcophogas had been milled with incredible accuracy. The spanish inquisition went through and wiped out all kinds of medical and scientific information claiming it witch craft. Technologies have been lost over the years for various reasons. There is also a metal they found a hammer made out of that they cannot reproduce yet to this day. The further back we go in our history and archeology the more intelegence is shown. There are tribes today that do not have electricity and such, but it doesn't mean they're stupid or less intellegent, just as just because they've found groups of people thousands of years ago in the same situation doesn't prove they were less intellegent than we are now. Look at language alone, the oldest language that we're aware of is far more complex and intricit than what we speak today. It takes over 200 proteins for life to exist. The life form must be able to think, take in nourishment, digest, excrete, move, have a way of determining its souroundings, and the big one, the ability to reproduce. You wouldn't believe that I could dump a bucket of legos into a tumbler and let it run and run and that eventually wether in a year or 1 million years that those blocks would fall into place and stick into one another forming a perfect square which is infinitely less complex than one strand of DNA of which there finding is capable of storing tera quads of information. Why would you believe that over 200 proteins could come together on their own to form a living breathing entity. Bacteria are what evolutionist believe were the first forms of life. Two major problems with that. One a bacteria is an example of a "complex irriducibiilty" in otherwords like a mouse trap there are no extra parts, if you remove any of those pieces it will not function as a mouse trap with out raplacing the part you took. Look up the design of the bacteria, it uses an electric motor for movement its tails spins one way to go forward and the other to go backward and spins at a very high rpm. Its a very complex piece of work and it cannot function with any of its compents missinig, it would simply die. The other major issue is bacteria live on decaying material of something that died. If they were first, what did they eat?

bible-thumpers who simply disregard any and all scientific evidence that goes against your completely closed notion that 'God made everything out of nothing four thousand years ago'. That includes the entire universe, all 78-billion light-years across of it. Wake the F**k up and smell the coffee. If God exists, (and I'm not saying she doesn't), what makes you think she would do things in such a silly and transparent manner of creating unexplainable 'miracles' in the short term? She is a whole lot more likely to be a timeless being, existing for billions upon billions of years, doing things in an infinitely subtle and complex manner, over a time-span so long as to be practicall incomprehensible to us mere mortals. To suggest otherwise is idiotic, arrogant and forces you to reject the evidence of the infinitely complex universe. Were I God, I would smite you for suggesting that I were so limited and simple-minded. Don't be so F**king ignorant. Your stupid idea of the sudden creation of everything such a short time ago is a slap in the face of the truly awesome power of a creator who could conceive the conditions to create the all-but impossible vastness of time and space. You worm.

What ever flips your switch. Still waiting for some science in there somewhere, but if coming on here and slaming on someone helps you avoid the cost of one of your anger management classes, then carry on. Oh yeah and by the way why do you keep trying to bring God and the Bible into this discussion? If you want to debate religion with someone, please find someone else, I'm only interested in discussing science here. If you have some scientific evidence you would like to post please do, otherwise please take your angst up with someone who like to argue religious views.

obviously anti-science, as you struggle and strain to try to reject the evidence in front of your eyes of a universe and a solar system and an earth that is billions of years old, and evolved gradually into what it is today, (and will keep on evolving). Your utter lack of understanding of anything, and I mean anything, you're writing about reveals that in perfect clarity. The reason I mention religion is because the only people who spout the type of crap you do are fundementalist religious wackos. If you are not working from a religious subtext, then you're even crazier than I thought you were. I do agree with you on one thing, though: There's not much point in writing any more on this subject to you. You have your eyes closed, your ears plugged, and you're singing, 'La-la-la-la...' as loud as you can, to try to drown out reality. Buh-bye.

I would write something in my defense, but I think your writings do that for me. Sorry bud but I don't think your ramblings are helping the Evolutionary side, rather embarassing the people who have posted on here trying to prove what they believe with the information they have at hand and not by who can yell the loudest and be the most insulting and vulgar. Obviously your trying to make up for lack of scientific knowledge with yelling and cursing, hoping if you yell loud enough that it can overcome the lack of information that you do not have to post. I've tried to be patient with you, but now I believe its time to either put up or shut up. Post the evidence, not your opinion or dont post anything. The way your rambling on is becoming embarasing.

So, radioactive techniques have an error of 10,000 years. Then all palaeontologists are wrong. The first dinosaurs appeared 230.01 million years ago instead of 230.
All that Spanish inquisition and Egyptian jewels stuff is interesting, but if we discuss it too, it will take us billions of years to finish!

that when testing a living shellfish it showed it to be over 10,000 years old, I never said what the scale was for how far off or how inacurate radio active testing is. As stated above there are fossils showing that man and dinosaur were here at the same time, so your going to say that man has been on this planet for 230 million years and only bothered to start keeping a record of things about 7000 years ago? I found the movie with Tom Hanks "Castaway" very unrealistic for one reason. Who would live on an island for five years and not even buld so much as a chair? How much crap have we built in the last 7000 years? We have stuff all over this planet from just the last 7000 years, what would the planet be like had people been here for 230 million years? You'd think there would be a few more things lying around. And as stated above the sun is disipating at a rate of 1/2 of 1% per year and if you go back each year adding on that percent in only 2 million years you have our planet in a molten state. How could anything have lived in that?

go to this site to see a diagram of the electric motor that is used by the bacteria to move -(3W) (dot)
arn (dot) (oh-are-gee) /docs/mm/flag_labels (dot) jpg

Most fossils are destroyed by the elements because they are exposed to the elements. Most animal carcasses are eaten by scavengers who leave only bones, and most of those bones are left on the surface. over time, they decay to dust or are burned to ash, however, occasionally an event occurs which buries them or encases them in a manner which protects them from the elements. Volcanic ash falls, landslides, that sort of thing. The conditions which cause this natural protection of remains are genaerally rare. A good example is the petrified forest in arizona. A pyroclastine flow buried thousands of trees, protecting them under a slurry of mud and ash, allowing them to fossilize. This type of event is rare, which accounts for their not being petrified wood lying around all over the planet. The same type of events cause dinosaur fossils. And another point also... some remains which were protected still do not fossilize. In damp environments buried remains can still decay. You put decayed plant and animal remains in your gas tank every time you fill it up. Gas and oil are decayed organic material, plant and animal. So not all remains which are accidently buried and protected from the elements are fossilized. In truth, the conditions to create fossilized remains occur fairly rarely, and in modern times, with human behavior, the most likely thing to be fossilized a billion years in the future are human remains and landfills. Imagine a scientist a billion years in the future stumbling on a landfill... they'll find 5,000 tons of fossilized garbage. What would today's scientists make of that I wonder?

Yes, they have done it already! They found several meters of human garbage in a cave, thousands of years old. To study people's junk is a very good way to know their habits, what they ate, how they cooked etc. Nowadays, the information that can be extracted from our bins is so detailed, that they sell paper shredders in Wall Mart.

You do age at the speed of light, but according to Einstein, it's a relative measure. Standing on a hot griddle barefoot one second feels like a year, but a week on vacation goes by in an eyeblink...

some people look very spry and youthful at 80 years old and others look they're knocking on death's door at age 30...

right on the money