Shared publicly  - 
Miley Cyrus (Hanna Montana) is being harangued by hoards of angry people on Twitter because she posted this image with a one word description of "Beautiful".

Really? Aren't there more important things for people to get all pissed off about other than a starlet discovering nucleosynthesis?
Drake Abbychicka's profile photoShiloh Madsen's profile photoPatrick Elliott-Brennan's profile photoDavid Jarvis's profile photo
I don't really care for her or her father but this is something to commend her for... Sheesh, these people keep getting it backwards each her when they shouldn't, don't like her when they should..
Superstition is hard to defeat as it ignores reason by it's very nature.
I was just reading the tweets a few minutes ago. @Zach
Edgar Es
We are lucky there is no Inquisition in these days, most of us here would be burned at the the name of Jesus Christ. But you see, the problem is not Jesus (his message is not bad at all, quite the contrary), the problem are the religious institutions and their dogma. I'm an agnostic, but also consider myself a Christian and Buddist and follower of whoever left a positive message...but I despise religious institutions, church and all related, with their false righteousness and twisted moral only truths...just as those people who reacted badly to Miley Cyrus' post, that is only saying the truth after all.
There are still inquisitions in this day and age. If you come out as an atheist, non-believer or even an agnostic you suffer the wrath of the believers. During his inauguration speech Obama mentioned non-believers and it was met with boos and jeers.

I am an atheist. A belief in deity or deities has no purpose in my life. I don't judge anyone that chooses to believe, it's their thought process, they're allowed to believe whatever they choose to believe. If a belief in a deity helps someone get through the day, more power to them. The instant i lose respect for someone is when they judge me, tell me i am wrong or berate me because I choose not to think in the same sphere that they do. The fun ones are the ones that threaten me with going to hell when i tell them i am a non-believer, and i have sat through some pretty inquisition-like speeches.
Tha this one of my favorite quotes. And it is indeed beautful.
We have more evidence of our star origins than those we have to affirm that Jesus is God or a deity at all. Big difference.
OMG Miley has a MIND! I now have MUCHO respect for the gal
Let's keep it civil towards other plusketeers here. I don't mind healthy and respectful debate, but I have no problem deleting comments that are rude and disrespectful to others.

By disrespectful I don't mean "opposing viewpoint", I mean insulting others.
religion has relied on its privileged place as something you may not talk badly about for much too long...its been used to hide all sorts of nastiness and evil
+Alexander Kovalenko I am not angry at all. He's just got the theory wrong.

+Daniel Fouts I suggest you do more research, you're missing many parts of it. If you want to be religious that's fine. A deity serves no purpose in my life. That's my belief. I don't understand why you're so offended by that, if i am wrong, i am the one that has to deal with the consequences, not you. I also suggest you try to understand the theory of Evolution to a better extent too, you've got that wrong too. Even the Vatican approves the theory of evolution.
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. ~Carl Sagan.
+Dorothy Mercer "wonderful documentarys regarding the Myan Calender, God, Jesus, the bible, and how the earth was made and how the almanac and astrologers all came to be as one" the problem is documentaries by who..with what proof? were they to advance christian theology?
"Maybe you're made of fairy dust and your great-great-(etc.) grandfather was a monkey but not me. I was created by the one and only true God."

"Most of the people who go around beating others over the head with the Bible and calling themselves Christians don't even know what the book says. They're religious kooks."

Not sure how to reconcile these two statements. How can anyone claim to be created, personally, by one true God, and then call anything else kooky? What, exactly, makes your holy book holier than anyone else's, be they Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Atheist, or whatever (and yes, I'm aware that a few of those worship the same God, sort've, but there's plenty else they disagree on). When your only claim is based on a book, who's only claim is itself, how can that have any more legitimacy than every other book that claims to be the one real truth?
+Granger Godbold but he's right. Jesus, no matter what you may think of him, doesn't really compare to the concept that we are all made up of the exploded remnants of super-massive stars which were burning hot in space long before our sun ever lit up. You can be a Christian and still find that more moving than any passage in the Bible. You can still be a Christian and be more in awe of a sunrise than the book of Job. Frankly, the Bible is a book which if you are a Christian, you believe was written by people who were inspired by God. The universe around you, on the other hand, (again, if you are a Christian) is the direct and sole handywork of God. How can that not be more impressive? Just because the universe isn't text? Really?! The world is your Bible; start studying!
Christians are so easy to hurt. Poor things. Like the saying goes "Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense."
And one last thing! The people who wrote the Bible thought the Earth was flat and the cencter of the universe! And the theists say THEY are offended!?
Good for her. It seems like she's asking questions and looking for answers. That's healthy.
"religion has relied on its privileged place as something you may not talk badly about for much too long..."

This is my single largest issue with religion. Every idea must be able to stand on it's own merit, and be open to criticism, or else it cannot be taken seriously. Science encourages this, and it's the only reason it's advanced. However, people get very defensive when religion is discussed with any skepticism. Any questioning is met with accusations of insensitivity, and we're taught to be reverent of other's beliefs. All the while, every single idea, belief, or opinion, that does NOT cower behind the shield of "religion" is fair game for mockery, rebuttal, and skepticism.
so her next question should be... who created the stars?
There is no reason to categorize all Christians as the same. I have some very dear friends that are Christian and when we have intelligent discussions, there is no talk of me being a a "fool" because i don't follow their beliefs.
Not all Christian's +Roman Smirnov, some of us are quite resilient and open-minded.

P.S.- I should mention that I'm not religious (I consider myself a Deist, not Judeo-Christian at all).
People these days... They get ticked off at everything. Someone looks at them wrong, and they blow up. To tell you the truth, I'm ashamed at our society. We should be able to post anything without having to worry about losing friends, fans, reputation, or anything else. We should be able to talk about religion and other 'touchy' subjects without getting critisized.
I like that one, but it looks like miley is going directly to hell for indiscretions :P
i agree...If there is any almighty anywhere that should be the the two stars that created the whole universe(big Bang)...
but +Jake Flynn there is so much proof in that bible! it was written 100's of years after the fact, transcribed from people who today would be institutionalized as insane. they said god spoke to them! then the Council of Carthage * decided which lunatics were cannon (especially the ones that kept the women folk in their place!) then even later yet King James decided that he didn't like the old one so he had one jiggered to fit his world view. now people consider this many times rewritten document to be the "one true word of god" while actual science is deemed heretical theory*(I messed up and said council of nicea earlier)
Twitter can so easily be a tool of hatred, as Miley Cyrus is finding out. It may be the 140 character limit that only allows off the cuff and impulsive remarks. If you think about it, it's really a joke that any form of communication be in such a limited form.
The night Whitney Houston died there was some girl who posted an insensitive remark on her Facebook wall, resulting in an explosion of "hunt her down and kill her" Tweets. It was like a frenzied attack by killer bees.
Last I checked Google+ was also visited by human life forms, so I suppose such venom is possible here. But from my experience since July, people are just more considerate here, more inclined to allow actual thoughts and communication from others.
Benjamin, The quote is scientifically accurate.
she was probably high again...shes just making it worse for herself. she needs to disappear...
@Jake, look up with a sufficiently powerful telescope, and you can watch it happening and unfolding over the course of billions of years.

You forget that because light takes time to travel, as you look further and further away, you are also looking further and further back.

Thus we can watch those things happening billions of years ago, right now - because the light from those most distant events is just finally getting here now. So we know it happened, because, well, we're watching it happen.

If that doesn't fill you with a certain sense of wonder--- well, don't bother going into science, because no part of reality is EVER likely to move you if that doesn't. You will have to stick with ancient stories and myths.
The irony is how much traction these silly notions about "stars creating things" has gained.* … Which sounds more superstitious: that God created all things, or that star flakes did? I guess I'll play the part of the moron for the evening. I believe it was an amazing Creator and not some serendipitous collision of celestial sediment.

*Which makes sense, since they stopped teaching logic in schools, and we hardly even have any significant thinking courses at all. I guess this kind of tepid thinking is what you get when governments run schools.
There is more evidence to back it up than their is for the biblical explanation, which I think is something along the lines of "god said so."

Radio-telescopes pointed at stars measure the amount of different elements being produced by said stars. Different elements effect the telescopes readings in different ways, it's actually a very consistent form of astrology. Radio telescopes are capable of detecting all sorts of things including whether planets are solid or a gaseous, as well as how much radiation is in a specific area of the solar system.

The material makeup of the human body has been known for decades, the basic elements of our being which are listed above (Carbon, Nitrogen, etc) are abundant in the universe, and quite literally EVERYWHERE because of stars. Normal, living stars produce these elements and as many comments above me have said it is far more likely we exist because of the sun we orbit.That said "dying" stars are thought to project their matter further into the universe because of the violent nature of their destruction.

Of course none of this is new information. Carl Sagan was very active in the field of radio astronomy and touched on all of this in his ground breaking 1979 series "Cosmos" which is available for free on Hulu. Everybody interested in this sort of thing should watch it.
+Tony Timaya who knows,who cares? 99% of the time religion (any religion) and its dogma is the problem not the solution +lavina street judge not lest......
For any of the religious ilk who want more context or evidence for this quote, I suggest you simply watch Cosmos. It's slightly out of date, but it is otherwise an excellent primer in the history of the universe and mankind as we currently understand it - including HOW we know it.

I sat through years of Sunday school and have studied the Bible fairly thoroughly before I made my mind up about it - the least you could do is watch a 12-hour mini series and think about it a bit before coming in here and accusing us of making things up that we can't possibly know or prove.
Don't be a slave to the matrix people. It's time to remember who you are.

That movie was so about Gnosticism it's not even funny!

You're all so sure you KNOW there is no God, when you finally see the truth it's gonna tear your world apart.
I think people are taking the "Forget Jesus" bit, way too literally. Everybody replying here seems to speak English so just think of what you mean when you say, "Forget lunch, let's do brunch."

That doesn't literally mean "FORSAKE lunch and sear it from your mind for all eternity." It's just rhetoric calling our attention to a contrast between A and B.

There's no need for religious folks to go shooting people in the face for burning the Koran... ah hem... I mean, burn Ms. Cyrus at the stake for praising a quote that uses the name "Jesus" to highlight a point.

As for those calling Dr. Krauss infantile and irresponsible for using a bit of hyperbole during a talk, relax. This is rhetoric. When you speak in public sound bytes win.

Perhaps we shouldn't use Jesus, the Pope, Stalin and the Nazis or whomever quite so often in metaphors and analogies in our public discourse but the real reason we shouldn't use them is that they are cliche, not that they are so inflammatory as to result in mass beheadings... at least, not yet.

Stop this nonsense, all of you. The notion that we are made of stars is a beautiful one, whether you believe that e = mc² or JC² = e(verything).
+Joshua Barkdull are you trying to suggest that someday humans will achieve infinite knowledge - that we are even capable of perfection? It may look like an asymptote to some (quite the opposite to others) but it's beyond our reach.
So condensing matter that could have been happening over and over to create trillions and trillion of stars, planets, galaxies for that matter is less believable than a woman talking to a snake and a man getting tablets from a burning bush? The fact is that most of the books describing Jesus' miracles were written long after his death by several hundred people, and the books have been translated through dozens of languages to even relay the message properly.

That being said, the fact that someone quoted Genesis 1:1 makes me ill as that first chapter is about the most useless piece of literary information ever. It tells you what but not why, how, when, etc. I think for a God to exist and have a thorough following, that God would need to either make us all unintelligent or give us the whole story.

Besides, do you know how many stories in the Bible not only are the same as other religions but have been proved to be science related and not just divine might? Take Noah and the flood for instance. The Mountain where the Ark is supposed to lie is only a short distance from the Black Sea, which used to be a valley of farmland. When plates shifted, part of the Mediterranean flooded this portion already known to get rain and created the Black Sea. This would have made it easy to attribute God to flooding things out of spite. Not to mention that during this time, vast creatures of every type were around and in theory could have been loaded into a large ship though survival would have been a separate issue entirely.
But whatever. I'll respect people's faith. If I'm wrong I don't really give a fuck.
you are absolutely right. the were born from the inter-steller gases and are getting older and bursting out into super novas and black holes and releasing a cloud of elements and matter which made up our solar system 4.6billion years ago and probably made all the planets and as we are from planets we are made of the same stardust so practicaly he is right.but all the people belive in religion (i too believe a little).
+Antonio Bacasno So I don't mean to be rude but accuracy? Just because someone says that people will hate you for what you say doesn't make that accurate per say. People back then already had beliefs and you were shaking them with a new belief that contradicted the other, so of course they would hate you. They would especially hate you because the Romans had control and they couldn't have a God above their Gods. It's the same thing the religions fight over today and it's ridiculous. But I do respect your belief and I live the mention of living a good life for you and for others which is really to me what the human experience is about. And regardless of if you or I or another person is right, we have bettered the future (hopefully) for the next generations.
+Ray Sanders I'm inclined to suggest that there are sections of the population you will never understand. In my area the rod and cane come in 3D form. Twitter would be the least of her worries lol
"in the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded". it all makes perfect sense now!
There is only one god, and she's black.

Hail Eris!
All Hail Discordia!!
Emperor Norton for President!!!
Instead of mocking others beliefs, and you've managed to incorporate everyone who belives in a higher being of any description,'why don't you just keep you're opinions to yourself. Whether you are right or wrong is irrelevant the fact remains we have the power and ability to believe what we choose or have been bred into. As long as we treat each other with respect (and you are being disrespectful) it shouldn't matter who believes what.
Sorry, stars aren't people, and it's only my body. What does it matter to me if it's destroyed? :D
+Ruslan Barabolkin How can one infer distance with a phrase that infers time away from an answer? We are years away from an answer, distance away from proof.
+Lilian Homer We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
+Adam Chapman Take your pick: light years are either time or distance. You said distance. I am saying that we are FAR from proving ANYTHING about big bang. Do you follow?
I wonder what Hannah Montana thinks ^.^
+Ruslan Barabolkin And how far are we proving that magical man did it exactly? We have far more evidence of the big bang theory than of "god did it" theory
+Ruslan Barabolkin There is no pick. Light years are the distance taken for light to travel from one spot to another across space at 3.8 x 10^9 m/s. Time is taken in calculation but it's only a unit of distance.

Just bothered by the phrase is all. I do get the point though. Kinda reminds me of the problem with people using nauseated and nauseous... oh well. Discussion absolved.
And SO??? What we do now is all that counts...
Oh for gods sake. Ever ytime some interesting conversation starts a certain type of Christian is going to make a provocative statement. The best thing to do is to ignore them! If you don;t this happens. Conversation ruined. Next hour spent slagging people off. Everyone goes home grumpy. JUST IGNORE THEM!!!!
Y'know guys, God doesn't do anything to help you with the First Cause problem. It just pushes the problem back exactly one step, which only increases the complexity of the problem rather than reducing it.

Attempting to answer First Cause problems with a mythological creator is futile. It just gets sillier and sillier the harder you try.
Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, and other older religions (such as that of the Persians, Egyptians, etc) are all similar. All had a Messiah born on about the same day who preached salvation, performed miracles, and either was killed and rose again or simply rose. What was that phrase I so loved? Oh yeah, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. With the difference in the way religions were brought about, I think that about sums up the point.

However, I will say religion is important but not for the faith you have but merely how one applies it. You can be like some of the people here, believing in God and Jesus and doing right for the world. Or you can be like myself and others and still do right for the world but not because I am being divinely judged by one above. No matter if I go out and heal 40,000 people or massacre them, people in the future will know my name and learn either way, whether to help as I had done or likewise not hurt. The human experience is what counts. Religion teaches you to be a good person to improve life now, not just make it to your afterlife peace.
vu phan
I know I don't care same for her but point is I understand what guy saying in.
An funny miley same year as me but she hot head person an more likely a person can following me in a sec or 4th but not saying I'm better her even tho I can do its just provided her that I'm your guy you love alot but more choiceing on but wrong just it not right too making feel sads but this guy had say ita too making her understand in illustrated in good way of.
But lies too can helping her in not bad way of some lies are good some not likely in world alot pplz lies but how is only good lies making go back in being truthful too believe in some truth's hurt can't fact it an other truths don't because wanted care alot.
But thing is she not bad person just things not very knowledge of she more a peaceful girl of an clever she can be very creatives I know she not in original for a girl loud of but the things wanted peace too look for in an things she enjoy by I see that not because same year of monkey in zodiac way but things is just likely got be matchful see how feeling of she hot head girl want too be peaceful well saying things that koul with an love fub hope others enjoy it when do she thinks an like do more that kind girl I can see an images realize it she not bad see her personal of her ways an friends she love about.
An I know its not really easy see another understand her but not very hot head or easy be fool by lies well as if its truth side of things.
How are fun what means too trying your best of.
She just great at well known suchs some alot an possible figure alittle
vu phan
I'm done now going sleep probably if I do make comdy vids watching funny stuff
+Jesse King But I want to believe in my God, The Flying Spaghetti Monster! He created meatballs for all! Haha

I am not an atheist because it is cool.
I am not an atheist because of religious extremism or oppression in some depraved corners of the world.
I am not an atheist because I don't think evil can exist in a world without god.
I am not an atheist because I think science can disprove god.

I am an atheist for one simple fact.


If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of it's existence.
Otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you.

May the force be with you.
Leave it in church man...
@Ruslan, just to clarify, for all intents and purposes, Light Years are essentially a measure of both Time and Distance.

In the literal sense, they are a measure of distance, however, because light takes time to travel (1 year = 1 light year traveled), we are in effect looking 'backwards' in time when we look out across astronomical distances.

So unless you can travel faster than light like in Star Trek, it is essentially true to say that a light-year is a measure of both Time AND Distance, because when you are looking at a star 500ly away, you are seeing it as it was 500 years ago, not as it is today.
+mica misetich Pheromones act on hormone receptors sending dopamine and serotonin flooding into the brain increasing blood pressure, heart rate, dilating pupils, and the general "butterfly in the stomach" feeling. Scientific method satisfied.

Oh and why is up to the creation of certain receptors based off of what our DNA says and that comes from lineage from evolution since we share a large portion of our DNA with other animals that pick the prettiest or strongest mate.

It's why the mating process is stupid because women complain about nothing but jerks in the world but those are the guys they are attracted to and this breed with while the smart and not so good looking guys get overlooked.
+mica misetich Love can be explained as we can trace the chemical and electrical impulses that happen in the brain when someone is in love. You actually show signs of addiction and withdrawal when an image of a loved one is shown to you.
Finally a famous person who is not deluded... There may be hope for her yet.
nice sintific statement about expression of love
Well Adam, the same scientists who figured out the Big Bang hung out with the scientists who built the Atomic Bomb. As you may have noticed, they knew some things. Figured some stuff out that maybe the priests had missed.

So should you get hit with the one, you may want to take the split second remaining to you to reconsider the likely validity of the other before you cease to exist. It'll be your last chance to do so.

Just sayin, this Science shit works yo. ;)
+Roman Smirnov +dragoljub dimitrijevic Well for one we do not know how stars form.(you may see a spot getting brighter) Science Magazine: vol. 231 p.1201-1202 Martin Harwit "The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form"

Also we don't see too many supernova rings in the universe. We should be seeing way more if we are billions of years old.

Light is not a constant. You can't measure distance very accurately. What about the equal distribution of radiation in the universe?

Also, you ASSUME that the molecules in other places of the universe evolved to the same elements that we have here on earth.

And even using trigonometry the margin of error is CRAZY high to measure distance.
The alternative theory to the singular event of the Big Bang is essentially an repetitive rubber band theory of constant expansion and collapse which in theory would never have to have a beginning or end. That may cause irk to some though so I can see where God comes in.

Another cool expansion on how we are made up involves the ideas of quantum mechanics which is basically the same thing as Big Bang versus God. Either we are composed of strings that make particles and atoms and compounds and keep building from ancestry or we were made from dirt from God and incest took over. Fascinating ideas really either way.

Though that leads me to a thought of how you will know when Jesus has returned? People around the world say they are the Messiah all the time and very few people believe them. What makes Jesus different? It's not like you know what he looks like...sort of sketchy ya know?
+Ruslan Barabolkin You are talking about god of the gaps ... again yawn No one here says that science knows everything about everything. But to assume that just because we don't know something yet, god did it, is absurd and delusional!
+Jesse King Was that directed at me? Cause if I get hit by a nuke, you won't find me praying beforehand. I go where I go. If that sends me to hell for not wishing to mass conform, I'm okay with that. Personally I think my atoms will just change forms and I'll become part of food for a plant, water in the oceans and rivers and a million other compositions that that bomb would send me into. That and I would rather be hit by an atomic bomb than stand in front of the Big Bang.
+Jake Flynn There's not much that's controversial about the statement that humans are, in part, the remnants of dead stars. Our solar system is comprised chiefly of hydrogen (most of it is bound up in the Sun, but there's quite a lot in the water of our own world, comets and within the gas giants). Hydrogen is the simplest element. it's one proton and one electron. Hydrogen fuses in our Sun into Helium and into slightly heavier elements in trace amounts. Toward the end of our star's life, it will produce heavier elements in larger quantities, but a star the size of our sun can never produce the heavier elements like the sodium and chlorine that combine to make up the salt in your body. Those elements need so much energy to produce that more massive suns are required to produce them.

Once you get up to the Iron in your blood, you really have to have a massive star with a lot of energy given off during its death-throws (a "nova") to produce them.

However, then there's the heavier elements. These exist in trace amounts, but can be found throughout our world and beyond. Many of them make up part of our cells. Silver, gold, mercury, iodine... these are all elements that exist inside of every person, and they're all the result of such massive forces that they can only be produced when the most massive stars explode in a spectacle called a "supernova". The largest supernovas can produce even uranium, the heaviest of the elements that exist in nature.

That's all fairly well worked out, and there isn't really any controversy there. If you're of the opinion that humans were fashioned out of clay 6,000 years ago by an invisible man in the sky, then you should have no problem with the origin of that clay...
I suspect the ire is the result not of the poetry of being stardust, but of the line forget Jesus. But I agree. The earth has been beholden for far to long to and invisible magical sky daddy and his zombie son.
+Graham Hull The way I came up with years ago for both sides to get along is this:
God clapped his hands and caused the big bang.

Can we all get along now?
Another explanation of creation. Why get pissed off? These questions keep coming as long as life exists. Do your best to find answer.
I remember that i know this from a BBC documentary. Then i think that life is really beautiful. :)
+McGee Jazz the very notion of the question, "who created the stars" is a tad silly. Stars aren't a terribly complicated phenomenon, and while the watchmaker analogy might not seem unreasonable when applied to something as complex as a human, a star is just a massive amount of hydrogen that obeys the laws of gravity and thermodynamics, producing compression and heat which fuels fusion which in turn produces energy output. I don't really need to posit a "creator" of "stuff collapsing under its own weight." Now, the laws of physics I'll grant are a complex mess (at least as we know them today), and that smacks of some sort of outside influence to my admittedly limited mind. I'm not sure I feel the need to make that outside influence human-like, but I would not be shocked to find that a complex process outside of our universe gave rise to its rules.

But, that said, books written by pre-technological humans who barely understood the world around them (and in many ways were very wrong about the world around them) don't really give me any sense of great understanding of much more than their own conditions. Certainly the Christian Bible has some good history and philosophy rolled into it, but that's about the extent to which I find it valuable. I single out the Christian Bible because I believe that it's an excellent demonstration of how early elements of what would become western and middle-eastern culture would arise, specifically because of the vast gulfs of time between the writing of its component parts, but most holy books tend to have similar uses.
If you really wanna know the truth about life search up "truth contest" on google and click the first link you see.
+Ruslan Barabolkin You mention light not being a constant and therefore being an error so that would make sense why we cannot see more supernovas. We have no idea how far our universe expands and with light being inconsistent, that would make logical sense.

And if we knew how stars could form we would know a lot more about our young solar system. Instead we can barely make it to the Moon, have artificial devices flying through space for years and years and do our best to see what we can visualize close to our centripetally accelerating galaxy, solar system, and planet and trying to see everything with only faint intelligent processing needed. That all together makes it all nearly improbable that we would see even as many as we have, not to mention all the ones in other galaxies or even other universes.

And as far as the elements go, the scientific standards for particles show that the elements would be the same because of the uniform structures (ie Hydrogen has only one proton and one electron). To not have this, you would not have matter and therefore would have nothing in existence.

Another note on that is we are already finding our traditional model of life to be wrong as there are several species of bacteria that thrive on using arsenic instead of phosphorus in their DNA backbone and that is not what our traditional definition of life is. If elements are somehow different elsewhere, that doesn't mean life cannot exist in different forms and even more efficiently. So assumptions about the elements can be considered to be as true as we know and still work fine with the equations.
So does it means Jesus is a star or Star is a Jesus?
I am grateful that it happened... who ever did it, Star or a God, Thanks for my life.... Respect others faith. No one have the rights to change others opinion. Arguing will not make world batter place, but accepting will :) Pray for what ever you want, and help other to learn how to accept differences. :) Star-God bless you all :D
..people are upset about this? Are people that stupid....? Shame.
I knew that, and Miley Cyrus probably cant understand a word of it
+Adam Chapman So clarify in your for me: your first two paragraphs agree with what I say, right? As far as the elements, there is "standard" how are you say that there is a "standard" in the universe for chemical evolution?

I speak a simple language. What are you trying to say in your statement?
I suppose now would be a bad time for me to mention that I cannot scientifically prove or disprove a Creator and am simply enjoying people's viewpoints. I know my posts look like rants of an irritable atheist but really I just enjoy discussion and opinions and knowledge. Sorry if this seems like a battle guys and girls. Just intriguing :)
^ Apparently Catholicism doesn't come with learning these days, or your browser lacks a spell check. Which you really shouldn't need in the first place, but apparently your anti-evolution ass does.
In a country predominantly composed of Christians, everyone has to adhere to the Christian way, otherwise the Christians shit bricks. THIS IS AMURICA FOUNDED ON GHAWD. IF YOU DONT BELIEVE IN GHAWD GET OUT!
+Ruslan Barabolkin Half and half. If light can be scattered and contain error, then it does make sense why we wouldn't see more super novas. The discontent comes from saying if we are billions of years old we should see more, when the error you mentioned would account for why.

With the elements, we may not know but we can assume from the data we have collected. But that could also be altered if we could reach out to other places. Unfortunately that is not likely to happen either. Pretty odd to think about all the options we can choose to follow and how those shape people.
+Ruslan Barabolkin Bible is ridiculous! There are hundreds perhaps even thousands of other creation myths. Prove those wrong. Prove that Greek gods did not create humans. The only evidence Bible can provide is what's written in it. Hardly evidence at all, a myth, yes. Scientific theoriest are not figments of someone's imagination. Theories are built on observations.
+Adam Chapman But see you already ASSUME there are more super novas out there because we would have to make big bang work.

Bottom line is this: many people think that big bang and evolution somehow disprove creation or the God of the Bible , but I have yet to see anything of real substance that could even hint at doing so. I'm not here to push the Bible down people's throats, but am baffled how condescending evolutionists and "scientists" come as off with this idea that "we got the the truth man. Put down your silly beliefs you were brainwashed with at church"
+Ruslan Barabolkin No true scientists or evolutionists say "We got the truth" or "We know everything" If we knew everything we wouldn't need to look anymore.
Love, Jesus, Faith and Science are just different faces of a same reality we all live in. Because people can't just realize that, constitutes the main reason why human kind make war to himself at any other time and then...
+Noble Six I believe in the realm of science, ignorance is the first deadly sin. But that's okay. We respect that you think the world is 4000 years old and that God put two white people in the jungle that were of the same blood and they had tons of kids through incest and you are apart of that line. But hey, no hard feelings.

Btw if I could be anymore sarcastic I would. I can deal with people disagreeing with the Big Bang but evolution has pretty much been proven. Catholic Church recognizes it. They also recognize the Big Bang as a proposed theory for the way God could have created things. Game over.
Snobbery at its worst. I don't care at all for her music but she is a person. Ans besides, what better word to describe it? It IS beautiful.
+Ruslan Barabolkin I don't mean to seem condescending. We don't have definite answers for sure (except evolution although that still doesn't disprove a God) but that doesn't mean I personally am turning towards something else. I also did finally clarify above that I cannot prove or disprove a Creator and that it's personal preference to ignore the idea partially. I simply was enjoying the competitive arguments as you made rational and reasonable points. No harm, no condescension. Just discussion. Brilliant discussion at that.

Also back to the super novas, it can be assumed by the amount we have seen that there could be more. Or there could be less. We don't know. I follow what we have observed.
vu phan
I rather be me in by month then a year is so of alike by
+A Ali Why is that? Explosions are chaos. The human body is chaos. Entropy is what bounds us. We die because we can fight entropy no more. Our bodies struggle to keep chemical balance, energy levels, and to keep our cells working together and alive. We may be beautiful but we are the definition of chaos. Why can't we be the product of chaos too?
Pastafarian through and through, so I dont hate anyone. However, historically, "The Church" has been wrong about so many scientific postulations that you have to wonder what they DO know. Round Earth? Wrong. Heliocentric solar system? Wrong. Spontaneous evolution (not evolution of man, but evolution in general, which HAS been proven)? Wrong. Thats just the tip of the iceberg. I can only look at a person, entity or organization making supremely boneheaded statements and representing them as "fact" for so long before I say enough is enough. We are all made of subatomic matter that has been spreading across the universe for 16+ billion years. Stars have been born, stars have died. I'm happier knowing that tiny little pieces of me came from places we'll never be able to reach in a thousand lifetimes.
May you all be touched by his noodly appendage. Ramen!
I love the way that these types of threads bring out the religious nut jobs....
Religious nuts keep denying science but when they get sick, they go to the hospital like everyone else with medical coverage.
This has been for a while one of my favorite Lawrence Krauss quotes. "So forget Jesus. Stars died so you could live." Very factual. No need for cannibalism. Just recycling subatomic particles.
+Marcy Francisco It is not talking about creation. The emphasis is somebody died for your existence. Christianity says Jesus died for us for our sins. I am not Christian and I know that.
Oh my. Who's on troll patrol. Look up scientific theory, please. I don't think it means what you think it means.
she should come to Google+!! Far more intelligent crowd ;-)
+Charlie Bingham True that you don't have to be religious but it sure helps. I don't need the idea of a God to appreciate what people attribute to "him".

Also, if God made sure the stars were sufficiently distant, he failed. In a few hundred million years, our sun will be where the Earth is now. Sufficiently distant would be to keep it where it is now haha.
Heh.. That is what's beautiful about our existence. 
gollie. I can't imagine how her base could find this offensive?
Because they're bigots and science is "bad".
So she is a thinking gal. She has my respect.
You call it by common name atom. But most call it by the name that have impressed 
Looks like the flat earth society are alive and well.....
Evolution(Theory), Big Bang(Theory)... All of science explanations has Just been Theory., Where is the Fact to all of these? Atheists are quick to call off Faith, but what is Faith, Believing without seeing... Right., All these processes we are talking about, How many have been observed? So for all of you Atheists your belief is still based on Faith.

When are we going to see science make life out of stardust? or whatever it was?, Since they have understood the Process, when are we going to see science give life to a dead person, make the oxygen start circulating again, when are we going to see science make humans ageless so we can be Sixteen forever? If its actually true that science has figured out how life came to be... why don't we still have answers to our Problems Since we've figured out religion is not the Answer?
The anointed one? Or my neighbor Jesus Ramirez. Forget you remembered anything..Got to make room for this guys poop.
So, let's explode the exploded of ours!
Yeh, the theory of gravity is obviously bogus and based on faith too. -_-

Theory means a different thing to what you think.
having read many many of the comments here the religious side, the ppl that talk about love etc are the one that use all the threats, like having your world torn appart, death by nuclear bomb etc.
Whilst the nonbelivers are the one trying to be more rational & understanding....
If I was a believer I'd be ashamed...

"if god didn't exist mankind would have to create him"
Let my skull be a home for the mice.... when I'm gone!
I see a lot of people having a problem with the "Forget Jesus" part of the quote. Some even say or imply it's a mistake of Laurence Krauss to invoke a line of text that sets science against religion. I even spotted someone writing that Carl Sagan wouldn't make such a mistake.

What I would like to urge upon all people who feel the need to respond to such a quote is: do a little more reading, so you know the context from which these words were constructed.

The background of this whole thing is that Krauss was a speaker at the #Atheist Alliance International 2009, where he held a fascinating talk "A Universe From Nothing". (You can watch it here: 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009).

Off-topic: If you want to learn something about the universe and why "we are fucked"? (to quote Krauss again), then do yourself a favor and invest 60 minutes of your life to "expand your universe"!

At some point Laurence Krauss explains the thing about how everything we see around us including ourselves is a result of exploding stars. So he makes the (inside joke) along the lines of "Forget Jesus, because it's the stars that really died for us".
Remember that he was at an Atheist convention! It's goes without explaining that such a comment about Jesus was not targeted at the general public. To such an audience, to say something like that is hilarious, because it hits a 100% score on the irony scale.

It's unavoidable that real science will clash with religious doctrine. So of course someone somewhere gets offended by such a joke. And there is no reason from his perspective to not make such a reference just to avoid hurt feelings. The whole point of that AAI convention is to address the concerns of non-believers and other secular movements in society and politics.

And concerning the whole Miley Cyrus tweet thing.
Well, I don't really have a strong moralistic opinion about it. I guess that if your fan-base consists of people who fundamentally think different then you, then over time you are bound to do or say something that pisses them off.
God nor jesus exist. Deal with it people. Its science.
+Ray Sanders Bet you never thought you'd cause as much trouble as Myley Cyrus ! :))

Whenever I take my kids into the backgarden or we go bushwalking, we turn over stones and logs to see what's underneath. In Australia you have to be careful because there are a lot of venomous creatures here.

Then I look at G+ tonight and realise that when you lift up some stones here you find a lot of weird creatures too.
We learnt this in the 80s it's basic nature. . . Bit strange that humans still believe in ghosts. 
Some people feel threatened by knowledge. Let 'em, we got better things to do, like discover more for them to be threatened about.
Contemptible detestable repugnant abhorrent thing
People, this is like someone arguing that reading Pride and Prejudict is better than watching Manchester United play.

They're completely different things.

One is a work of fiction, the other you can see, assess and measure.

It works like this:

1. To say a supernatural beings made the universe are called 'hypothesising'.
2. Scientists hypothesis too.
3. Scientists can then test these hypotheses and come to some conclusions.
4. Scientists can, from these conclusions, develop 'theories'.
5. You aim to create a theory which best explains the greater amount of material known at present.
6. You can test the theory to see if it holds up.
7. People who believe in some supernatural being cannot test their hypothesis.
8. If someones 'proof' is along the lines of 'you can tell', 'I know', 'lots of people throughout history have known', 'it's in <name/book> it must be true, 'we're here, that's proof' or even 'I've spoken to <name/deity/flower/tree/sponge' then we know they are merely spouting an hypothesis.
9. If there are not testable elements to a hypothesis then it cannot progress and merely remains a hypothesis.
10. When people say things like '<deity> did/thought/made' as a statement of fact and they were NOT there, there's not really anything to say other than "Nope, <insert/similarly/unfalsafiable/object/animal/> did'

For example: "The Rainbow Serpent created the world" (Australian Aboriginal belief). Now let someone who claims "<name/of/other/thing/teapot/spaghetti monster" created the world PROVE that this is not true.

I trust this has been:

a. Some help to those who like to be able to research, trial and test and critically assess things before accepting them
b. Helped those who fail to understand the hypothesis vs theory definition
c. Helped those who have a hypothesis to understand how they can go about finding some evidence for their claim so they can then enter the debate properly acquainted with the notion of facts, evidence and proof, rather than talking about something like a kindergarten child doing a class presentation on 'Why my dog is the best dog in the world'.
Haha all these people saying "who made the star's "
Is there anybody here who actually read the Bible and still religious? Is there anybody here who questions absolute dating technics and actually knows anything about their physics? Is there anybody here who questions the theory of evolution and knows even the basics of biology?
+Edward Woods If I'm reading you properly Edward, it would appear you didn't get to the end of the book on astronomy or evolution. There's no 'thinking' involved, though I assume you're really using the statement as a means to counter the suggestion that there was no 'supernatural' creation of the universe.

My favourite is this. Science has shown that particles appear and disappear at an enourmous rate. We don't know where they come from or where they go.

Those who doubt the 'big bang' appear to think that because we don't presently know how it came about, we never will and thus the argument is that something came from nothing.

Science doesn't sit around saying 'well we'll never know'. It keeps researching.

If anything existed before the big bang, where did it come from.

If you believe in some form of 'intervention' then where did THAT object/thing/creature/deity come from. If a group of people cannot do better than "It was always there" then I'm afraid they've already rejected their own argument AGAINST scientists who say "We don't know. But we're looking into it."

I hope I'm reading you correctly.
I see the problem, she posted it to Twitter and not Google plus.
That is an elegant statement – if a little 2 dimensional... But isn’t Cosmology about to be turned on its head? The standard model for physics is just about done isn’t it – all of these theories, hypothesis and study now seem to hinge on the hope of finding the “Higgs Boson” particle, it is the last dance to somehow keep the incredibly clumsy and outmoded Big Bang Theory alive (because it is in a terrible mess) . Indeed theorists are already preparing to “start from scratch” with the cosmological model if the Boson cannot be found (and I’ll wager it will not be).

“Who made the stars?” Good question... An even more enduring question might be “who made potential, nothingness, pre-existence?” for if there is the reality of nothing, something has to pre exist that for nothing to be a proposition in itself.

G x
+Sidney Sivile But there is no God. I was there and all I saw was a teapot and a spaghetti monster. Now call me delusional if you want, but I'm just telling you what I've seen.

See how it makes as much sense. As soon as you say "I know" you're really saying "I believe" because there have been provable 'miracles'. The same argument you make is that made by others when their version is used to explain what they don't otherwise understand.

Can you prove it wasn't Zeus? Can you prove that aliens didn't abduct you and insert this idea into your mind so you'd forget the probing?

I doubt you can.

For the record, there can be NO extreme scientists. Aetheists are called that by those who believe.

It makes as much sense as calling everyone who doesn't support Manchester United 'A-United'ists'. Aetheists are people who like to know about facts and evidence. Believers are those who do just that: believe. Proof isn't part of the requirement for being a believer. Evidence is none existent other than what is in YOUR head and that's not evidence even by the standards of a primary school text book definition.

Please come back with links to something equivelent to a primary school definition of evidence and proof and there'll be a great discussion.
Science and religion, I think, are just two examples of a pursuit of the same thing: perfection. That comes in many forms for many different people, but we're all in pursuit of answers, of knowledge, of happiness and of comfort in our own individual lives. We'll achieve that by our own means, so the conflict of so-called ideologies is unnecessary.

Everybody has a different reality and a different perception of perfection. The multitude of realities (if it is, indeed, all real) is precisely what we should be embracing about this world.
‎"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."--Albert Einstein
Christians exhibiting their usual lack of class. No surprises.
+Derek Janet "..he lacks good honest faith." Seriously? You think that makes your argument against a body of work that has verifiable, testable theories? You've just given the guy the best wrap up any thinking person could have 'lack of faith'.

Yup, I'd rather rely on some thinking, testing and verifiable facts than 'faith'.

More so, I'd give you a fail for your strawman argument. "Religious believers are more compassionate". LOL Tell that to all the non-believer persecuted by 'believers', never mind every single instance of bigotry by religious believers.

For your information, only the religious think there's a believers/aetheist division. There's actually a 'believers' and an 'everybody else who is doing things in their life' division.
+Derek Janet There is no use for faith, apart from making religious people the laughing-stock of all those who think.

"Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved"
Tim Minchin
+Joseph Armstrong I'm not a religious man myself, but there is absolutely definitely a use for faith. Why shouldn't religious folk seek comfort and knowledge in faith in the same way that you seek comfort and knowledge in science? Seeking comfort in science sounds strange, I know, but do you feel more comfortable when you have acquired more knowledge about the subject that you are pursuing?

I completely agree that the Krauss quote is beautiful - I feel much more comfortable believing science than religion - but that doesn't mean that religion should be shunned and mocked as one of life's pursuits.

Each to their own.
Let's see. One group of humans with limited knowledge belittling another group with limited knowledge does what exactly? Any one who claims to know the truth about everything is choosing to be ignorant.

4.54 Billion years old and the Earth is still intact. Why has the Earth not been crushed or pulled into a black hole? Why hasn't an exploding star sent enough matter to destroy our entire solar system yet?

I see the merits of science but you must realize that science is humanity's small understanding of this Universe. That is why it is so shocking to see such arrogance come from logical thinkers.

They hate religion yet some act no better. You judge, you condemn, and you claim your way is the only way. How are you any better than the people you disparage?

As for his comment concerning Jesus, why speak of something you do not believe in. Furthermore, why make the joke in the first place? Excusing his comment is like saying it is alright if someone uses hateful diction as long as their audience is okay with it. People should be responsible for their words at all times.

I have left the company of good friends many times over because of stubborn ignorance and hatred. Whether you hang your hat on science or a deity matters not to me. How you treat me and others is what really matters.
Besides, scientists need to have a certain level of 'faith' to engage in their own pursuits, so faith (as a belief in something) is ubiquitous.
Forget Jesus ?? Mr Krauss you shoud be thankful Jesus has not forgotten you. In fact, He Loves you.
+Gary Tonge Nope. In short, the Higgs-Bosun (and I recently spoke to a theoretical physicist who had been to the LHC) is believed to be what gives mass to some particles.

It is not the only proposed explanation which exists, but is the one which more comprehsively encapsulated what we presently know.

If the Higgs-Boson is to elusive, there are other approaches which can be explored further.

Scientist acknowledge a 'beginning' issue is significant and they explore what is out there. Non-scientific argument propose the very thing they claims science cannot prove - yet provide no evidence whatsoever other than "I believe", "I know" "<object/thing/supernatural_being/etc> existed eternally". None of these are more than a starting point for an argument. It wouldn't even muster a point in a primary school detating competition.
+Rafael Medina Quantum physics.... the observation of creation, that started with nothing or something else, and then instantly appeared or changed, is well documented. This explains elements.... we didn't have to start with them, to end up with them. Atom smasher proves that.
The amount of cognitive dissonance reduction revealed by some people is stunning. Sure I understand that it is very difficult and perhaps painful to admit to yourself that your lifelong investment in your believes are the equivalent of betting on the wrong horse. And to make things even worse, it were those you loved and cared for who put you through this mess of ignorance and close-mindedness.

What are you talking about, you ask? Well, it can't have gone unnoticed to the observent readers and participants of the science vs religion debate, that religious and ideologic believes have a component of heredity in them. With other words: you believe in the things your parents told you, and now you are stuck in that position because you don't want to betray your family and friends, by expressing your doubts about these things.

How can one cope with such internal conflict? Simply lie to yourself that you are not a fool, that you are good person and not stupid. That you are above average in all desirable traits in personality and skills. Just keep repeating this inside your head (without consciously knowing this is happening) and in no time you have found 100% equilibrium with yourself, your past believes and the rest of society. Namely that its them those nasty arrogant atheist, scientists etc etc who are missing the point. They are wrong you are right.

So please continue to reduce your cognitive dissonance, for I fear the mental state when you dont.
So say to yourself: "mistakes where made but not by me"
+Ifechelobi Meks I'll be as polite as possible. Go and read. Seriously. Go and read. If you cannot understand it, then get someone who is educated in the issues to explain it to you.

To say "the weirdest stuff" makes you sound like some 17th Century village parson who says the world is flat and I don't care what those damn Columbus and Vespucci fellows say. Who even knows if that Magellan fellow is real. It all sounds so weird to me. I can see the ground is flat, so why don't we all fly off into the ether if the place is round.

It's the LACK of faith which causes scientists and those who read it to understand that faith requires no evidence, thus the term 'belief' for religious views and science for those who use reasoning.

Your question only 'remains' because you've yet to do the most basic next part. You have question. Go look at the research. All you've done is 'think' something and then wonder why the rest didn't just pop into your head. Get up, go to the library or the computer and start to actually read the millions of words, the detailed research and verifiable and reproducible research that has been conducted for some centuries now.
+Jason Death +mica misetich If science can explain all the processes (Even though the flaw in science is that tomorrow someone comes along and disproves this whole thing and we're back to square one!!!) When a Scientific Hypothesis becomes a fact is when it can be reproduced.
So my question is, Can these processes and electromagnetic stuff be reproduced in a lab, outside of the human body and be infused into the brain in such a way that i can develop love for someone i once hated with every thing i've got.
People can have Different explanations to different things that doesn't make the explanations right.
If there is anything with a trend of uncertainty that keeps changing over time, it's science, sometimes to our own good and sometimes to our Doom.
you believe stuff you read in a book and criticise others for doing same., Has it been proved, replicated, studied aside from fossils, Telescope Images and other stuff
+Patrick Elliott-Brennan

Thanks for the info :) – I have done some reading on the Boson particle (field) a while ago and I am particularly fascinated about it because it could be the watershed moment where cosmology realises the B.B.T is finally broken to a point that science can no longer tolerate it within new discoveries (such as the “age” of the Universe – “Dark Matter” “Dark Energy” massive observed red/blue shifts, “accelerated expansion” of space and galaxies observed that are fully formed and at such a distance from us they could only be “apparently” 300-400 million years old).

I am not a scientist – but I do deeply admire science and the methodical method of pursuing truth through research and proof, knowing that today’s discoveries are likely to be the ground that larger discoveries will build over.

How about the idea that to understand the scope of reality, we must account for everything in reality? – Surely using science alone to describe everything is like describing a triangle by only using one corner of one? The more learned scientists, forward thinking philosophers and open people of faith on this world seem to grasp the importance of bringing all these facets together and finding a unity in the whole - forgetting old stories and dogmas, but understanding there is a higher truth to be found.

If only science is true, why do these other facets to us and life exist? If a man is only a machine, by what technique does this man come to believe or claim to know that he is only a machine? The experience of self-conscious evaluation of one's self is never an attribute of a mere machine. Isn’t a self-conscious and avowed mechanist is the best possible answer to the idea of mechanism. If materialism were a fact, surely there could be no self-conscious mechanist? I think there is much more to us than meets the eye, or instrument.

I look forward to seeing what LHC does find – and where it takes science - after they finally ascribe the Boson fix to history. :)
G x
+Gary Tonge The difficulty is that you cannot include within science anything which cannot be tested. Similary clincal psychology doesn't include the works of Michele Foucault - the French social theoretician (he thought of himself as a historian at times - I don't agree with him :))

The issues of 'life' as in what we appear to be :))) is fascinating but related more to biology than psychology. All the various field of psychology but in particular neuropsychology, have brought about some fantastic explanations for awareness, consciousness etc which can be tested and worked on.

If there is 'something else' out there, then if you cannot test it, it's not science and you'll have a hard time explaning it. If it exists and is observable then there are means to test it.

The more we prod, poke and damage the brain, the more we've understood notions of vision, hearing, comprehension etc but we're a long way from having a complete, comprehensive version of what makes 'reality' and 'awareness'.

For example, there are people who believe that everyone around them has been changed and are dopplegangers of some form. It's quite a high level of paranoia. It's believed they have damage to the part of the brain that allows them to perceive persistence and similarity in the faces they see. They see the differences rather than the similarities (the brain has developed to perceive patterns) and thus think the person has changed, is fake somehow.

The great problem in psychology is developing synthesising theories which draw lots of this together. As you said, trying to find some unity of some form.

Just as a final word. Redshift is used to determine distance of stellar bodies. The higg-bosun relates to mass.

Photons have no mass and thus their speed is not affected by proverbial higgs particle. If the higgs is not found, it would not affect the work done on the distances planetary bodies are from us or their age.

Mind you, this physicist I spoke to who had been at the LHC said that 'find it or not' there will be a gazillion other questions which will need to be answered :)))
+Patrick Elliott-Brennan

:) Yeah, aware about the red/blue shift (and what it measures), was just adding it to my comments on the anomalies in the Standard Model (which are numerous as I am sure you know).
Very much agree, to study measurable items, science is the way, to study the immeasurable, something else is surely needed... :)

Thanks for the replies. :)
G x
As a Christian am appalled at the quote (only the last few lines) but will defend Ms. Cyrus' right to her free speech... Her freedom of Religion, and The man quoted as well.

I can believe to my bones they are worng, and can even vehemently debate the issues presented, but will not decry a persons right to say it...
I don't understand why it should be any more egrigious for a scientist to talk about what "died" to make us than it should be for a Christian to do the same thing. The build up is the key here, works through the roots of the wonder at how matter itself came to be, first postulated by Sagan..."Star stuff" indeed. How can someone not watch him say that in Cosmos and just marvel at the universe...all leading up to something that is essentially true regardless of faith, forget Jesus might perhaps be a single pair of incendiary words, but unless you are willing to deny science itself the truth that the death of stars was quite factually the root of the matter that makes up humans today is clear, beautiful truth.
+Ifechelobi Meks

I can tell from what you've written that you're not being deliberately obtuse. Unfortunately there is a significant amount of work in front of you and some basics which you cannot learn here.

My point about Kuhn was that even as someone who argues that science does not move along in a nice, linear path of incremental changes but has massive crises (which develop over a long time) Khun is still arguing that scientific paradigms do not develop overnight or change overnight.

"Change in basic ASSUMPTIONS!!!" Yes. All science has basic assumptions. All thinking involved basic assumptions. Nothing in that says "Science is wrong".

"So theory involves NO DOING in itself.

From the same page:

"A classical example of the distinction between theoretical and practical uses the discipline of medicine: Medical theory and theorizing involves trying to understand the causes and nature of health and sickness, while the practical side of medicine is trying to make people healthy"

You really need to read the rest and not think that because you've got to the end of one bit you have understood it all.

"By the way, I looked @ the links you provided (thanks for that), And it didn't answer the question I asked...I was looking for a process where the Praying mantis after some years became the fruit fly or vice versa... not studying them to understand evolution, and why have we not fully understood evolution?"

You didn't read it all. No scientist says that praying mantis's become fruit flys. No evolutionary theorist says this. You have come up with a question that I can answer - they don't. No-one said they did.

"Furthermore, an excerpt from the "Origin of Species"...Did you see the number of the occurrence the word 'thought' has in this little excerpt? So darwin and co were Just thinking loudly(i believe strongly) and you were believing."

Again, your lack of education inhibits your capacity to comprehend what you've read. What you are are referencing is a style of writing, not what science showed.

"Now to the bottom line, I have actually read some, thanks to you and still I don't understand, because they have not been replicated. they're just thoughts.
thank you"

You are saying that because you partly read a couple of links you should understand it all? If that was all that was required to understand a field of study, I wouldn't have spent years completing two degrees and my wife wouldn't have needed to have done three and my brother-in-law and various friends wouldn't have needed to have completed PhDs because they'd just have to read a couple of links on a Google Plus page.

I, nor anyone else here, can make up for the basic education you're going to need to engage in to allow you to have a grasp of something which though not excessively complex, does require the ability to read critically and comprehensively.

If you are serious in understanding the issues, I'd suggest you contact your nearest community college (or whatever they call them where you are) and see if they run courses in these subjects.

I don't expect anyone to grasp the basics of these issues if they need assistance with the basics of critical analysis and comprehension.

I can see you're struggling but I can only point you in a direction which may help.
+Terence Westphal

"BTW: Being able to reproduce some process in the lab is not always the way to go to prove something. Some process are tested by observations outside of the lab, or are predictions about how some phenomenon in nature should occur in the future. Like one of Einstein's discoveries in 1905, that was only proven decades later by a solar eclips, and the predictions about how light should behave on that occurrence. Its pretty hard to do such a thing in a lab as you can see."

Absolutely. Some people just don't grasp that if you can predict something with phenomenal accuracy, that's a pretty good argument for your work and theoretical positioning.

My problem with the 'God's did it' argument when it's proposed in a venue discussing science (social science, psychological science, physics etc) is that they can't even predict anything with any accuracy. There's just nothing to test, predict, review.
+Petula Guiseppi The first time I heard the comment I had the same thought. What an amazing relationship between us and the Universe. Like the astronauts who got to see the earth from space for the first time, the sense of awe and wonder is so stunning that you don't want it to fade.