... well you gain a lie in on sunday mornings

Never seen it... I have however actually read scientific journals....

Also... religion isn't stagnant.... so i don't see your point.

Also your still wrong.  "The math doesn't work" won't get you anywhere.   You need to have proof for you conclusions... and to have proof you need to have money, and to have money you need reputation, and to get reputation you need to publish... and to publish you need conclusions.  Since you can't get out of the ordinary conlcusions you need to start off with the known conclusions that you know may actually be false.

Aether for examle didn't start to go away until Einsten and his Special Theory of Relativity. 

Einsten was of course shunned... by the physics community... until he made discovery after discovery on his own... because the Physcics community didn't want anything outside of the regular model.

They wanted to hear nothing of it perferring to invent aethers and other such things to duct tape together science as they knew it.

Now imagine an einstein today... where you need superconducters and millions opon millsions of dollars of technology to do some of this stuff.  Can you imagine an Einstein ever making it out of the patent office?  No.  Those who make differences now are conventional scientists who after having already gotten their reputations with their focus on conventional decide to go off conventional...and even then succeed only when they can get enough followers to "break off" and challenge the status quo.  No matter how correct they may be proven by a later sceintist down the road.

It's strangely analgous to Martin Luther don't you think?

Science is based on the faith that our logic is sound when we construct our systems we use to perceive the world.  The truth is however... our logic isn't always sound... sometimes you get the answer right with the wrong equation.... which is what scientists often do.  Get an answer right with the wrong equation, then make all other answers fit that equation.

Don't ever suggest that the answer is wrong and look for a new one... unless you accidently stumble on it in trying to prove the conventional.

Furthermore... much like Einsteins earliest works... being wrong... once can crush you and your reputation of which you'll never recover from again... further forcing a conservative view on science.

Wow, you're so completely wrong. You seem to really misunderstand how science works.

The Higgs boson is nearly universely expected to be found because the theoretical evidence is so strong for it, at the moment dark energy is being treated as a possible explanation but by no means as certainly being correct. Coming up with a reasonable alternative theory (and due to the things I stated earlier a supernatural power can never be treated as a reasonable alternative in science) will certainly not get you excommunicated. In fact coming up with a reasonable alternative to dark energy will probably make you famous.

That therin lies the problem.  You need an alternate theory.  People would call you insane if like Einstein you claimed... "our current core base is flawed."

It's not a matter of an alternative to Dark Energy it's an alternative to EVERYTHING since Dark Energy is just something made up to prop up the current system.  Like Aether.

Also once again.  Find once scientist who disagrees with Dark Energy.  You can't find one.  Nobody just saying "Hey maybe general relativity is just wrong."

The evidence out there seems to already suggest that Dark Energy doesn't exist yet nobody wants to look at it.

Alternative ideas

Some theorists think that dark energy and cosmic acceleration are a failure of general relativity on very large scales, larger than superclusters. It is a tremendous extrapolation to think that our law of gravity, which works so well in the solar system, should work without correction on the scale of the universe. Most attempts at modifying general relativity, however, have turned out to be either equivalent to theories of quintessence, or inconsistent with observations. It is of interest to note that if the equation for gravity were to approach r instead of r2 at large, intergalactic distances, then the acceleration of the expansion of the universe becomes a mathematical artifact,[clarification needed] negating the need for the existence of Dark Energy.

Alternative ideas for dark energy have come from string theory, brane cosmology and the holographic principle, but have not yet proved as compelling as quintessence and the cosmological constant. On string theory, an article in the journal Nature described:

String theories, popular with many particle physicists, make it possible, even desirable, to think that the observable universe is just one of 10500 universes in a grander multiverse, says [Leonard Susskind, a cosmologist at Stanford University in California]. The vacuum energy will have different values in different universes, and in many or most it might indeed be vast. But it must be small in ours because it is only in such a universe that observers such as ourselves can evolve.[11]

Paul Steinhardt in the same article criticizes string theory's explanation of dark energy stating "...Anthropics and randomness don't explain anything... I am disappointed with what most theorists are willing to accept".[11]

In a rather radical departure, an article in the open access journal, Entropy, by Paul Gough, put forward the suggestion that information energy must make a significant contribution to dark energy and that this can be shown by referencing the equation of the state of information in the universe. [15]

Yet another, "radically conservative" class of proposals aims to explain the observational data by a more refined use of established theories rather than through the introduction of dark energy, focusing, for example, on the gravitational effects of density inhomogeneities[16][17][18] or on consequences of electroweak symmetry breaking in the early universe.

That post you made could not be more wrong.

Atheists don't have to be fearful of going to Hell. ;) Show me a Christian that's not going to Hell.

I can't believe you're still arguing on this extremely flawed point. Dark energy isn't universally accepted, there are alternative theories and certainly all scientists don't think it exists!

Also our current core base (the standard model) is certainly not completely wrong, as far as it describes it has very good accuracy in predicting results. However it is either flawed or at the very least extremely incomplete, all scientists know this.

Not all scientific models are born equal.

A new model must explain observed phenomena, of course. To be useful it must also be predictive of phenomena that can still be unattainable by current technlogy but are likely to be accessible in the future, or it must simplify/revolutionize the way we look at things enough to likely open the way to great progress in the theoretical field, that will in turn lead to verifiable results.

Some theories, like the standard model or more in general quantum mechanics, have been proved great at explaining observational data (electrodynamics allowed us to calculate some natural constants that resulted in accordance with observed data within a 10^-12 margin). Those are useful, predictive theories that are verified thousands of times a day in their predictive power. They are also complicated, full of apparently arbitrary parameters and widely considered "ugly".

Others are "working theories" or tentative ones that are useful as an intermediate step, as they explain some known phenomena but are still largely not predictive and not verified. Dark matter and dark energy, together with most cosmological large scale details are such theories, and no scientist will tell you they are on the same plane of quantum mechanics or thermodynamics.

Others have not been as useful or predictive but are attractive because they seem to open inways into deeper understanding on the underlying structures. Supersimmetry and the many string theories come to mind.

A few blessed theories are attractive, useful, and verified to this point in time (newtonian physics in its own range, relativity, thermodynamics) and those are the golden standard when it comes to scientific models.

Bottom line? Intermediate theories such as dark energy are a useful tool that can be used to further advance knowledge. Assuming an hypothesis is true is only part of a work method that also requires experiments to be conducted to try to disprove it, it does not reflect blind faith in its ultimate significance.

Furthermore you're equating theoretical physics to all of science. The work of Geneticists, cellular biologists (and a hojillion other kinds of biologist), geologists, meteorologists, paleontologists, various computer sciences, ect ect ect, does not directly mirror the mathematics heavy, light on experiments (due to technology having to catch up to theory) model of theoretical physics. To say that all of science relies on people coming to the right conclusion based on the wrong math until somebody accidentally discovers a better formula is a gross disservice to the hard work of thousands upon thousands of dedicated scientists around the world.

And as for what I mean when I say religion is stagnant or static, what major religious discoveries have churches made that weren't political or culturally driven in the past two hundred years? There is no discovery within the bible or Quran or vedas that aren't secular and scientific in nature. They've been around for hundreds or in some cases thousands of years, and they are what they are. People still are waiting for Jesus to come back, are still afraid of hell, still want to go to heaven, ect ect.

There is no discovery, no progression, at best there are minor quibbles between denominations as to who goes to heaven, what is hell, and is there really a devil. And they can argue about it for hundreds of years and never come to a conclusion, or agree on any of it. If something does change, it's not because somebody spent twenty years of their life working twelve hours a day working to figure something out. It's because somebody opposes a political leader, it's because the cultural zeitgeist moves in a different direction, it's because they interpreted a prophecy one way and it didn't happen, so they change the interpretation. And if evidence comes along that the bible isn't inerrant, then those that believe it is don't develop their beliefs, they just plug their ears. Religions stay the same, the people change. Science has changed it's views and beliefs in the past two centuries more than Christianity has in two millennium. That's what I mean when I say religion is static, and stagnant.

This turned into another"Is God real"thread.Those seem to be very popular.