Big Bang

At Mind Matters News: A recent Big Bang debate: Sheer politeness underscores shakeup

Spread the love

“Everyone would be keen to abandon the theory if there’s a better alternative, nobody’s married to the Big Bang theory” – Pro-Big Bang astrophysicist Claudia Marason

Everyone? Just like that? Steve Meyer, author of The Return of the God Hypothesis, points out that a philosophical issue, as much as anything, may underlie the readiness to discredit the Big Bang on the basis of problematic Webb findings about galaxy formation:

“Many scientists, including Albert Einstein, have understandably found the Big Bang theory philosophically unpalatable. If the physical universe of matter, energy, space and time had a beginning – as observational astronomy and theoretical physics suggest – it’s hard to envision a physical cause for such an event. After all, it was matter and energy that first came into existence at the Big Bang. Before that, no matter or energy — no physics — would have yet existed that could have caused the universe to begin.” – Stephen Meyer, “Here’s Why James Webb Telescope Discoveries Are Causing Scientists to Rethink Galaxy Formation (But Not the Big Bang)” at DailyWire (September 22, 2022)”

As Meyer points out, the Big Bang has caused a number of scientists to conclude that there must be a Creator beyond the universe. But then, any beginning of the universe at all — or even of a succession of universes — raises the same question.

Takehome point: Such sudden, widespread cosmological doubt is bound to have a major cultural impact.

You may also wish to read: Re the Webb findings uproar: Who owns the Big Bang anyhow? Researcher and science writer Eric Lerner would never have attracted the attention he has in recent weeks if the Webb findings were not disturbing to many cosmologists. To avoid absurd “infinity” math, we just assume our universe has a beginning. But then the Webb shook up many details, creating distress and anger.

9 Replies to “At Mind Matters News: A recent Big Bang debate: Sheer politeness underscores shakeup

  1. 1
    chuckdarwin says:

    As Meyer points out, the Big Bang has caused a number of scientists to conclude that there must be a Creator beyond the universe.

    Who are all these scientists to whom Meyer refers?

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Here’s Why James Webb Telescope Discoveries Are Causing Scientists To Rethink Galaxy Formation (But Not The Big Bang) – Stephen Meyer – Sep 22, 2022
    Excerpt: “Such considerations have led some scientists — Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder, the late Caltech astronomer Allan Sandage and Nobel laureate Arno Penzias — to affirm a creator beyond space and time. Others remain agnostic about ultimate origins.”
    https://www.dailywire.com/news/heres-why-james-webb-telescope-discoveries-are-causing-scientists-to-rethink-galaxy-formation

    “According to our best understanding of the universe and equally according to the most ancient commentaries on the book of Genesis, there was only one physical creation. Science refers to it as the big bang. The Bible calls it the creation of the heavens and the earth. Every physical object in this vast universe, including our human bodies, is built of the light of creation.”
    – Gerald Schroeder, God According to God: A Physicist Proves We’ve Been Wrong About God All Along – 2010

    “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”
    — Allan Sandage – Sizing Up the Cosmos: An Astronomer’s Quest – NY Times – March 1991

    “My argument,” Dr. Penzias concluded, “is that the best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”
    – Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics – co-discoverer Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation – as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978

    “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis”
    – Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discoverer Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
    – Fred Heeren, Show Me God (Wheeling, Ill.: Daystar, 2000),

    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
    – Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, p. 116. – founding director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies
    – ,,,,, “With the discovery of the Big Bang, Jastrow began to hold a belief that, if there was a beginning to the universe, there was also a Creator.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jastrow#Religious_views

  3. 3
    BobRyan says:

    Big Bang has been flawed for a while. There have been too many discoveries, thanks to Hubble, that disprove it. Anew theory is needed for the beginning of the universe, which must have a beginning due to the laws of physics demanding a beginning.

    Just as there is nothing random about the laws, there is nothing random about the universe. There is a beautiful order that proves design with every new discovery.

  4. 4
    jerry says:

    Part of this is in #2 above

    HERE’S WHY JAMES WEBB TELESCOPE DISCOVERIES ARE CAUSING SCIENTISTS TO RETHINK GALAXY FORMATION (BUT NOT THE BIG BANG

    If the JWST were to detect “uber” red shifted radiation coming from extremely ancient, distant galaxies, that would provide additional confirmation that the universe has expanded as much as the Big Bang theory predicts.

    So has the JWST detected such radiation? It has. In fact, there would be no extremely distant galaxies to analyze had the JWST not detected long wavelength infrared radiation coming from them. Remember the JWST was specifically designed to detect such infrared radiation. Thus, the fact that it has been able to produce images of extremely distant galaxies shows that it has collected the kind of radiation astronomers would expect if the universe is expanding as the Big Bang theory affirms.

    Lerner mentions none of this. Instead, he highlights surprising discoveries about how many galaxies had formed in those remote periods in cosmic history. He argues that, given current theory, we should not expect to see so many galaxies so early….

    —————-
    Such considerations have led some scientists — Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder, the late Caltech astronomer Allan Sandage and Nobel laureate Arno Penzias — to affirm a creator beyond space and time. Others remain agnostic about ultimate origins.

    https://stephencmeyer.org/2022/09/27/heres-why-james-webb-telescope-discoveries-are-causing-scientists-to-rethink-galaxy-formation-but-not-the-big-bang/

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Further to BobRyan at 3,

    The term “Big Bang” was a term of derision which Fred Hoyle coined to mock the notion of a beginning to the universe.

    In the following video, Dr. Singh presents a radio recording of Fred Hoyle, around 1951, calling the notion of a beginning to the universe as ‘The Big Bang’;

    History of the Big Bang – Simon Singh, PhD – video – (38:32 min. mark)
    https://youtu.be/7UTpGKbkS2g?t=2312 ?

    Fred Hoyle personally favored the ‘steady state’ model for the universe. Yet the steady state model was definitively refuted in 1964 with “the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964”,

    Steady-state model – Observational tests
    Excerpt: For most cosmologists, the definitive refutation of the steady-state model came with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, which was predicted by the Big Bang theory.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model#Observational_tests

    As an aside, Fred Hoyle, because of fine-tuning, went from being a hard core atheist to eventually coming around to believing in Deism, perhaps even leaning ever so slightly towards Theism,

    Michael Denton -Atheist Fred Hoyle’s conversion from atheism to being a Deist/Theist (6:38 minute mark)- video
    https://youtu.be/ADT9L5MBPak?t=398

    As Fred Hoyle himself stated, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has “monkeyed” with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”

    “From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 MeV level in 16 O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? … I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has “monkeyed” with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”
    – Sir Fred Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16.

    It is unfortunate that Hoyle’s derogatory term ‘Big Bang’ stuck in the public’s imagination. The term “Big Bang” really is a very flawed mental picture of what happened at the beginning of the universe.

    As Bruce Gordon explains, “An explosion you think of as kind of a messy event.,,, The explosion in which our universe began was not a messy event. And if you talk about how messy it could have been, this is what the Penrose (1 in 10^10^123 initial entropy) calculation is all about essentially.”

    “An explosion you think of as kind of a messy event. And this is the point about entropy. The explosion in which our universe began was not a messy event. And if you talk about how messy it could have been, this is what the Penrose calculation is all about essentially. It looks at the observed statistical entropy in our universe. The entropy per baryon. And he calculates that out and he arrives at a certain figure. And then he calculates using the Bekenstein-Hawking formula for Black-Hole entropy what the,,, (what sort of entropy could have been associated with,,, the singularity that would have constituted the beginning of the universe). So you’ve got the numerator, the observed entropy, and the denominator, how big it (the entropy) could have been. And that fraction turns out to be,, 1 over 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power. Let me just emphasize how big that denominator is so you can gain a real appreciation for how small that probability is. So there are 10^80th baryons in the universe. Protons and neutrons. No suppose we put a zero on every one of those. OK, how many zeros is that? That is 10^80th zeros. This number has 10^123rd zeros. OK, so you would need a hundred million, trillion, trillion, trillion, universes our size, with zero on every proton and neutron in all of those universes just to write out this number. That is how fine tuned the initial entropy of our universe is. And if there were a pre-Big Bang state and you had some bounces, then that fine tuning (for entropy) gets even finer as you go backwards if you can even imagine such a thing. ”
    – Dr Bruce Gordon – Contemporary Physics and God Part 2 – video – 1:50 minute mark – video
    https://youtu.be/ff_sNyGNSko?t=110

    Here is an article that goes into a bit more detail as to exactly why the the term “Big Bang” is a very flawed mental picture as to what actually happened at the beginning of the universe.

    WHY THE BIG BANG IS NOT AN EXPLOSION – By Sten Odenwald – May 14, 1997
    Excerpt: the event that created the universe and everything in it was a very different kind of phenomenon than most people — or, at least, most nonphysicists — imagine. Even the name “Big Bang” originally was a putdown cooked up by a scientist who didn’t like the concept when it was first put forth. He favored the idea that the universe had always existed in a much more dignified and fundamentally unchanging, steady state. But the name stuck, and with it has come the completely wrong impression that the event was like an explosion. That image leads many of us to imagine that the universe is expanding because the objects in it are being flung apart like fragments of a detonated bomb. That isn’t true.,,,
    So, how should we think about the Big Bang? Our “fireworks” image of the phenomenon depends on five basic requirements: 1) A preexisting sky or space into which the fragments from the explosion are injected; 2) A preexisting time we can use to mark when the explosion happened; 3) Individual projectiles moving through space from a common center; 4) A definite moment when the explosion occurred; and 5) Something that started the Big Bang. All of these requirements in our visualization of the Big Bang are false or unnecessary, according to GR. Preexisting Space? There was no preexisting space. The mathematics of GR state unambiguously that three-dimensional space was created at the Big Bang itself, at “Time Zero,” along with everything else. At that beginning, there were no separations between particles anywhere. This is another way of saying there was no three-dimensional space,,,
    space is not a passive stage across which objects dance but a full-fledged member of the cast. GR treats galaxies and “space-time” together, giving a very different picture of what happens than if they were treated separately, as most of us tend to do.,,,
    Perhaps the strangest truth to emerge from general relativity is the expansion of space. Like spots glued to the surface of a swelling balloon at eternally fixed latitude and longitude points, the galaxies remain where they are while space dilates between them as time passes.,,,
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/1997/05/14/why-the-big-bang-is-not-an-explosion/7164578f-5b06-407b-b69a-e97377145ac5/

    “The Big Bang represents an immensely powerful, yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space and time. All this is accomplished within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws. The power and care this explosion reveals exceeds human mental capacity by multiple orders of magnitude.”
    Prof. Henry F. Schaefer – closing statement of the following video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....age#t=360s

    As mentioned previously, Fred Hoyle’s steady state model was definitively refuted in 1964 with “the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) in 1964”.

    Moreover, besides refuting the steady state model, the CMBR, as more and more precise measurements have been made of the CMBR, has continued to produce evidence against atheistic, i.e. random/chaotic, models for the creation of the universe.

    Specifically, the atheistic model of eternal chaotic inflation, postulated that “most of space could have been expanding eternally, thus removing the necessity of a beginning.”

    Critics Respond to Stephen Meyer’s New Book (Without Mentioning Him by Name)
    Brian Miller – October 16, 2021
    Excerpt: Siegel’s Argument
    Siegel attempts to find a loophole for the conclusion of a cosmic beginning by appealing to the theory known as eternal chaotic inflation. Inflationary theory was initially developed to explain the fine-tuning implied by the “flatness” of space and the near perfect uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). The flatness represents the lack in curvature of space that the theory of general relativity would normally predict. According to the standard Big Bang model, the lack of curvature required the mass density of the early universe to have been fine-tuned to greater than 1 part in 1060 (a 1 with 60 zeros behind it).
    Inflationary theory attempts to explain the flatness of space and the uniformity of the CMBR without the need for such extreme fine-tuning.,,
    ,,, The key point for Siegal is that most of space could have been expanding eternally, thus removing the necessity of a beginning.,,,
    Unfortunately, Siegel’s claim was completely discredited by the research of leading cosmologists Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, Alexander Vilenkin. They developed the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin (BGV) theorem that demonstrates that all universes, which are on average expanding, must have had a beginning. Our universe falls into this category, so it must have had a beginning even if eternal inflation were true.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2021/10/critics-respond-to-stephen-meyers-new-book-without-mentioning-him-by-name/

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    ,, Yet more precise recent measurements of the CMBR “all but ruled out several popular models of inflation” that atheists have appealed to in order to avoid a beginning for the universe.,

    Blowing Up the Universe: BICEP3 Tightens the Bounds on Cosmic Inflation – Oct. 27, 2021
    A new analysis of the South Pole-based telescope’s cosmic microwave background observations has all but ruled out several popular models of inflation.
    Excerpt: “Once-promising models of inflation are now ruled out,” said Chao-Lin Kuo, a BICEP3 principal investigator and a physicist at Stanford University and the Department of Energy’s SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory.
    The results were published on October 4, 2021, in Physical Review Letters,,,
    Those advances, Ahmed says, combined with data from prior experiments including BICEP2, Keck, WMAP and Planck, have allowed researchers to put the tightest bounds yet on what kinds of primordial gravitational waves could be out there – and hence the tightest bounds yet on models of cosmic inflation.
    The results rule out a number of inflation models, including some popular older models and some versions of newer ones motivated by string theory,,,
    https://scitechdaily.com/blowing-up-the-universe-bicep3-tightens-the-bounds-on-cosmic-inflation/

    As Paul Steinhardt himself, one of the founders of inflation theory, himself stated, “If anything, the Planck data (from the CMBR) disfavored the simplest inflation models and exacerbated long-standing foundational problems with the theory, providing new reasons to consider competing ideas about the origin and evolution of the universe…”

    Pop Goes The Universe – Scientific American – January 2017 – Anna Ijjas, Paul J. Steinhardt and Abraham Loeb
    Excerpt: “If anything, the Planck data (from the CMBR) disfavored the simplest inflation models and exacerbated long-standing foundational problems with the theory, providing new reasons to consider competing ideas about the origin and evolution of the universe… (i)n the years since, more precise data gathered by the Planck satellite and other instruments have made the case only stronger……The Planck satellite results—a combination of an unexpectedly small (few percent) deviation from perfect scale invariance in the pattern of hot and colds spots in the CMB and the failure to detect cosmic gravitational waves—are stunning. For the first time in more than 30 years, the simplest inflationary models, including those described in standard textbooks, are strongly disfavored by observations.”
    “Two improbable criteria have to be satisfied for inflation to start. First, shortly after the big bang, there has to be a patch of space where the quantum fluctuations of spacetime have died down and the space is well described by Einstein’s classical equations of general relativity; second, the patch of space must be flat enough and have a smooth enough distribution of energy that the inflation energy can grow to dominate all other forms of energy. Several theoretical estimates of the probability of finding a patch with these characteristics just after the big bang suggest that it is more difficult than finding a snowy mountain equipped with a ski lift and well-maintained ski slopes in the middle of a desert.”
    “More important, if it were easy to find a patch emerging from the big bang that is flat and smooth enough to start inflation, then inflation would not be needed in the first place. Recall that the entire motivation for introducing it was to explain how the visible universe came to have these properties; if starting inflation requires those same properties, with the only difference being that a smaller patch of space is needed, that is hardly progress.”
    “…inflation continues eternally, generating an infinite number of patches where inflation has ended, each creating a universe unto itself…(t)he worrisome implication is that the cosmological properties of each patch differ because of the inherent randomizing effect of quantum fluctuations…The result is what cosmologists call the multiverse. Because every patch can have any physically conceivable properties, the multiverse does not explain why our universe has the very special conditions that we observe—they are purely accidental features of our particular patch.”
    “We would like to suggest “multimess” as a more apt term to describe the unresolved outcome of eternal inflation, whether it consists of an infinite multitude of patches with randomly distributed properties or a quantum mess. From our perspective, it makes no difference which description is correct. Either way, the multimess does not predict the properties of our observable universe to be the likely outcome. A good scientific theory is supposed to explain why what we observe happens instead of something else. The multimess fails this fundamental test.”
    https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/sciam3.pdf

    And as Steinhardt noted elsewhere, these latest observations from the CMBR “is potentially a blow for the (inflation) theory, but that it pales in significance with inflation’s other problems.”

    Cosmic inflation is dead, long live cosmic inflation – 25 September 2014
    Excerpt: Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, who helped develop inflationary theory but is now scathing of it, says this is potentially a blow for the theory, but that it pales in significance with inflation’s other problems.,,
    it doesn’t make any sense to say what inflation predicts, except to say it predicts everything. If it’s physically possible, then it happens in the multiverse someplace,,,
    http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....CajrGl0y00

    Moreover, besides all but ruling out several popular models of inflation, more precise measurements of the CMBR have gone even further and have revealed that the solar system, and the earth is particular, have far more significance in this universe than is presupposed by atheists,,

    Specifically, more precise measurements of the CMBR have revealed “unexpected large scale anomalies”,

    Planck reveals an almost perfect Universe (Disconfirms inflationary models) – video
    Quote at 2:00 minute mark: “What’s surprising in Planck’s latest findings and is inconsistent with prevailing theories, is the presence of unexpected large scale anomalies in the sky. Including a large cold region. Stronger fluctuations in one half of the sky than the other. And less light signals than expected across the entire sky.”
    Planck spokesman: “When we look at only the large features on this (CMBR) map you find that our find that our best fitting theory (inflation) has a problem fitting the data.”
    “Planck launched in 2009,, is the 3rd mission to study the Cosmic Microwave Background to date. While these unusual features in the sky were hinted at the two previous US missions, COBE and WMAP, Planck’s ability to measure the tiniest of fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background has made these so called anomalies impossible to ignore.”
    Planck spokesman: “Because of these features that we are finding in the sky, people really are in a situation now where they cannot ignore them any more. ,,, We’ve established them (the anomalies) as fact!”.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2CWaLU6eMI

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    ,,, And these ‘unexpected large scale anomalies’ found in the CMBR ‘surprisingly’ line up with the solar system and the earth.

    Here is an excellent clip from “The Principle” that explains these ‘unexpected anomalies’ in the CMBR, that ‘surprisingly’ line up with the solar system and the earth, in an easy to understand manner.

    Cosmic Microwave Background Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htV8WTyo4rw

    Moreover, as the following paper highlights, we find that Radio Astronomy now reveals a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe, “implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which the standard cosmological model is based upon”,,,

    A large anisotropy in the sky distribution of 3CRR quasars and other radio galaxies
    – Ashok K. Singal
    Astrophysics and Space Science volume 357, Article number: 152 (2015)
    Abstract
    We report the presence of large anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars as well as some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR survey, the most reliable and most intensively studied complete sample of strong steep-spectrum radio sources. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the equinoxes and the north celestial pole. Out of a total of 48 quasars in the sample, 33 of them lie in one half of the observed sky and the remaining 15 in the other half. The probability that in a random distribution of 3CRR quasars in the sky, statistical fluctuations could give rise to an asymmetry in observed numbers up to this level is only ?1 %. Also only about 1/4th of Fanaroff-Riley 1 (FR1) type of radio galaxies lie in the first half of the observed sky and the remainder in the second half. If we include all the observed asymmetries in the sky distributions of quasars and radio galaxies in the 3CRR sample, the probability of their occurrence by a chance combination reduces to ?2×10?5. Two pertinent but disturbing questions that could be raised here are—firstly why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the strongest and most distant discrete sources, implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? Secondly why should such anisotropies lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It seems yet more curious when we consider the other anisotropies, e.g., an alignment of the four normals to the quadrupole and octopole planes in the CMBR with the cosmological dipole and the equinoxes. Then there is the other recently reported large dipole anisotropy in the NVSS radio source distribution differing in magnitude from the CMBR dipole by a factor of four, and therefore not explained as due to the peculiar motion of the Solar system, yet aligned with the CMBR dipole which itself lies close to the line joining the equinoxes. Are these alignments a mere coincidence or do they imply that these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which the standard cosmological model is based upon?
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-015-2388-2

    And it is this ‘surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe’, combined on top of the CMBR anomalies, which, amazingly, provide us with the proper coordinates in order to overturn the Copernican principle, and/or the ‘principle of mediocrity’,,, and which strongly support the ‘medieval’ Christian belief that the earth should be considered to have special significance in the universe.

    As the following article, (with an illustration) explains, “The CMB dipole and quadrupole gives us the X axis and Y axis but not a Z axis. Hence, the X and Y axis of the CMB provide a direction, but only an approximate position.,,, For the Z-axis we depend on other information, such as quasars and galaxy alignment that the CMB cannot provide.”

    Debunking Palm and MacAndrew on the CMB Evidence”, p. 8
    Excerpt: “Of course to have an exact position, (or what we would call an ‘exact center’ in the universe), we would need an X axis, a Y axis, and a Z axis, since that will give us three dimensions in Euclidean space. The CMB dipole and quadrupole gives us the X axis and Y axis but not a Z axis. Hence, the X and Y axis of the CMB provide a direction, but only an approximate position. That is why we have continually said that the CMB puts Earth “at or near the center of the universe.”
    For the Z-axis we depend on other information, such as quasars and galaxy alignment that the CMB cannot provide. For example, it has been discovered that the anisotropies of extended quasars and radio galaxies are aligned with the Earth’s equator and the North celestial pole (NCP)4.,,, Ashok K. Singal describes his shocking discovery in those terms:
    “What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.”
    – Ashok K. Singal4 “Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky,” Ashok K. Singal, Astronomy and Astrophysics Division, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, India, May 17, 2103,..
    Signal states: “We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations.”
    – R. Sungenis – (“Debunking Palm and MacAndrew on the CMB Evidence”, p. 8).
    – article
    http://debunkingalecmacandrew……mb_22.html
    – illustration
    https://i.postimg.cc/L8G3CbXN/DOUBLE-AXIS.png

    Thus, directly contrary to the ‘mediocrity’ presumption of atheists, far from the anomalies in the CMBR, and the large scale structures of the universe, being a product of random quantum fluctuations, (as they had falsely presupposed within their inflation model), the small temperature variations in the CMBR, combined on top of the ‘largest scale structures of the observable universe’, reveal teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan, a reason), that specifically included the earth and the solar system from the very start of the creation of the universe itself.,,, The earth and solar system, (from what our best science can now tell us), is not just the result of some random quantum fluctuation as atheists had erroneously presupposed within their inflation model.

    Genesis 1
    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    Isaiah 45:18-19
    For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; I did not say to the seed of Jacob, ‘seek me in vain’; I, the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.”

    Proverbs 8:26-27
    While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep,

    Job 26:10
    He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.

    Of supplemental note: also see Michael Denton’s recent book, “The Miracle of Man: The Fine Tuning of Nature for Human Existence”;

    The Miracle of Man: The Fine Tuning of Nature for Human Existence (Privileged Species Series) – May 6, 2022
    https://www.amazon.com/Miracle-Man-Existence-Privileged-Species/dp/1637120125

    The Miracle of Man: Extraordinary “Coincidences” All the Way Down –
    Excerpt: On today’s ID the Future, Miracle of Man author and biologist Michael Denton continues his conversation with host Eric Anderson. Here Denton does a rapid flyover of several more anthropic “coincidences” in chemistry, biochemistry, and Earth science that are fine tuned to allow air-breathing, bipedal, technology-developing terrestrial creatures like ourselves to exist and thrive. The fine tuning, what Denton calls anthropic prior fitness, would seem to require foresight and planning on literally a cosmic scale.
    – Podcast:
    The Miracle of Man: Extraordinary “Coincidences” All the Way Down – Michael Denton interview
    https://idthefuture.com/1609/

  8. 8
    relatd says:

    “It is unfortunate that Hoyle’s derogatory term ‘Big Bang’ stuck in the public’s imagination. The term “Big Bang” really is a very flawed mental picture of what happened at the beginning of the universe.”

    Look at the science textbooks most people grew up with. Look at TV shows about the creation of the universe. You have the Big Bang, complete with the visualization of an explosion plus sound! Whoever approved the textbooks I grew up with literally carved this image in stone. In the heads of a generation, or two, of young people.

    No, it’s all wrong. Based on this new evidence and “we shouldn’t have so many galaxies in the ‘young’ universe”! Who the heck actually knows how many galaxies are out there? Why was Dark Matter created as a concept? The belief, based on what could be seen, that there was not enough matter in the universe. So, let’s arbitrarily fill up the ‘missing’ matter with Dark Matter. Seriously?

  9. 9
    whistler says:

    The Principle (2014) full documentary

    It’s interesting but I have a problem believing anything that scientists say about the past of the Universe. They blew it big time with biological “evolution” so no more believing “the scientists” about long, long ago and far,far away.

Leave a Reply