Announcement: Signal detected for cosmic microwave background’s polarization

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 17, 2014

Cosmology}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Universe Fate-1 Accelerating Universe — universe shortly after the Big Bang

Yesterday, we noted that a big announcement was expected re gravitational waves (Have astronomers picked up echoes of the Big Bang?), expressing the hope for a return to a cosmology based on fact, not on what dope the guy smokes. Well, it’s been made and here are physicist Rob Sheldon’s comments on it:

Okay everybody, the announcement has been made, the speculation was accurate.

BICEP (a telescope at the South Pole), has made careful measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) coming from the Big Bang, and thinks they have a real polarization signal. Just like the blue sky, in which there is a polarization signal that birds can see and use for navigational purposes which you might be able to observe with the right kind of sunglasses, so also the CMB has a tiny tiny bit of polarization in it.

Now the rest of the press release is all speculation, or theory, or whatever you call it when people breathlessly tell you that the sky is falling because something hit them on the head.

One (out of very many) theories holds that the way the CMB can get polarized, is if gravity waves from the original BB are amplified by this idea of “inflation” that expanded the universe by a gazillion times right after it banged. So this observation is being touted as a double-header—the first observation of gravity waves, and the first observation of inflation. We could toss the Easter bunny in there too, at this point it looks like it’s the first observation of all sorts of invisible things.

Now the probability that two unproved theories are confirmed by one observation is close to nil. I don’t know how strongly I can say this, but lightning doesn’t strike twice in the same spot, and these press reports are claiming that.

So what else could this polarization signal in the CMB mean? I’m no expert in these matters, but I happen to know that starlight is also polarized. In the case of starlight, the polarization is caused by scattering off of spinning dust grains in a magnetic field. It would seem to me that the same process that polarizes starlight would work just as well on CMB and it has nothing to do with either gravitational waves or inflationary cosmology. Just plain ordinary dust.

That would be where I put my betting money.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology).

Comments

Axel@ 56, Sorry, man, didn't catch any of that.Henry Crun_{March 19, 2014
March
03
Mar
19
19
2014
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

Mapou @ 55, "Relativistic corrections are already inherent in the redshift" means what exactly? Perhaps you would share the math with us to show what you mean. "The truth is that nothing can move in space time" will come as a surprise to those of us who are doing just that (you too).Henry Crun_{March 19, 2014
March
03
Mar
19
19
2014
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

See #51 immediately below your post, Henry. I don't - often couldn't - follow the technical arguments adduced by posters, but the fact that you are described as a Darwinist, seems to sit oddly with your question. Your #17, Henry: 'I’m still scratching my head wondering how anyone can think they make a point using Einstein and Planck against science! Of course science progresses one funeral at a time – knowledge and understanding are advanced by discarding theories disproved by evidence.' You seem to sincerely believe that you have a logical mind, Henry. Yet you completely invert my point, that Einstein and Planck were beacons of scientific integrity and logic, crucially based on sound assumptions - claiming that I use their insights against science. Science is knowledge. Period. It used to empirically-based I believe, but that seems to have gone by the board, now that the corporate minions of atheism rule the roost more than ever, and have seemingly initiated a process in distant Japan that would put an end to all of us, failing divine intervention. And you think it worth it, so that we can communicate across the pond? It didn't have to happen, of course, but atheist-driven materialism has seen to it. ''Sneer at them if you like, but these facets of “materialism” are all that allow these posts, this discussions and O’Leary’s scribblings to be conveyed between our distant lands.' Moreover, we may be comfortable according to our respective needs and desires, but there are all too many people, surely hundreds of millions in the West, who have been marginalized (to put it mildly) by the greed of the same moguls of corporatism that are now dictating the mandatory scope of scientific research with totalitarian force. Very much in line with US public policy generally, if it comes to that: 'cluborlov.com' You think Planck wasn't the sharpest tool in the box, then? No, even Neddy Seagoon would tell you one shouldn't have to wait for a generation of scientists to expire (perhaps a tad hyperbolical), and for their successors to accept the math! Read Aldous Huxley's 'Perennial Philosophy', Henry. Or if you have, already, read it again, and you may begin to understand why O'Leary's intelligence is of such a high calibre, notably, it seems, in comparison with yours, but atheists, generally. (no such thing as a Christian materialist, Henry). That towering genius of economics, (of all subjects!), together with J K Galbraith, J M Keynes, but perhaps more astonishingly prophetic expressed the matter very pungently, if a little wryly, in his review of a book by Hayek: 'The book, as it stands, seems to me to be one of the most frightful muddles I have ever read, with scarcely a sound proposition in it beginning with page 45 [Hayek provided historical background up to page 45; after that came his theoretical model], and yet it remains a book of some interest, which is likely to leave its mark on the mind of the reader. It is an extraordinary example of how, starting with a mistake, a remorseless logician can end up in bedlam.' That, alas, as I mentioned above is your plight; but will never be one suffered by O'Leary. But odd to think that Keynes was an atheist, albeit one who felt very lucky to be living in a christian society. Apparently, Bertrand Russell remarked that he never came away from an argument with Keynes without feeling a little foolish. Incidentally, I happened to come across, just above the above quote in Wikiquotes, this endorsement of your criticism of my jest about a thermos flask: 'There was an attraction at first that Mr Baldwin should not be clever. But when he forever sentimentalises about his own stupidity, the charm is broken.' Skidelsky quoting Keynes, apparently. Shades of Dubya being 'the kind of guy you could have a beer with!' Had Stanley and I been contemporaries, we might have compared notes. Though I would surely have had to call out to him from the tradesman's entrance.Axel_{March 19, 2014
March
03
Mar
19
19
2014
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

Crun @52:
Hopelessly wrong. A red shift of 4 corresponds to a recession velocity of about 0.92 of the speed of light in vacuo. And your explosion issue is also grossly incorrect. The Big Bang isn ‘t a bomb going off – that was always an ironic sneer – it’s a massive and rapid expansion from a hot dense state, more like a sudden inflation of a balloon . Space isn’t just an abstract either, it’s space-time and it comes with real physical characteristics. If you want to write about this stuff with any credibility, take a course.
More pomposity and deceit. You people are a bunch of con artists and you got nothing of value to teach. You are weavers of lies and deception. You are about as ignorant about the cosmos and its origin as the man on the street. The .92 C velocity is just a piece of turd that some jackass in the physics community pulled out of his asteroid orifice. It was obtained by applying Special Relativity formulas to the redshift measurements. The actual truth is that relativistic corrections are already inherent in the redshift (as per relativity) and applying it after the measurement is about as deceitful and backasswards as one can get. Your point about spacetime being some physical entity is also based on total ignorance. The truth is that nothing can move in spacetime. Go learn your own crappy Star Trek voodoo physics. PS. No need for you to reply, Crun. I can't stand throwing my pearls at swines.Mapou_{March 19, 2014
March
03
Mar
19
19
2014
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

Henry Crun stated: "O’Leary is indeed one of the greatest intellects that UD has. No further comment is necessary." Indeed no further comment is needed!bornagain77_{March 19, 2014
March
03
Mar
19
19
2014
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

BA77 @ 51, I'm not commenting on evolution, I'm commenting on the latest astrophysics evidence. Mapping, re: your last paragraph @ 49, you ought to check out the plank in your own eye before commenting on the mote in mine. I would point out that many scientists have spent years working on this, and years checking it, and put it out for peer review and checking: yet somehow you and the likes of Axel, with no understanding of the field whatsoever, seem to have spotted defects in the work, in just a few minutes, that teams of experts missed over several years. Frankly that - like you - is just not credible.Henry Crun_{March 19, 2014
March
03
Mar
19
19
2014
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

Mapou@49, Hopelessly wrong. A red shift of 4 corresponds to a recession velocity of about 0.92 of the speed of light in vacuo. And your explosion issue is also grossly incorrect. The Big Bang isn 't a bomb going off - that was always an ironic sneer - it's a massive and rapid expansion from a hot dense state, more like a sudden inflation of a balloon . Space isn't just an abstract either, it's space-time and it comes with real physical characteristics. If you want to write about this stuff with any credibility, take a course.Henry Crun_{March 19, 2014
March
03
Mar
19
19
2014
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

Henry Crun, in case you don't know, not offering any real time empirical evidence that Darwinian evolution is true, and then 'attacking the man' instead of the argument, is a tactic we have seen countless times before here on UD by Darwinists. Perhaps instead of just proclaiming yourself to be so much wiser than everybody on UD you could actually humble those who may doubt your self exaltation of wisdom with some actual wisdom instead of chest puffing rhetoric??? (just a suggestion before you get the boot): Argument Ad Hominem ? (William Lane Craig)- video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX3beh6g1Qgbornagain77_{March 19, 2014
March
03
Mar
19
19
2014
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

Axel, what is it that makes you think I'm not Christian?Henry Crun_{March 19, 2014
March
03
Mar
19
19
2014
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

Crun @46:
The two points you claim are both utterly wrong. If you are going to claim that the redshift values for the furthest galaxies mean that they are moving from us faster than light, then I think you had better show us the math. The geocentric claim you make about redshift is also wrong. The point about cosmic expansion is that all of space is expanding so everywhere is expanding away from everywhere else. So everywhere in the universe will see red shifts in distant bodies (except locally, where the rate of expansion is less than the relative local speeds, such as the local group of galaxies). Erroneous claims such as yours do not help your case.
It is a known fact that some of the farthest quasars have a redshift value greater than 4. This means that they are moving faster than light, that is, if the redshift interpretation is correct. Look it up. The redshift interpretation is just that, by the way. There are other equally valid interpretations. The idea that space is expanding everywhere is just an assertion without substance since space (distance) is an abstract mathematical entity. Besides, if expansion started with a Big Bang, it should be obvious that, as with any explosion, there must be a center to the explosion. The whole things is beginning to sound like Ptolemaic epicycles. Every discrepancy in the theory is explained with additional just-so stories that are themselves in need of explanation. By the way, your know-it-all pomposity does not make you right. It just makes you sound pompous and self-righteous. It does not impress me. I'm a rebel at heart and I refuse to let anybody do my thinking for me, especially self-appointed elitists. Speaking of scientists, Paul Feyerabend wrote in Against Method, "the most stupid procedures and the most laughable result in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down to size and to give them a lower position in society." That's the way I feel about scientists in general.Mapou_{March 19, 2014
March
03
Mar
19
19
2014
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

Oooh! That one had a sting in its tail, Henry! These lads and lassies on here will be very disconsolate to read your devastating put down. Not quite in the class, I'm afraid, of the quip to the effect that no-one would, henceforth, be able to sully the name of Jacqueline Kennedy - after she had reviled the memory of late Martin Luther King! But top marks for trying. It's not the winning. It's courageous effort that counts. I'm sure that, when Christianity is vindicated, possibly in a not too distant future, you'll quietly thank me for trying to enlighten you.Axel_{March 19, 2014
March
03
Mar
19
19
2014
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

Axel @36, At last there's something we can agree on: O'Leary is indeed one of the greatest intellects that UD has. No further comment is necessary.Henry Crun_{March 19, 2014
March
03
Mar
19
19
2014
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

Mapou @37, The two points you claim are both utterly wrong. If you are going to claim that the redshift values for the furthest galaxies mean that they are moving from us faster than light, then I think you had better show us the math. The geocentric claim you make about redshift is also wrong. The point about cosmic expansion is that all of space is expanding so everywhere is expanding away from everywhere else. So everywhere in the universe will see red shifts in distant bodies (except locally, where the rate of expansion is less than the relative local speeds, such as the local group of galaxies). Erroneous claims such as yours do not help your case.Henry Crun_{March 19, 2014
March
03
Mar
19
19
2014
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

Hello, First time I am commenting here, but I am curious as to why so many people are against the discovery of this cosmic inflation. Are there theologic issues that it raises. Like KROCK, I thought all this simply confirms the big bang....which means, a "beginning." So why all the skepticism revolving around it. I thought this would be good news.HD_{March 18, 2014
March
03
Mar
18
18
2014
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

'Funny sort of “factory” that, with the “machinery” itself popping in and out of existence as needed!,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62691.html' Ah, but the unicorns and pink pixies of materialist lore are canny creatures, BA77, as any of their elders will tell you, as they sit around the camp fire of a night.Axel_{March 18, 2014
March
03
Mar
18
18
2014
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

*Dr Barnes, if you must use a title. The point of my post is that, before you can criticise something, you must first learn what it is. There is no evidence, in this post or your previous one, that you actually understand modern cosmology. There are too many errors in presenting the basics to believe that you understand anything about the more advanced topics like CMB B-modes. I've read Genesis. I've read "God and the Cosmologists". The standard model I'm referring to are the Friedmann equations: derived in 1922, still used today. If you see a parallel to the Bible then make that case. But learn some cosmology first. Inflation is science in progress: it is mathematically formulated, it makes some confirmed predictions, another one seems to have been confirmed. We'll keep investigating.lukebarnes_{March 18, 2014
March
03
Mar
18
18
2014
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

@ppolish “Not of This World” appearing more and more scientifically valid:)" I agree, but I am more inclined to think inter-dimensional than multiverses, but who knows.KRock_{March 18, 2014
March
03
Mar
18
18
2014
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

Henry Crun, I was not talking about the origin of life either (although PZ Myers himself calls it a 'cop out' for Darwinists to ignore it). I was talking about the fact that Darwinian processes, even though life is brimming with sophisticated molecular machines,,,
Passing the baton of life - from Schrödinger to Venter - July 2012 Excerpt: "All living cells that we know of on this planet are 'DNA software'-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions," said Venter. "We are now using computer software to design new DNA software." - Craig Venter http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2012/07/passing-the-baton-of-life---from-schrodinger-to-venter.html Problems with the Metaphor of a Cell as "Machine" - July 2012 Excerpt: Too often, we envision the cell as a "factory" containing a fixed complement of "machinery" operating according to "instructions" (or "software" or "blueprints") contained in the genome and spitting out the "gene products" (proteins) that sustain life. Many things are wrong with this picture, but one of the problems that needs to be discussed more openly is the fact that in this "factory," many if not most of the "machines" are themselves constantly turning over -- being assembled when and where they are needed, and disassembled afterwards. The mitotic spindle...is one of the best-known examples, but there are many others. Funny sort of "factory" that, with the "machinery" itself popping in and out of existence as needed!,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/problems_with_t062691.html
I was pointing out the fact that Darwinian processes operating within already existent life, have never been observed to generate even one molecular machine by what are presupposed to be 'unguided' Darwinian processes. In other words, in spite of the fact of finding molecular motors permeating the simplest of bacterial life, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of even one such motor or system much less an actual demonstration.
"There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject." James Shapiro, molecular biologist, National Review, Sept. 16, 1996
The following expert doesn't even hide his very unscientific preconceived philosophical bias against intelligent design,,,
‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity,,,
Yet at the same time the same expert readily admits that neo-Darwinism has ZERO evidence for the chance and necessity of material processes producing any cellular system whatsoever,,,
,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’ Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205. *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA
There simply is no empirical evidence backing up Darwinian claims!
Michael Behe - No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/
All Darwinian explanations turn out to be 'just so stories' with no real empirical support!
EVOLUTIONARY JUST-SO STORIES Excerpt: ,,,The term “just-so story” was popularized by Rudyard Kipling’s 1902 book by that title which contained fictional stories for children. Kipling says the camel got his hump as a punishment for refusing to work, the leopard’s spots were painted on him by an Ethiopian, and the kangaroo got its powerful hind legs after being chased all day by a dingo. Kipling’s just-so stories are as scientific as the Darwinian accounts of how the amoeba became a man. Lacking real scientific evidence for their theory, evolutionists have used the just-so story to great effect. Backed by impressive scientific credentials, the Darwinian just-so story has the aura of respectability. Biologist Michael Behe observes: “Some evolutionary biologists--like Richard Dawkins--have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Darwin’s Black Box).,,, http://www.wayoflife.org/database/evolutionary_just_so_stories.html
Henry Crun, it might also interest you to know that natural selection is a eliminative process not a generative process:
"...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..." Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament - EXPELLED - Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036840 Natural Selection Reduces Genetic Information - No Beneficial Mutations - Spetner - Denton - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036816 "A Dutch zoologist, J.J. Duyvene de Wit, clearly demonstrated that the process of speciation (such as the appearance of many varieties of dogs and cats) is inevitably bound up with genetic depletion as a result of natural selection. When this scientifically established fact is applied to the question of whether man could have evolved from ape-like animals,'.. the transformist concept of progressive evolution is pierced in its very vitals.' The reason for this, J.J. Duyvene de Wit went on to explain, is that the whole process of evolution from animal to man " ' . . would have to run against the gradient of genetic depletion. That is to say, . . man )should possess] a smaller gene-potential than his animal ancestors! [I] Here, the impressive absurdity becomes clear in which the transformist doctrine [the theory of evolution] entangles itself when, in flat contradiction to the factual scientific evidence, it dogmatically asserts that man has evolved from the animal kingdom!" —Op. cit., pp. 129-130. [Italics his; quotations from *J.J. Duyvene de Wit, A New Critique of the Transformist Principle in Evolutionary Biology (1965), p. 56,57.] http://www.godrules.net/evolutioncruncher/2evlch15.htm "We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations," Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. "Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians." Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University "La Sapienza," Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.-
Supplemental Note:
Genetic Entropy - Dr. John Sanford - Evolution vs. Reality - video https://vimeo.com/35088933
bornagain77_{March 18, 2014
March
03
Mar
18
18
2014
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Ah well, BA77, there's the problem. Darwinism, as you call it, says absolutely nothing about the way in which life arose. Darwinism only addresses the origin of species, not the origin of life. And no biologist thinks it's random: the selection element is the opposite of randomness, it is, as it says on the tin, selection. You may care to think of it as guided if you wish. Since we see this from completely different angles, there is little point in us continuing this dialogue. Thank you for your time.Henry Crun_{March 18, 2014
March
03
Mar
18
18
2014
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

A model that puts Heaven, Purgatory, and Hell outside of this universe (as opposed to within this universe) seems more robust per the multiverse theory. Science now needs to figure out how to travel between multiverses. Theology can help there:)ppolish_{March 18, 2014
March
03
Mar
18
18
2014
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

@KRock, the only place a multiverse has been seen is in the models. And per Guth/Linde the multiverse is a more robust model than universe. All share the same big bang it seems. "Not of This Wold" appearing more and more scientifically valid:)ppolish_{March 18, 2014
March
03
Mar
18
18
2014
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

Here's the biggest problem with the Big Bang hypothesis, IMO. If the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate that was caused by the Big Bang, and if this acceleration can be computed by observing the degree of redshift in the light coming from distant galaxies, then the farthest galaxies are moving away from us at speeds greater than the speed of light. This alone falsifies the hypothesis. The second biggest problem is that the redshift data puts the earth right at the center of the universe. There are many other problems with the theory but these two will suffice. It is obvious that astronomers and cosmologists are milking a barren heifer and they don't even have a decent stool to sit on. It would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic.Mapou_{March 18, 2014
March
03
Mar
18
18
2014
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

Henry, I did Google O'Leary, and discovered that a neuro-scientist evidently thought sufficiently highly of her knowledge and intellect, that they co-authored a book. On the other hand, I saw some blogs full of risibly immature invective directed at her. I believe you Americans graduate from your pubic high-schools, while the rest of the world graduates from a tertiary institution, but really her 'critics' were so dim they couldn't grasp that they sounded like angry adolescent Mr Beans. Anyway, it's clear to me that, with her intellect (one of the most impressive on here, to me; not as encyclopaedic as some, but gaining in other areas as a corollary), she needs no-one to defend her. But why are we arguing, when your assumptions as an atheist are too remote from mine for any mutually intelligible exchange to occur?Axel_{March 18, 2014
March
03
Mar
18
18
2014
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

@ppolish "But a multiverse generated by a Big Bang still in the running." Has anyone seen a multiverse? I'm just curious that's all....KRock_{March 18, 2014
March
03
Mar
18
18
2014
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

It seems discovery refutes cyclic multiverse, so Stephen Hawking won his $100 bet with cyclic multiverse guy. But a multiverse generated by a Big Bang still in the running.ppolish_{March 18, 2014
March
03
Mar
18
18
2014
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

Henry Crun, what I mean by “Darwinism” is what Darwinian evolutionists themselves mean by Darwinism, in that they hold as a presupposition in their theory that all life, in all its unfathomed complexity, arose by 'undirected' random processes:
Unguided or Not? How Do Darwinian Evolutionists Define Their Theory? – Casey Luskin – August 11, 2012 Excerpt: While many new atheists undoubtedly make poor philosophers, the “unguided” nature of Darwinian evolution is not a mere metaphysical “add on.” Rather, it’s a core part of how the theory of Darwinian evolution has been defined by its leading proponents. Unfortunately, even some eminent theistic and intelligent design-friendly philosophers appear unaware of the history and scientific development of neo-Darwinian theory. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/unguided_or_not_1063191.html "Random: A Carefully Selected Word" Dr. Michael Behe - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-MuGUVWeFs
There is simply no empirical evidence that 'undirected' random processes are up to the formidable task attributed to them for creating all the wondrous integrated complexity in life on earth:
"Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination" Dr. Michael Behe - 29:24 mark of following video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=s6XAXjiyRfM#t=1762s
of related note to the fact that Darwinists have ZERO empirical evidence of 'unguided' Darwinian processes EVER producing a single molecular machine, here is an example that intelligence can do as such:
(Man-Made) DNA nanorobot – video https://vimeo.com/36880067
Also of note, Dr. James Tour, who, in my honest opinion, currently builds the most sophisticated man-made molecular machines in the world,,,
Science & Faith — Dr. James Tour – video (At the two minute mark of the following video, you can see a nano-car that was built by Dr. James Tour’s team) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR4QhNFTtyw
,,will buy lunch for anyone who can explain to him exactly how Darwinian evolution works:
“I build molecules for a living, I can’t begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." James Tour – one of the leading nano-tech engineers in the world - Strobel, Lee (2000), The Case For Faith, p. 111 Top Ten Most Cited Chemist in the World Knows That Evolution Doesn’t Work – James Tour, Phd. – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB7t2_Ph-ck
Supplemental notes:
“The response I have received from repeating Behe's claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.” David Ray Griffin - retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology Calling Nick Matzke's literature bluff on molecular machines - DonaldM UD blogger - April 2013 Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along. Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard. Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past. https://uncommondescent.com/irreducible-complexity/andre-asks-an-excellent-question-regarding-dna-as-a-part-of-an-in-cell-irreducibly-complex-communication-system/#comment-453291
bornagain77_{March 18, 2014
March
03
Mar
18
18
2014
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

Robert Sheldon, Sorry - are you offering odds of 10^60 to 1 ?Henry Crun_{March 18, 2014
March
03
Mar
18
18
2014
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

BA77, Nope, first YOU define what you mean by "Darwinism". Not just another pseudorandom dump of videos by the usual suspects.Henry Crun_{March 18, 2014
March
03
Mar
18
18
2014
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

#29 Inflation is independent of multiverses, though of course, in a multiverse you can have anything you want. Except God, of course. That you pay extra for. The "inflation" hypothesis was invoked to explain the exquisite balance (1 part in 10^60) between expansion (bang) and gravity (crunch). During the bang, some unknown force field suddenly went critical and like flash-boiling water, caused the universe to expand faster than the speed of light. The number of suppositions is staggering, and after 20 years of fiddling with the "inflation field" we are now told it required a precision of, wait for it, one part in 10^100 to achieve inflation. The cure is worse than the disease! And now, supposedly, a polarization in the CMB is supposed to prove everyone right. I give this conclusion a 1 in 10^60 chance of proving correct.Robert Sheldon_{March 18, 2014
March
03
Mar
18
18
2014
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

Does this inflation process have anything to do with multiverses? Is this the first real proof that a multiverse does exist or just the mechanism for the expansion of the universe?JLAfan2001_{March 18, 2014
March
03
Mar
18
18
2014
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply