Cosmology

Announcement: Signal detected for cosmic microwave background’s polarization

Spread the love
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: Science-Fictions-square.gif The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology).

58 Replies to “Announcement: Signal detected for cosmic microwave background’s polarization

  1. 1
    Henry Crun says:

    So: someone who admits he isn’t an expert in these matters, decides it’s probably due to something that people who ARE experts in these matters spent three years working on to make sure it wasn’t due to that “something”.

    At the moment, I think the experts get the benefit of the doubt. Doubtless another team will work on confirming the results.

  2. 2
    Axel says:

    … or not, as the case may be.

  3. 3
    Axel says:

    By and large experts don’t have too good a record. It generally seems to be those who don’t follow the herd, and the dilettantes, such as LeMaitre, who make the break-throughs.

    O’Leary probably has more scientific nous in her little finger than the majority of materialism’s finest ‘experts’.

    Milton Freedman recounted in a newspaper article that he was once button-holed in the elevator waiting-area of their apartment block by a fellow-resident, an author, who proceeded to give Friedman his views on economics.

    Friedman, told him that if he, Freedman, ever wanted to write a novel, he would seek his advice, and perhaps he would reciprocate, if he wanted to learn about economics, evidently considering this advice, the height of wit.

    The world currently seem to be facing an unparalleled economic catastrophe largely as a result of Freedman’s neoliberal, economic brain-waves. History can turn on sixpence, but its difficult to imagine that author’s economic input reaching Freedman’s abyss of folly.

    ‘It’s a funny old world’, as La Thatcher once observed, after her purblind pursuit of money and power had led her to follow the neoliberal economics of Freedman and the Chicago boys, and what had ‘gone round’ had eventually ‘come round’.

    22 ‘Do not rob the poor, because he is poor,
    or crush the afflicted at the gate,
    23 for the Lord will plead their cause
    and rob of life those who rob them.’

    – Proverbs 22-23.

    Pardon the digression.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    A criticism about the fine-tuning problem for inflation by Roger Penrose is here:

    Inflation
    Excerpt: In order to work, and as pointed out by Roger Penrose from 1986 on, inflation requires extremely specific initial conditions of its own, so that the problem of initial conditions is not solved: “There is something fundamentally misconceived about trying to explain the uniformity of the early universe as resulting from a thermalization process. […] For, if the thermalization is actually doing anything […] then it represents a definite increasing of the entropy. Thus, the universe would have been even more special before the thermalization than after.”[104]
    Penrose, Roger (1989). “Difficulties with Inflationary Cosmology”. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 271: 249–264.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....Criticisms

    As far as I know (and I very well may be wrong), the fine tuning problem has only gotten worse since Penrose made his criticism and is not dealt with by this new finding. Steinhardt, one of inflation theory’s creators, commented just last year on the trend in evidence:

    Inflationary paradigm in trouble after Planck2013
    Anna Ijjas, Paul J. Steinhardt, Abraham Loeb
    Excerpt of abstract: More important, though, is that all the simplest inflaton models are disfavored statistically relative to those with plateau-like potentials. We discuss how a restriction to plateau-like models has three independent serious drawbacks: it exacerbates both the initial conditions problem and the multiverse-unpredictability problem and it creates a new difficulty that we call the inflationary “unlikeliness problem.”,,
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.2785v2.pdf

    Cosmology: One of cosmic inflation theory’s creators now questions own theory – April 6, 2011
    Excerpt: Cosmic inflation is so widely accepted that it is often taken as established fact. The idea is that the geometry and uniformity of the cosmos were established during an intense early growth spurt.
    But some of the theory’s creators, including the author, are having second thoughts. As the original theory has developed, cracks have appeared in its logical foundations.
    Highly improbable conditions are required to start inflation. Worse, inflation goes on eternally, producing infinitely many outcomes, so the theory makes no firm observational predictions.
    Scientists debate among (and within) themselves whether these troubles are teething pains or signs of a deeper rot. Various proposals are circulating for ways to fix inflation or replace it.
    – Scientific American (April 2011),
    Paul J. Steinhardt
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....wn-theory/

    Various inflationary models are discussed here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I....._inflation

    So which model did they strengthen and which one did they weaken? I’m certainly not qualified to know which ones were supported and which ones were weakened, but what I do know is that a unguided (atheistic/materialistic) inflationary model would lead to the epistemological failure of science itself, as one of the chief proponents of multiverses himself admits:

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Infinity – Max Tegmark – January 2014
    Excerpt: Physics is all about predicting the future from the past, but inflation seems to sabotage this: when we try to predict the probability that something particular will happen, inflation always gives the same useless answer: infinity divided by infinity. The problem is that whatever experiment you make, inflation predicts that there will be infinitely many copies of you far away in our infinite space, obtaining each physically possible outcome, and despite years of tooth-grinding in the cosmology community, no consensus has emerged on how to extract sensible answers from these infinities. So strictly speaking, we physicists are no longer able to predict anything at all!,,,
    MAX TEGMARK – Physicist
    – per The Guardian 2014

    Thus, while this may be an important discovery, I hardly think it resolves any of the serious shortcomings that a purely materialistic/atheistic inflationary model would possess! But that is just my initial unqualified hunch. I’m sure much more qualified people than I will be taking this finding apart with a fine tooth comb.

    Also of note: A physicist(?), named Robert L. Oldershaw, in the comment section under this article announcing the finding, commented,,

    Key Signature of the Big Bang’s Origin Discovered
    UPDATE MARCH 17:
    Excerpt: The discovery of B-mode polarization in the CMB would be important observation, but let’s not get carried away. Inflation predicted a homogeneous cosmos, but the latest Planck results indicate an intrinsic dipole anisotropy (that is not a Doppler effect). Inflation predicted the existence of magnetic monopoles, but not a single one of these mythical particles has ever been found. Inflation theory cannot say why inflation occurred, but rather has to invent some ad hoc unknown “inflaton” field that was the culprit. So celebrate the discovery of B-mode polarization, but keep in mind that the interpretation of that finding in terms of what was going on 10^-35 seconds after the Big Bang bears some resemblance to reading tea leaves.
    http://www.skyandtelescope.com.....22521.html

    As to the ‘intrinsic dipole anisotropy’, the following paper was recently brought to my attention:

    Why is the solar system cosmically aligned? BY Dragan Huterer – 2007
    The solar system seems to line up with the largest cosmic features. Is this mere coincidence or a signpost to deeper insights?
    Caption under figure on page 43:
    ODD ALIGNMENTS hide within the multipoles of the cosmic microwave background. In this combination of the quadrupole and octopole, a plane bisects the sphere between the largest warm and cool lobes. The ecliptic — the plane of Earth’s orbit projected onto the celestial sphere — is aligned parallel to the plane between the lobes.
    http://www-personal.umich.edu/.....uterer.pdf

    Of note: The preceding article was written before the Planck data (with WMPA & COBE data), but the multipoles were actually verified by Planck.

    A Large Scale Pattern from Optical Quasar Polarization Vectors – 2013
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.6118.pdf

    Testing the Dipole Modulation Model in CMBR – 2013
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0924.pdf

    of related interest:

    Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky? – Ashok K. Singal – May 17, 2013
    Abstract: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies (directionally dependent observations), which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic\cite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropies\cite {17}. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sources\cite{21,22,3}. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? 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.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4134

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Psalm 89:11-12
    The heavens are Yours, the earth also is Yours;
    The world and all its fullness, You have founded them.
    The north and the south, You have created them;
    Tabor and Hermon rejoice in Your name.
    (commentary on Tabor and Hermon: ,,,that is to say, east and west are equally formed by thee, and therefore give thee praise.,,,)

  6. 6
    Henry Crun says:

    Axel,

    I’m afraid you have the wrong end of the stick. LeMaitre WAS an expert, a trained physicist who worked with many famous scientists including Eddington. That his idea was not accepted at first is hardly surprising, the evidence for it wasn’t apparent . But it came in time and was accepted when the evidence backed it.

    Unfortunately your views of O’Leary’s scientific nous are also sadly mistaken. She has none. Not surprising, since that isn’t her background. The fact that you think she has, suggests you haven’t any either. But you can prove me wrong: if you point me to a post of hers that shows otherwise I will happily retract.

  7. 7
    lukebarnes says:

    Stop quoting Sheldon on cosmology. He would fail Cosmology101:

    http://letterstonature.wordpre.....oductions/

  8. 8
    Barb says:

    Inflation doesn’t require a multiverse, but that is the easiest solution cop out when it comes to the fine-tuning of our universe. Since they haven’t come up with a good combination of gravity with quantum theory, they can’t explain the Big Bang. This is an alternative: the “big bounce.”

    The WMAP provided extremely high quality data that directly and dramatically confirmed the Big Bang hypothesis, or more generally the idea that the universe as we know it had a definite starting point. It had huge and immediate social and philosophical implications for society at large. It has been called the most accurate scientific measurement ever taken (the error bars they used in their centerpiece graph used 400-standard deviations, the norm is two).

    This work is scientifically impressive, but it’s impact is going to be of a much more technical nature. This isn’t going to fundamentally change how we see the universe overnight.

  9. 9
    Axel says:

    Well, Henry, I’ve made no secret that the last thing I learnt about physics at school was something about a thermos flask.

    You may be correct concerning O’Leary’s scientific expert- knowledge being limited. I’ll have a brief look, but it probably is nowhere near as germane as you seem to think, since so much of the problem with materialists is that their foundational assumptions are haywire; indeed, sometimes, just insane.

    And this is an area, as it relates to scientific topics, in which O’Leary leaves you all for dead. I know enough about thermos flasks to see their folly at a more primordial level, but her writing has always given me the impression that she is more than sufficiently literate and numerate in scientific matters, for her analyses to be interesting. I have a nose for intellectual integrity and competence, even in areas I know next to nothing about.

    Re LeMaitre, I was under the impression that he was ‘ministering’ as a parish priest, but presumably his day-job resembled that of our Jesuit astronomers.

    Nevertheless, experts do have a wretched record. It is obvious from the writings of both Planck and Einstein that they both had an extraordinary contempt for the myrmidons of the materialist, scientific Establishment, Planck going so far as to say that science advanced one funeral at a time. Also, remarking:

    ‘New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment.’

    Einstein was less direct in his animadversions, tending rather to convey his scorn a tone of great weariness. His dictum about looking for a simple explanation, but not to simple, was one example! Another was his stricture that an elegant hypothesis still needed a technical underpinning. Words to that effect.

    To this day, to materialists, elegance and beauty must be figments of the imagination, and imagination, itself, a form of particles in motion. Yet, they still routinely refer to the panentheist Einstein’s aesthetic touch-stone.

  10. 10
    News says:

    Dunno how this thread ended up a discussion of the merits of the news desk, as the post was only introduced, not written by me. That said, when cosmologists decided to promote multiverse theory, one outcome was that they obliterated any important distinction between physicists and informed laypeople. Or maybe even uninformed laypeople.

    Ironically, I’d have been the last to recommend that.

  11. 11
    Axel says:

    ‘… even uninformed laypeople.’ Watch it, O’Leary!

    But seriously, you couldn’t have stated it more tellingly. Game, set and match to St Patrick’s daughter (or maybe daughter-in-law: the O’Leary, of this parish), Henry.

  12. 12
    Mapou says:

    Multiple universes, wormholes, black holes, Big Bang, etc. It all sounds like crackpottery in high places to me. Has anybody ever provided a reason that the cosmic background radiation is necessarily the result of some speculatory Big Bang that occurred billions of years ago.

    We should remind ourselves that some of the most famous proponents of this cosmology (Sagan, Hawking, etc.) are also believers in time travel and other Star Trek voodoo physics. This stuff is not even wrong.

    Moreover, those naive Christians among us who have fallen in love with the Big Bang hypothesis because it seems to point to evidence that the universe had a beginning, should note that the universe does not have to start with an explosion. In fact, there are many contradictions with the hypothesis and there is excellent evidence to suppose that it’s all hogwash.

  13. 13
    tjguy says:

    Henry, here are two articles to read that put this “discovery” into a more realistic perspective:

    http://crev.info/2014/03/has-c.....iscovered/

    http://www.answersingenesis.or.....een-proved

    The discoverer of this himself is cautioning people not to jump to conclusions, but the propaganda media cannot be bridled! Even if the discovery of polarization is accurate and fits one of the inflationary models, that does not make it true. There might be other causes or explanations that also fit the observations. The most that should be said now is that it is a possible confirmation. But the default answer in science should be “No” until it is confirmed.

    But instead, headlines proclaim confirmation and the general public is led to believe inflation has literally been confirmed. When the retraction is printed, it won’t be headline news and many people will be left with a false impression. But it is part of the way the propaganda machine works to build confidence in the hypotheses of historical science.

    Read those two articles for a more balanced view of the discovery.

    I stand with O’Leary on this one. Don’t forget the bias of the experts you are lauding. Is there any motivation for them to see this as confirmation? I’m not saying it isn’t, but just remember, experts have been known to be wrong, especially in the area of cosmology.

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    As a side note to all this, I think it is interesting that people are very quick to jump on this evidence, no matter how tentative it may currently be, but, as far as I can tell, people ignore the much stronger evidence we have for a higher dimension above this one.

    Albert Einstein – Special Relativity – Insight Into Eternity – ‘thought experiment’ video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/

    “I’ve just developed a new theory of eternity.”
    Albert Einstein – The Einstein Factor – Reader’s Digest – 2005

    “The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass.”
    Richard Swenson – More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12

    Velocity time dilation tests
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.....tion_tests

    This following confirmation of special relativity is my favorite since they have actually caught it on film:
    (of note: light travels approx. 1 foot in a nanosecond (billionth of a second) whilst the camera used in the experiment takes a trillion pictures a second):

    Amazing — light filmed at 1,000,000,000,000 Frames/Second! – video (so fast that at 9:00 Minute mark of video relativistic effects are caught on film)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_9vd4HWlVA

    It is also very interesting to note that this strange higher dimensional, eternal, framework for time, found in both special relativity, finds corroboration in Near Death Experience testimonies:

    ‘In the ‘spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it’s going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.’
    Mickey Robinson – Near Death Experience testimony – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045544

    ‘Earthly time has no meaning in the spirit realm. There is no concept of before or after. Everything – past, present, future – exists simultaneously.’
    – Kimberly Clark Sharp – NDE Experiencer

    Besides direct physical evidence, and direct ‘observational’ evidence, this higher dimension, ‘eternal’, inference for the time framework of light is also warranted, by logic, because light is not ‘frozen within time’, i.e. light appears to move to us in our temporal framework of time, yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light. The only way this is possible is if light is indeed of a higher dimensional value of time than our temporal time is. Otherwise light would simply be ‘frozen in time’ to our temporal point of reference. Another line of evidence that supports the inference that ‘tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday’, at the ‘eternal’ speed of light, is visualizing what would happen if a hypothetical observer were to approach the speed of light. Please note, at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape as a ‘hypothetical’ observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.).

    Approaching The Speed Of Light – Optical Effects – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/

    It is also important to note that higher dimensions would be invisible to our physical 3-D sight:

    Dr. Quantum in Flatland – 3D in a 2D world – video
    http://www.disclose.tv/action/....._2D_world/

    As well we have ‘observational evidence’ from Near Death Experiences confirming the ‘tunnel effect’:

    “I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn’t walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn’t really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different – the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.”
    Barbara Springer – Near Death Experience – The Tunnel – video
    https://vimeo.com/79072924

    Moreover, in General Relativity we find that temporal time slows down the further down in a gravitational well a person is:

    Gravitational time dilation tests
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.....tion_tests

    As well, as with any observer accelerating to the speed of light, it is found that for any ‘hypothetical’ observer falling to the event horizon of a black hole, that time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop for them. This is because the accelerative force of gravity at black holes is so intense that not even light can escape its grip:

    Space-Time of a Black hole – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0VOn9r4dq8

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    — But of particular interest to the ‘eternal framework’ found for General Relativity at black holes;… It is interesting to note that the entropic decay (Randomness) of the universe, which is the primary reason why things grow old and eventually die in this universe, is found to be greatest at black holes. Thus the ‘eternity of time’ at black holes can rightly be called ‘eternities of decay and/or eternities of destruction’. Just how intense the destructive power of black holes are is captured in the following quote:

    “Einstein’s equation predicts that, as the astronaut reaches the singularity (of the black-hole), the tidal forces grow infinitely strong, and their chaotic oscillations become infinitely rapid. The astronaut dies and the atoms which his body is made become infinitely and chaotically distorted and mixed-and then, at the moment when everything becomes infinite (the tidal strengths, the oscillation frequencies, the distortions, and the mixing), spacetime ceases to exist.”
    Kip S. Thorne – “Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy” pg. 476

    i.e. Black Holes are found to be ‘timeless’ singularities of destruction and disorder rather than singularities of creation and order such as the extreme order we see at the creation event of the Big Bang. And all this is straight up physics as far as I can tell that is accepted pretty much across the board, by atheists and Theists alike. I would think such evidence for a higher dimension above this one would receive far wider appreciation that it has! In what should be needless to say, the implications of this ‘eternity of destruction’ should be fairly disturbing for those of us who are of the ‘spiritually minded’ persuasion! In light of this dilemma that the two very different eternities present to us spiritually minded people, and the fact that Gravity is, in so far as we can tell, completely incompatible with Quantum Mechanics, it is interesting to point out a subtle nuance on the Shroud of Turin. Namely that Gravity was overcome in the resurrection event of Christ:

    A Quantum Hologram of Christ’s Resurrection? by Chuck Missler
    Excerpt: “You can read the science of the Shroud, such as total lack of gravity, lack of entropy (without gravitational collapse), no time, no space—it conforms to no known law of physics.” The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. Dame Piczek created a one-fourth size sculpture of the man in the Shroud. When viewed from the side, it appears as if the man is suspended in mid air (see graphic, below), indicating that the image defies previously accepted science. The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically.
    http://www.khouse.org/articles/2008/847

    THE EVENT HORIZON (Space-Time Singularity) OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN. – Isabel Piczek – Particle Physicist
    Excerpt: We have stated before that the images on the Shroud firmly indicate the total absence of Gravity. Yet they also firmly indicate the presence of the Event Horizon. These two seemingly contradict each other and they necessitate the past presence of something more powerful than Gravity that had the capacity to solve the above paradox.
    http://shroud3d.com/findings/i.....-formation

    Personally, considering the extreme difficulty that many brilliant minds have had in trying to reconcile Quantum Mechanics, special relativity, i.e. QED, with Gravity, I consider the preceding nuance on the Shroud of Turin to be a subtle, but powerful, evidence substantiating Christ’s primary claim as to being our Savior from sin, death, and hell:

    John 8:23-24
    But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.

    G.O.S.P.E.L. – (the grace of propitiation) – poetry slam – video
    https://vimeo.com/20960385

    Matthew 10:28
    “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

    Music:

    Natalie Grant – Alive (Resurrection music video)
    Lyric “Death has lost and Love has won!”
    http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KPYWPGNX

  16. 16
    Chalciss says:

    Thanks BA77, that was a comprehensive post analyzing this discovery. We can understand why the “evidence” for cosmic inflation is important to the Big Bang theory.

    However, it’s not lost on us that after nearly ten days, with experts from more than 25 countries , with sophisticated technology, scouring the face of a portion on planet earth are still not able to track an airplane the size of a triple seven jet, but yet can be certain about evidence about what happened eons ago, in the vast expanse of the cosmos.

    Your quote from Psalms was spot on!
    Psalm 89:11-12
    The heavens are Yours, the earth also is Yours;
    The world and all its fullness, You have founded them.
    The north and the south, You have created them;
    Tabor and Hermon rejoice in Your name.
    (commentary on Tabor and Hermon: ,,,that is to say, east and west are equally formed by thee, and therefore give thee praise.,,,)

  17. 17
    Henry Crun says:

    Axel, I’m afraid your comments come across as a celebration of ignorance. To claim to see folly in flasks is ridiculous. Science, and the discipline of its application, engineering, are tools for human betterment. 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.

    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. Sometimes the privations are that cherished beliefs are discredited too. Too bad. If your beliefs say one thing, and the evidence disproves it, then your beliefs are wrong.

  18. 18
    ppolish says:

    Which came first supposedly – a Big Bang or a Multiverse?

  19. 19
    tjguy says:

    As a side note to all this, I think it is interesting that people are very quick to jump on this evidence, no matter how tentative it may currently be, but, as far as I can tell, people ignore the much stronger evidence we have for a higher dimension above this one.

    It shows that even evolutionists have a bias and are prone to interpret the evidence in their favor. Translated that means evolutionists are not the objective scientists they are always portrayed to be.

  20. 20
    Henry Crun says:

    Tj guy,

    This discovery has nothing to do with “evolutionists”. It was made by astrophysicists. The only biological aspect is the red herring you just landed.

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    Henry Crun

    “This discovery has nothing to do with “evolutionists”. It was made by astrophysicists.”

    I don’t blame you at all in trying to distance astrophysics from Darwinism. Indeed astrophysicists would do well to distance their theories as far as they can from the materialistic pseudo-science that is Darwinism. It is interesting to note that many times Darwinists like to claim that their theory is as well supported as Gravity. What you never hear is a astrophysicist returning the compliment to a Darwinist:

    Darwinian Evolution is a Pseudo-Science – Part II
    Excerpt: “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit

    “The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components.”
    Kurt Gödel

    Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Wolfgang Pauli on the Empirical Problems with Neo-Darwinism – Casey Luskin – February 27, 2012
    Excerpt: “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.'” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) –
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....56771.html

    Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    Excerpt: “Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859.” …
    http://biologicinstitute.org/2.....emagician/

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
    Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,,
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html

  22. 22
    Henry Crun says:

    bornagain77,

    I think the statement “I don’t blame you at all in trying to distance astrophysics from Darwinism” says it all, really.

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    Henry Crun,

    “I think the statement “I don’t blame you at all in trying to distance astrophysics from Darwinism” says it all, really.”

    and how so?,,, I like to think I’m a reasonable guy in terms of evaluating evidence. Can you show me any substantiating evidence for Darwinism as you can show me substantiating evidence for Gravity?

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
    Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/

    Where’s the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit

    I’ve looked high and low for any evidence that would validate, or at least lend credence to, Darwinian claims for purely material processes ‘randomly’ generating the unfathomed levels of functionally integrated information we find in life,,

    “(Although atheists accuse Theists of making extraordinary claims) The truly extraordinary claim — indeed, the wildly and irresponsibly outrageous claim — is that a highly scalable, massively parallel system architecture incorporating a 4-bit digital coding system and a super-dense, information-rich, three-dimensional, multi-layered, multi-directional database structure with storage, retrieval and translation mechanisms, utilizing file allocation, concatenation and bit-parity algorithms, operating subject to software protocol hierarchies could all come about through a long series of accidental particle collisions. That is beyond extraordinary. It is preposterous. It is laughable.”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....s-part-ii/

    Learning from Bacteria about Social Networking (Information Processing) – video
    Excerpt: I will show illuminating movies of swarming intelligence of live bacteria in which they solve optimization problems for collective decision making that are beyond what we, human beings, can solve with our most powerful computers.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJpi8SnFXHs

    ,,and the evidence that Darwinists put forth to explain such unfathomed complexity always falls apart upon scrutiny. In fact there is a null hypothesis in place stating that purely material processes will never create functional information. Care to falsify that null?

    The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel – Null Hypothesis For Information Generation – 2009
    Excerpt of conclusion pg. 42: “To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC2662469/
    Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation)
    1) Mathematical Logic
    2) Algorithmic Optimization
    3) Cybernetic Programming
    4) Computational Halting
    5) Integrated Circuits
    6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium)
    7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics)
    8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system
    9) Language
    10) Formal function of any kind
    11) Utilitarian work
    http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag

    Is Life Unique? David L. Abel – January 2012
    Concluding Statement: The scientific method itself cannot be reduced to mass and energy. Neither can language, translation, coding and decoding, mathematics, logic theory, programming, symbol systems, the integration of circuits, computation, categorizations, results tabulation, the drawing and discussion of conclusions. The prevailing Kuhnian paradigm rut of philosophic physicalism is obstructing scientific progress, biology in particular. There is more to life than chemistry. All known life is cybernetic. Control is choice-contingent and formal, not physicodynamic.
    http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/106/

    “Nonphysical formalism not only describes, but preceded physicality and the Big Bang
    Formalism prescribed, organized and continues to govern physicodynamics.”
    http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/106/ag

    The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency – Dr David L. Abel – November 2010
    Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”
    http://www-qa.scitopics.com/Th.....iency.html

  24. 24
    KRock says:

    Does this purported “recent discovery” not point to a definite beginning of the universe? Isn’t this good news for theists or anyone who suspects a Deity kicked the can to start the process? I’m just not sure where the materialist is able to dictate that the universe was the result of some sort of inflation process. I get that the universe is expanding, but how does one automatically assume the can was kicked via the process of inflation? Or am I misunderstanding something here? Has anyone observed this so-called “inflation process” or multiverses that are purported to exist by the materialist? The last question is rhetorical, I already know the answer. 🙂

  25. 25
    Henry Crun says:

    BA77,

    I’m tempted to leave you to your delusions. Anyway, I’m not big on isms, I’m more interested in functionality. However, if you define for me what you mean by Darwinism then I’ll give it a shot once around the block. What I don’t want to do is have a go at it, submit it to you, then have you tell me that’s not what you meant by Darwinism.

  26. 26

    Glad to see comment #13 confirming that all this breathless reporting is taking the authors aback. But I would offer that the authors started this hyperventilation even before the paper arrived, with “leaks” and “dated press releases”. And since when is a data paper some sort of diplomatic missive from the intelligentsia to the public that paid for it?
    I confess #7 Mr Luke took me aback, so I patiently went to his blog and read all of my errors. I was underwhelmed. Evidently I forgot to bow to the right authorities and use the right jargon.
    Let me simply point out to Mr Luke that the “Standard Model” doesn’t go back to 1922 and George Lemaitre, as George himself would have agreed, it goes back to at least 1500BC and this fellow named Moishe. So I hope you will pardon me if I use the more ancient terminology for the big bang, and not the latest fad from “Cosmology 101”.
    Luke, before Cosmology101, and long before even George was born, they used to teach metaphysics in the University. And if you have not mastered Genesis, then there is no point to Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler as Misner himself made clear to us in our Gravitation 101 class. May I recommend a book by Stanley Jaki (PhD’s in physics and philosophy) called “God and the Cosmologists”. Very worthwhile reading, and an antidote to all these “multiverse” and “inflation” and “vacuum energy” speculations. Jaki would have said “its all metaphysics.”

    You want my prediction? When the Planck consortium publishes their version of polarized CMB, all this hoopla will go very quiet, while the original authors protest “One sigma is still significant. It is highly suggestive. We stand by our work….”

  27. 27
    bornagain77 says:

    Henry Crun

    “I’m tempted to leave you to your delusions.”

    Says the one in the materialistic straight jacket sitting in a naturalistic rubber room! 🙂

    Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ

    The Atheist’s Guide to Intellectual Suicide – James N. Anderson PhD. – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDLvldINiGI

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    corrected link:

    The Atheist’s Guide to Intellectual Suicide – James N. Anderson – video
    https://vimeo.com/75897668

  29. 29
    JLAfan2001 says:

    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?

  30. 30

    #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.

  31. 31
    Henry Crun says:

    BA77,

    Nope, first YOU define what you mean by “Darwinism”. Not just another pseudorandom dump of videos by the usual suspects.

  32. 32
    Henry Crun says:

    Robert Sheldon,

    Sorry – are you offering odds of 10^60 to 1 ?

  33. 33
    bornagain77 says:

    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/2.....63191.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?f.....fM#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.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-453291

  34. 34
    ppolish says:

    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.

  35. 35
    KRock says:

    @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….

  36. 36
    Axel says:

    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?

  37. 37
    Mapou says:

    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.

  38. 38
    ppolish says:

    @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:)

  39. 39
    ppolish says:

    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:)

  40. 40
    Henry Crun says:

    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.

  41. 41
    bornagain77 says:

    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/bl.....enter.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/2.....62691.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/datab.....ories.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/evolut.....vlch15.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

  42. 42
    KRock says:

    @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.

  43. 43
    lukebarnes says:

    *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.

  44. 44
    Axel says:

    ‘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.

  45. 45
    HD says:

    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.

  46. 46
    Henry Crun says:

    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.

  47. 47
    Henry Crun says:

    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.

  48. 48
    Axel says:

    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.

  49. 49
    Mapou says:

    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.

  50. 50
    Henry Crun says:

    Axel, what is it that makes you think I’m not Christian?

  51. 51
    bornagain77 says:

    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=IX3beh6g1Qg

  52. 52
    Henry Crun says:

    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.

  53. 53
    Henry Crun says:

    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.

  54. 54
    bornagain77 says:

    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!

  55. 55
    Mapou says:

    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.

  56. 56
    Axel says:

    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.

  57. 57
    Henry Crun says:

    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).

  58. 58
    Henry Crun says:

    Axel@ 56,

    Sorry, man, didn’t catch any of that.

Leave a Reply