Space aliens – if we can see them they can see us

BA77 No problem. I appreciate the time you and others invested in providing avenues of evidence and research, and again, I'm sorry for any inability of mine to process your information, evidence and argument in a more timely fashion. William J Murray

WJM,

The evidence is unambiguously on the side of the Earth-centric theory. Not because of the CMBR information, but that was definitely part of it. The most compelling part of the video was just understanding how the Earth-centric theory was hands down the more efficient theory and was a far better explanatory model for the experimental results.

WOW, I for one really do appreciate that. After years of debating diehard Darwinists, it certainly is VERY refreshing to see someone actually follow the evidence where it leads. bornagain77

BA77 et al, I would like you to keep this debate in mind in future discussions when you start thinking I'm ideologically committed to a perspective. That is not the case; I was trying to collect and understand evidence and information. It was never my position either way; I had no dog in the fight. If anyone attempted to point me to "The Principle" before, I take full responsibility for, for whatever reason, not following up on it. I did not deliberately "not look" at it beforehand. I either didn't see it or saw it and forgot about it after having my attention here distracted. These things happen. I always argue in good faith and am willing to check out information. Perhaps, BA'77, you were talking about the same information but I was unable to understand it or process it correctly. My apologies if that was the case. This video laid it all out in a way I could understand it. The evidence provided by "The Principle" was what I was asking for. This is why I found your information about the Earth-centric theory exciting and was actually going to look more into it. The evidence is unambiguously on the side of the Earth-centric theory. Not because of the CMBR information, but that was definitely part of it. The most compelling part of the video was just understanding how the Earth-centric theory was hands down the more efficient theory and was a far better explanatory model for the experimental results. I think it may be that the specific gravitational dynamics that come with being at the "center of mass" location plays a huge factor in the development of life, but I don't know if that's the case. Perhaps there is additional information that would make the scientific case that life either cannot, or probably cannot, develop elsewhere in the universe. While the evidence so far supports the Earth centric view, so far I'm not sure how that would scientifically preclude the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Can that case be made? William J Murray

Bornagain77, Good points all! It seems that William J Murray simply waves off the data falsifying his position. The fact that "the fingers of God" are likely the result of a gross error in theory, which astronomers were unwilling to admit, assumes that hypothetical astronomers everywhere in the universe would also be that stubborn. Halton Arp unfortunately fell between the data and the academic arrogance. He also pointed out a visible interaction between two stars that were supposedly only apparently close, which was prominently discernible on the cover of an issue of (IIRC) Astronomy magazine. But the editors and their supporters waved that off as well to protect their narrative. The ability for God creating some really interesting worlds elsewhere is actually fine with me. Pluto and Charon are particularly interesting. As to the Goldilocks Effect, which he also waves off, none of the observability factors cited by Guillermo Gonzalez is necessary for life on Earth. The fact that Earth is ideally placed is wildly improbable considering all the stars and their planets that aren't! That this data was unimpressive should also be illuminating to you. Jesus termed this behavior willful blindness. In that day, the pharisees willfully ignored the hundreds of years prior prophecies in Daniel that specified the year of Messiah's coming and the fact that it would have to occur before Jerusalem and the Temple were going to be destroyed. And not only that, the Christians in the first few centuries noted that the pharisees had gone and changed various prophecies about Messiah in the Tanakh, which is now demonstrable in the Septuagint, the Syriac Peshitta, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. -Q Querius

On top of all that, and completely contrary to the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity, in quantum mechanics we find that humans, (via their free will), are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. As Steven Weinberg, who is an atheist himself, stated in the following article, In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,

The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017 Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11 Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,, Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,, - per quantum phy

In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave. As leading experimentalist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”

“The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in a certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.” Anton Zeilinger – Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437

As well, although there have been several major loopholes in quantum mechanics over the past several decades that atheists have tried to appeal to in order to try to avoid the ‘spooky’ Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, over the past several years each of those major loopholes have each been closed one by one. The last major loophole that was left to be closed was the “setting independence” and/or the ‘free-will’ loophole:

Closing the ‘free will’ loophole: Using distant quasars to test Bell’s theorem – February 20, 2014 Excerpt: Though two major loopholes have since been closed, a third remains; physicists refer to it as “setting independence,” or more provocatively, “free will.” This loophole proposes that a particle detector’s settings may “conspire” with events in the shared causal past of the detectors themselves to determine which properties of the particle to measure — a scenario that, however far-fetched, implies that a physicist running the experiment does not have complete free will in choosing each detector’s setting. Such a scenario would result in biased measurements, suggesting that two particles are correlated more than they actually are, and giving more weight to quantum mechanics than classical physics. “It sounds creepy, but people realized that’s a logical possibility that hasn’t been closed yet,” says MIT’s David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and senior lecturer in the Department of Physics. “Before we make the leap to say the equations of quantum theory tell us the world is inescapably crazy and bizarre, have we closed every conceivable logical loophole, even if they may not seem plausible in the world we know today?” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220112515.htm

And now Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘free will loophole’ back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.

Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018 Abstract: In this Letter, we present a cosmic Bell experiment with polarization-entangled photons, in which measurement settings were determined based on real-time measurements of the wavelength of photons from high-redshift quasars, whose light was emitted billions of years ago; the experiment simultaneously ensures locality. Assuming fair sampling for all detected photons and that the wavelength of the quasar photons had not been selectively altered or previewed between emission and detection, we observe statistically significant violation of Bell’s inequality by 9.3 standard deviations, corresponding to an estimated p value of ? 7.4 × 10^21. This experiment pushes back to at least ? 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403

Thus regardless of how Steven Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining free will loophole in quantum mechanics, it is empirically demonstrated that “humans are indeed brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself stated, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.” Moreover, the validation of free will in quantum mechanics differentiates WJM's generic 'universal mind' version of Intelligent Design from Christianity's version of Intelligent Design in a profound way. Namely

In short, if we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, for the infinite mathematical divide between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.

(August - 2020) Yet we do not have just one mathematical ‘theory of everything’ that describes the universe. We have two theories, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, that simply refuse to be unified into a single overarching ‘theory of everything’. In fact, there is an infinite mathematical divide that separates the two theories.,,, https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/god-and-mathematics-why-does-mathematics-work/#comment-710479 September 2020 - despite the fact that virtually everyone, including the vast majority of Christians, hold that the Copernican Principle is unquestionably true, the fact of the matter is that the Copernican Principle is now empirically shown, (via quantum mechanics and general relativity, etc..), to be a false assumption. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/new-edition-of-inference-review-features-richard-buggs-james-shapiro-and-larry-krauss/#comment-713367 (February 19, 2019) To support Isabel Piczek’s claim that the Shroud of Turin does indeed reveal a true ‘event horizon’, the following study states that ‘The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image.’,,, Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with, the shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/experiment-quantum-particles-can-violate-the-mathematical-pigeonhole-principle/#comment-673178 The evidence for the Shroud’s authenticity keeps growing. (Timeline of facts) – November 08, 2019 What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know – Myra Adams and Russ Breault https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html

To give us a small glimpse of the power that was involved in Christ's resurrection from the dead, the following recent article found that, ”it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.”

Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016 Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”. ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”. Comment The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology. http://westvirginianews.blogspot.com/2011/12/new-study-claims-shroud-of-turin-is.html

Verse:

Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Thus in conclusion, I find WJM arguments against the 'preferred' position of the Earth in the universe to not hold up to scrutiny. In fact, I find that he assumes a 'non-design' perspective in order to try to maintain his belief that the earth is not to be 'preferred'. Moreover, even when we granted WJM that the 'fingers of God' anomaly, in particular, was due to distortions that any observer would see, even there, when looking at 'observers' themselves in particular, we find that Christianity offers us something that WJM 'mental reality theory' cannot offer. Namely, we find that the 'observer' of Jesus Christ Himself provides us with a very plausible, even empirically backed, reconciliation between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into the much sought after 'theory of everything. I would hold that to be a rather dramatic differentiation between WJM's generic 'mental reality theory' which holds that there is nothing special about earth or humanity in the universe in particular, and Christianity which holds both the earth and humanity to be very significant in the universe. bornagain77

WJMs argument appears to be something like this. "I agree that the universe is intelligently designed but I hold that the earth is not unique because God, (and/or what WJM might call ' “universal mind"), could have created as many worlds with intelligent life as He wanted to." As has been pointed out several times now to WJM, the anomalies in the CMBR, and the large scale structures of the universe give the earth in particular a 'preferred position' in the universe. WJM has countered that it is only on a single plane that the earth is given a preferred position, and that other planets on that plane would also see themselves as having a preferred position. (As well WJM assumes that life could also be possible on other planets in the universe that are not on the CMB plane, i.e. he assumes the plane to not be essential for enabling intelligent life, i.e. he philosophically, not scientifically, assumes 'non-design' for the CMB plane in particular.) If it was just the CMB plane in particular, WJM might have a point. But as I have pointed out to WJM several times now, specifically pointed out with the Ashok K. Singal paper, it is the large scale structures of the universe, on top of the CMBR anomalies, which drive the final nail in the coffin for the belief that the earth does not have a ‘preferred’ position in the universe. As the following article, (with a illustration) explains,

"Of course to have an exact position, (or what we would call an 'exact center' in the universe), we would need an X axis, a Y axis, and a Z axis, since that will give us three dimensions in Euclidean space. The CMB dipole and quadrupole gives us the X axis and Y axis but not a Z axis. Hence, the X and Y axis of the CMB provide a direction, but only an approximate position. That is why we have continually said that the CMB puts Earth "at or near the center of the universe." For the Z-axis we depend on other information, such as quasars and galaxy alignment that the CMB cannot provide. For example, it has been discovered that the anisotropies of extended quasars and radio galaxies are aligned with the Earth’s equator and the North celestial pole (NCP)4.,,, Ashok K. Singal describes his shocking discovery in those terms:

“What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.” - Ashok K. Singal

4 “Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky,” Ashok K. Singal, Astronomy and Astrophysics Division, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, India, May 17, 2103,.. Signal states: “We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations.” https://i.postimg.cc/L8G3CbXN/DOUBLE-AXIS.png http://www.robertsungenis.com/gww/features/Welcome%20to%20Catholic%20Star%20Wars.pdf

Thus again, it is not just a single plane from the CMB that WJM has to account for. The large scale structures of the universe are indeed arrayed about the earth in order to give it its 'Z axis" and there 'true centrality' in the universe. WJM may still hold that that still does not mean that God could not have created intelligent life in other places of the universe that are not at its center, but as I pointed out in post 77,

I would be willing to bet that there are unknown reasons, pertaining to maintaining life on earth for long periods of time, for why the universe is structured around us the way it is. After all, the list for life enabling characteristics is fairly long as it is right now (i.e. 816 known parameters thus far),,,

In other words, I hold that our ignorance of any life enabling characteristics that may be associated with out 'preferred' position in the universe is not an argument that a Design proponent should be making. Obviously, a design proponent, if he is to be consistent, should presuppose a design perspective and not presuppose non-design perspective, in any situation where our knowledge of the situation is incomplete. As to the 'fingers of God' paper that Querius brought up, WJM comments that.

I looked up the fingers of God phenomena. As far as I can tell, the phenomena has a red shift explanation where any observer in any location would see the same thing.

But as Querius pointed out in post 78,

"He (Arp) used the sausage shaped clusters all pointing to us as an argument that current distance calculations are flawed, namely that these clusters should actually be globular. He caught the academic community in a quandary: Either their distance calculations were seriously off or there are massive sausage shaped clusters all pointing to us–i.e. “the fingers of God.” It’s been many years since the controversy was smothered so I don’t know whether the distances were quietly corrected now that Halton Arp is safely dead or not."

But let's give WJM the benefit of a doubt and assume that this 'embarrassing situation', as Arp termed it, has been worked out and is merely a distortion "where any observer in any location would see the same thing." Let's concentrate on 'observers' in particular. When Einstein first formulated both Special and General relativity, he gave a ‘hypothetical’ observer a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements in the universe.

Introduction to special relativity Excerpt: Einstein’s approach was based on thought experiments, calculations, and the principle of relativity, which is the notion that all physical laws should appear the same (that is, take the same basic form) to all inertial observers.,,, Each observer has a distinct “frame of reference” in which velocities are measured,,,, per wikipedia The happiest thought of my life. Excerpt: In 1920 Einstein commented that a thought came into his mind when writing the above-mentioned paper he called it “the happiest thought of my life”: “The gravitational field has only a relative existence… Because for an observer freely falling from the roof of a house – at least in his immediate surroundings – there exists no gravitational field.” http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node85.html

Whereas Einstein, when he first formulated both Special and General Relativity, gave a ‘hypothetical’ observer a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements in the universe, In Quantum Mechanics we find that it is the measurement itself that gives each observer a privileged frame of reference in the universe. As the following article states, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”,,,

Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness – May 27, 2015 Excerpt: Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering. http://phys.org/news/2015-05-quantum-theory-weirdness.html

Likewise, the following violation of Leggett’s inequality stressed ‘the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.’

Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.” http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

Moreover, this recent 2019 experimental confirmation of the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment established that “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.

More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics) By Mindy Weisberger – March 20, 2019 Excerpt: “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”. https://www.livescience.com/65029-dueling-reality-photons.html

Because of such consistent and repeatable experiments like the preceding from quantum mechanics, Richard Conn Henry, who is Professor of Physics at John Hopkins University, stated “It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe.”

“It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe. And yet, have you ever before read a sentence having meaning similar to that of my preceding sentence? Likely you have not, and the reason you have not is, in my opinion, that physicists are in a state of denial, and have fears and agonies that are very similar to the fears and agonies that Copernicus and Galileo went through with their perturbations of society.” Richard Conn Henry – Professor of Physics – John Hopkins University http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/quantum.enigma.html

bornagain77

BA77 said:

So again, as it has pointed out to WJM several times now, it is these large scale structures of the universe, on top of the CMBR anomalies, which drive the final nail in the coffin for the belief that the earth does not have a ‘preferred’ position in the universe.

I looked up the fingers of God phenomena. As far as I can tell, the phenomena has a red shift explanation where any observer in any location would see the same thing. The information about the solar system being a delicate balancing act is irrelevant after one has agreed that we live in a designed habitat. Querius asks:

What did you think of “the Goldilocks zone” in the book or movie?

As far as I can tell, it was well documented and a great argument that the situation Earth is in was designed. As I've said, we're well past the point where we understand that the universe is designed for the existence of intelligent life. That's where probability arguments end. The only science-based arguments that are useful now in establishing Earth as "unique" are non-probabilistic arguments based on evidence and theoretical models that explain, from a design perspective, what that evidence means (other than God winking at us.) William J Murray

William J Murray, What did you think of "the Goldilocks zone" in the book or movie? -Q Querius

Bornagain77, What's interesting is that Halton Arp wrote a book called Seeing Red many years ago, for which he was shunned--disinvited from conferences and prevented from accessing major telescopes. His crime? He used the sausage shaped clusters all pointing to us as an argument that current distance calculations are flawed, namely that these clusters should actually be globular. He caught the academic community in a quandary: Either their distance calculations were seriously off or there are massive sausage shaped clusters all pointing to us--i.e. "the fingers of God." It's been many years since the controversy was smothered so I don't know whether the distances were quietly corrected now that Halton Arp is safely dead or not. -Q Querius

Thanks for the link Querius. It is a keeper.

Fingers of God in an Expanding Universe - Halton C. Arp Excerpt: they are forced to say it is a structure that I would compare to a great sausage stretching out from us toward the outer reaches of the Universe. The miraculous aspect is that this sausage is pointing directly at us, the observer.,,, These cluster elongations toward the observer have been noticed in other regions of the sky and, causing some inquietude, been dubbed "Fingers of God". The reason for unease is obvious. The fingers are pointing to the conclusion that we live in some special place in the Universe. Very anti-Copernican. https://www.haltonarp.com/articles/fingers_of_god_in_an_expanding_universe

So again, as it has pointed out to WJM several times now, it is these large scale structures of the universe, on top of the CMBR anomalies, which drive the final nail in the coffin for the belief that the earth does not have a ‘preferred’ position in the universe. I bet there are even reasons, pertaining to being able to maintain life on earth for long periods of time, for why the universe is structured around us the way it is. For instance, maintaining a stable solar system, that contains a world which is able to host intelligent life, is a far more delicate balancing act than most people realize:

“You might also think that these disparate bodies are scattered across the solar system without rhyme or reason. But move any piece of the solar system today, or try to add anything more, and the whole construction would be thrown fatally out of kilter. So how exactly did this delicate architecture come to be?” R. Webb - Unknown solar system 1: How was the solar system built? - New Scientist – 2009 Is the Solar System Stable? By Scott Tremaine - 2011 Excerpt: So what are the results? Most of the calculations agree that eight billion years from now, just before the Sun swallows the inner planets and incinerates the outer ones, all of the planets will still be in orbits very similar to their present ones. In this limited sense, the solar system is stable. However, a closer look at the orbit histories reveals that the story is more nuanced. After a few tens of millions of years, calculations using slightly different parameters (e.g., different planetary masses or initial positions within the small ranges allowed by current observations) or different numerical algorithms begin to diverge at an alarming rate. More precisely, the growth of small differences changes from linear to exponential:,,, As an example, shifting your pencil from one side of your desk to the other today could change the gravitational forces on Jupiter enough to shift its position from one side of the Sun to the other a billion years from now. The unpredictability of the solar system over very long times is of course ironic since this was the prototypical system that inspired Laplacian determinism. Fortunately, most of this unpredictability is in the orbital phases of the planets, not the shapes and sizes of their orbits, so the chaotic nature of the solar system does not normally lead to collisions between planets. However, the presence of chaos implies that we can only study the long-term fate of the solar system in a statistical sense, by launching in our computers an armada of solar systems with slightly different parameters at the present time—typically, each planet is shifted by a random amount of about a millimeter—and following their evolution. When this is done, it turns out that in about 1 percent of these systems, Mercury’s orbit becomes sufficiently eccentric so that it collides with Venus before the death of the Sun. Thus, the answer to the question of the stability of the solar system—more precisely, will all the planets survive until the death of the Sun—is neither “yes” nor “no” but “yes, with 99 percent probability.” https://www.ias.edu/about/publications/ias-letter/articles/2011-summer/solar-system-tremaine

So again, I would be willing to bet that there are unknown reasons, pertaining to maintaining life on earth for long periods of time, for why the universe is structured around us the way it is. After all, the list for life enabling characteristics is fairly long as it is right now,,,

Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross's book, 'Why the Universe Is the Way It Is';?Probability Estimates for the Features Required by Various Life Forms: Excerpt: Requirements to sustain intelligent physical life: Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. 10^-1333 dependency factors estimate approx. 10^-324 longevity requirements estimate approx. 10^45 Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. 10^-1054 Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe approx. 10^22 Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracle http://d4bge0zxg5qba.cloudfront.net/files/compendium/compendium_Part3_ver2.pdf - with bibliography of references

bornagain77

Q, I watched the Privileged Planet. Unfortunately, as I explained to BA77, once it is established that we live in a designed universe, probabilities are no longer meaningful in establishing Earth as the focus of creation. Feel free to join in and share if you think there is evidence that indicates Earth, specifically Earth, is unique. Remember, if intelligence can design one privileged planet, it can design any number of them. Probabilities no long matter. William J Murray

William J Murray,

In order for Earth’s (or our solar system’s) particular position on that plane to be unique wrt the rest of the universe, the entire universe would literally have to have Earth at its functional center.

If you want to see the “fingers of God” that point to the Earth, read this article by the late cosmologist Halton Arp: https://www.haltonarp.com/articles/fingers_of_god_in_an_expanding_universe Actually, according to the inflationary model, the Earth is indeed at the universe’s functional center--and so is every other location. Furthermore, I believe galactic environment is more important than geometric centricity. Similarly, I would speculate that you don’t consider your bellybutton as the most important feature in your body. The special coincidences of the location of the Earth are presented in this book (and also a video): The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery https://www.amazon.com/Privileged-Planet-Cosmos-Designed-Discovery/dp/1684510775 by the astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez -Q Querius

Sandy, thanks for the link to the entire video, I only had a link to the clip of the video that I have referenced. It is nice to have a link to the entire video:

The Principle https://www.bitchute.com/video/5MZhT865KVom/

bornagain77

WJM, I'm very satisfied that the unbiased readers, with the information provided thus far, can judge for themselves . bornagain77

BA77, as I said before, I have no philosophical belief in a mediocre Earth. I am honestly trying to understand how the evidence you've provided indicates a preferential point (Earth) on the CMBR plane (or Axis of Evil). I've watched several videos on it, one from the perspective that the CMBR plane was evidence Earth was in a special location; but the only evidence it provided (and all of the others) was that Earth was special because of it's alignment with the plane. And, it showed that the plane doesn't go through our equator, but close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades. The plane shown nearly dissecting the Earth closely matches the plane of the elliptic. Equinox axis is just in alignment with the dipole positions, so that doesn't add anything as far as the physical location of the Earth within the CMBR plane. The videos state flatly that the CMBR doesn't show a center of the universe, but rather axes that corresponds with our elliptic and equinox. It would only be "pointing at Earth" in the same way it would be pointing at any planet with an elliptic that was similarly close to the CBMR plane and aligned with it and which had an elliptic with a tilt that matched ours in relation to the dipoles. Apparently, the idea that it specifically "pointed at Earth" was an assumptive result of the same inapplicable use of non-design probabilities being wrongfully imported into a design perspective. So I was right, apparently: the CMBR only reveals a preferred plane, not a preferred position on that plane. Unless there is other universal architecture indicating we are in a preferred position on that plane, then the most we can say is that any planet with a similar elliptic and axis tilt near that plane seem to be preferred planets. However, unless one comes up with a functional reason why that plane and that tilt axis would be more conducive to intelligent life, then it really is of no value other than in religious ideological terms. (I think there is evidence that the axis tilt is beneficial to, perhaps even necessary for, life.) I think I've provided one (admittedly, rough and from only a general understanding of the concepts it employs) using an entropy explanation. I do appreciate the detailed information about how all the celestial mechanics can be used to equally support both Ptolemic and Copernican perspectives. That's very exciting information!! William J Murray

WJM continued to push his 'single plane' model though he was corrected on it and was specifically asked by Querius "What did you think of “the Axis of Evil” in the video?" Go figure. Then WJM goes off on a highly speculative tangent about entropy with no reference to any actual empirical evidence that I could see But in the midst of all his smoke and heat, WJM did make this statement,

If one solar system can be moving along that plane so perfectly that one of it’s planets has an equator that is always dissected by it, any number of such planetary systems and dynamics can exist. Unless Earth is literally the motionless (wrt motion through space) center of all celestial mechanics and motion. Is that the case you are attempting to make, BA77?

Although the vast majority of people, including the vast majority of Christians, hold the Copernican principle to be unquestionably true, and hold that it is a undeniable fact that the earth is in, very rapid, motion through space, the fact of the matter is that no one has ever scientifically proven that the earth is actually in motion and that the earth is not the still center of the universe. In other words, contrary to popular belief, Copernicus never did prove that the heliocentric model was true and the geocentric model was wrong, (and no one even tries to argue that the sun is the center of the universe anymore)

The Tyranny of Simple Explanations – Philip Ball – AUG 11, 2016 Excerpt: Take the debate between the ancient geocentric view of the universe—in which the sun and planets move around a central Earth—and Nicolaus Copernicus’s heliocentric theory, with the Sun at the center and the Earth and other planets moving around it.,,, It is often claimed that, by the 16th century, this Ptolemaic model of the universe had become so laden with these epicycles that it was on the point of falling apart. Then along came the Polish astronomer with his heliocentric universe, and no more epicycles were needed. The two theories explained the same astronomical observations, but Copernicus’s was simpler, and so Occam’s razor tells us to prefer it. This is wrong for many reasons. First, Copernicus didn’t do away with epicycles.,,, In an introductory tract called the Commentariolus, published around 1514, he said he could explain the motions of the heavens with “just” 34 epicycles. Many later commentators took this to mean that the geocentric model must have needed many more than 34, but there’s no actual evidence for that. And the historian of astronomy Owen Gingerich has dismissed the common assumption that the Ptolemaic model was so epicycle-heavy that it was close to collapse. He argues that a relatively simple design was probably still in use in Copernicus’s time.,,, http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/occams-razor/495332/

There simply is no empirical reason to prefer the sun, or any other place in the universe, as being central in the universe over and above the earth being considered central in the universe, in any model that we may choose to make for the universe. As Einstein himself noted,

“One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K’ [the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K’ [the Earth], whereby K’ [the Earth] is treated as being at rest.” –Albert Einstein, quoted in Hans Thirring, “On the Effect of Distant Rotating Masses in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation”, Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, 29, 1921 “If one rotates the shell *relative to the fixed stars* about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, *that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around*” –Albert Einstein, cited in “Gravitation”, Misner Thorne and Wheeler pp. 544-545. “We can’t feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.,,, If all the objects in space were removed save one, then no one could say whether that one remaining object was at rest or hurtling through the void at 100,000 miles per second” Historian Lincoln Barnett – “The Universe and Dr. Einstein” – pg 73 (contains a foreword by Albert Einstein)

Here are a few more notes backing up the claim that there is no empirical reason to prefer the sun, or any other place in the universe, as being central in the universe over and above the earth being considered central in the universe, in any model that we may choose to make for the universe.

“…Thus we may return to Ptolemy’s point of view of a ‘motionless earth’… One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein’s field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein’s point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right.” Born, Max. “Einstein’s Theory of Relativity”, Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345: “In the Ptolemaic system, the earth is considered to be at rest and without rotation in the center of the universe, while the sun, other planets and fixed stars rotate around the earth. In relational mechanics this rotation of distant matter yields the force such that the equation of motion takes the form of equation (8.47). Now the gravitational attraction of the sun is balanced by a real gravitational centrifugal force due to the annual rotation of distant masses around the earth (with a component having a period of one year). In this way the earth can remain at rest and at an essentially constant distance from the sun. The diurnal rotation of distant masses around the earth (with a period of one day) yields a real gravitational centrifugal force flattening the earth at the poles. Foucault’s pendulum is explained by a real Coriolis force acting on moving masses over the earth’s surface in the form –2mgvme ´ ?Ue, where vme is the velocity of the test body relative to the earth and ?Ue is the angular rotation of the distant masses around the earth. The effect of this force will be to keep the plane of oscillation of the pendulum rotating together with the fixed stars.” (Andre K. T. Assis, Relational Mechanics, pp. 190-191). Could 80-year-old ether experiments have detected a cosmological temperature gradient? – February 8, 2016 Excerpt: the 20 or so experiments performed since 1887 seem to have steadily improved the precision in support of the view that there is no ether and no preferred reference frame. https://phys.org/news/2016-02-year-old-ether-cosmological-temperature-gradient.html

In fact, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, in the 4 dimensional spacetime of Einstein’s General Relativity, we find that each 3-Dimensional point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe,,,

Where is the centre of the universe?: Excerpt: There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a “Big Bang” about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualized as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

,,, and since any 3-Dimensional point can be considered central in the expanding 4-Dimensional space time of General Relativity, then, as the following articles make clear, it is now left completely open to whomever is making a model of the universe to decide for themselves what is to be considered central in the universe,,,

How Einstein Revealed the Universe’s Strange “Nonlocality” – George Musser | Oct 20, 2015 Excerpt: Under most circumstances, we can ignore this nonlocality. You can designate some available chunk of matter as a reference point and use it to anchor a coordinate grid. You can, to the chagrin of Santa Barbarans, take Los Angeles as the center of the universe and define every other place with respect to it. In this framework, you can go about your business in blissful ignorance of space’s fundamental inability to demarcate locations.,, In short, Einstein’s theory is nonlocal in a more subtle and insidious way than Newton’s theory of gravity was. Newtonian gravity acted at a distance, but at least it operated within a framework of absolute space. Einsteinian gravity has no such element of wizardry; its effects ripple through the universe at the speed of light. Yet it demolishes the framework, violating locality in what was, for Einstein, its most basic sense: the stipulation that all things have a location. General relativity confounds our intuitive picture of space as a kind of container in which material objects reside and forces us to search for an entirely new conception of place. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-einstein-revealed-the-universe-s-strange-nonlocality// How Einstein Lost His Bearings, and With Them, General Relativity – March 2018 Excerpt: Einstein’s field equations — the equations of general relativity — describe how the shape of space-time evolves in response to the presence of matter and energy. To describe that evolution, you need to impose on space-time a coordinate system — like lines of latitude and longitude — that tells you which points are where. The most important thing to recognize about coordinate systems is that they’re human contrivances. Maybe in one coordinate system we label a point (0, 0, 0), and in another we label that same point (1, 1, 1). The physical properties haven’t changed — we’ve just tagged the point differently. “Those labels are something about us, not something about the world,” said James Weatherall, a philosopher of science at the University of California, Irvine.,,, The Einstein field equations we have today are generally covariant. They express the same physical truths about the universe — how space-time curves in the presence of energy and matter — regardless of what coordinates you use to label things.,,, as Einstein discovered,,, the universe doesn’t admit any one privileged choice of coordinates. https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-einstein-lost-his-bearings-and-with-them-general-relativity-20180314/

As the preceding articles made clear, General Relativity itself does not care if we choose the earth, or the sun, or any other place in the universe, as the central point for our model of the universe. As Stephen Hawking himself explained, ‘our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.,,, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.’

“So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest. Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of our universe, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.” Stephen Hawking – The Grand Design – pages 39 – 2010

And as George Ellis stated, “I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds…”

“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” – George Ellis – W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55

And as Fred Hoyle stated, “Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”

“The relation of the two pictures [geocentrism and geokineticism] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view…. Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.” Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.

And even Einstein himself stated, The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems].”

“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.” Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.);

Again, there simply is no empirical, nor mathematical, reason to prefer the sun, or any other place in the universe, as being central in the universe over and above the earth being considered central in the universe, in any model that we may choose to make for the universe, (save for making the equations of motion easier for us to calculate). Moreover, as the the anomalies in the CMBR and the large scale structures of the universe make clear, (as referenced in post 60), we now do have empirical evidence that strongly suggest that we should, at the very least, consider the earth to be a viable candidate for centrality in our, (arbitrarily chosen), model of the universe. In other words, we have no empirical reason to prefer any other place in the universe as being central over and above the earth in our model of the universe, whereas, on the other hand, we now do have empirical evidence that strongly suggest we should, at the very least, consider the earth as being a very viable candidate for centrality in our, (arbitrarily chosen), model of the universe. To repeat what George Ellis stated prior to the discovery of the anomalies in the CMBR by the WMAP and PLANCK satellites,,

“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” – George Ellis – W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55

Might it be to obvious to point out, (given the 'philosophical hoops' that WJM himself has tried to jump through in order to maintain his philosophical belief in a mediocre earth in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary), that the 'philosophical criteria' for ignoring the apparent centrality of the earth in the universe is becoming far harder to maintain?

Psalm 104:5 He set the earth on its foundations, never to be moved.

bornagain77

Now I'll explain why the CMBR data, rather than indicating that the Earth is unique, actually indicates the opposite - that it is not unique - from a design perspective. If the Earth was unique, the CMBR data would reveal a spherical, not hemispherical, difference in structure and temperature distribution. It would point at Earth from all directions, not just at the universal-width plane the Earth occupies. Under the 3-chamber entropy model, the "import" zone would be represented by the direction we are going, spatially speaking. The export zone would be trailing after us. This would be the most efficient set-up. Our past would be high entropy, our future lower-entropy. That directly conflicts with observations. What we observe is more in line with a universe that began with maximally low entropy, with half the universe earmarked for information import and the other half earmarked for waste export, set up for the purpose of creating the largest intelligent life zone possible under a maximum efficiency 3-chamber Maxwell Demon system. You don't do that to create one planet with intelligent life, otherwise the system could be more efficiently constructed and would reveal different observations - at least with our current information. So here we also see the difference between a generic-ID perspective and any particular religious or spiritual ID perspective; the generic ID perspective doesn't stop at "the evidence shows we are in a preferred location." "Hey look, we're in a special location" isn't a scientific explanation for the CMBR data from a design perspective; it's the creator making itself known from a religious perspective. This is the big problem with mixing ID theory and religion. I've offered a rough model that attempts to explain the CMBR data as functional and efficient design. I think I've also offered a general argument why that design indicates there is likely more than one planet housing intelligent life; what we see would look different if Earth was unique because the design would indicate a preferred point - Earth - wherever it traveled in the universe and not a universe-wide plane that would only be efficient design if there are a number of worlds with intelligent life on them distributed (probably in an efficient pattern) along the CMBR plane. William J Murray

From a generic design perspective, this CMBR-revealed arrangement doesn't make sense unless it serves a functional purpose. In other words, it can't just be a "hello, I did this so you'll know you're special" purpose. It would be how a functional, high-efficiency system would be set up. Take a typical home (at least in the USA) for example. You put your air conditioning unit where it has the most shade or relief from the heat. You want it to be drawing in the coolest air possible. Work done in the house that generates heat, like the hot water heater, the bathroom where heat collects due to hot water baths and showers, and the stove are vented away from the AC unit. The maximal use of the three-chamber Maxwell's Demon arrangement would not only place intelligent life-sustaining planets between an import source and an export area (the CMBR plane,) it might also very precisely align that planet's equator with the plane for maximum efficiency. And here's the thing; over time the entropic disparity between the import source and the export area would necessarily show observable differences, not only in relative temperature, but in other features as well - which is what the CMBR data reveals. William J Murray

I wonder if the CMBR data is revealing a 3-chamber Maxwell's Demon situation wrt entropy, where intelligence is managing incoming organized (useful) information/energy and outgoing (non-useful) information/energy, and the CMBR plane is the middle chamber? It seems like that would account for the three zones and why extremely low entropic systems like intelligent life would necessarily exist in the CMBR plane. Seems like a good setup for preserving the source supply of low-entropy information/energy if you're also "pumping out" used, high entropy information/energy into a separate "waste" area. William J Murray

Since I've given BA77 ample opportunities to argue that the Earth is in a preferred position compared to other positions on the CMBR plane (I don't refer to it as "Axis of Evil, Q, because that's too confusing for God's sake,) I'll explain why that perspective is problematic. In order for Earth's (or our solar system's) particular position on that plane to be unique wrt the rest of the universe, the entire universe would literally have to have Earth at its functional center. The apparent motion of our planet around the sun, our solar system through space according to the gravity center of the galaxy and the motion of the galaxy itself through space, would all have to be an illusion. Earth would have to be fixed in a 3-axis location and everything else be revolving around it. I'm not saying that's not the case; I'm saying that for the Earth to exist in a unique 3D or 3-axis location, it means everything in the universe is moving through space but Earth is not. We would literally have to be in the same spot since the beginning in order for the Earth to be in a privileged 3-axis spatial location. The only alternative to this is that the Earth, solar system and galaxy have been moving in a coordinated fashion that keeps the Earth's equator fixed on the CMBR plane. Any location on the plane, with the Earth's equator dissected by it, would reveal the same kind of CMBR data, so as we move along the plane the CMBR data stays consistent. This necessarily would mean that there could be any number of planets on that universal-width plane that would see the same kind of CMBR data. We would have found it 100 years ago 1000, years ago, etc. as we are moving horizontally across that plane. Unless the entire universe is literally revolving around a motionless Earth, our previous locations on the plane would have revealed the same data. Once we establish that the universe is designed, probabilistic arguments are no longer applicable. If one solar system can be moving along that plane so perfectly that one of it's planets has an equator that is always dissected by it, any number of such planetary systems and dynamics can exist.d Unless Earth is literally the motionless (wrt motion through space) center of all celestial mechanics and motion. Is that the case you are attempting to make, BA77? William J Murray

BA77 said:

Whatever WJM, I explained the evidence to the best of my ability. The ‘preference’ for the earth’s position from the large scale structures of the universe is not transferable to other positions in the universe as you are erroneously assuming in your ‘single plane’ model. That is exactly why the various studies say it is a challenge to the Copernican principle.

If by "explaining it to the best of your ability" you mean copy-pasting the exact same thing 4 times in a row, only adding you saying almost the exact same thing as what you quoted between quotes, then okay. You wouldn't answer the questions I asked in order to help me understand your point. I didn't assume anything. I asked you if the CMBR info revealed a preferred plane because I didn't know if I was interpreting it correctly. You said yes. I asked you repeatedly, in different ways, if any particular location on that plane was preferred by that data, and if so, how? You kept referring to the flatness, which as far as I can tell has nothing to do with our spatial location, and then you kept copy-pasting the CMBR data, which you already agreed only showed preference for a particular plane. Until you can tell me specifically what would make one particular location on that plane unique compared to any other particular location on that plane, you haven't made your case. I have no ideological dog in this fight. It doesn't make me any difference if humans and earth are unique in this universe. It doesn't make me any difference if ETs exist or not. That's not something I care about in any way. William J Murray

@Bornagain77 Thanks, I didn't know about this movie from 2014. Wow! https://www.bitchute.com/video/5MZhT865KVom/ Sandy

William J Murray, What did you think of "the Axis of Evil" in the video? -Q Querius

There are references to UFOs in the Bible. So I don't understand the issue. ET

Whatever WJM, I explained the evidence to the best of my ability. The 'preference' for the earth's position from the large scale structures of the universe is not transferable to other positions in the universe as you are erroneously assuming in your 'single plane' model. That is exactly why the various studies say it is a challenge to the Copernican principle. I don't know how to make it any clearer for you. I am fairly confident that others, who are not so philosophically committed to the earth being mediocre in the universe, will be able to, relatively easily, understand the evidence. Of related interest to 'philosophical biases', I just remembered this quote from George Ellis,

“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” – George Ellis – W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55

bornagain77

BA77, Repeating the same information in the same way "slower" isn't a good plan to aid in my understanding of what you're trying to tell me. As far as I can tell, the CMBR shows a preferred plane, nothing else. The "flatness" of the universe has, as far as I can tell, nothing whatsoever to contribute to the claim that the Earth is in a preferred position, spatially speaking. Absent "preference" information that actually narrows Earth's location to something considerably smaller than a universe-wide plane, there is no good scientific design argument that the Earth and human intelligence is likely unique. William J Murray

To go over the evidence one more time, more slowly. The way in which they were originally able to detect the anomalies in the CMBR, (anomalies which 'strangely' line up with the earth and solar system), is that they 'smeared' and/or 'averaged out' the tiny temperature variations in the CMBR. Here is an excellent clip from the documentary "The Principle" that explains, in an easy to understand manner, how these ‘anomalies’ that line up with the earth and solar system were found, via 'averaging out', in the tiny temperature variations in the CMBR data.

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

And here is an article, by one of the producers of the preceding video, which states, "Max Tegmark describes in a simplified way how spherical harmonics analysis decomposes the small temperature fluctuations into more averaged and spatially arranged temperature components, known as multipoles. The “Axis of Evil” correlates to the earth’s ecliptic and equinoxes, and this represents a very unusual and unexpected special direction in space, a direct challenge to the Copernican Principle."

What Is Evil About The Axis Of Evil? - February 17, 2015 The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation contains small temperature fluctuations. When these temperature fluctuations are analyzed using image processing techniques (specifically spherical harmonics), they indicate a special direction in space, or, in a sense, an axis through the universe. This axis is correlated back to us, and causes many difficulties for the current big bang and standard cosmology theories. What has been discovered is shocking. Two scientists, Kate Land and João Magueijo, in a paper in 2005 describing the axis, dubbed it the “Axis of Evil” because of the damage it does to current theories, and (tongue in cheek) as a response to George Bush’ Axis of Evil speech regarding Iraq, Iran and, North Korea. (Youtube clip on site) In the above video, Max Tegmark describes in a simplified way how spherical harmonics analysis decomposes the small temperature fluctuations into more averaged and spatially arranged temperature components, known as multipoles. The “Axis of Evil” correlates to the earth’s ecliptic and equinoxes, and this represents a very unusual and unexpected special direction in space, a direct challenge to the Copernican Principle. http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/evil-axis-evil/

And while that is certainly bad enough for anyone who wants to 'philosophically' believe that the earth is not that special in the universe, the problem gets worse when we don't 'average out' the small temperature fluctuations in the CMBR. As mentioned previously, due to the 'insane coincidence' of the universe being flat to 1 part within 1×10^57 parts, we now know that "These tiny temperature variations correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe. A region that was a fraction of a degree warmer become a vast galaxy cluster, hundreds of millions of light-years across."

How do we know the universe is flat? Discovering the topology of the universe – by Fraser Cain – June 7, 2017 Excerpt: With the most sensitive space-based telescopes they have available, astronomers are able to detect tiny variations in the temperature of this background radiation. And here’s the part that blows my mind every time I think about it. These tiny temperature variations correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe. A region that was a fraction of a degree warmer become a vast galaxy cluster, hundreds of millions of light-years across. The cosmic microwave background radiation just gives and gives, and when it comes to figuring out the topology of the universe, it has the answer we need. If the universe was curved in any way, these temperature variations would appear distorted compared to the actual size that we see these structures today. But they’re not. To best of its ability, ESA’s Planck space telescope, can’t detect any distortion at all. The universe is flat.,,, Since the universe is flat now, it must have been flat in the past, when the universe was an incredibly dense singularity. And for it to maintain this level of flatness over 13.8 billion years of expansion, in kind of amazing. In fact, astronomers estimate that the universe must have been flat to 1 part within 1×10^57 parts. Which seems like an insane coincidence. https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-flat-topology.html

And it is these large scale structures of the universe, (which were not derived via averaging out the tiny temperature fluctuations of the CMBR), which drive the final nail in the coffin for the belief that the earth does not have a 'preferred' position in the universe. As the following article stated, "why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the strongest and most distant discrete sources, implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? Secondly why should such anisotropies lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It seems yet more curious when we consider the other anisotropies, e.g., an alignment of the four normals to the quadrupole and octopole planes in the CMBR with the cosmological dipole and the equinoxes. Then there is the other recently reported large dipole anisotropy in the NVSS radio source distribution differing in magnitude from the CMBR dipole by a factor of four, and therefore not explained as due to the peculiar motion of the Solar system, yet aligned with the CMBR dipole which itself lies close to the line joining the equinoxes."

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

As to, "implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle", that is for the author to say that these findings are a direct challenge to the belief that the earth is not special in this universe. In other words, the distribution of quasars and radio galaxies, "in the universe at very large scales", are arrayed about the earth in such a way as to give the earth a 'preferred' position in the universe. And it is this 'preferred position', (that is found by looking at the large scale structures of the universe themselves, i.e. quasar and radio galaxy distribution), which is definitely not transferable to other positions in the universe. Thus, contrary to the presumption of atheists, far from the temperature variations in the CMBR being a product of randomness as they presuppose, the tiny temperature variations in the CMBR correspond to the ‘largest scale structures of the observable universe’ and these ‘largest scale structures of the observable universe’ reveal “a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth”. Moreover, we were only able to discover this correlation between the tiny temperature variation in the CMBR and the largest scale structures in the universe via the ‘insane coincidence’ of the universe being fine-tuned to at least 1 in 10^57 flatness. Atheists simply have no clue why the universe should be 'insanely' flat, whereas the Bible predicted the universe to be flat thousands of years before it was discovered by modern astronomy.

Job 38 4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. 5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?

In fact, the Bible also predicted God to 'draw a circle on the face of the deep' thousands of years before the CMBR was discovered:

Proverbs 8:26-27 While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep, Job 26:10? He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.

Shoot, even the scientists who discovered the CMBR stated that,

“My argument,” Dr. Penzias concluded, “is that the best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.” - Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics – co-discoverer Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation – as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis” - Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discoverer Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation - Fred Heeren, Show Me God (Wheeling, Ill.: Daystar, 2000),

And indeed, the evidence for a 'Biblical creation" has only gotten stronger since they made those statements. As I have outlined in this post, The "tiny temperature variations" in the CMBR, to the largest scale structures in the universe itself, reveal teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan, a reason), that specifically included the earth from the start. And again, the Bible alone, among all holy books of the world, uniquely predicted the earth to be 'intended' from the beginning of creation:

Genesis 1:1-3 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. The Uniqueness of Genesis 1:1 - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBXdQCkISo0

bornagain77

One thing you'll find in the Bible is that God created angelic beings in their own "domain" that apparently can cross into ours. Their manifestations include intelligence, physicality, and immense power. They can appear as ordinary humans or clothed in bright light. In the book of Revelation there are angelic beings in strange hybrid forms as well. Some prophetic representations seem like they are intended to be symbolic, both in the Tanakh and in the New Testament. -Q Querius

:) I bet if ETs would appear on TV station and would say christianity is true, people who now believe in ETs existence would became skeptics and would say must be a hoax, and they will change their mind about ETs existence. :) :) :) Sandy

BA77 said:

If ETs really exist, it should be overwhelming evidence that no one could doubt.

Isn't this a version of the fallacious "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" argument? No, evidence for ETs have no more of an evidential burden than anything else, much less the impossible standard of "no one can doubt it." Humans can doubt anything. There is an enormous amount of evidence for the existence of non-human intelligences that do not seem to come from this planet. There is evidence at least some of them come from other star systems. Other evidence seems to indicate a transdimensional nature for some. Like evidence for the afterlife, unless you put your attention on it and do some open-minded research, you'll never even see it. William J Murray

bornagain77:

Darwinism and Hinduism overlap in fundamental ways. For instance. ‘Aryan master race’, (which the Nazis ‘religiously’ believed in), was originally a Hindu concept,

That is not even wrong. The Sanskrit word "arya" means "noble" or "distinguished", in a social context. ET

More NASA astronauts weigh in Then there are a number of pilots with verified sightings. ET

bornagain77:

If ETs really exist, it should be overwhelming evidence that no one could doubt.

That doesn't follow. There is overwhelming evidence for intelligent design in biology and yet it is doubted by millions of people. Gordon Cooper, astronaut, discusses UFOs ET

A more succinct geometrical phrasing occurs to me. I understand that the CMBR information puts the Earth at the center of a perpendicular axis in 3-dimensinal space; is there any information that shows we are at the center of the two horizontal axes? William J Murray

BA77 @49, When trying to explain something to someone who doesn't understand how what you said makes your case, cutting and pasting the same exact information and repeating that it makes your case isn't helpful. You can paste it 100 times, you can even put it in bold. It adds no explanatory value. What I do if someone is having a hard time understanding my argument is to rephrase it. I am trying to understand your argument, which is why I rephrase my questions. Maybe I'm not asking the right questions, or I misunderstand the information you've provided. Let me ask it this way. Let's assume that there's lots of intelligent life out there. They have the same scientific, mathematical and logical capacity as we do. They too would discover the fine-tuning of the universal constants and the precision of their environmental factors - fine tuned for intelligent life. The would find that the universe is flat, etc. Let's say they live far up in the "northern" hemisphere of the universe perpendicular to the CMBR preferential plane. They would find the preferential plane using CMBR technology, and realize they lived far to the "north" of that plane. Let's say that they discovered that the rotational axis of their planet is not even in alignment with that distant CMBR plane. Now lets say this alien race X has super-powered telescopes and can look at planets located on that CMBR plane. They discover a planet, Earth, that is not only on the plane, but the plane also dissects that planet exactly at its equator. Now let's say they also find another planet, planet B, on the CMBR plane 10 million light years distant from the first planet, and it also has an axis where the plane is dissecting it at it's equator. Is there any other universal architecture that prefers Earth over planet B? If so, what is it? The CMBR seems to only show a preferred plane and a preference towards planets on the plane where the plane dissects that planet at the equator. What would be the distinguishing universal architecture between Earth and planet B? William J Murray

BA77 @46 said:

Well WJM, actually, as Paul James-Griffiths explained in his video, there is a materialistic element to Hinduism to go along with its spiritual element.

The inclusion of "matter" in any metaphysical view, including Christianity, does not indicate an "materialistic element." Materialism by definition is that matter is all that exists (in terms of matter and energy,) Materialism cannot be extracted from Hinduism.

Darwinism and Hinduism overlap in fundamental ways. For instance. ‘Aryan master race’, (which the Nazis ‘religiously’ believed in), was originally a Hindu concept,

Overlapping aspects of ideology do not indicate that one ideology can be extracted from the other. Darwinism cannot be extracted from Hinduism, because Darwinism (as we know it today) requires materialism, and materialism cannot be extracted from Hinduism. By "extracted," I mean be a logically supportable implication. Neither Christianity or Hinduism can be logically construed support materialism or Darwinism. William J Murray

@ET UFO , ETs are part of mind control. I've red somewhere a doc where UFO effect was an option for submission of population ( "awe effect" produced by holograms in the sky ), among other options like start a war between blacks and whites, release a deadly virus, start "unplanned" terorist atacks . It's true on that paper was mentioned as last option . Sandy

WJM,,,

Unless “large scale structure of the universe” refers to something other than the CMBR data,

You are kidding right?? Once again, for the forth time,

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 eclipticcite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropiescite {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 sourcescite{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

And again, the large scale structures of the universe, which give the earth a 'preferred position', corresponds back to the CMBR via the 'insane coincidence' of the universe being flat to 1 in 10^57

How do we know the universe is flat? Discovering the topology of the universe – by Fraser Cain – June 7, 2017 Excerpt: With the most sensitive space-based telescopes they have available, astronomers are able to detect tiny variations in the temperature of this background radiation. And here’s the part that blows my mind every time I think about it. These tiny temperature variations correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe. A region that was a fraction of a degree warmer become a vast galaxy cluster, hundreds of millions of light-years across. The cosmic microwave background radiation just gives and gives, and when it comes to figuring out the topology of the universe, it has the answer we need. If the universe was curved in any way, these temperature variations would appear distorted compared to the actual size that we see these structures today. But they’re not. To best of its ability, ESA’s Planck space telescope, can’t detect any distortion at all. The universe is flat.,,, Since the universe is flat now, it must have been flat in the past, when the universe was an incredibly dense singularity. And for it to maintain this level of flatness over 13.8 billion years of expansion, in kind of amazing. In fact, astronomers estimate that the universe must have been flat to 1 part within 1×10^57 parts. Which seems like an insane coincidence. https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-flat-topology.html

Of note, this is my absolute last time trying to explain this to you. I'm sorry. Again, I have more productive things to do today than trying to explain something to someone who apparently has a mental roadblock that prevents him from understanding..

Job 38 1. Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said: 2 “Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge? 3 Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. 4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. 5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? 6 On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone— 7 while the morning stars sang together and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?,,,

bornagain77

BA77, Unless "large scale structure of the universe" refers to something other than the CMBR data, repeating it doesn't change the fact it is referring to a preferential plane, not any specific location on that plane. William J Murray

WJM. I've repeated the large scale structure of the universe numerous times now as the piece of the puzzle that drives the nail in the coffin. It ain't rocket science. Well anyways. It seems apparent that you are committed to your view no matter what,,, I am therefore out of here. I have more productive things to do. Have a good day. bornagain77

BA77 @42, Unless the CMBR provides more than a plane as the identifier of Earth's preferential location, #2 cannot be false. William J Murray

Well WJM, actually, as Paul James-Griffiths explained in his video, there is a materialistic element to Hinduism to go along with its spiritual element. Darwinism and Hinduism overlap in fundamental ways. For instance. 'Aryan master race', (which the Nazis 'religiously' believed in), was originally a Hindu concept, bornagain77

ET, well, although you may find pagan sources to be credible, I certainly consider pagan sources to be false. And "Government files' certainly does not move the needle much for me either. Conspiracy theorists often rely on 'Government files' in order to support their claims. i.e. 9-11 conspiracy theorists for example.. Astronauts and Presidents is a bit more impressive, but still not compelling evidence as far as empirical science itself is concerned. If ETs really exist, it should be overwhelming evidence that no one could doubt. But as Enrico Fermi asked "Where is everybody?", ,,, ET diehards simply don't have that level of scientific evidence that would put their case beyond reasonable doubt. And you calling me 'willfully ignorant' is not going to change that fact. But anyways, I am tired of being insulted and will no longer play along with you. bornagain77

BA77, You can certainly draw evolution from Hindu sources - their whole thing is basically about the evolution of the soul. But you can't extract materialism from it, and Darwinism depends on materialism. You can no more extract Darwinism from Hinduism than you can extract it from Christianity. William J Murray

WJM, 1 true. 2. false. Again, the large scale structure of the universe drives the nail in the coffin on that point. Any other planet with observers would not see the same large scale structures of the universe 'preferring' their particular position in the universe. bornagain77

I call it as it is. You refuse to read the relevant documents. That is the very definition of willful ignorance. Whether or not the documents are considered pagan has NO bearing on whether or not they are true and represent reality. Governments have released their UFO files. There are literally thousands of witnesses. Some witnesses are formed NASA astronauts. Some are formed Presidents of the USA. ET

BA77, But you're not answer my simple yes/no questions that will unambiguously let me know if I am interpreting the CMBR data wrong. Let me try this in a true/false manner: 1. The CBMR reveals a preferential plane that dissects the known universe into "top" and "bottom" halves that also dissects the Earth at the equator. True or false? 2. Any planet anywhere on that plane, where the plane dissected its equator, in a solar system/galaxy arrangement that kept the planet's equator perfectly dissected by that plane, would see the same CMBR effect. True or false? William J Murray

Well ET, you certainly are not going to win any points with me by simply calling me 'willfully ignorant'. You have provided no evidence, other than the Vedas, that I can be willfully ignorant of. And the Vedas, as I explained, is certainly not to be considered a credible source by most Christian scholars. In fact, it is considered to be pagan. And apparently, as the Fermi paradox itself makes clear, I am not nearly alone in being 'willfully ignorant' of the compelling evidences for ETs that you insist exists, Apparently many high caliber scientists themselves, , as the Fermi paradox itself makes clear, are also willfully ignorant of all this compelling evidence for ETs that you insist exists. bornagain77

WJM, you might want to watch the video I cited before you make sweeping claims as to what Hinduism supports and what it does not support..

The Pagan Roots of The Philosophy of Evolution – Paul James-Griffiths – Paul has taught ancient history https://youtu.be/cqFChgeSJGA?t=844

bornagain77

WJM, my post at 31 is unambiguous. I am not proficient in any other language other than English. i.e. I don't know how to make it any easier for you to understand. The earth's 'preferred' position in relation to the large scale structures is not transferable to any other position. You apparently are desperately trying to find a workaround because of your a-priori philosophical bias against the earth being 'preferred'' in the universe.. I, on the other hand, am just fine with the evidence. Indeed, I was pleasantly surprised when I first learned about it and how it 'refined' Gonzalez's overall thesis for the 'Privileged Planet' to the earth itself, specifically.

“The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.“ - Guillermo Gonzalez - Astronomer

bornagain77

If there's anything Hinduism doesn't support, it's materialism. Can't really get from Hinduism to Darwinism. William J Murray

I call it willful ignorance because that is exactly what it is. The Vedas aren't the only documentation for aliens and UFOs. ET

BA77, "Whatever?" The evidence you cited points to the preferred position of a plane that dissects the universe into a "top" and "bottom," not a particular point on that plane. That plane also dissects the Earth at its equator. Is that correct or incorrect? Or does the CMBR also isolate Earth's point location on that plane? William J Murray

ET, the Vedas, for a Christian, is certainly not to be considered a credible source. You call it 'willful ignorance'. I call it not being gullible. bornagain77

Whatever. Your willful ignorance on this subject is not an argument. ET

WJM, whatever. I've already repeated the evidence for the large scale structures of the universe several times now. Again, the earth's 'preferred' position in relation to the large scale structures of the universe is not transferable to other places in the universe despite your apparent philosophical preference that it should be transferable. bornagain77

ET:

Read the documentation such as the Vedas,,

You mean this?

The Vedas are a large body of religious texts originating in ancient India. Composed in Vedic Sanskrit, the texts constitute the oldest layer of Sanskrit literature and the oldest scriptures of Hinduism. - per wikipedia

Umm, seeing as the theory of evolution itself finds its deepest metaphysical root in the pagan religion of Hinduism, I'll think I'll take an extremely skeptical approach to any purported evidence arising for ETs from the Vedas.

The Pagan Roots of The Philosophy of Evolution - Paul James-Griffiths - Paul has taught ancient history https://youtu.be/cqFChgeSJGA?t=844

bornagain77

BA77, I don't have any such philosophical requirement. None of any of this violates MRT. My interest here is purely in the logic. Let me put my objection another way: imagine a plane that dissected the Earth at the equator extending outward. Now lets take the galaxy with the solar system and move it along that plane, keeping the Earth precisely dissected by that plane, 10 million light years in any direction along that plane. What would be the observational difference wrt the CMBR? I don't see the difference. The universe will still be observed to have a temperature difference dissected by the Earth's equatorial plane. William J Murray

Why do we need diplomatic relations with them in order for them to exist? And they are here. Ask the witnesses. Read the documentation such as the Vedas and the recently released government files. ET

ET:

To ask where in the blazes are they with respect to extraterrestrials means you are ignoring centuries of evidence.

Well, not to belittle 'centuries of evidence', but exactly how are our diplomatic relations currently going with these ETs? i.e. Exactly "where are they?" bornagain77

WJM, as I pointed out three times now, the "large scale structures now reveal a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe:" Apparently you, philosophically, want this to be transferable to other places in the universe. It is not transferable.

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 eclipticcite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropiescite {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 sourcescite{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

bornagain77

They are initials, Sandy. ET

@ET ET are you ET? Sandy

To ask where in the blazes are they with respect to extraterrestrials means you are ignoring centuries of evidence. ET

BA77, I didn't make a claim other than that of my understanding of what CMBR shows (note how I began the comment, "IF I understand it correctly, ....") Maybe I'm missing it, but I still don't see how the CMBR data goes beyond establishing the uniqueness of the solar and axis plane. Perhaps you could tell me how any other planet with the same orbital plane and the same axis tilt in a solar system inhabiting the same universal plane would have a different CMBR observation? William J Murray

WJM claims,

This (the anomalies in the CMBR) would only indicate (following the assumption and logic here) that intelligent life may be regulated to those Earth-like planets which have equators aligned on this plane in a solar system that moves along this plane.

Umm No. The anomalies correspond back to THIS earth and THIS solar system in particular. That is what makes it so 'spooky' and is also what makes it so antagonistic to those who would, for philosophical reasons, prefer that the earth and solar system were 'mediocre' rather than special in this universe. As I referenced, and you apparently ignored, the CMBR anomalies, (due to the extreme flatness of the universe), correspond to the large scale structures in the universe and those large scale structures now reveal a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe:

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 eclipticcite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropiescite {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 sourcescite{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

Thus contrary to the presupposition of Darwinists, and to the presupposition of ‘generic’ ID advocates, we find that the “tiny temperature variations” in the CMBR, (from the large scale structures in the universe, to the earth and solar system themselves), reveal teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan), that specifically included the earth from the start. ,,, The earth, from what our best science can now tell us, was specifically intended by God when he first created the universe.. That is what the science itself says, not what my philosophical presupposition is saying. bornagain77

Continuing from #19, To make the scientific case Earth and human intelligence is unique in the universe, once it is established we live in a designed universe, probabilities are no longer applicable. One would have to find non-probabilistic evidence that the Earth is factually unique. I don't see how that can be done. William J Murray

BA77, IF I understand it correctly, the CMBR data can be reasonably construed to indicate that there is a universally preferred plane (two-dimensional axis) that corresponds to (1) the 3-axis position of the solar system and (2) the 2-dimensional axis plane representing the equator of the Earth. IOW, if you extend a plane out from the equator, the CMBR indicates a universal temperature difference between what is universally located above that plane and what lies below it. This would only indicate (following the assumption and logic here) that intelligent life may be regulated to those Earth-like planets which have equators aligned on this plane in a solar system that moves along this plane. Let's also throw in other data, like our privileged position in the galaxy, our privileged distance from the sun, the specific nature of the moon, etc. The problem here is this: even with all that, you're importing probabilities that rely an a non-design premise to make a specific design argument - that the Earth is unique in the universe. Any number of Earths can exist with a functionally equivalent equatorial plane, solar dynamics and axis location, galactic position, qualities of the moon, etc. The argument that it is highly improbable that other such planets exist with the same axis orientation and finely-tuned conditions can only be made from the non-design perspective. It doesn't import into the design argument because a designed universe is not a probabilistic situation; it is a designed situation. Probabilistic arguments become irrelevant beyond showing that we are not in a probabilistic universe. It would be no more "unlikely" for the designer to design a billion such worlds with all of the intelligent-life specific characteristics along that axis plane than it would be to design one, because "likelihood" isn't even a thing under the design paradigm. The "why haven't we met them yet" argument assumes we have not. It assumes they haven't been here and interacting with us since the dawn of recorded history. Whether you consider the evidence "solid" or not, the evidence exists nonetheless, most prominently in the form of first-hand experiential testimony from a large number of people, many of them highly credible. William J Murray

It seems to me that people who hold that God could have created as many worlds in this universe with creatures 'made in his image' as He wanted to are, scientifically speaking, in the same boat as Darwinists are. That is to say, scientifically speaking, we are, (whether you are a Darwinist or a 'generic' Intelligent Design advocate), still left with the question of, 'if the universe is teeming with extraterrestrial intelligences then where in blue blazes are they?' Contrary to however many 'ancient alien' episodes on the History channel you may have watched, (with that rather wild haired narrator), there simply is no hard evidence for extraterrestrial intelligences. The unanswered question is this, 'if they exist then where are they?' This is commonly known as the Fermi paradox.

The Fermi Paradox: Where Are All the Aliens? Excerpt: The story goes that in 1950 Enrico Fermi and his colleagues were discussing the existence of alien life over lunch. The question that Fermi asked the table became infamous in its simplicity: “Where is everybody?” The room fell silent because, well, nobody had an answer. Originally, the question was meant to attack the idea of interstellar travel, the possibility of which Fermi wasn’t confident in. But the question remains: if there were civilizations scattered across the stars by the billions, why haven’t we heard from them? It is from these questions, the Drake equation, and the Kardashev scale that the true paradox was born. The Milky Way is about 10 billion years old and 100,000 light-years across. If aliens had spaceships that could travel at 1 percent of the speed of light, the galaxy could have already been colonized 1,000 times. Why haven’t we heard from any other life? That very question is the Fermi paradox.,,, https://www.britannica.com/story/the-fermi-paradox-where-are-all-the-aliens

I guess the generic ID advocate could argue, 'well maybe God just didn't want us to hear from them?' But that would just be speculation on their part and certainly would not provide a satisfactory scientific explanation as to why we find ourselves to be alone in the universe as far as solid, undeniable, contact with extraterrestrial intelligences is concerned. Moreover, scientifically speaking, that would put the 'generic' ID advocate in the same boat as the Darwinist in that they both would hold that Copernican Principle and/or 'The Principle of Mediocrity' to be true. That is to say, both the 'generic' ID advocate and the Darwinist would both hold that there is nothing particularly special about the earth and/or humanity in the universe. And whereas the 'generic' ID advocate would, at least, have a leg up on the Darwinist in that the 'generic' ID advocate could account for the, at least, 816 parameters that enable intelligent life to be possible on earth, (see Hugh Ross in post 1), the 'generic' ID advocate would still fail to be able to account for the fact that the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, (CMBR), has now been found to contain 'anomalies', (anomalies that were recently discovered by the WMAP and Planck telescopes), that strangely line up with the earth and solar system.

What Is Evil About The Axis Of Evil? – February 17, 2015 The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation contains small temperature fluctuations. When these temperature fluctuations are analyzed using image processing techniques (specifically spherical harmonics), they indicate a special direction in space, or, in a sense, an axis through the universe. This axis is correlated back to us, and causes many difficulties for the current big bang and standard cosmology theories. What has been discovered is shocking. Two scientists, Kate Land and João Magueijo, in a paper in 2005 describing the axis, dubbed it the “Axis of Evil” because of the damage it does to current theories, and (tongue in cheek) as a response to George Bush’ Axis of Evil speech regarding Iraq, Iran and, North Korea. (Youtube clip on site) In the above video, Max Tegmark describes in a simplified way how spherical harmonics analysis decomposes the small temperature fluctuations into more averaged and spatially arranged temperature components, known as multipoles. The “Axis of Evil” correlates to the earth’s ecliptic and equinoxes, and this represents a very unusual and unexpected special direction in space, a direct challenge to the Copernican Principle. http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/evil-axis-evil/

At the 13:55 minute mark of this following video, Max Tegmark, an atheist who specializes in this area of study, finally admits, post Planck 2013, that the CMBR anomalies do indeed line up with the earth and solar system

“Thoughtcrime: The Conspiracy to Stop The Principle” – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0eVUSDy_rO0#t=832

And here is an excellent clip from the movie “The Principle” that explains these ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR, (that ‘unexpectedly’ line up with the earth and solar system), in an easy to understand manner.

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

Moreover, due to the ‘insane coincidence’ of the flatness of the universe being fine-tuned to within one part to the 10^57, we find that “These tiny temperature variations correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe.”

How do we know the universe is flat? Discovering the topology of the universe – by Fraser Cain – June 7, 2017 Excerpt: With the most sensitive space-based telescopes they have available, astronomers are able to detect tiny variations in the temperature of this background radiation. And here’s the part that blows my mind every time I think about it. These tiny temperature variations correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe. A region that was a fraction of a degree warmer become a vast galaxy cluster, hundreds of millions of light-years across. The cosmic microwave background radiation just gives and gives, and when it comes to figuring out the topology of the universe, it has the answer we need. If the universe was curved in any way, these temperature variations would appear distorted compared to the actual size that we see these structures today. But they’re not. To best of its ability, ESA’s Planck space telescope, can’t detect any distortion at all. The universe is flat.,,, Since the universe is flat now, it must have been flat in the past, when the universe was an incredibly dense singularity. And for it to maintain this level of flatness over 13.8 billion years of expansion, in kind of amazing. In fact, astronomers estimate that the universe must have been flat to 1 part within 1×10^57 parts. Which seems like an insane coincidence. https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-flat-topology.html

And we also find that Radio Astronomy now reveals a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe:

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 eclipticcite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropiescite {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 sourcescite{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

Thus contrary to the presupposition of Darwinists, and to the presupposition of 'generic' ID advocates, we find that the “tiny temperature variations” in the CMBR, (from the large scale structures in the universe, to the earth and solar system themselves), reveal teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan), that specifically included the earth from the start. ,,, The earth, from what our best science can now tell us, was specifically intended by God when he first created the universe.. This is exactly what the Bible 'predicted'

Genesis 1:1-3 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

Thus in conclusion, scientifically speaking, the Christian who holds that the earth is unique in this universe,, (i.e. who holds that God had, and has, a special plan for the earth in this universe), has a leg up on both the Darwinist and the 'generic' ID advocate in that the Christian can account for, number 1, why we are alone in the universe, (i.e. can account for the Fermi paradox), and more importantly, number 2, the Christian can also account for why the CMBR anomalies would 'unexpectedly' line up with the earth and solar system.

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

bornagain77

Follow-up question: If we assume that human life on Earth is unique, how do we account for evidence of what are commonly called extra-terrestrials, such as testimony from multiple sources of interactions with ETs? Is that evidence dismissed? Viewed as non-credible? William J Murray

The point is that from a design perspective there can be as many Earth-like planets as the designer wants to put in it. There may be doctrinal arguments against it, but I don’t see a logical argument from the pure design perspective.

Earth was created first before sun, moon, stars. In God's factory was a moment when Earth is alone in all universe . In conclusion the universe is created as a complement for Earth. Sandy

Drc466, The point is that from a design perspective there can be as many Earth-like planets as the designer wants to put in it. There may be doctrinal arguments against it, but I don't see a logical argument from the pure design perspective. William J Murray

WJM, MacM, et.al.: If you are interested in the general theology behind the fundamentalist Christian YEC belief that we are unique in the universe, here's a decent starting place: Did God Create Life on Other Planets? Alien Life / UFO Questions and Answers The TL;DR version has to do with man's sin, Christ's redemption, and the purpose/destruction/re-creation of the universe all being very man-focused. Includes Bible references. drc466

If they are even as advanced as we are, they could spot us using the methods we use to spot exoplanets.

Incidentally, I once asked a colleague who was participating in SETI many years ago whether intelligent life on earth could be detected from the places we were searching if the scientists there used the same technology we were using. He posed the question to SETI and the answer was no. -Q Querius

BA77

The Bible does indeed claim that we are UNIQUELY made in God’s image and also that Jesus is God incarnate, I.e. God in human flesh.

I don’t see how God creating us in his image makes us unique in the universe. He could easily have created other life forms on other planets in his image. The Bible says nothing to preclude this. Mac McTavish

No problem, you brought the subject up. If you don't believe me on scriptures look them up for yourself. The Bible does indeed claim that we are UNIQUELY made in God's image and also that Jesus is God incarnate, I.e. God in human flesh. I thought at least that much of the Bible was common knowledge, at least in America. As to the topic at hand, I see no evidence presented thus far that would challenge anything that I presented in posts 1 and 2. bornagain77

BA77, I'll take your word that those scriptures mean what you say they mean. Now, let's please return to the topic at hand. Or let the thread die a noble death :) William J Murray

WJM:

I’m not a Bible expert; does the Bible actually say humanity is unique?

Yes

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

And science backs that claim up. The attack on human exceptionalism, i.e. the attack by Atheists on the specific belief that we are ‘made in the image of God’ is twofold. First, Atheists appeal to the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity, to argue that we are not special in the universe. And secondly, atheists appeal to Darwinian evolution to argue that we are not all that different from the animals here on earth and therefore we are not made in the image of God. In the following post I addressed the fact that the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity has now been overturned by our most powerful theories in science, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

September 2020 – despite the fact that virtually everyone, including the vast majority of Christians, hold that the Copernican Principle is unquestionably true, the fact of the matter is that the Copernican Principle is now empirically shown, (via quantum mechanics and general relativity, etc..), to be a false assumption. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/new-edition-of-inference-review-features-richard-buggs-james-shapiro-and-larry-krauss/#comment-713367

And in the following post I addressed the fact that the fossil record and the genetic evidence is far more discordant with Darwinian claims than Darwinists portray to the general public:

Debunking Human evolution - The Fossil Record and Genetic Evidence https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/debunking-another-claim-that-an-alleged-pillar-of-human-exceptionalism-has-fallen/#comment-713398

And although the evidence for human evolution is far more discordant with Darwinian claims than (most) Darwinists are willing to admit to the general public, it is interesting to note the one human trait that even leading Darwinists themselves admit that they have no clue how it could have possibly of evolved. In 2014, a group of leading (Darwinian) experts in the area of language research, authored a paper in which they admitted that they have, "essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,"

Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language - December 19, 2014 Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,, (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, "The mystery of language evolution," Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).) Casey Luskin added: “It's difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/leading_evoluti092141.html

The late best selling author Tom Wolfe was so taken aback by this honest confession from leading Darwinists that he wrote a book on the subject. Here is a general outline of his main argument;

“Speech is 95 percent plus of what lifts man above animal! Physically, man is a sad case. His teeth, including his incisors, which he calls eyeteeth, are baby-size and can barely penetrate the skin of a too-green apple. His claws can’t do anything but scratch him where he itches. His stringy-ligament body makes him a weakling compared to all the animals his size. Animals his size? In hand-to-paw, hand-to-claw, or hand-to-incisor combat, any animal his size would have him for lunch. Yet man owns or controls them all, every animal that exists, thanks to his superpower: speech.” —Tom Wolfe, in the introduction to his book, The Kingdom of Speech

In other words, humans have, completely contrary to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking, managed to become masters of the planet, not by brute force, but simply by our unique ability to communicate information and also to, more specifically, infuse information into material substrates in order to create, (i.e. intelligently design), objects that are extremely useful for our defense, basic survival in procuring food, furtherance of our knowledge, and also for our pleasure. And although the ‘top-down’ infusion of immaterial information into material substrates, that allowed humans to become ‘masters of the planet’, was rather crude to begin with, (i.e. spears, arrows, and plows etc..), this top down infusion of immaterial information into material substrates has become much more impressive over the last half century or so. Specifically, the ‘top-down’ infusion of mathematical and/or logical information into material substrates lies at the very basis of many, if not all, of man’s most stunning, almost miraculous, technological advances in recent decades. What is more interesting still about the fact that humans have a unique ability to understand and create information, and have come to ‘master the planet’ through the ‘top-down’ infusion of immaterial information into material substrates, is the fact that, due to advances in science, both the universe and life itself, are now found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis.

"The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena." Vlatko Vedral - Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College - a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics. 48:24 mark: “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information” 49:45 mark: “In the Beginning was the Word” John 1:1 Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw

It is hard to imagine a more convincing proof that we are ‘made in the image of God’, than finding that both the universe and life itself are ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and have come to ‘master the planet’ precisely because of our ability to infuse information into material substrates.

John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

WJM also states,

I’m not sure many Biblical scholars or theologians claim that God has a human-looking body,

I guess WJM is unaware of the 'little' fact that Jesus claimed to be God incarnate?

John 14:8-11 8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” 9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

A more convincing proof that we are 'made in the image' of God, (rather than just the fact that we uniquely possess an ability to manipulate information), is the fact that God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was God. And that just so happens to be precisely the proof claimed within Christianity. And although Christianity is certainly rich in apologetic resources that Christians can utilize to defend their Christian faith, my favorite 'proof' that Jesus is exactly who He claimed to be, (namely God incarnate), is the Shroud of Turin,,, which just so happens to be, by far, the most 'scientifically' scrutinized ancient relic on the face of earth.

The evidence for the Shroud's authenticity keeps growing. (Timeline of facts) - November 08, 2019 What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know - Myra Adams and Russ Breault https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html Shroud of Turin - list of scientific papers https://www.shroud.com/library.htm#papers Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Quantum Hologram - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis

Verse:

Luke 24:39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”

bornagain77

WJM: I’m not a Bible expert; does the Bible actually say humanity is unique? Why do you think it matters what the Bibles says? Or are you just asking out of curiosity? And, more importantly, why don't you know what the Bible says on such matters? Are you just feeding the conversational flames . . . JVL

Drc466: Agreed. I think the "Earth circumstances" being factually or demonstrably "unique" in the universe is a pretty steep climb to make without referring to a non-design premise. I'm not a Bible expert; does the Bible actually say humanity is unique? I'm not sure many Biblical scholars or theologians claim that God has a human-looking body, or that any passage specifically denies the existence of intelligent beings on other planets. William J Murray

WJM, I 100% agree - and this is a place where I think "generic" ID exposes a weakness against a fundamentalist Christian YEC view. Which argument is consistent, not self-defeating, and supported by the evidence? 1) The universe, earth, and humanity are NOT intelligently-designed, or special. Where are all the aliens then? 2) The universe, earth, and humanity ARE intelligently-designed, by some generic designer. There could be other designed intelligent life, or maybe not. If they do exist, they must have been designed. The lack of other intelligent life is consistent with design, but not necessarily predicted. 3) The universe, earth, and humanity ARE intelligently-designed by God. There are no aliens because the universe was designed for humans, uniquely made in God's image, for the glory of God (Gen 1-2, Ps. 19:1, etc.). The argument then becomes: intelligent life is unique to earth because both it and the circumstances that provide for it here on Earth are unique and must be designed by God. drc466

This argument: intelligent life is rare because both it and the circumstances that provide for it here on Earth are extremely rare and must be designed... ...is self defeating. Granting that it's a matter of design, the designer can obviously generate as many "Earth" and "earth-like" systems as it desires into the universe. The argument that intelligent life is "exceedingly rare" can only be made from the non-design perspective. Under a design perspective, the universe can in fact be teeming with intelligent life. One might even reasonably argue that because it is designed for intelligent life, it is likely full of intelligent life. William J Murray

There are morons who think that a re dwarf could be a host star for a habitable planet or moon. That is total nonsense as any planet in the habitable zone would be in tidal lock with the star. Meaning the rotation = revolution with one side always facing the star. Nothing can live on that planet. There wouldn't be a magnetic field and one side would be toast while the other side is frozen. It isn't enough to just be in the habitable zone. The planet needs to be terrestrial with surface water. It needs to have a thin crust to allow for plate tectonics. It needs to have the right rotation to mix the surface gasses and create a magnetic field- and that requires a molten iron flowing internally. And that planet needs a large, stabilizing moon or else it will tumble as it rotates. So yes, in an Intelligent Design scenario extraterrestrials are pretty much a given. ET

They'll be here as soon as they decide what condiments and barbecue utensils to pack into their spacecraft. EDTA

Moreover, Barrow and Tippler, in their book "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle", estimated that there were 16 steps that were necessary during the course of human evolution. They calculated that 'the probability of all 16 steps occurring to be less than one chance in 10^24,000,000.'

16 Steps to Generating Advanced Life | Dr Hugh Ross - July 13, 2017 Excerpt: Naturalists, materialists, deists, and most theistic evolutionists would answer that the chemicals on early Earth spontaneously self-assembled into a simple cell that was able to reproduce. From there, the cell’s daughters evolved to produce all the life-forms that have ever existed throughout the past 3.8 billion years. Such a history requires that life make at least 16 transitional steps in order to generate advanced life-forms.,,, ,,, Evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala notes that, from a Darwinian perspective, each step is highly improbable. Taking into account just a few of these steps, Ayala determined that the probability of intelligent life arising from bacteria to be less than one chance in 10^1,000,000.(1) Physicists John Barrow, Brandon Carter, and Frank Tipler calculated the probability of all 16 steps occurring to be less than one chance in 10^24,000,000.(2) To get a feel for how miniscule this probability is, it is roughly equivalent to someone winning the California lottery 3,000,000 consecutive times where that individual purchases just one lottery ticket each time. Realistically, this probability is indistinguishable from someone winning the California lottery 3,000,000 consecutive times where the individual purchases no tickets at all. https://bcooper.wordpress.com/2017/07/13/16-steps-to-generating-advanced-life-dr-hugh-ross/

William Lane Craig, after reviewing Barrow and Tipler’s book, stated, "They estimate that the odds of the evolution (by chance) of the human genome is somewhere between 4 to the negative 180th power, to the 110,000th power, and 4 to the negative 360th power, to the 110,000th power. Therefore, if evolution did occur, it literally would have been a miracle and evidence for the existence of God.” ”

“In Barrow and Tippler's book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, they list ten steps necessary in the course of human evolution, each of which, is so improbable that if left to happen by chance alone, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have incinerated the earth. They estimate that the odds of the evolution (by chance) of the human genome is somewhere between 4 to the negative 180th power, to the 110,000th power, and 4 to the negative 360th power, to the 110,000th power. Therefore, if evolution did occur, it literally would have been a miracle and evidence for the existence of God.” - William Lane Craig - If Human Evolution Did Occur It Was A Miracle - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUxm8dXLRpA

Thus all three assumptions behind the belief that the universe is teeming with extraterrestrial intelligences, (number 1, planets that can host life are fairly common in the universe. Number 2, life can, relatively easily, spontaneously emerge on any planet that can host life, And number 3, human like intelligence is basically considered to be inevitable in any evolutionary scenario.),,, all three assumptions are found to be false assumptions. There is another false assumption, an assumption that I did not mention, that also lies behind the belief that the universe is teeming with extraterrestrial intelligences. Namely, that is the false assumption of the Copernican Principle, and/or 'The Principle of Mediocrity' which holds that the Earth does not hold a privileged position in this universe. As Hawking himself bluntly put the 'Mediocrity Principle".

“The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can’t believe the whole universe exists for our benefit.,,,” – Stephen Hawking – 1995 TV show, Reality on the Rocks: Beyond Our Ken,

Yet, the Copernican Principle, and/or 'The Principle of Mediocrity' has now itself been overturned by our most powerful theories and discoveries in science.

September 2020 - despite the fact that virtually everyone, including the vast majority of Christians, hold that the Copernican Principle is unquestionably true, the fact of the matter is that the Copernican Principle is now empirically shown, (via quantum mechanics and general relativity, etc..), to be a false assumption. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/new-edition-of-inference-review-features-richard-buggs-james-shapiro-and-larry-krauss/#comment-713367

One final note, here is a humorous video clip about a "oh so coincidental" phone call at SETI that had a very interesting timing as to its occurrence

Tyson: "Their (SETI’s) goal is the ultimate prize in the life finding game. Someone out there we can talk to." Shostak: "Nothing to do but sit here and wait for them to call." (And exactly at that moment the phone rings right behind Shostak). Shostak: "And on cue they've called." - quotes as stated at 11:22 minute mark - Where are the Aliens Origins Nova Neil Degrasse Tyson - video - https://youtu.be/t1ReViBCDOs?t=667

As a Christian who has seen a few answered prayers during my life, I find it strange that the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) organization spends millions of dollars vainly searching for signs of extra-terrestrial life in this universe, when all anyone has to do to make solid contact with THE primary 'extra-terrestrial intelligence' of the entire universe is to pray with a sincere heart. God, who created heaven and earth, certainly does not hide from those who sincerely need and seek Him. I would think that personally communicating with the Creator of the universe would be a lot more exciting than not communicating with some little green men that in all realistic probability, given naturalism, do not even exist. It has been my personal experience that God, who created heaven and earth, certainly does not hide from those who desperately need Him and who sincerely seek Him. (and boy have I, due for my tendency of getting myself into desperate situations, desperately needed God several times during my life to bail me out of my unwise choices),,, :)

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

bornagain77

At the foundation of the belief that the universe is teeming with extraterrestrial intelligences are the assumptions that, number 1, planets that can host life are fairly common in the universe. Number 2, life can, relatively easily, spontaneously emerge on any planet that can host life, And number 3, human like intelligence is basically considered to be inevitable in any evolutionary scenario. All three assumptions are false. As to the first false assumption that "planets that can host life are fairly common in the universe." There are many independent characteristics required to be fulfilled for any planet to host advanced carbon-based life. I know of four books have been written on this subject, 'The Privileged Planet' by Guillermo Gonzalez, 'Rare Earth' by Donald Brownlee, "Lucky Planet" by David Waltham, and 'Improbable Planet' by Hugh Ross,,

The Privileged Planet - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmIc42oRjm8 "If some god-like being could be given the opportunity to plan a sequence of events with the expressed goal of duplicating our 'Garden of Eden', that power would face a formidable task. With the best of intentions but limited by natural laws and materials it is unlikely that Earth could ever be truly replicated. Too many processes in its formation involve sheer luck. Earth-like planets could certainly be made, but each would differ in critical ways. This is well illustrated by the fantastic variety of planets and satellites (moons) that formed in our solar system. They all started with similar building materials, but the final products are vastly different from each other . . . . The physical events that led to the formation and evolution of the physical Earth required an intricate set of nearly irreproducible circumstances."? = Peter B. Ward and Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe (New York: Copernicus, 2000)? Still Taking Aim at Eric Metaxas, the Media Underestimate the Degree to which Physicists See Evidence for Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin - January 13, 2015 Excerpt: "Earth is a precious jewel possessing a rare combination of qualities that happen to make it almost perfect for sustaining life. Lucky Planet investigates the idea that good fortune, infrequently repeated elsewhere in the Universe, played a significant role in allowing the long-term life-friendliness of our home and that it is unlikely we will succeed in finding similarly complex life elsewhere in the Universe." London astrobiologist - David Waltham, Lucky Planet: Why Earth is Exceptional -- and What That Means for Life in the Universe (Basic Books, 2014), p. 1.) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/still_taking_ai092671.html Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity's Home - Hugh Ross – September 6, 2016 Description: Most of us remember the basics from science classes about how Earth came to be the only known planet that sustains complex life. But what most people don't know is that the more thoroughly researchers investigate the history of our planet, the more astonishing the story of our existence becomes. The number and complexity of the astronomical, geological, chemical, and biological features recognized as essential to human existence have expanded explosively within the past decade. An understanding of what is required to make possible a large human population and advanced civilizations has raised profound questions about life, our purpose, and our destiny. Are we really just the result of innumerable coincidences? Or is there a more reasonable explanation? This fascinating book helps nonscientists understand the countless miracles that undergird the exquisitely fine-tuned planet we call home--as if Someone had us in mind all along. https://www.amazon.com/Improbable-Planet-Earth-Became-Humanitys/dp/0801016894

,,,, All four books indicate that the earth is extremely unique in its ability to host advanced life in this universe. On top of that, Dr. Hugh Ross, and his team, have studied this question extensively and have found that there are a total of 816 known parameters which have to be met for any planet to be able to host intelligent physical life In this universe,

Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross's book, 'Why the Universe Is the Way It Is';? Probability Estimates for the Features Required by Various Life Forms: Excerpt: Requirements to sustain intelligent physical life: Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. 10^-1333 dependency factors estimate approx. 10^-324 longevity requirements estimate approx. 10^45 Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. 10^-1054 Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe approx. 10^22 Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracle http://d4bge0zxg5qba.cloudfront.net/files/compendium/compendium_Part3_ver2.pdf

Individually, these parameters are not that impressive but when we realize ALL these parameters have to be met at the same time on the same planet and not one of these parameters can be out of its life permitting range for any extended period of time, then, as you can see, the probability for a world which can host advanced life in this universe becomes very extraordinary. i.e. "less than 1 chance in 10^1032" For comparison sake, the entire universe itself is estimated to only have 10^80 particles in it. Thus the probability of a planet 'accidentally' meeting all the conditions that are necessary to host intelligent life is far less likely than that of finding any particular particle in the universe by accident. As to the second assumption that lies behind the belief that the universe is teeming with extraterrestrial intelligences, i.e. that "life can, relatively easily, spontaneously emerge on any planet that can host life,",,,,. The probability against 'simple' life spontaneously appearing on any life supporting planet makes the 1 in 10^1032 estimate for any planet to be able to support intelligent life look like child's play. Working from the thermodynamic perspective, Harold Morowitz, of Yale University, found that the probability of life spontaneously forming, under "ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment)", would be one chance in 10^100,000,000,000

DID LIFE START BY CHANCE? Excerpt: Molecular biophysicist, Harold Morowitz (Yale University), calculated the odds of life beginning under natural conditions (spontaneous generation). He calculated, if one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment) would be one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. You will have probably have trouble imagining a number so large, so Hugh Ross provides us with the following example. If all the matter in the Universe was converted into building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks were attempted once a microsecond for the entire age of the universe. Then instead of the odds being 1 in 10^100,000,000,000, they would be 1 in 10^99,999,999,916 (also of note: 1 with 100 billion zeros following would fill approx. 20,000 encyclopedias) http://members.tripod.com/~Black_J/chance.html Of related note: Harold Joseph Morowitz was an American biophysicist who studied the application of thermodynamics to living systems. Author of numerous books and articles, his work includes technical monographs as well as essays. The origin of life was his primary research interest for more than fifty years.

As to the third assumption that lies behind the belief that the universe is teeming with extraterrestrial intelligences, i.e. that 'human like intelligence is basically considered to be inevitable in any evolutionary scenario.' The belief that human like intelligence is, basically, inevitable in any evolutionary scenario is simply a false assumption. After all, out of millions of species on earth, only humans themselves have demonstrated themselves to be capable of complex, abstract, i.e. intelligent, thought. As Dr. Egnor pointed out, it is our ability to think abstractly, i.e. intelligently, that makes us "more different from apes than apes are from viruses.,,,"

The Fundamental Difference Between Humans and Nonhuman Animals - Michael Egnor - November 5, 2015 Excerpt: Human beings have mental powers that include the material mental powers of animals but in addition entail a profoundly different kind of thinking. Human beings think abstractly, and nonhuman animals do not. Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts. Human beings are rational animals. Human rationality is not merely a highly evolved kind of animal perception. Human rationality is qualitatively different — ontologically different — from animal perception. Human rationality is different because it is immaterial. Contemplation of universals cannot have material instantiation, because universals themselves are not material and cannot be instantiated in matter.,,, It is in our ability to think abstractly that we differ from apes. It is a radical difference — an immeasurable qualitative difference, not a quantitative difference. We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2015/11/the_fundamental_2/

You don't have to take Dr. Egnor's word for it, leading Darwinists themselves have honestly confessed that they have no clue how the human capacity for language, (i.e. our ability to communicate our abstract thoughts to one another, i.e. our intelligence), could have possibly evolved, As the leading Darwinists honestly confessed, we have "essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,"

Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language - December 19, 2014 Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,, (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, "The mystery of language evolution," Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).) Casey Luskin added: “It's difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/leading_evoluti092141.html

Thus, since leading Darwinists themselves have honestly admitted that they have no clue how human intelligence could have possibly evolved, then it is clear that the assumption that human-like intelligence is, basically, inevitable in any evolutionary scenario is a false assumption for people who want to believe that the universe is teeming with extraterrestrial intelligences.. bornagain77